1 2 18 19 20 22 24 25 26 49 50
Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE?
MahanMahan's photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:31 PM


What does proselytizing mean? I might be guilty of it too. I have gotten in heated discussion trying to convert Christians into born-again atheists and humanists!


You Atheists! You are obsessed with nothing! You are always ramming nothing down someone’s throat! laugh


Oh you're right. I'm sorry that us atheists forced a ban on same-sex marriages in California... So sorry about that.

MahanMahan's photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:32 PM
And still, no one has answered my simple question. F**k it, I'll just google the dang word!

Never mind.

no photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:36 PM
proselytize

intransitive verb

1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause transitive verb

MahanMahan's photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:37 PM
Haha! Googled it and turns out, I AM guilty of proselytizing. I'll try not to do it here any more.

LOL

MahanMahan's photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:42 PM

proselytize

intransitive verb

1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause transitive verb


Thank you.


At this point, I would like to suggest to you that instead of going to church this Sunday and giving money to a pastor, perhaps you should bake a pie, and go visit a neighbor whom you've never talked to and get to know them! BUT, I won't... Cause I don't want to be a proselytizer!

Spangles29's photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:43 PM
Edited by Spangles29 on Fri 02/06/09 05:45 PM
Jeanniebean, are there any particular questions you have so that I can clarify? (Still figuring out this posting system.)

The science vs. religion debate is not my area of particular interest, but I teach a little on the area of religion and so have a working knowledge of the topic. And, of course, I have my own opinions. :wink:

no photo
Fri 02/06/09 05:57 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 02/06/09 05:58 PM

Jeanniebean, are there any particular questions you have so that I can clarify? (Still figuring out this posting system.)

The science vs. religion debate is not my area of particular interest, but I teach a little on the area of religion and so have a working knowledge of the topic. And, of course, I have my own opinions. :wink:


Yes. I have another topic going on in the general religion forum addressing the logic of the creation story of Adam being created by God or a supreme being from mud.

It was said that evolution was not logical and did not make any sense. I don't know a lot about evolution but I regard and respect it as scientific theory. It does not have all the answers.

But my thread assumes the premise that the creation story of Adam being made out of mud is true.

My question is posed... how would you explain that logically? How did God (a supreme being) do that? What logical or reasonable explanation can you come up with?

I am asking people to use their imagination as if they were writing a believable science fiction account of the event and the method used to accomplish this feat.

Please visit my thread there if you have any ideas: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/203367





Inkracer's photo
Fri 02/06/09 06:03 PM


Jeanniebean, are there any particular questions you have so that I can clarify? (Still figuring out this posting system.)

The science vs. religion debate is not my area of particular interest, but I teach a little on the area of religion and so have a working knowledge of the topic. And, of course, I have my own opinions. :wink:


Yes. I have another topic going on in the general religion forum addressing the logic of the creation story of Adam being created by God or a supreme being from mud.

It was said that evolution was not logical and did not make any sense. I don't know a lot about evolution but I regard and respect it as scientific theory. It does not have all the answers.

But my thread assumes the premise that the creation story of Adam being made out of mud is true.

My question is posed... how would you explain that logically? How did God (a supreme being) do that? What logical or reasonable explanation can you come up with?

I am asking people to use their imagination as if they were writing a believable science fiction account of the event and the method used to accomplish this feat.

Please visit my thread there if you have any ideas: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/203367


You know, JB, that is one thing I have never really understood. How you can have people, get so offended at the thought that that we "Came from"(to use their words) chimps, or apes, but be perfectly fine believing we came from dirt.

Krimsa's photo
Fri 02/06/09 06:06 PM
I think it’s because chimps will hurl their own feces. I personally think the great apes are kind of messy but very smart. They are just as bitter and angry as humans. Chimps are at least. Gorillas are much calmer and less busy. I’m just going by the few times I have seen them in the zoo. Chimps are scary. Gorillas just seem sad and disinterested. Either one of them could yank our heads off our bodies and not even think twice about it.

no photo
Fri 02/06/09 06:10 PM
You know, JB, that is one thing I have never really understood. How you can have people, get so offended at the thought that that we "Came from"(to use their words) chimps, or apes, but be perfectly fine believing we came from dirt.


Well, I suppose all of the material needed to create or manifest anything is contained inside of a single atom.

How to extract that information and manipulate it into a creature is another story.

There must be a bunch of evolutionary programs contained in the dirt and in the material that instructs elements to combine and evolve into things.

It is also possible to imagine a person might be able to manipulate such programs, just as we can do things with human genes and DNA in a lab.

We can't know these things but we can imagine them. That is all I am asking people to do. Imagine what could have happened and imagine how it could have happened.


no photo
Fri 02/06/09 06:21 PM
Edited by voileazur on Fri 02/06/09 06:24 PM

Hi, new to the community, saw this topic, thought I'd add my two cents as a church worker, Christian and scholar.

Evolution and the Bible are compatible in that they were never meant to be compatible. They deal with two entirely different things: evolution with science, the Bible with faith and the revelation of God. The truths present in the Bible are of a different nature than scientific truths. The Bible present spiritual truths revealed through story and science offers "hard facts" that only further reveal (if you are a person of faith) the beauty and complexity of the world God has gifted us.

Then again, my understanding is based upon my belief that the Bible is the inspired (not inerrant) Word of God and that the humanness of its various authors and communities is very much interwoven in its texts.

Perhaps this has already been said. I haven't read all the posts. Apologies if I'm simply repeating another point.


Yes, I have already said something to that effect in a previous post (just with a whole more words that's all. That 1 - 0 for you).

But, but, ... where have you been all this time.

In three short paragraphs, you have summed-up what I have been saying in endless repetitious chapters of posting over the past 2 years.

Not only that, you are a practicing church going christian; I'm anything but that, and I not only agree with everything you've written in your post, I had to stop and pinch myself, just around the middle of the second paragraph of your post, to make sure I hadn't changed my 'avatar'!!!

WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME!!!

My g-d, could this be the new 'feral'?!?!?!

Does her g-d work that fast???


I'M A BELIEVER!!!


P.S.: In all sincerity, 'spangles29', welcome to the forums, and given this first post, and do hope you'll stick around.

no photo
Fri 02/06/09 07:08 PM
Edited by voileazur on Fri 02/06/09 07:09 PM



Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.


Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien.



Actually it can now be said that it is 100%.

96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!!


In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones).

It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!!



Voile;

I've heard contrary information to that "fact".

There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different.

It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure.

At least this is what my research has shown.

As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable.

We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it.
For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view.

I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism.

So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories.
Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith....

Is it not?


OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend.

Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone.

Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing.

And that is the point I am trying to make with you here:
... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!!

'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest.

Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.)

And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count.

The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine.

If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!!

But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma.

Watch the video, and tell me what you think.

There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested.




beachbum069's photo
Fri 02/06/09 07:45 PM


The two largest christian religions-Roman Catholic and Mainline and Liberal Protestant, which make up about 2/3's of all christians believe in evolution. happy


Krim waving at Beach

pitchfork :angel:

Eljay's photo
Fri 02/06/09 09:04 PM



Eljay said:

I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.


I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again.


I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"?


You do realize I am a degree holder myself from a 4 year institution? Bachelor of Science. And you?


I have a degree in Directing/Design (B.A.)
and a Dual Degree in Mathematics (emphasis on Logic)

I also have a degree in Computer Programming.



Eljay's photo
Fri 02/06/09 09:06 PM

What does proselytizing mean? I might be guilty of it too. I have gotten in heated discussion trying to convert Christians into born-again atheists and humanists!


Well cut it out!

Eljay's photo
Fri 02/06/09 09:11 PM




Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.


Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien.



Actually it can now be said that it is 100%.

96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!!


In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones).

It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!!



Voile;

I've heard contrary information to that "fact".

There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different.

It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure.

At least this is what my research has shown.

As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable.

We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it.
For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view.

I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism.

So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories.
Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith....

Is it not?


OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend.

Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone.

Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing.

And that is the point I am trying to make with you here:
... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!!

'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest.

Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.)

And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count.

The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine.

If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!!

But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma.

Watch the video, and tell me what you think.

There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested.



I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me.

Krimsa's photo
Sat 02/07/09 03:54 AM
Edited by Krimsa on Sat 02/07/09 04:39 AM




Eljay said:

I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.


I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again.


I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"?


You do realize I am a degree holder myself from a 4 year institution? Bachelor of Science. And you?


I have a degree in Directing/Design (B.A.)
and a Dual Degree in Mathematics (emphasis on Logic)

I also have a degree in Computer Programming.





My degree is in paleontology with an emphasis on early hominid development. I have worked extensively in the field out in California. So why would I be incapable evaluating the accomplishments or qualifications of another scientist in his or her field of biological study? I realize I’m not a dentist, but I still feel quite confident in doing so. happy

You also did not respond to any of my posts so...

Krimsa's photo
Sat 02/07/09 04:07 AM
Edited by Krimsa on Sat 02/07/09 04:08 AM



Well if a person is of the mind that no one can tell her anything because they are not open to listening to the other side, no matter how logical or reasonable it is and no matter how much proof or evidence is presented, then they are not here to debate anything.

Therefore there would be little reason to engage in a debate with them. The best one can do is small talk and a hello now and then, but when it comes to the subject of God or religion, it would now appear pointless.

That does not mean we can't be friends of course. waving flowerforyou


At this point, since it's the OP that has stated such, it's time to just let this thread die. No point in keeping it going when the OP isn't open to debate.(of course, one might even ask, Why even start the thread, if you aren't open to debate?)


Feral routinely begins these threads about evolution and then she repeats the same arguments that several of us have responded to previously. She makes statements in the order of,

"Humans didn’t evolve from monkeys."

And

"Show me a plant or animal on earth that has evolved into something else in the past 200 years."

It’s difficult to combat that degree of naiveté.

Krimsa's photo
Sat 02/07/09 04:14 AM
Edited by Krimsa on Sat 02/07/09 04:16 AM
Bushdobillyclub has the market cornered on all the best scientific videos but this one is not bad and its very short. It offers a creative visualization method for chimp and human mitochondrial DNA. The entire 96% match tends to throw people into confusion and argument I've noticed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjGZ6kF2gbQ

beachbum069's photo
Sat 02/07/09 04:43 AM
Edited by beachbum069 on Sat 02/07/09 05:09 AM
The things I do for friendsflowerforyou

1 2 18 19 20 22 24 25 26 49 50