Creation/Evolution. - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-17-2003, 12:00 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:12 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,
I don't think science and the Bible conflict, either. I think God created both. I think that ways that certain people apply science conflicts with the Bible.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 03:31 AM   #62
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

1)I believe in the Bible because of a combination of faith and experience. The reason I believe the entire Bible rather than just part of it is because I know that if God is the Big God I think he is, he's big enough to keep his entire word together in an accurate and truthful representation, which I know as the Bible.

2)How do I explain these? I don't really need to try to explain that they aren't humans because there is no conclusive proof that they are. I think that if one is arguing for evolution, the burden rests on that person to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

3)Many scientists (who adhere to Creation science) do consider the world to be about 6 to 8,000 years old. They say that the rings in the earth and the trees are being misinterpreted by using the wrong aging standards.

4)Many laws in the Old Testament were from God and many were from man. I don't reallty understand what this has to do with anything, though.

5) That is your opinion, to which you are certainly allowed.
And I will number your responses as well.

1) Perhaps I should have worded it differently? Who's to say that everything in the Bible is the literal Word of God? Like Bonovox said, how can we tell that Genesis is literal and not a metaphor of sorts? Jesus loved to speak in parables and metaphors, and he is the Son of God, so who's to say that he didn't get it from his old man?

2) There is no conclusive evidence that they are? Really? That's quite odd. I suppose it depends on how we define humans. As being able to use higher reasoning, being able to fashion tools, holding some spiritual beliefs? Then by some accounts neandertals would fall into this category. And quite frankly, I think "I don't need to explain" is a very poor response to an answer. It basically has the same effect as saying "I'm going to avoid your question."

3) Many? How many? In any case I would argue that they are still in the vast minority. Could you point me to some of this data about wrong aging methods and so on? I hope these aren't the same people who refute carbon dating...

4) My point in this is IF the Bible is entirely God's word, then how do you account for man's laws being put in the Bible in essentially the same manner as God's laws. If, as you state, the Bible is literally God's word (for word) through man, then why are there antiquated and perhaps extreme laws of man put in there in the same context as God's laws (ie, these are laws which must be obeyed)? Should wives still be submissive and secondary to their husbands because it says it in the Bible?

I think I'll get off this track now. It's obviously not going to go anywhere productive. In light of science and reason, I simply cannot agree that the Bible is 100% the literal truth, word of God, and in light of your steadfast faith, you apparently cannot agree that some of the Bible may be metaphorical rather than literal, and thus must reject scientific process and fact.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 05:03 AM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I don't see the point of this thread, except for creationists to look down on evolution-believers as "non-Christian" and for evolutionists to point and laugh at creationists. How many threads have we had on this subject over the last three years?
For what it's worth, that wasn't my intention. I only started this thread because I was interested in hearing what other people at FYM thought about the subject. I don't like the fact that at some times this discussion has turned into people laughing at other people's beliefs either, but I didn't start the thread with the intention of that happening.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 02:38 PM   #64
War Child
 
kariatari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Iowa
Posts: 935
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by brettig
I think the theories of creation and evolution can co-exist quite easily. The mathematical odds for evolution being an entirely random process don't even bear thinking about, so that's where creation comes into it. Sure, we evolved, but it was through divine design, not luck. That is unless you think the world was created in seven 24 hour days...


I also believe in theistic evolution. I don't believe that science and religion rule each other out.

My high school biology teacher breifly covered Darwin's theory of evolution and didn't discuss anything about other theories of evolution such as punctuated equilibrium, etc. After his 5 min severely abridged version of evolution, he proceeded to read the rest of our lesson from the book of Genesis.

I was soooooo pissed. But then again, that's the kind of thing one would expect from my ultra-conservative anti-anti-anti-progressive community school.

__________________
kariatari is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 02:41 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kariatari

I was soooooo pissed. But then again, that's the kind of thing one would expect from my ultra-conservative anti-anti-anti-progressive community school.

And you don't think kids who believe in creation get mad when secular humanists teach evolution as fact rather than theory in schools?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 02:52 PM   #66
War Child
 
kariatari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Iowa
Posts: 935
Local Time: 03:12 PM
point taken.

the first time evolution was ever properly taught to me, it was in my college biology course and the instructor was very careful to state that evolution was a theory, meaning that it couldn't be completely proven.

i guess i respect the fact that my hs teacher wanted to present different beliefs about the origin of humans, but he went about it completely wrong. it's one thing to educate your students about scientific and religious theories and quite another to cram one religion's ideas down your student's throats.
__________________
kariatari is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 08:00 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:12 PM
How useless. If they were going to teach creationism, the least they could do was teach its more fantastical claims for comedy's sake, rather than something as boring as reading strictly from the book of Genesis. A trained monkey could do that.

I guess it ultimately shows that we are ill-equipped to deal with the Muslim world's religious fanatics, if we refuse to deal with our own. Religion has no place in public schools.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 09:41 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Religion has no place in public schools.

As if this thread hadn't taken enough detours already...

Why is it that religion can be discussed in a publicly funded university but not a publicly funded high school?
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 07-18-2003, 12:23 AM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


As if this thread hadn't taken enough detours already...

Why is it that religion can be discussed in a publicly funded university but not a publicly funded high school?
Because you don't choose the high school you attend and for the most part don't choose the classes you take.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-18-2003, 06:36 AM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
As if this thread hadn't taken enough detours already...

Why is it that religion can be discussed in a publicly funded university but not a publicly funded high school?
Because, frankly, the way religion is discussed in a publically-funded university is vastly different than the way it has been discussed in a publically-funded high school. Spending five minutes on evolution and spending the rest of the day reading from the book of Genesis in science class is *not* how religion is approached in a publically-funded university. I sincerely doubt that this teacher would ever consider non-Judeo-Christian alternatives, but a university would--and it certainly wouldn't be teaching creationism in its science classes, but might bring it up in its separate religion department. And, of course, you don't have to take religion classes in college.

In addition, by the sheer structure of how a high school works, they cannot devote the time and diversity necessary to treat religion as an academic subject versus proselytizing.

Third, if you want me to get more practical, U.S. Supreme Court precedent has upheld the right of public universities to have religion departments, but not have consistently denied them to high schools and elementary schools, because the court has taken into account age. "Youth" are considered impressionable, and, by college age, they reason, they are more likely to have sufficient maturity to have an actual choice in the matter. Of course, the religious right isn't into "choice"; they want to frighten youth into conversion. Education, after all, is the enemy of religion to them.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 07:40 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
kaboom
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy
we came from an explosion that happened a long long time ago...
explosion from someone's pants?
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 08:42 AM   #72
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Why have so many people problems with the idea that "Mankind just dosn't know how it hapened"?

So lots of different theories about the the universe. Was it there forever or not?
Since it size changes there seems to be a begining of this universe - but - was there a begining of matter? Is therefore the law of conservation of matter wrong?

The Creationists have it easier in that point. God was there all the time and will be there all the time.

Well who are we to judge what's right and wrong there? Anyone seen how the whole thing started?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 07:15 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Why have so many people problems with the idea that "Mankind just dosn't know how it hapened"?

So lots of different theories about the the universe. Was it there forever or not?
Since it size changes there seems to be a begining of this universe - but - was there a begining of matter? Is therefore the law of conservation of matter wrong?

The Creationists have it easier in that point. God was there all the time and will be there all the time.

Well who are we to judge what's right and wrong there? Anyone seen how the whole thing started?

Klaus
If time and space are connected and held together by light.... I'd say the universe is a hot coal that cooled down... so that linear time cannot be accurately measured by human standards.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 03:09 PM   #74
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado, mostly.
Posts: 48
Local Time: 08:12 PM
The problem is not that religion is addressed in public schools, it is how it is addressed. Creationism, no matter how much you believe it is true, does not ever belong in a science classroom.

Also, the vast majority of america needs to be educated as to what "theory" means in science. A scientific theory (like Newton's theory of gravitation) is a robust, hearty beast. It has withstood the constant tests and scrutiny given to it, and is supported by evidence, other theory, and other disciplines.

Also, just because nobody witnessed the beginning of the universe does not mean that we cannot discern how it started. If someone throws a rock into a pond, and you come up a minute later, all you see is ripples, concentric circles spreaing out from the point of impact. Without knowing anything else, you can tell where the impact was. By measuring the properties of the waves (ampliude, length, speed, etc.) you could tell when the object hit, and how big it was. You could even tell how fast and at what angle it hit the water. The police do not need to see the gun or watch the killing to be able to solve a murder case.

About conservation of matter:

The law of conservation of matter is an extension of the law of conservation of energy. New measurements made by astrophysicists seem to confirm that matter energy+ other energy = 0. The universe is quite literally nothing. This also bolsters the Big Bang theory. In quantum mechanics, you can actually get an infinite amount of energy from nothing. The catch is, the amount of time you can borrow the energy is inversely proportional to the amount you borrow. (See Uncertainty Priciple, Heisenberg's). So, on a tiny scale, the universe is boiling, wth particles appearing and disappearing with a lifetime determined by old Heisenberg. Any of these fluctuations could, in theory, "neck" off and grow into a universe. (See Multiverse, The). Since our universe comes out to a net sum of zero, it could, (mathematically), last an infinite amount of time.

It is true that many creation scientists disagree with dating methods used. They are, indeed, in the vast minority. The top theories about how dating methods could be wrong usually include something about a variable spped of light. If the spped of light were even the tiniest bit variable, we would be able to detect it. For instance, the microwave spectrum of O=C=S, used in physical chemistry, is known to seventeen decimal places. Even the tiniest fluctuation in c would be detectable.

Plus, if the bible is literal, we are all horrifically inbred. Twice over. Besides having no evidence, genetically or otherwise, that's justy plain creepy.
__________________
Mongpoovian is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 05:48 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:12 PM
In other words, "nothing" equals "something"? While I'm not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, I find that to be equally preposterous.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com