Science and Religion: What do you think of Evolution? - Page 5

hiphop · 11-08-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by melon

But these are all stories--myths that all ancient cultures have--and we are foolish to take them for anything else.

Melon

Don�t take myths or ancient cultures so easy, they can be very true - generally, not only the bible.

melon · 11-08-2002, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Don�t take myths or ancient cultures so easy, they can be very true - generally, not only the bible.

Sorry...what I mean to say is you can't take them literally. They do hold a lot of cultural truths, though.

Melon

hiphop · 11-08-2002, 10:21 AM

Hmmm... I wouldn�t take some parts of the bible literally, but others for sure, yes. You don�t need to say sorry, you haven�t offended me or hurt me or sth.

I try to take the Sermon on the Mount literally, f.e., like imho every Christ should.

There is a lot of ancient knowledge w some African tribes, priests, or witch-doctors. The tragedy is that all this is going to be lost soon.

nbcrusader · 11-08-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Ultimately, there are some questions that we will never have the answers to until we meet God face to face; believing or not believing in Creation or evolution is not important in regards to our ultimate eternal fate (which in my opinion is the only thing that really matters).

We could argue which part of the bible are true, which are false, how my church defines terms, how yours defines terms, etc., until we are all blue in the face.

God did not give us a complete record of all history in the bible or feel the need to explain every detail or answer every question (like the origin of Cain's wife). God is not sitting in heaven thinking "Damn, they got me on the carbon dating evidence".

We will stand before a Holy God and give account for how we handled His Word. As BLS points our correctly (again) we will receive all our answers when we see our Lord face to face.

Shalome

melon · 11-08-2002, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nbcrusader
We will stand before a Holy God and give account for how we handled His Word. As BLS points our correctly (again) we will receive all our answers when we see our Lord face to face.

Ultimately, I find that the origin of the world is flat out irrelevant to moral issues. I guess I'm attempting to say that those who believe in evolution aren't automatically God hating sinners, bent on sending the world into socialistic atheism, as so many creationists wish to imply.

Melon

nbcrusader · 11-08-2002, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by melon

Ultimately, I find that the origin of the world is flat out irrelevant to moral issues. I guess I'm attempting to say that those who believe in evolution aren't automatically God hating sinners, bent on sending the world into socialistic atheism, as so many creationists wish to imply.

Melon

1. We are all sinners. No use in pointing the finger on that issue by anyone.

2. I think the underlying issue is the inherency of Scripture. God's Word is not limited to addressing moral issues.

Thank you for all the effort you put in your posts, Melon. They do make this forum a great thinking place.

Dreadsox · 11-08-2002, 03:58 PM

Why do the two have to be in conflict?

Maybe I am being dumb......

But, isn't God capable at creating whatever he wants at whatever speed he wants?

Why do we have to limit God's power?

Peace (To ALL)

melon · 11-08-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
Why do the two have to be in conflict?

Maybe I am being dumb......

But, isn't God capable at creating whatever he wants at whatever speed he wants?

Why do we have to limit God's power?

The idea of a God-created evolution has never bothered me in the slightest, and I find it far more fascinating to watch the world unfold in this manner.

Melon

U2Bama · 11-08-2002, 09:29 PM

There is just no need for either side to beat the other down and attack their intellect over differences of opinion and theory on the matter.

~U2Alabama

Klaus · 11-12-2002, 11:35 AM

To proof the existance of a good i would need at least 50 gods in my lab ,-)
So science who needs to verify or falsify its theories can't work if you look for "the one who is out there".

For me it's also not verry scientific to speculate abouth the begining of the universe if you just have a few hundred years of data about our galaxy.
It's like watching a movie the verry first time (just 2 seconds in the middle of the movie) and speculate about the beginning and the end.

The only therory i know at the moment which tries to explain all in a scientific way is the string-theory . The good side: it dosn't falsify itself. The bad side: if you try to proof it (the existance of strings) You need a particle accelerator which is bigger than our galaxy.

So it seems to me like it's useless at the moment to discuss this in a scientific way.
The ones who wants to believe in God should feel free to do so, the ones who prefer to believe in science should do so either. But please don't call others foolish just because they don't share your belief.

Klaus

p.s. Yes i believe in God

elevation · 11-13-2002, 07:52 AM

Maybe it's worth to notice that you don't necessarily have to be EITHER creationist or evolutist. I'm creationist but find it ridiculous if someone would deny microevolution or state that the world is 6.000 years old *cough*

This is a view of some of the subcategories in the jungle of creationsim and evolutionism from www.talkorigins/faqs/wic.html
(I've removed some of the references to make it a bit shorter)

If I should categorize myself I would say I'm a "Day-Age-Creationist"...at least an "Old-Earth-Creationist".

Where would you put yourself...if possible?

Flat Earthers (did this really exist?!

)

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

Geocentrism (this also?

)

Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.

Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

Omphalos

The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.

Old Earth Creationism

Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)

This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.

Day-Age Creationism

Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries.

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.

Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.

In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

Methodological Materialistic Evolution

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

Philosophical Materialistic Evolution

Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

melon · 11-13-2002, 10:21 AM

Thanks for the list. I would certainly fall under "Theistic Evolutionist."

Melon

Klaus · 11-13-2002, 12:46 PM

I bet there are people who deny existance at all - it must be tough to prove them wrong

I'm sure there were a lot of Flat Earthers 2000 years ago.
I have no idea how earth was created and more than one thesis could be right .

Klaus

RavenStar · 11-13-2002, 05:36 PM

im not sure if I'm any of those. I don't believe the universe has a beginning OR an end. It's like a circle. It's just that we are so used to having EVERYTHING in life have a start and finish that this is hard to grasp. When people argue over creation vs evolution and the question "But where did it all come from?" or "Who/what caused it to happen?" I say "Who says there had to be a start at all?"
I hope that made sense.

Achtung_Bebe · 11-14-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RavenStar
"Who says there had to be a start at all?"
I hope that made sense.

We do have an origin of some sort I'm pretty confident

... I didn't realize there were so many degrees of the creation/evolution viewpoint. I guess that goes to show you that, truly, nobody can know 100%. This thread has helped me to shed light on some of the other viewpoints out there so thanks everyone for the discussion.

The_Sweetest_Thing · 11-14-2002, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RavenStar
im not sure if I'm any of those. I don't believe the universe has a beginning OR an end. It's like a circle. It's just that we are so used to having EVERYTHING in life have a start and finish that this is hard to grasp. When people argue over creation vs evolution and the question "But where did it all come from?" or "Who/what caused it to happen?" I say "Who says there had to be a start at all?"
I hope that made sense.

Yes, it does.

It's just so hard to get my mind around this concept. I understand what you're saying, but the logical side of me NEEDS a start point. How can something just exist, just...be? If we all are born, die...if everything in this world has a point of origin, then I think it would correspond with history in that the earth, the universe, needs a start place.

But what was there before all that? Nothing?

....try going to a catholic high school and asking these questions. Whoa.

RavenStar · 11-14-2002, 01:30 PM

I think it's hard to understand cos we're so used to having a beginnig to everything. I find the more i think of stuff like this I always come to the same conclusion: "Why?" Why does there have to be a beginning? So thats what I ask instead of "What happened?" Why, not what.

nbcrusader · 11-14-2002, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RavenStar
I think it's hard to understand cos we're so used to having a beginnig to everything. I find the more i think of stuff like this I always come to the same conclusion: "Why?" Why does there have to be a beginning? So thats what I ask instead of "What happened?" Why, not what.

This, of course, depends on what you are referring to. There is no beginning to God. There is a beginning to His creation.

RavenStar · 11-14-2002, 02:14 PM

But why does there have to be a beginnig for the universe?

hiphop · 11-15-2002, 08:59 AM

Because we can�t imagine that. The universe is something we can "see" (apart from being a part of it etc.), and in our dimensional limited perception - we only got four dimensions! - nothing can exist without a start and an end.

God is multidimensional, as we all know. He is present in every tree, in every second, in every other dimension

11-13-2002, 07:52 AM	#91
elevation Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 464 Local Time: 09:33 PM	my 2c Maybe it's worth to notice that you don't necessarily have to be EITHER creationist or evolutist. I'm creationist but find it ridiculous if someone would deny microevolution or state that the world is 6.000 years old cough This is a view of some of the subcategories in the jungle of creationsim and evolutionism from www.talkorigins/faqs/wic.html (I've removed some of the references to make it a bit shorter) If I should categorize myself I would say I'm a "Day-Age-Creationist"...at least an "Old-Earth-Creationist". Where would you put yourself...if possible? Flat Earthers (did this really exist?! ) Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do. Geocentrism (this also? ) Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology. Young-Earth Creationism Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today. Omphalos The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history. Old Earth Creationism Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science. Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism) This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation. Day-Age Creationism Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries. Progressive Creationism Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds. Intelligent Design Creationism Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic. In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism. Evolutionary Creationism Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one. Theistic Evolution Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries. Methodological Materialistic Evolution Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life. Philosophical Materialistic Evolution Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

11-15-2002, 08:59 AM	#100
hiphop Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in the jungle Posts: 7,410 Local Time: 10:33 PM	Because we can�t imagine that. The universe is something we can "see" (apart from being a part of it etc.), and in our dimensional limited perception - we only got four dimensions! - nothing can exist without a start and an end. God is multidimensional, as we all know. He is present in every tree, in every second, in every other dimension __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-08-2002, 10:21 AM	#83
hiphop Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in the jungle Posts: 7,410 Local Time: 10:33 PM	Hmmm... I wouldn�t take some parts of the bible literally, but others for sure, yes. You don�t need to say sorry, you haven�t offended me or hurt me or sth. I try to take the Sermon on the Mount literally, f.e., like imho every Christ should. There is a lot of ancient knowledge w some African tribes, priests, or witch-doctors. The tragedy is that all this is going to be lost soon.

11-08-2002, 03:58 PM	#87
Dreadsox ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,885 Local Time: 03:33 PM	Why do the two have to be in conflict? Maybe I am being dumb...... But, isn't God capable at creating whatever he wants at whatever speed he wants? Why do we have to limit God's power? Peace (To ALL)

11-08-2002, 09:29 PM	#89
U2Bama Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine Posts: 3,405 Local Time: 03:33 PM	There is just no need for either side to beat the other down and attack their intellect over differences of opinion and theory on the matter. ~U2Alabama

11-12-2002, 11:35 AM	#90
Klaus Refugee 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: 09:33 PM	To proof the existance of a good i would need at least 50 gods in my lab ,-) So science who needs to verify or falsify its theories can't work if you look for "the one who is out there". For me it's also not verry scientific to speculate abouth the begining of the universe if you just have a few hundred years of data about our galaxy. It's like watching a movie the verry first time (just 2 seconds in the middle of the movie) and speculate about the beginning and the end. The only therory i know at the moment which tries to explain all in a scientific way is the string-theory . The good side: it dosn't falsify itself. The bad side: if you try to proof it (the existance of strings) You need a particle accelerator which is bigger than our galaxy. So it seems to me like it's useless at the moment to discuss this in a scientific way. The ones who wants to believe in God should feel free to do so, the ones who prefer to believe in science should do so either. But please don't call others foolish just because they don't share your belief. Klaus p.s. Yes i believe in God

11-13-2002, 10:21 AM	#92
melon ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 11,782 Local Time: 04:33 PM	Thanks for the list. I would certainly fall under "Theistic Evolutionist." Melon

11-13-2002, 12:46 PM	#93
Klaus Refugee 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: 09:33 PM	I bet there are people who deny existance at all - it must be tough to prove them wrong I'm sure there were a lot of Flat Earthers 2000 years ago. I have no idea how earth was created and more than one thesis could be right . Klaus

11-13-2002, 05:36 PM	#94
RavenStar Refugee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Purgatory Posts: 1,101 Local Time: 03:33 PM	im not sure if I'm any of those. I don't believe the universe has a beginning OR an end. It's like a circle. It's just that we are so used to having EVERYTHING in life have a start and finish that this is hard to grasp. When people argue over creation vs evolution and the question "But where did it all come from?" or "Who/what caused it to happen?" I say "Who says there had to be a start at all?" I hope that made sense.

11-14-2002, 01:30 PM	#97
RavenStar Refugee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Purgatory Posts: 1,101 Local Time: 03:33 PM	I think it's hard to understand cos we're so used to having a beginnig to everything. I find the more i think of stuff like this I always come to the same conclusion: "Why?" Why does there have to be a beginning? So thats what I ask instead of "What happened?" Why, not what.

11-14-2002, 02:14 PM	#99
RavenStar Refugee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Purgatory Posts: 1,101 Local Time: 03:33 PM	But why does there have to be a beginnig for the universe?