Keep in Mind

A little side note to keep in mind about the Bible that most people on both sides of the arguement forget. THE BIBLE USES SYMBOLS ALOT. In the Revalations, there are several instances where 'days' can mean different amounts of time(I'll give feedback later but it's late and I want to sleep). Genesis is doubtfully an exception. Those 6 'days' could have been billions of years, and as for the Big Bang, didn't God say 'let there be light'? He also made man last. I'm not sure I believe we began as tree-dwelling apes,but if we did then the Bible also aknowledges that because man was made last, and was His greatest creation. Maybe not the nicest since the apple incident, but we certainly dominated everything. We're even smart enough to question God's existence. Not saying that it's bad or good, I'm just saying that it certainly agrees with scripture, because in many a Psalm they mention mankind's defiance. Just a little something to think about, I'm interested as to what people might say. (PS yes I'm not super informed and I'm getting a C in biology. I'm also not familiar with this site so if this has been posted a billion times don't shove it in my face please.)------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Don't feel bad - it's good to see you here. What you proposed is known as "Theistic evolution", and the last survey that I read, 43% of Americans (and much higher percentages of most other first world nations) believes in it.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Dates and Dating might not be the forum you were looking for, I'm moving this one if you don't mind.------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Thread moved here from the Dates and Dating forum.

Hi Born. I share your views to a certain extent. I believe the universe to be older than 6000+ years. I don't think God is restricted by human time limits or laws and certainly operate outside the 'bounds' of time.As I think It was Matthew stated. To God a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years like a day.That a 'day' is measures essentially by the amount of time the Earth revolves completely once, further gives me reason to believe this to be a symbolic period.I think the complexity of DNA is reason enough to believe (Perhaps like Crick) that it did not 'evolve' and was brought to this world in some way or another. I dont share the alien hypothesis, however I clearly believe this is just another fingerprint of God's design.I disagree however that we were tree dwelling apes, or had a common descendant. We are afterall created in His image.Either way, my best advice to learn about evolution would be to subscribe to new scientist (dont know if you get it). Comes around once a week and brings up some fantastic articles.cheers and welcome to the forums.

Please feel free to believe whatever you wish. Believe that the moon is made of cheese, that the earth is flat, that you have a gardian angel looking after you, or whatever.But please do not confuse your beliefs with science or facts. If you choose to believe that the power is off when you repair that wall socket, you might be in for a shock.Many of us go through this phase as teenagers, creating one's own world view from all the bits of knowledge we have accumulated. Thinking that 'believing' has something to do with 'knowing'. But some detailed study or a few university courses usually gets things in perspective.BELIEVE what you like, in your IGNORANCE, but please look at the EVIDENCE for man having evolved from apes, and learn to EVALUATE the evidence, before you claim to KNOW anything about it.Mike.

"BELIEVE what you like, in your IGNORANCE, but please look at the EVIDENCE for man having evolved from apes, and learn to EVALUATE the evidence, before you claim to KNOW anything about it."Personally, I KNOW that I can COMPREHEND your FORCEFUL attack on a rather PASSIVE statement I put in the firstplace without EXCESSIVE
use of EMPHASIS, comprende?First of all, I said 'I don't know if I believe we evolved from apes or not'. That doesn't mean I know we did or I know we didn't, hence the 'I don't know'. I just said Christian Scripture would agree either way. What, is your evidence too high and mighty to be agreed with or something? Sorry to shove a little too much chloride in your sodium chloride this morning, doc.Another thing. I even mentioned at the end of my post that I may not know as much in the scientific field as some of you here. I'm on this forum as a learning experience(and to have something to do when I can't sleep at night for tragic personal reasons that you may not be able to calculate, Einstein.)"EVALUATE the evidence, before you claim to KNOW anything about it."
Yeah, I agree. Problem is, I think you'd better practice what you preach because you sure as anything didn't evaluate my statement before you attacked it with utmost modesty ."...detailed study or a few university courses usually gets things in perspective."Right. There's nothing that good ole school can't fix. Spiritual beliefs? Go take a university course! Girlfriend breaks up with you? Go take a university course! The sky is falling? Go take a uni... WAIT A MINUTE! The sky can't fall because SCIENCE(not to MENTION my overused EMPHASIS) shows that it is just ATMOSPHERE and some OTHER stuff so it CAN'T fall. You HEATHEN, you have DEFIED the will of Science...And so on. You need to save your blunt attacks for more assertive statements that attack your arguement, not agree with it.I've 'evaluated' many people that stick their know-it-all noses into things without regard to the other party's purpose. That's something I DO know about, and you ain't gonna learn about that from a university course. God bless you.(((After I sent this I realized he was replying to message 5 and not the statement that I made to begin with . Sorry. But at the same time I won't change it because I feel it still addresses the point well.)------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 11-27-2003]

What point does your post make that was worth keeping ?Couldn't it have just been edited down to that one point ?Surely most of your post is an angry attack based on a false assumption, and has no validity whatsoever.

OK, Born2preach, I admit I came on too strong there. I got angry with the statement 'I don't believe we descended from apes' (I didn't look up the exact words).
This seems to express the view that all the research and theorizing by thousands of scientists over 150 years is just not relevant. Believe what you like! To hell with evidence!
Mike.

I had another think about my response while shaving, and would like to add a couple of points.I wanted to emphasize a few words, but couldn't find an option to change my text style and use italics, so I used capitals. I did not intend to 'yell' at you.Regarding my reaction, Zealot, imagine that you are a heart specialist, and in the course of a conversation someone says "I don't believe the heart pumps blood around the body. That is just a theory." Do you laugh at him for being a stupid idiot, or get angry with him for being a stupid idiot? (I do not mean to imply that anyone here is a stupid idiot!). Anyway, I get annoyed with people who think they can believe whatever they like regardless of the evidence.So, if you know of any evidence which contradicts the theory of human evolution, and which outweighs all the evidence in favour of it, please produce it. If you believe what you do because it offends your dignity to be told you descended from an ape, then you need to study some history. We have already learned that the Earth is not the centre of the universe (or solar system), the solar system is not the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy is just one among billions. We can no longer believe we are the "Lords of Creation".But if you hold your view because of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, then I guess there is nothing further to discuss.Mike.

There are organisms much newer to the world than humans - the AIDS virus, for example, or maybe Ebola or even polio.

Whoa there, I guess I took the sarcasm a little too far and got some people angry. Sorry.I had no intention of offense, just clarification on what I thought about equalling somebody's beliefs with thinking the moon was made of cheese(that would be pretty neat, though...) The emphasis thing wasn't all that serious, I was just having a little fun at Mike's
expense, with no hard feelings intended, and the same goes with all the other unnecessary jeers.But anyway, about the 'made humans last' statement. My point was that of the 6 day creation we were last, and the fact that other things came after us could've very well come from natural biogenesis, or God could've added stuff later. Who knows.But as for the open heart surgury thing, don't forget that creationists feel the same way about people who say God is a myth. To these people(myself included) that's kind of like saying that W. Bush is a myth(I AM NOT comparing HIM to God, but you get the idea)The thing is, faith of all flavors have lasted, with the general beliefs unchanged through millenia. Science can only speak tentatively, and stuff is being proven and disproven all the time. Who knows? Someday we may find out that saying blood pumps from the heart will be like saying ants come from rocks. Farfetched? I sure think so, but you really can't tell with the way science works. I'd like to elaborate more but for once I'm friggin tired. More good stuff can be expected by saturday.------------------
Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

A couple of points on this paragraph.
1) What, to some, appears as a strength of a faith-based approach is a weakness in the mind of others. That is the total inability of it to change over time. However, that is a rather harsh view of it. In fact, the faith based approach has, in general, changed over time. In the mind of the majority, God no longer controls the sun in it's daily arc and doesn't meddle on a minute by minute basis with events here. To me that is a significant change. The fact that a few haven't kept up doesn't make it less true.2)The "tentativeness" of science can be carried too far, IMHO. As a theory is worked out over decades it does become less tentative. We can expect changes but not a complete erasure of many existing theories, existing results will hold is my expectation.Examples of this is Newton's theory of gravitation and dynamics. It was demonstrated to be "wrong" and the general and special theory of relativity replace them. However, they aren't totaly gone. They are very useful for a wide range of "normal" conditions.I expect that for some theories this will be the type of change we might expect. A "modification" rather than a replacement of the old with new. I think the same type of modification (refinement?) has already been undergone by the ToE of Darwin.So the comment about things being "disproven" should take this into consideration. Newton was completely and utterly "disproven" but that doesn't mean apples fall up or that most of what his theory predicts is not perfectly useful and right enough for many, many cases. I think most of us can understand the feelings about this. And I hope most of the 'unbelievers' can remember not to worry about those who take God on faith alone. The argument is supposed to be over evidence not what one chooses to believe or not believe on faith alone.However, there is a difference in one who choose not to take something on faith and one who chooses to ignore real data and who employs obviously flawed logic. It may be that the annoyance is with the method used to arrive at the conclusion more than the conclusion itself.(All that said, there are such things as militant athiests who like to attack for very personal reasons. Just let it go when you encounter that.)

Christians are often accused of having blind faith. Is faith reasonable, and how are faith and reason related?Biblical faith is not a blind faith but is, in fact, faith in evidence. First of all, the Bible is very clear that faith is based on truth. God’s Word is Truth (John 17:17), and God cannot lie, or contradict this Truth (Titus 1:2). Thus, the whole Bible presupposes the validity of reason.The Bible also presents reasons for faith, or evidences supporting its truth-claims. For example, Paul sets forth a list of people who saw Jesus Christ after His resurrection to remind the Corinthians that the resurrection was a proven fact (1 Cor. 15:3-8). In the Old Testament the prophets and psalmists frequently pointed to the impotence of idols as evidence that the gods of the nations were, in fact, false gods. And throughout the Bible the fulfillment of prophecy is emphasized as proof of the true God’s sovereign control over the universe.To say that faith is reasonable is not, however, to assert that faith must submit to the dictates of fallen man’s anti-Christian reasonings. When skeptics rule out the miraculous as impossible or as unthinkable, for example, they may be using their intellects but they are not being truly reasonable. Non-Christians naturally reason in sinful, unbelieving ways. In fact, a Christian is someone who has had their thinking transformed according to the power of God (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4:17-24). And God often uses evidence and sound reasoning, through the witness of well-taught Christians, to break through the unbelieving mind-set of skeptics and turn their hearts and minds to the Truth.In short, faith is, indeed, reasonable and there is no conflict between faith and reason for Christians. But non-Christians will rationalize their unbelief until God’s Holy Spirit, often working through sound apologetic arguments, opens their minds to see the Truth of the Gospel. Truly, the heart can only rejoice on what the mind comprehends.

Skeptics do not, in a general way, rule out the miraculous as being impossible or unthinkable (certainly not unthinkable since it is thought about). What a skeptic does is expect there to be good reasons for believing something.Since we all know that an individual can be fooled and fool themselves we look for a way of countering this problem. A part of this solution is to expect good data to be obtainable by others under the same circumstances as the originator obtained it. Thus, almost by definition, the miraculous is hard to include.It doesn't seem to want to happen on que at all so it can't be retested. It also seems to manage to have results that can, at least a lot of the time, be reproduced by less extraordinary means. It also seems to fade into the distance the more you know about the circumstances under which it was supposed to have occured. This makes skeptics, well, skeptical .As for you evidence from the Bible it does seem to have a bit of circularity to it doesn't it?