Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Icons of Evolution
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 61 of 65 (482115)
09-14-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
09-14-2008 12:58 PM


We're doing Haeckel over in the other thread now
Dr. A, you might note we're handling that topic elsewhere, thanks.
Haeckel in Biology Textbooks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2008 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 62 of 65 (482622)
09-17-2008 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by gluadys
09-13-2008 9:44 AM


Re: What Christians believe
I just think that it is ridiculous to insist on literal interpretations that don't make sense and have no basis in reality.
How do you know they have no basis in reality? A little child should be able to understand the Bible not just a professional scientist.
Somewhere in Corinthians it says: "Better to trust in the Lord than to put your faith in the words of men."
Men's words get written and rewritten and rewritten and interpretations change. I'm sure God could have come up with a better word for billions of years then 'the first day' if he had meant it to mean a very long time.
You can only believe that the people were too stupid to understand back then if you believe they evolved from monkeys.
It shouldn't become possible to understand the first few chapters of Genesis only after some geologist decides in the 1700's to interpret the geological record according to a belief in uniformatarianism.I think God knew exactly what He was saying and how men were going to twist it right from the beginning but there's always some personal reason when people decide to twist the clear words of scripture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gluadys, posted 09-13-2008 9:44 AM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2008 7:37 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 64 by gluadys, posted 09-17-2008 8:10 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-17-2008 8:32 AM Beretta has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 65 (482636)
09-17-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
09-17-2008 4:20 AM


Re: What Christians believe
You're assuming a lot of theology there. And that is something that probably should go to another thread. There's certainly plenty to be discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 09-17-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 64 of 65 (482642)
09-17-2008 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
09-17-2008 4:20 AM


Re: What Christians believe
I just think that it is ridiculous to insist on literal interpretations that don't make sense and have no basis in reality.
How do you know they have no basis in reality?
Because physical reality is testable and it doesn't correspond to the claimed reality of YECism. Note that I say YECism, not the bible.
A little child should be able to understand the Bible not just a professional scientist.
And children are very good at understanding stories as stories.
Somewhere in Corinthians it says: "Better to trust in the Lord than to put your faith in the words of men."
I am not talking about trusting the words of men. I am talking about believing the works of God. About believing that God does not deceive in creation any more than in scripture.
Men's words get written and rewritten and rewritten and interpretations change.
Which is why we have so many interpretations of the bible, but so few interpretations of natural phenomena. Nature does not get rewritten and interpretations that have been falsified are dropped leaving only those that actually correspond to reality.
I'm sure God could have come up with a better word for billions of years then 'the first day' if he had meant it to mean a very long time.
You only need Genesis to be this explicit if you assume it is supposed to be a science text.
You can only believe that the people were too stupid to understand back then if you believe they evolved from monkeys.
People then had the same intellectual capacity as today. They did not have the same sort of accumulated scientific knowledge, nor the same level of interest in science as our generation does. Nor did they use the same style of communication common to today.
It shouldn't become possible to understand the first few chapters of Genesis only after some geologist decides in the 1700's to interpret the geological record according to a belief in uniformatarianism.
Quite right. One does not need geology to understand Genesis because it is not about geology. It is about God.
I think God knew exactly what He was saying and how men were going to twist it right from the beginning but there's always some personal reason when people decide to twist the clear words of scripture.
A non-literal approach to scripture does not require twisting the words of scripture. In fact, I see much more twisting of scripture by literalist who try to stuff modern science into the bible than I ever see from non-literalists. I find a non-literalist approach a much more straightforward way of reading scripture because it respects scripture for what it is instead of forcing modern concepts onto it.
Would you like to continue this discussion in a different thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 09-17-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 65 (482645)
09-17-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
09-17-2008 4:20 AM


Re: What Christians believe
This is just one more post to point out that you're arguing religion, not science. If we allowed religious arguments in the science threads then most threads would turn into a discussion of whether the Bible is really accurate and whether you have the correct interpretation. If you want to argue about Biblical accuracy and inerrancy then you should find a thread in the [forum=-1] forum, or if you want to argue from a religious perspective then you should find a thread in the religious forums. You should only be participating here if you have scientific arguments for your position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 09-17-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024