Posted on 09/20/2005 5:35:52 PM PDT by curiosity
Most adult Sunday school classes don't raise eyebrows, but my church is planning to hold one that's sure to. It's called "Evolution for Christians," and it will be taught this winter by David Bush, a member of the church I lead, Fairfax Presbyterian. David is an articulate government retiree who has been interested in this topic for nearly two decades, teaches a class on theories of the origins of life every five years or so, and once again has really done his homework. His view is that science and religion answer two different sets of questions about creation, with science answering the "how" questions, and religion answering the "why" ones. "With a little bit of wisdom and tolerance on each side," he tells me, "I think they can complement rather than contradict each other."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I'm not the one debating.
I'm pointing out what each side is doing.
Creationists/ID claim that evolution is a belief system.
Creationists/ID claim that ID is a science.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is science.
Evolutionists claim that ID is a belief system.
You are relying on your own understanding.
... fairy tale versions ... violate the evidence ... So I've rejected God.
Hmm. My mistake, then. For some reason, I thought you professed to be a Christian. I guess I jumped to that conclusion when I read where you wrote, "The best idea is to adopt the Catholic doctrine".
Regardless, I'll not impose upon any more of your time.
Good day.
You were making a "Plague on both your houses" case that both sides are equally blind to fact, equally mired in fallacy, equally swept up in militant idiocy. I have seen several posters enter these threads in this fashion. "Heartlander" and "tallhappy" come to mind. It's an interesting gambit but nobody ever seems to stay in that position for long.
Something for which you are too fond of.
I often correct falsehoods on these threads. That helps the lurker evaluate what is going on.
I was observing that both sides of the debate want to make their cases as tangible as possible by certain techniques.
But you had to take a crappy creationist argument and edit it to look like a crappy evo argument to do it.
Release some of the pressure before your ears pop off.
I always operate at this pressure. It's my calibrated operating pressure, certified by Darwin CentralTM, the conspiracy that cares.
Don't tell me . . . you're one of those Arabs who says there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
My comment wasn't directed at which side was right and which was wrong.
I was pointing out that creationists were using the terms religion and belief as insults.
But you had to take a crappy creationist argument and edit it to look like a crappy evo argument to do it.
---
Okay...okay.
It was a crappy creationist/evo argument.
I have been taken out to the woodshed. :o
My position is strict Creationist and I like a clean fight without horseshoes in the boxing gloves.
Did they go extinct before the arrival of man, or were there tyrannosaurus regi, brontosauri, and velociraptors running about, and pteranadons and archaeopteryx fluttering about Eden with Adam and Eve?
What about the various plants that can't live with today's oxygen mix. Were they growing in some noxious hollows of the world, where the atmosphere was primarily carbon dioxide and methane (and didn't mix with the oxygenated atmosphere in which we live?
But not everything in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, is qualified. You don't think the sun literally rises and sets, because science has made that belief absurd.
But previous generations took it literally. Martin Luther took it literally.
On what basis do you take the word of science on this, over the literal words of the Bible?
Martin Luther took it literally.
---
References? It can be in German.
At any rate, I apologize for having replied to you as if you were one who professes to be a Bible-believing Christian.
Again, good day.
"This would also allow for time for dinosaurs to turn into oil. Adam and Eve were in the Garden with God and may have not been allowed out because of the dangers outside it."
No.
Genesis says that death entered the WORLD (not just the sphere of man and woman) with the sin of Adam and Eve.
The dinosaurs could not have been turning into oil unless they had already died.
And, if we take Genesis literally, nothing at all died before the fall of Adam and Eve. So there could not be any dead dinosaurs turning into oil, and all of the dinosaurs had to be alive with Adam and Eve, and not one of them could have died before the fall of Adam and Eve, because that is the moment that death entered the world, according to Genesis.
So, the oil deposits were formed from dinosaurs and carboniferous forests all had to be made in the last 6000 years, if we hold firm to the Genesis statement that death entered the world with Adam and Eve's fall.
I see absolutely no words of Genesis that say that there was a creation and a second creation, or anything like that. Where is that text? That sounds like a tradition that has been made up by men outside of the Bible which is not contained in Scripture at all. On what authority have these traditions been introduced, traditions which contradict what the Bible actually says, which is 7 days?
Same here, now that you mention it. When the site first displayed the back button was disabled. Why do browsers allow web pages to redefine the back button. That's insane.
I see your your point about transitional form. It makes a lot of sense.
http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html#copernicus
"There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving." [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."
I give you a link to a site defending Luther, just so you can get the context right. I am not arguing that Luther was stupid. On the contrary I'm sure his IQ was vastly higher than mine.
What I am arguing is that when there is a conflict between the literal words of the Bible and our best and most carefully studied perception of reality, then we must reconsider our interpretation of the Bible. You might note that none of this impinges on morality. Science is descriptive. It does not tell us what is right and what is wrong.
Why not? The Flood could have wiped them out. It could have wiped a lot of things out. And there is evidence of a deluge.
Never heard of those plants but even today there are creatures that live in thermal vents in the oceans which would die in the normal ocean environment. There are other equally inhospitable environments in caves and some very isolated inland lakes that contain life, too. They made a great IMAX movies about them.
But you are wrong. We do not know this. We accept the word of science. And if you want to ague from the evidence of space flight, I ask you to consider how recent this evidence is.
people did take the sunrise and sunset literaly until science made it absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.