Originally Posted by nate_man

One point that I will echo with you loud and clear however is how secular (and I would add religious) institutions get their funding from somewhere. They are often biased and will pander to their benefactors. Religion has been used as a tool to manipulate and has jaded the masses.

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Is that copyrighted? Or can I use it?

Good line.

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Don't know - Got it off a friend's Facebook page!


In that case, God would HAVE to be a guy - or we'd be CONSTANTLY changing. You'd wake up with four arms one day - and two the next - then, eyes in the back of your head one day, then not the next..... need I go on?


Always endearing myself to the ladies - it's how I stay single.

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

That better?

Originally Posted by ravery

Nate, excellent post. The writers of our Bible were in many cases learned people of their day. Many of the Psalms were written by David and Solomon, both well educated including in the sciences. But, as you point out, in what was known scientifically at that time.

A few posts ago Pizzaguy really made a critical point though. The Bible was not written to be a science text. I don't think any of us are claiming that it was intended to be a scientific tome, but what we seem to be claiming is that science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. At times, it has appeared science refutes biblical claims, but then new scientific discoveries or theories come along that will align with the Bible. Science, through archeology, has made discoveries supporting the biblical narrative.

But, we all must remember, churchmen have made mistakes. We are all human and subject to error and failure. At times church leaders have gotten it wrong and made incorrect decrees based in inaccurate interpretation.

A few posts ago, I was trying to show that regardless of which belief we subscribed to with origins, it was based on faith, or assumptions. Well, one's position relative to the historicity of the Bible is also based on assumption. So often I hear people say elements of our Bible was stolen or borrowed from other religious texts. Well, which came first. Who stole from whom? In quickly looking up Sumerian creation belief it appears to have been formulated around the same time as the earliest writings in our current Bible used by Christians and partly by Jews. And yes, the configuration of our Bible was set many years after Jesus, but the individual books were written long before that over many centuries.

Much like Nate said, I do find value in these discussions, but only when they are kept at a civil level, and all too often that does not happen. Kurts, I really appreciated your respectful replies to John. I'm not a frequent poster here, but I am a faithful reader of this forum so feel I know many of you to a certain degree. So, I know how rancorous the political/religious debates can get. If our intent is to convince unbelievers of the errors of their ways, then yes, it is a no-win situation. I doubt John had that intent with his original post anyway, though I really shouldn't speak for him.

Ray

Originally Posted by Kurts

BTW, Pizza, I have tried very hard to keep a civil tongue throughout this thread. The amount of material in this posting that remains unchallenged keeps growing & begs for a retort. But I have remained reasonably silent in deference to John & hopefully have not offended or insulted anyone here.
I wish I could feel that you have done the same. I am not so unintelligent or blind that I cannot see the insult behind your little 'ha-ha' definitions of atheism & evolution. I'm all for discussion on this matter but when you stoop to pretending that these little blurbs of 'wisdom' have any meaning, well sir, you've lost the argument.

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everthing magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by onehundred80

I think that something was always here, some have a hard time believing that. Their simple explanation is that something made it, why could it have not been here all the time? Maybe it was just gases that coalesced into other matter. Evolution did the rest.
How the battle of creationism and evolution has raised it head again can only be put down to ignorance and self serving beliefs. This belief, by a lot of Americans does harm to the US's standing in the eyes of the many throughout the world who regard creationism as idiocy of the highest order.

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

What Arrogance!

There are many in the world, in who believe in creationism. Not just Christians and Jews. How does it stand with them?



roadster with a stick

Originally Posted by onehundred80

This belief, by a lot of Americans does harm to the US's standing in the eyes of the many throughout the world who regard creationism as idiocy of the highest order.

Originally Posted by onehundred80

Originally Posted by Kurts

Umm, no.

"A gradual process in which something changes."

So, are you saying that you can ignore evolution when it occurs around you all the time?
The TB bacteria didn't evolve from its older form to its antibiotic-resistant form today? The H1N1 virus didn't evolve to its more deadly version? We do not see evolution happening around us because it occurs slowly. In those creatures that live a time-dilated lifespan it becomes easily visible.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that a diety created these scourges of the human race or not you cannot deny that the definition of evolution is occurring all the time. AND, why would it be a leap for any believer to simply admit that perhaps a god could spark evolution? Even if you believe that a diety created everything around you who's to say that the same diety couldn't have put the rest of this world's creatures on auto-pilot & let them evolve?

Originally Posted by nate_man

Kurts,

These points are good points for thought. I would definitely agree that what we term as evolution does exist however my understanding and belief is that it is in the amazing design of the creator. Now without getting into a highly deep philosophical discussion on good and bad etc. Suffice it to say that the God of creation put into His amazing design the ability for the creation that he made to adapt. This also speaks to how amazing the creation is both in the parts of creation that exert forces that it extends upon nature and also on how different parts of creation also respond to those forces exerted upon them. This is pretty amazing to see how things, people and times have been able to change and adapt.

The one key thing that I think is important for us all to remember is that we at least keep an open mind to the fact that not all of this adaption is positive because not all of what goes on is essentially good in the process because disease as you mention is also a part of this process and the bigger picture is important in understnding this more.

Suffice it to say that what we call evolution I call the adaptive abilities that are inherent in the complexity of creation.

Good food for thought on both sides.

Respectfully,

Nate

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

I find agreement with what you say here. To kurt's point about the "evolution" of a surviving stronger virus or bacterium, I would suggest this logic. In the event of a LEE or Near LEE, there will of course, be some surviving species. Coackraoches will survive, rats and possibly some humans.

Will we continue to call them Cockraoches, Rats and Humans or will they be a "new " species. Stronger for passing the intense test to their survival, and clearly a little diffent from the norm, but are they a new species?

I would suggest the survivors may very well be from and extreme end of the bell curve but, they aren't new. Just stronger, better able to survive.

One would think, that the creator would have such planning engineered into the system. Otherwise it would eventualy fail. The crucibels that burn off the weak are ignited often. Perhaps this is why. Again, an intelligent design.

The average engineering involves creation of something with the intent that it is duplicated exactly as long as it is marketable. Ergo; as long as it functions, it survives. Instead we have a system that constantly challenges itself. This automatic purging produces stronger, better, sometimes different outcomes. Pure genius.

Would you have thought of it?

Hmmmm?


roadster with a stick

Originally Posted by nate_man

Franc,

Thanks for your comments and I am not sure if I read your reply right but I am not asserting a survival of the fittest mindset that Darwin promoted. Survival of the fittest is inherently flawed because our ecosystem is not simply made up of dominance, in life there is a coexistence of weak and strong which is also highly interpretive. Just like the bacteria, that so seemingly insignificant can wipe us out in a plague in a heartbeat, or something so insignificant as water or air can tame the strongest and wisest human if they are not available.

The design of this world as we see it (or at least think we know it) it utterly amazing and I am glad that at least we can dialogue on this and find points where we agree. This at a minimum allows our dialogue to continue and progress while at the same time not breaking down into a mess of insults and personal attacks.

Respectfully

Nate