Dinosaurs and the Bible

geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
I doubt you will ever convince a religious extremist that there is a profound difference between the word "theory" and the phrase "Scientific Theory". It's some kind of bizarre sticking point that they can't seen to get past. Well, that's my theory anyway.
I agree - and I have pretty much given up on arguing the point with religious fundamentalists. However, I feel that their misunderstandings (to use a charitable word) of science cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. To do so would be to mislead others who are truly interested in exploring scientific ideas with an open mind.
 
yerboy

yerboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2510342
Yup, which goes back to my point on page 1. I believe, where I said science will never prove nor disprove God.
i never said i don't believe in god, nothing in my post even suggest that.
All im saying is i don't believe the bible to be fact. Bunch of mumbo jumbo imo
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by yerboy
http:///forum/post/2510365
i never said i don't believe in god, nothing in my post even suggest that.
All im saying is i don't believe the bible to be fact. Bunch of mumbo jumbo imo
Hehe, and I never said you didn't believe in God
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2510361
I agree - and I have pretty much given up on arguing the point with religious fundamentalists. However, I feel that their misunderstandings (to use a charitable word) of science cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. To do so would be to mislead others who are truly interested in exploring scientific ideas with an open mind.
Hmm, well, see there you are painting with an awfully broad brush too. I consider myself to be a Fundamentalist. I also hold a degree in Biology, emphasis on MB, with a minor in chemistry.
I understand many apsects of "science". I do not believe the Creation account is literal, nor do I believe in the mathmatical improbability (to also use a charitable word, or words) of random occurences leading to all that we know today.

Bang Guy used the term "extremist". I wouldn't consider myself one of those.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2510385
Hmm, well, see there you are painting with an awfully broad brush too. I consider myself to be a Fundamentalist. I also hold a degree in Biology, emphasis on MB, with a minor in chemistry.
I understand many apsects of "science". I do not believe the Creation account is literal, nor do I believe in the mathmatical improbability (to also use a charitable word, or words) of random occurences leading to all that we know today.

Bang Guy used the term "extremist". I wouldn't consider myself one of those.
Then I would enjoy having a discussion with you. Perhaps I am using the term "fundamentalist" incorrectly. I use it to mean biblical literalists who insist on interpreting the world as conforming to the exact word of the Bible. I know that evolutionary biologists speak of "fundies" (fundamentalists) as I have defined it above. I stand corrected, since words do make a difference!
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2510427
Then I would enjoy having a discussion with you. Perhaps I am using the term "fundamentalist" incorrectly. I use it to mean biblical literalists who insist on interpreting the world as conforming to the exact word of the Bible. I know that evolutionary biologists speak of "fundies" (fundamentalists) as I have defined it above. I stand corrected, since words do make a difference!
Ya, I personally love the discussions. I believe in God, and I believe Science. I personally look at science as a way for me to better understand God's creation.
The problem is there are a lot of people on both sides with agendas. Some good and some bad.
I do interpret the Bible literally, except when I don't
. There are some great examples biblically of times when clearly God or Jesus was speaking and didn't expect to be taken literally. I personally believe that goes for the Genesis account. i've said before, Genesis begins with "In the beginning God..." That's the point of Genesis. I personally think it is hugely significant that God created day and night, light and darkness on day 1, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" yet on day 4 says "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth
Now, think about that for a second... God created the concept of day and night on day 1. The Bible tells us "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" and the second day, and the third day; Yet the implimentation of the days and seasons and time were created on day 4.
See, to me, trying to explain Creation by attempting to interpret that literally removes some of the awe inspiring attributes to the story. Someone said earlier God might have a wicked sense of humor. I wouldn't call it wicked, but I believe this first chapter fo the Bible allows us to catch a glimpse of God's sense of humor.
I love the biblical account; and I'll continue to read with interest the scientific debates on "how it all began".
The only point where I draw the line is when it comes to the ancestry of humans. The Bible makes it clear God formed mankind in His image, and made them by hand. There is no wiggle room there, for me, to assume mankind evolved.
 
lexluethar

lexluethar

Active Member
Thank you Susan!
As for the random selection that lead to evolution - I read Einstein believed in God, because "it was a mathmatical impossibility that randomization could have created something as complex as the human eye" - i'm sure i'm misquoting somewhere there.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2510462
Thank you Susan!
As for the random selection that lead to evolution - I read Einstein believed in God, because "it was a mathmatically impossibility that randomization could have created something as complex as the human eye" - i'm sure i'm misquoting somewhere there.
Einstein totally stole that from me! (that and the whole relativity thing)
 
lexluethar

lexluethar

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2510469
Einstein totally stole that from me! (that and the whole relativity thing)
Who said god looked like a man? Or does that say it in the bible? I know it says he made man in his image - but who's to say that image is what you see in the mirror today?
 
M

mathwhiz

Guest
Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2509613
No its not that I don't believe he lies, i believe man lies. The bible was written by people who did not even see Jesus's work first hand. John, Luke, Mark - all written 100 - 200 years after Jesus died. I guess that is the NT though, back to the OT which i'm not as familiar with (not like i'm familiar w/ the NT either), i'm just saying those are the only things i have trouble 'believing.' I realize that is'nt how religion and faith work, it isn't a religion of convenience, you really can't just say well i like this but i don't like this.
Guess that is an internal struggle of mine - believe most but some things i have troubles with.
Okay, how can you say John, Luke, and Mark "did not see Jesus's work first hand"? They were eye witnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (look at Acts 1). They were His apostles and followed Him and were with Him through his teachings! They wrote of what they saw. The Bible also says "All scripture is God-breathed . . . "(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The NT is a fulfillment of the many prophecies of the OT. All through the OT, there are scriptures of Christ's coming. It all goes together. The first chapter of Matthew refers to the geneology leading up to the birth of Jesus to show the fulfillment of the scriptures that Christ would be of the "lineage of David" (Luke 2:4 and Isaiah 9) You might also check out John 3. The more I study the Bible, the harder it is for me to understand how someone cannot believe in it.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2510478
Who said god looked like a man? Or does that say it in the bible? I know it says he made man in his image - but who's to say that image is what you see in the mirror today?
Huh? Ya lost me.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by mathwhiz
http:///forum/post/2510485
Okay, how can you say John, Luke, and Mark "did not see Jesus's work first hand"? They were eye witnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (look at Acts 1). They were His apostles and followed Him and were with Him through his teachings! They wrote of what they saw. The Bible also says "All scripture is God-breathed . . . "(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The NT is a fulfillment of the many prophecies of the OT. All through the OT, there are scriptures of Christ's coming. It all goes together. The first chapter of Matthew refers to the geneology leading up to the birth of Jesus to show the fulfillment of the scriptures that Christ would be of the "lineage of David" (Luke 2:4 and Isaiah 9) You might also check out John 3. The more I study the Bible, the harder it is for me to understand how someone cannot believe in it.
I agree with your point, but not the method you use to get to it.
Yes, the Bible absolutely does say "All Scripture is God breathed and useful to teaching". For someone who doesn't neccessarily believe all of the Bible, however, that verse could be ignored.
It's much easier to argue from a literary and historical viewpoint. The rise of the early church, the references to the books of the Bible in early church writings, etc.
Obviously you can't prove what the bible says is true to a non-believer, but you can argue that the books of the Bible were in circulation during the lives of the eyewitnesses to the accounts the NT records.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2510441
The only point where I draw the line is when it comes to the ancestry of humans. The Bible makes it clear God formed mankind in His image, and made them by hand. There is no wiggle room there, for me, to assume mankind evolved.
Is there no chance that God used evolution as a tool to create man in his image? Is there no possibility that after evolving for millions of years the image was finished evolving and God gave the resulting human a soul?
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2510462
Thank you Susan!
As for the random selection that lead to evolution - I read Einstein believed in God, because "it was a mathmatical impossibility that randomization could have created something as complex as the human eye" - i'm sure i'm misquoting somewhere there.

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2510469
Einstein totally stole that from me! (that and the whole relativity thing)
Well if that were the case, and God was able to create something like the human eye, when he created Adam and Eve, something as simple as the behavioral problem Adam had (the lust to eat the fruit), he should have 'designed' the problems out? No?
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2510698
Well if that were the case, and God was able to create something like the human eye, when he created Adam and Eve, something as simple as the behavioral problem Adam had (the lust to eat the fruit), he should have 'designed' the problems out? No?
God gave us free will so that we may love Him. Take away our choice to do the wrong thing and you lose that.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Sorry, for some reason I am unable to edit posts from the terminal at work.
Ever heard "if you love something, set it free." God was the first one to do this.
 
lexluethar

lexluethar

Active Member
OKay back onto this topic. Something i've always had trouble wrapping my head around is the idea of an all knowing, all powerful, all controlling god. The reason for this is because of the war and death so prevelant in our world. I know its mans doing, i agree with this, but if god was able to control everything why would he allow young, innocent people to die? I've heard the explanation that well it was their time, or that is what god wanted - but i find that hard to swallow, i mean you are telling me that on 9/11 god intended for all of those people to die? Even the young children and devout christians? And what about WWII and the atom bombs? All of those children and innocent people he meant for them to die? That was in his plan? This is what i find hard to believe. I believe in God, and even an omnipotent (sp*) god and all knowing, but i don't know if he's all powerful, because for someone (terrorists, separatists, war, famine, disease, etc) that he loves to die for no reason and for him not to stop it is difficult to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top