PDA

View Full Version : Why Dinosaurs Became Mean: Creationist Edition



William Haskins
01-28-2008, 04:09 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWmanMadeMonsters.gif

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/24/attention-to-word-meaning

robeiae
01-28-2008, 04:15 AM
What about the Dodo?

William Haskins
01-28-2008, 04:16 AM
they taste like chicken...

Rolling Thunder
01-28-2008, 04:16 AM
What about the Dodo?

It's always about you, isn't it?

robeiae
01-28-2008, 05:34 AM
You're an "about you."

*mutters something nasty and mean*

Perks
01-28-2008, 05:39 AM
How do you find these things? That's fantastic. Pretzyling my brain around that lunacy is almost physically painful. I won't do it. You can't make me.

SpookyWriter
01-28-2008, 05:47 AM
How do you find these things? No life.

William Haskins
01-28-2008, 05:48 AM
very nice.

Perks
01-28-2008, 05:50 AM
No life.
Maybe you could give him life lessons?

NeuroFizz
01-28-2008, 05:57 AM
Guess it was T. rex's apple. Made him a nasty carnivore. It was nice of A and E to step aside for about 70 million years to let all that meanness play its way through to modern humans. Suppose they argued the whole time? Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did, too. Guess who's sleeping out in the bog tonight?

maxmordon
01-28-2008, 06:23 AM
things like this makes me ashame of believing in God

William Haskins
01-28-2008, 06:29 AM
you shouldn't be ashamed of your faith because of others' interpretation of it.

in my view, if one does believe in god (i'm not one of them), faith and science aren't incompatible.

no one can prove that god set the universe and even evolution in motion, but then no one can prove that he didn't. so as long as one is comfortable with a belief system that weaves together the measurable and the immeasurable, no harm is done.

anyone who believes what is presented is the cartoon, however, is just plain silly.

eldragon
01-28-2008, 06:38 AM
religion is one of the two things I shouldn't speak opening about. it gets me into trouble.

Joe270
01-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Okay, so if I get this right, dinosaurs became mean because of man's sinful ways.

Uh, didn't they precede us by 100 plus million years or so?

akiwiguy
01-28-2008, 01:07 PM
With envangelical zeal, he immediately put to use his artistic skills in embracing his new faith. Unfortunately the bum acid trip that had inspired his conversion had not yet ended.

I actually have my own kind of faith, but not one that extends to this crap.

Robert Toy
01-28-2008, 01:16 PM
Okay, so if I get this right, dinosaurs became mean because of man's sinful ways.

Uh, didn't they precede us by 100 plus million years or so?
And?

dpaterso
01-28-2008, 01:41 PM
You can't argue with real history, it's documented fact.

...Does anyone else find the sensual-lipped young lady in the cartoon oddly attractive, or is it just me?

-Derek

Bravo
01-28-2008, 05:49 PM
Okay, so if I get this right, dinosaurs became mean because of man's sinful ways.

Uh, didn't they precede us by 100 plus million years or so?

no.

they were here 5,000 years ago side by side the sumerians.

Gehanna
01-28-2008, 05:50 PM
you shouldn't be ashamed of your faith because of others' interpretation of it.



Amen.


Gehanna

Pat~
01-28-2008, 07:31 PM
Heh. That comic raises more questions than it answers. (Great link, though.)

-Is being a carnivore morally wrong? (Is the author of this comic saying that T Rex was originally an herbivore? or maybe just a 'nice' carnivore?)

I suspect what the comic was trying to say was that after the Fall, some of the animal kingdom became a personal threat to man, whereas earlier it was not. That, I think, is supportable in scripture (eg. the serpent in the Garden).

NeuroFizz
01-28-2008, 07:46 PM
Heh. That comic raises more questions than it answers. (Great link, though.)

-Is being a carnivore morally wrong? (Is the author of this comic saying that T Rex was originally an herbivore? or maybe just a 'nice' carnivore?)

I suspect what the comic was trying to say was that after the Fall, some of the animal kingdom became a personal threat to man, whereas earlier it was not. That, I think, is supportable in scripture (eg. the serpent in the Garden).
Sorry, but this is so anthropocentric, it is laughable. Carnivory is a way of life for the species that top just about every food chain or food web. Humans are omnivorous, which means carnivory is part of the way we obtain nourishment. Morally wrong? Please. The comic is a classic example of people who can find their butts with both hands when it comes to science, trying to scientificize* scriptures. It just doesn't work. Science and religion are two different creatures. They do not belong in the same room. Each is of value to humans, but in totally different ways, and there is no logical reason to try to blend them into one. It just reflects insecurity on the part of those who are trying to do the blending. Why can't people realize that?

*Their attempts are just as laughable as this made-up word.

Pat~
01-28-2008, 08:26 PM
Sorry, but this is so anthropocentric, it is laughable. Carnivory is a way of life for the species that top just about every food chain or food web. Humans are omnivorous, which means carnivory is part of the way we obtain nourishment. Morally wrong? Please. The comic is a classic example of people who can find their butts with both hands when it comes to science, trying to scientificize* scriptures. It just doesn't work. Science and religion are two different creatures. They do not belong in the same room. Each is of value to humans, but in totally different ways, and there is no logical reason to try to blend them into one. It just reflects insecurity on the part of those who are trying to do the blending. Why can't people realize that?

*Their attempts are just as laughable as this made-up word.

NF, you missed my point. I'm agreeing that there's nothing morally wrong about being carnivorous. It seems that in the Garden, man and beast* were originally herbivores (Gen. 1:29):

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

The first account in Genesis of death is when God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins. Obviously that doesn't prove that they became instant carnivores, but by the account of Noah, it's obvious they were. But the eating of animals wasn't morally wrong. It was just a result of the advent of death into the world. If it were morally wrong, God would not have instructed man to eat them. The account in Genesis 9:1-3:

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

(*But was T-Rex in the garden? ;))

rekirts
01-28-2008, 08:31 PM
You mean that cartoon was serious? I thought it was satirical or something. Geesh.

davids
01-28-2008, 09:14 PM
NF, you missed my point. I'm agreeing that there's nothing morally wrong about being carnivorous. It seems that in the Garden, man and beast were originally herbivores (Gen. 1:29):

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

The first account in Genesis of death is when God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins. Obviously that doesn't prove that they became instant carnivores, but by the account of Noah, it's obvious they were. But the eating of animals wasn't morally wrong. It was just a result of the advent of death into the world. If it were morally wrong, God would not have instructed man to eat them. The account in Genesis 9:1-3:

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

YAH BUT IF HE CLOTHED THEM IN ANIMAL SKINS WHO KILLED THE ANIMALS? OR DID ADAM OR EVE CAUSE NOW THEY WERE FILLED WITH SIN? I SUPPOSE IT IS RIGHT AND JUST TO SLAUGHTER THE INNOCENT ANIMALS CAUSE A WHAT ADAM AND EVE KINDA MESSED UP RIGHT? I MEAN I AM THIS COW JUST WANDERIN AROUND AND MINDIN MY OWN BUSINESS AND GOD OR ADAM OR EVE COMES UP TO ME-I AM ALL INNOCENT SO I JUST STAND THERE AND SAY HI WHAT'S UP KIDDO? THEN THEY CLUB ME OVER THE HAYD AND RIP OFF MY SKIN AND SAY THERE COW WE NEED YOUR SKIN CAUSE ADAM AND EVE MESSED UP-OR SORRY COW EVE MESSED ME UP-OR SORRY COW THAT ADAM MESSED THINGS UP CAUSE HE ACTUALLY LISTENED TO ME-SO AS USUAL IN THESE RATHER STRESSFUL SITUATIONS THE INNOCENT JUST GET THEIR SKINS RIPPED OFF.

Pat~
01-28-2008, 09:31 PM
YAH BUT IF HE CLOTHED THEM IN ANIMAL SKINS WHO KILLED THE ANIMALS? OR DID ADAM OR EVE CAUSE NOW THEY WERE FILLED WITH SIN? I SUPPOSE IT IS RIGHT AND JUST TO SLAUGHTER THE INNOCENT ANIMALS CAUSE A WHAT ADAM AND EVE KINDA MESSED UP RIGHT? I MEAN I AM THIS COW JUST WANDERIN AROUND AND MINDIN MY OWN BUSINESS AND GOD OR ADAM OR EVE COMES UP TO ME-I AM ALL INNOCENT SO I JUST STAND THERE AND SAY HI WHAT'S UP KIDDO? THEN THEY CLUB ME OVER THE HAYD AND RIP OFF MY SKIN AND SAY THERE COW WE NEED YOUR SKIN CAUSE ADAM AND EVE MESSED UP-OR SORRY COW EVE MESSED ME UP-OR SORRY COW THAT ADAM MESSED THINGS UP CAUSE HE ACTUALLY LISTENED TO ME-SO AS USUAL IN THESE RATHER STRESSFUL SITUATIONS THE INNOCENT JUST GET THEIR SKINS RIPPED OFF.

I couldn't tell you for sure who killed them. We're not really told, though it might be surmised that God did. Adam and Eve had immediately felt the need for some 'covering' from the eyes of God--they'd made clothing for themselves out of fig leaves.

And yes, this was the first evidence of an 'innocent' being slaughtered to cover the sin of man. I wonder if this was also when animal sacrifice began.

davids
01-28-2008, 09:33 PM
THANKS PAT-DAMNED FIG LEAVES-DAMNED CRUEL-ER-UM-BIG FELLA?

Ali B
01-28-2008, 09:40 PM
Or God could have made the animal skin sans animal. I mean he is God, after all. Why not just create the skin from thin air?

Pat~
01-28-2008, 09:59 PM
THANKS PAT-DAMNED FIG LEAVES-DAMNED CRUEL-ER-UM-BIG FELLA?

Well, don't shout at me about it...;)

Seriously...man by his own choice brought about the consequences. They seem severe, but that is likely because we're not absolutely holy, and therefore don't have the abhorrence of sin that God does. Sin is first of all spiritual death, our separation from God. That is as abhorrent to a loving God as physical death is to us. But while God can't fellowship with sin, He is anything but cruel, in my mind at least. He had a redemptive plan from all eternity for this possibility--you could almost say that was the 'reason' for the existence of the Godhead. The Son existed to be our substitute. "The wages of sin is death [physical death and spiritual separation from God], but the gift of God is eternal life, in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

NeuroFizz
01-28-2008, 10:14 PM
NF, you missed my point. I'm agreeing that there's nothing morally wrong about being carnivorous. It seems that in the Garden, man and beast were originally herbivores (Gen. 1:29): MY CLIP HERE

Thanks, Pat. But all this just supports my contention that science and religion reside in different houses (designed for very different but separately legitimate purposes), and any attempt to make a connecting structure is bound to fall to pieces before it is even completed. This folly is underscored in the cartoon.

davids
01-28-2008, 10:17 PM
Or God could have made the animal skin sans animal. I mean he is God, after all. Why not just create the skin from thin air?


OR BANLON!

davids
01-28-2008, 10:19 PM
Well, don't shout at me about it...;)

Seriously...man by his own choice brought about the consequences. They seem severe, but that is likely because we're not absolutely holy, and therefore don't have the abhorrence of sin that God does. Sin is first of all spiritual death, our separation from God. That is as abhorrent to a loving God as physical death is to us. But while God can't fellowship with sin, He is anything but cruel, in my mind at least. He had a redemptive plan from all eternity for this possibility--you could almost say that was the 'reason' for the existence of the Godhead. The Son existed to be our substitute. "The wages of sin is death [physical death and spiritual separation from God], but the gift of God is eternal life, in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

WELL PATSTER YOU KNOW I LOVES YA AND DO NOT WANNA DERAIL THIS THREAD BUT OLD TESTAMENT STUFF MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF HE WERE NOT CRUEL HE WAS AT TIMES A BIT NAUGHTY. DON'T AX ME TO QUOTE ANYTHING I CANNOT READ WELL SO MAYBE THAT IS THE REASON HE SEEMS SO NAUGHTY-OF COURSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HE IS NOT NAUGHTY-LOVE DAVE

Unique
01-28-2008, 10:34 PM
Dinosaurs became mean because people were always dissing 'em and calling them ugly?

Well, shooot. No wonder.

Pat~
01-28-2008, 10:36 PM
WELL PATSTER YOU KNOW I LOVES YA AND DO NOT WANNA DERAIL THIS THREAD BUT OLD TESTAMENT STUFF MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF HE WERE NOT CRUEL HE WAS AT TIMES A BIT NAUGHTY. DON'T AX ME TO QUOTE ANYTHING I CANNOT READ WELL SO MAYBE THAT IS THE REASON HE SEEMS SO NAUGHTY-OF COURSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HE IS NOT NAUGHTY-LOVE DAVE

Lol, you're an irascible lobster. (But I love you anyway.)

He's really the same God in both...same standards. It's just that with the advent of time, we see His underlying grace playing out in the events of history. The OT is largely the story of the depravity of man, his continual pull away from God--and the consequences of that. It aptly illustrates how man can never live up to God's moral law. The NT is largely the story of God's Gift of grace--His solution to that problem.

Pat~
01-28-2008, 10:38 PM
Thanks, Pat. But all this just supports my contention that science and religion reside in different houses (designed for very different but separately legitimate purposes), and any attempt to make a connecting structure is bound to fall to pieces before it is even completed. This folly is underscored in the cartoon.

Interesting...so you believe that religion has its truth, and science has its truth, and the two never intersect?

aruna
01-28-2008, 10:39 PM
You mean that cartoon was serious? I thought it was satirical or something. Geesh.

So did I.

Unique
01-28-2008, 10:41 PM
Interesting...so you believe that religion has its truth, and science has its truth, and the two never intersect?

One proves the other. How odd to see they don't intersect. Of course, parallel lines don't intersect, either.

Hmmm.....

Bravo
01-28-2008, 10:56 PM
Seriously...man by his own choice brought about the consequences.

well, that's not really true, is it?

i myself, and billions of other people had absolutely nothing to do with adam's fall.

in fact, according to the old testament, God himself acknowledges that the offspring shouldnt be responsible for the sins of the parent.

so why are we being punished for the sins of someone thousands of years ago?



But while God can't fellowship with sin, He is anything but cruel, in my mind at least. He had a redemptive plan from all eternity for this possibility--you could almost say that was the 'reason' for the existence of the Godhead. The Son existed to be our substitute. "The wages of sin is death [physical death and spiritual separation from God], but the gift of God is eternal life, in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

rather than concoct this plan that will condemn every civilization and people that existed before jesus christ, why not simply have jesus die right after adam's supposed sin?

what was the purpose in waiting?

but more importantly, what did jesus' death accomplish? do women who believe in jesus as god no longer have painful childbirths (in fact, were childbirths really painless before adam & eve? do animals undergo painful childbirths because of eve's sin too?)

and then there's the fact believers still exert manual labor for their livelihood. what happened to that promise?

i really have a problem with the concept of inherited sin, i think it's absolutely contrary to the belief that God is loving and just. like i said, God himself said in the bible, it is unjust to punish the offspring for the sins of the parents.

it just doesn't make sense.

davids
01-28-2008, 10:59 PM
well, that's not really true, is it?

i myself, and billions of other people had absolutely nothing to do with adam's fall.

in fact, according to the old testament, God himself acknowledges that the offspring shouldnt be responsible for the sins of the parent.

so why are we being punished for the sins of someone thousands of years ago?




rather than concoct this plan that will condemn every civilization and people that existed before jesus christ, why not simply have jesus die right after adam's supposed sin?

what was the purpose in waiting?

but more importantly, what did jesus' death accomplish? do women who believe in jesus as god no longer have painful childbirths (in fact, were childbirths really painless before adam & eve? do animals undergo painful childbirths because of eve's sin too?)

do men who believe not have to exert manual labor for their livelihood? what happened to these promises?

i really have a problem with the concept inherited sin, i think it's absolutely contrary to the belief that God is loving and just. like i said, God himself said in the bible, it is unjust to punish the offspring for the sins of the parents.

it just doesn't make sense.

YUP AND WELL ASKED-DAMN I HATE IT WHEN I AM OUT ASKED!!!

Dawnstorm
01-28-2008, 11:13 PM
What about the blue dino. Is it mean, too?

Also, think horn dino is only playing. Blu doesn't even bleed.

And Rex doesn't eat the people, so he's nice, too.

I think dino's weren't mean at all.

They were nice.

Right?

Right?

davids
01-28-2008, 11:15 PM
I THINK DAWNSTORM HAS A COGENT POINTIFICATORY HERE!!!! NICE DINOS-DINO MARTIN WAS NICE TOO-OOPS DERAILMENT POSSIBILITIES HERE-OUT!!!!

Robert Toy
01-29-2008, 12:15 AM
Thanks, Pat. But all this just supports my contention that science and religion reside in different houses (designed for very different but separately legitimate purposes), and any attempt to make a connecting structure is bound to fall to pieces before it is even completed. This folly is underscored in the cartoon.

IMHO, science and religion can very easily be connected if one does not take the Bible literally, e.g. seven days, Adam and Eve, etc.

Science proves that man evolved through time from a lower life form.

The question(s) that needed to be answered are what makes “man” different from the lower life forms, the answers being cognitive ability, abstract thought and a conscience.

One could therefore embrace scientific proof of man’s evolution, with the religious belief that God “created” man at the instant the lower life form achieved (was bestowed by God, if you so like) cognitive ability, abstract thought and a conscience.

Then there is no conflict between science and religion.

paprikapink
01-29-2008, 12:22 AM
The first line of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs) is all it needs, but then it gets better.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
01-29-2008, 01:03 AM
You can't argue with real history, it's documented fact.

...Does anyone else find the sensual-lipped young lady in the cartoon oddly attractive, or is it just me?

-Derek

She reminds me of Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble.

NeuroFizz
01-29-2008, 01:08 AM
Interesting...so you believe that religion has its truth, and science has its truth, and the two never intersect?

I had to go teach, but Robert T. gave my answer in terms of the literal interpretation of the bible and the possible intersection without conflict, but that almost has to be a personal thing, resolved in the mind of the individual since there is no way to achieve a consensus on it due to individual differences in faith. Thank you, Robert. I'll add that there is a huge difference between faith and religion. The latter has too many human handprints on it to perfectly line up with the former. Most of the problems that come up in this context are between science and religion, not between science and faith.

And the answer to the first part of your statement quoted above (up until the "...and the two never intersect" part) is YES. The two intersect only because they treat many common themes. And in this case, intersect doesn't mean they are in agreement.

Shadow_Ferret
01-29-2008, 01:13 AM
Then there is no conflict between science and religion.
Except that the Earth is only 8000 years old.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 01:14 AM
Sorry about the derailing, William...Silver King will just have to deport me, if this gets too far off from T-Rex, I guess...


well, that's not really true, is it?

i myself, and billions of other people had absolutely nothing to do with adam's fall.

in fact, according to the old testament, God himself acknowledges that the offspring shouldnt be responsible for the sins of the parent.

so why are we being punished for the sins of someone thousands of years ago?

I don't think we're being punished for Adam's sin. Apart from Christ, we will be punished for our own sin. I believe we inherited from Adam the propensity to sin, such that no human (apart from the God-man, Christ) has ever been able to say he has never sinned. But the fact is, God made it so we didn't have to pay--in spite of the fact that all have sinned except Christ, Christ was the one punished for the sins of someone thousands of years ago, and every sinner since and to come.



rather than concoct this plan that will condemn every civilization and people that existed before jesus christ, why not simply have jesus die right after adam's supposed sin?

what was the purpose in waiting?

Great question, and only God, of course knows the complete answer to it. But first of all, don't think that every civilization and people prior to Christ have been condemned. That is not what the Bible holds as true. Read Hebrews 11, and you'll see that in Old Testament times men were accounted as "righteous" according to their faith in the covenant God who revealed Himself to them time and time again...the same God who would send His Son to die for the sins of all people from all time. In OT times, the blood of a perfect lamb was spilled to atone for sin--because that pointed ahead to the sacrifice of Christ. Men evidenced their faith in God by confession, and dependence upon this sacrifice--in the same way that we confess our sin and depend on the perfect sacrifice of Christ to atone for sin today.

What was the purpose in waiting? I don't know God's mind in this, but we are told in both the OT and the NT that the Messiah's birth would be accomplished "in the fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4-7). In God's eyes, Christ came to earth with the message of grace and redemption at just the right time. Personally, I think that man being the way he is, we probably needed some history of our repeated failure to depend on and obey God (the OT) to illustrate for us the futility of depending on ourselves and moral law for the redemption of man. When Christ appeared on earth, the world was ripe for His message, and world civilization (the Roman Empire) also contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity. But all this is just my own surmising, just a conjecture.


but more importantly, what did jesus' death accomplish? do women who believe in jesus as god no longer have painful childbirths (in fact, were childbirths really painless before adam & eve? do animals undergo painful childbirths because of eve's sin too?)

Heh, I'm a woman who believes in Jesus, and I'm here to tell you, childbirth is still painful...No, Christ's death and resurrection did not do away with daily pain and suffering. The story isn't over yet. Christ's first advent was to secure our spiritual salvation; after His second coming, Satan will be bound, and sin and its effects with him. But Christ's first coming not only secured our eternal salvation, but parted the veil--His blood covering our sin and making us 'righteous' gives us access to the Father, and the power of the Holy Spirit to battle sin and its effects.

What did Jesus' death accomplish? Your question is a huge one--what Christ accomplished was what no animal sacrifice could have:

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! 15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

(Hebrews 9:11-15)


(You really should read Hebrews--I think you'd find it fascinating. Also Romans.) Christ's death paid the price, once for all, for the wages of sin. It satisfied the Law of God ("for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"), but even greater than that, it was a history-altering testament of God's incredible love for the people He's created. That He Himself would bear the penalty to satisfy His Law because otherwise we didn't stand a chance. He tried to draw man into a relationship of love and obedience through the prophets, but man didn't listen. So the God of the universe put on human flesh Himself, was born in a stable, worked as a carpenter, and then, at 30, began to speak to man directly about that love. He also carried the message that even the strictest Pharisee was unable to keep sinless by trying to follow every jot and tittle of the Law...that man must be 'reborn' by the Spirit. He then died and rose again, so that we could.


do men who believe not have to exert manual labor for their livelihood? what happened to these promises?
Not sure what promises you're referring to, but work was never the consequence of sin. Adam and Eve worked in the garden; I think we'll also work in some capacity in heaven. The consequence of sin was not work, but working 'by the sweat of your brow' (Genesis 3:17-19)--it was work being arduous, unpleasant, sweaty, boring, and any other of a host of negative experiences. And it was the 'ground' being cursed with weeds, thorns, and other stuff which would impede progress.


i really have a problem with the concept inherited sin, i think it's absolutely contrary to the belief that God is loving and just. like i said, God himself said in the bible, it is unjust to punish the offspring for the sins of the parents.
I can understand that. It is tempting to think that 'if I were in the garden, I wouldn't have screwed up and sinned.' And to feel put upon for inheriting a propensity to love sin. But all that is, in the end, speculation. Man has free will; Lucifer was/is active on this earth and in rebellion against God. At some point, temptation was going to happen--who's to say we'd never have sinned?

And regardless, the NT is clear that we are deserving of punishment because of our own choice to sin...the choice every man has made for himself. The Bible doesn't say we're deserving of punishment for Adam's sin.
It says 'there's none righteous, no not one.'

But there's also this:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

Pat~
01-29-2008, 01:32 AM
IMHO, science and religion can very easily be connected if one does not take the Bible literally, e.g. seven days, Adam and Eve, etc.

Science proves that man evolved through time from a lower life form.

The question(s) that needed to be answered are what makes “man” different from the lower life forms, the answers being cognitive ability, abstract thought and a conscience.

One could therefore embrace scientific proof of man’s evolution, with the religious belief that God “created” man at the instant the lower life form achieved (was bestowed by God, if you so like) cognitive ability, abstract thought and a conscience.

Then there is no conflict between science and religion.


I had to go teach, but Robert T. gave my answer in terms of the literal interpretation of the bible and the possible intersection without conflict, but that almost has to be a personal thing, resolved in the mind of the individual since there is no way to achieve a consensus on it due to individual differences in faith. Thank you, Robert. I'll add that there is a huge difference between faith and religion. The latter has too many human handprints on it to perfectly line up with the former. Most of the problems that come up in this context are between science and religion, not between science and faith.

Well, if you're talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible, it 'literally' (in the Hebrew) says a word that can mean "days" OR a "period of time"... so I guess it becomes a matter of semantics concerning what you mean by literal interpretation.


Originally Posted by NeuroFizz http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2006638#post2006638)
Thanks, Pat. But all this just supports my contention that science and religion reside in different houses (designed for very different but separately legitimate purposes), and any attempt to make a connecting structure is bound to fall to pieces before it is even completed. This folly is underscored in the cartoon.


I don't know that I understand still what you're saying, NF. (It wouldn't be the first time. ;)) But personally, I would have a real problem if I couldn't make 'connecting structures' between my religious beliefs (or faith) and my scientific beliefs. It's all about having cohesive beliefs. For me, if I didn't see some of those connecting structures, I think I'd wonder about my beliefs concerning what is. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that either one can prove the other. But correlation between the two belief systems enhances their validity, to me.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 01:36 AM
Except that the Earth is only 8000 years old.

Does he have to believe that?

eldragon
01-29-2008, 01:44 AM
Pat, I'm impressed by your faith.

We're on different frequencies spirituality-wise, but it would be hard not to admire your convictions.

paprikapink
01-29-2008, 01:45 AM
The first line of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs) is all it needs, but then it gets better.

So? Dontcha think it's funny?

Am I on universal Ignore again?

AnneMarble
01-29-2008, 01:45 AM
Heh. That comic raises more questions than it answers. (Great link, though.)

-Is being a carnivore morally wrong? (Is the author of this comic saying that T Rex was originally an herbivore? or maybe just a 'nice' carnivore?)
Maybe they used to ask permission before eating other animals. But then they just started rudely chomping on them without their permission.


I suspect what the comic was trying to say was that after the Fall, some of the animal kingdom became a personal threat to man, whereas earlier it was not. That, I think, is supportable in scripture (eg. the serpent in the Garden).
It's an attitude that persists in many people, whether or not they're believers. Some people are brought up with that attitude and never learn enough to get away from it. Others are exposed to enough documentaries and biology classes that it's burned out of them. ;)

When I was very young, my cousin (older by a year or two) read my children's Bible to me. She pointed to the animals in the picture and told me that after the Fall, some of the animals were nice, and some becamse "méchante" (meaning mean or spiteful). Even at that age, I remember thinking that was weird. How can a lion be mean? It's a lion. If it attacks and/or eats someone, that's usually because it's hungry or threatened, not because it is "méchante." I guess I had seen enough "Elsa" documentaries to know better, even at that young age. ;) And some of the so-called nice animals can attack people, too. How does anyone explain that? Were they in with a bad crowd, wearing leather jackets and smoking in the boy's room? :rolleyes:

Shadow_Ferret
01-29-2008, 02:01 AM
Does he have to believe that?
Who?

Pat~
01-29-2008, 02:10 AM
Pam...thanks for your kind words. :Hug2:

Anne...regarding this:


It's an attitude that persists in many people, whether or not they're believers. Some people are brought up with that attitude and never learn enough to get away from it. Others are exposed to enough documentaries and biology classes that it's burned out of them.

When I was very young, my cousin (older by a year or two) read my children's Bible to me. She pointed to the animals in the picture and told me that after the Fall, some of the animals were nice, and some becamse "méchante" (meaning mean or spiteful). Even at that age, I remember thinking that was weird. How can a lion be mean? It's a lion. If it attacks and/or eats someone, that's usually because it's hungry or threatened, not because it is "méchante." I guess I had seen enough "Elsa" documentaries to know better, even at that young age. And some of the so-called nice animals can attack people, too. How does anyone explain that? Were they in with a bad crowd, wearing leather jackets and smoking in the boy's room?


Yeah, there's a difference between saying "the Fall made animals morally reprehensible, nasty carnivores" and "after the Fall man and animals ate meat." I ascribe to the latter. :)

Pat~
01-29-2008, 02:13 AM
Who?

Robert


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Toy http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2007048#post2007048)
Then there is no conflict between science and religion.

Except that the Earth is only 8000 years old.

Rolling Thunder
01-29-2008, 02:16 AM
Dinosaurs are evil.
http://www.fresnobeehive.com/archives/upload/2007/04/barney.jpg

akiwiguy
01-29-2008, 02:21 AM
It's interesting how different people's faith is shaped. Something that I realised as I have browsed this thread, is that what spiritual/religious faith I have is mainly as a result of what I don't know, not what I do know.

Why do I have a capacity for love, or hate? To create or destroy. To have hope, or despair. To be able to even conceive of something I might call heaven. There seems to me to be so much about me that I can't explain, that I am led to conclude that there is some reason for my existence beyond my understanding.

Yes, I may have then put more specific shape to my faith, yet it seems to be forever riddled with the inexplicable. Yet, that does not worry me in the slightest. It is ironic that the Book of Psalms is one of the most common sources of comfort to people, yet it is inundated by cries of anguish from those who simply could not reconcile their suffering with the God they knew.

To me personally, the anger management problems of dinosaurs is one of the least relevant things in the universe. To be honest, I just can't get my head around why anyone would care. And this thread actually has little to do with whether science and creation prove or disprove each other. It raises only one question. Is the one specific account, that of the Bible, literal inerrant truth? My own view is that the very fact that it seems to be a record of generations of people recording events in the best way that they knew how that makes it so interesting. At the end of the day they had faith. They didn't seem too hung up on some of the whys.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 02:33 AM
Here's a post in support of poor T-Rex's reputation:


A current topic in paleontology that has received much popular press is the question of whether T.rex (or other Tyrannosauridae in general) were predators or scavengers. Let's explore this issue. Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies (Bozeman, MT) has proposed that T.rex could not have been a predator. His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey), small arms (needed to hold prey), huge legs (meaning slow speed) and that there is no evidence for predation — bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food (a bone showing tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence for predation)...


The rest of the article is here. (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/tyrannosauridae.html)

blacbird
01-29-2008, 02:47 AM
A current topic in paleontology that has received much popular press is the question of whether T.rex (or other Tyrannosauridae in general) were predators or scavengers. Let's explore this issue. Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies (Bozeman, MT) has proposed that T.rex could not have been a predator. His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey), small arms (needed to hold prey), huge legs (meaning slow speed) and that there is no evidence for predation — bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food (a bone showing tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence for predation)...

The argument between Horner and Robert Bakker (of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado) has been going on for years. Horner wants T. Rex to be a lumbering scavenger, Bakker wants it to be an active, fast predator, and has described it as being a 40-foot-long roadrunner. I've heard both speak, and both are media-savvy and entertaining.

Truth of the matter is I can't see any reason for the dichotomy, other than it gives both these scientists room for publicity. The modern world contains lots of large animals that are both hunters and scavengers (bears, lions, hyenas, komodo dragons . . .). My guess is that, like any sensible meat-eater, T. rex was an opportunist who ate any meat it could sink its teeth into.

caw

Unique
01-29-2008, 03:01 AM
Am I on universal Ignore again?

Nope. Just lurkin' about ...

Pat~
01-29-2008, 03:11 AM
It's interesting how different people's faith is shaped. Something that I realised as I have browsed this thread, is that what spiritual/religious faith I have is mainly as a result of what I don't know, not what I do know.

Why do I have a capacity for love, or hate? To create or destroy. To have hope, or despair. To be able to even conceive of something I might call heaven. There seems to me to be so much about me that I can't explain, that I am led to conclude that there is some reason for my existence beyond my understanding.

Yes, I may have then put more specific shape to my faith, yet it seems to be forever riddled with the inexplicable. Yet, that does not worry me in the slightest. It is ironic that the Book of Psalms is one of the most common sources of comfort to people, yet it is inundated by cries of anguish from those who simply could not reconcile their suffering with the God they knew.

To me personally, the anger management problems of dinosaurs is one of the least relevant things in the universe. To be honest, I just can't get my head around why anyone would care. And this thread actually has little to do with whether science and creation prove or disprove each other. It raises only one question. Is the one specific account, that of the Bible, literal inerrant truth? My own view is that the very fact that it seems to be a record of generations of people recording events in the best way that they knew how that makes it so interesting. At the end of the day they had faith. They didn't seem too hung up on some of the whys.

akiwiguy, I've read some of your posts today and you've really been waxing philosophical. Enjoyed this.

I think I'd agree that it raises the question of whether the Biblical account is true, and if so, how can it be reconciled with what we know scientifically to be true--and then it also raises the question of how much of science is commonly held to be true, but could be amended if we only knew more, had more fossil records, etc.

AnneMarble
01-29-2008, 03:43 AM
Truth of the matter is I can't see any reason for the dichotomy, other than it gives both these scientists room for publicity. The modern world contains lots of large animals that are both hunters and scavengers (bears, lions, hyenas, komodo dragons . . .). My guess is that, like any sensible meat-eater, T. rex was an opportunist who ate any meat it could sink its teeth into.

caw
For a report in a science class (Field Biology or something likem that), I read a book that had been recommended by the teacher. It was pretty much about some scientist who surveyed owl pellets (and maybe fox feces or something like that) as a way of judging what various predators were eating. As it turned out (and I may have missed some important details as I kept nodding off during the owl pellet surveys :e2tongue:), while we often imagine owls swooping down and eating mice, and fox eating mice (after speaking to them in a British accent of course :D) they weren't above eating bugs if they were hungry -- or if the bug was easier to eat. Whatever they could find. If you opened up an owl food vending machine, you could stock it with roaches (imported from the city) and make out like a bandit.

HeronW
01-29-2008, 03:56 AM
I like Blake's line in Tiger, Tiger:

Did He who made the lamb, make thee?

Silver King
01-29-2008, 04:49 AM
Sorry about the derailing, William...Silver King will just have to deport me, if this gets too far off from T-Rex, I guess...
Please don't mind me. I'm reading along and enjoying the discussion. :)

Bravo
01-29-2008, 05:09 AM
I don't think we're being punished for Adam's sin.

i was taught christian theology based on the augustian view. maybe you have a different understanding of it, but according to them, adam's original sin is passed on the generations. even babies are born 'sinful' and thus must be cleansed through baptism.

wasn't it adam, after all, who brought death to the world of men (according to paul)?




Apart from Christ, we will be punished for our own sin.

the fact that christ has to get punished for our sins in the first place is illogical and unjust.

i never asked for someone else to take my burden and die for me.

maybe it's my republican parents talking, but basically, i want to be fully responsible for my actions.



I believe we inherited from Adam the propensity to sin, such that no human (apart from the God-man, Christ) has ever been able to say he has never sinned. But the fact is, God made it so we didn't have to pay--in spite of the fact that all have sinned except Christ, Christ was the one punished for the sins of someone thousands of years ago, and every sinner since and to come.


but that doesnt make sense either though. doesn't this imply i can get away with anything as long as i believe christ will die for my sins? it's unjust to transfer my flaws onto someone else.


In OT times, the blood of a perfect lamb was spilled to atone for sin--because that pointed ahead to the sacrifice of Christ.

not really.

the story of abraham clearly shows that God forbids human sacrifice.



What was the purpose in waiting? I don't know God's mind in this, but we are told in both the OT and the NT that the Messiah's birth would be accomplished "in the fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4-7). In God's eyes, Christ came to earth with the message of grace and redemption at just the right time. Personally, I think that man being the way he is, we probably needed some history of our repeated failure to depend on and obey God (the OT) to illustrate for us the futility of depending on ourselves and moral law for the redemption of man. When Christ appeared on earth, the world was ripe for His message, and world civilization (the Roman Empire) also contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity. But all this is just my own surmising, just a conjecture.

yes, for the sake of argument, i can agree that christ came at an opportune time to reform judaism. but being the messiah and being god and being sacrificed for sins are entirely different things.

i gotta run for now, i'll get to the rest of the post later.

:)

Bravo
01-29-2008, 05:17 AM
btw pat, if original sin isn't passed down, than why do catholics believe that mary was born sinless?

and re: man's labors, god says to adam:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it",
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken; you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

– Genesis 3:17-19

Monkey
01-29-2008, 05:27 AM
So, some Jehovah's Witnesses came by my house a while back and dropped off some literature. The whole pamphlet was beautifully illustrated, and its subject matter was the Heaven on Earth that they believe awaits the Believers.

It had children of all races reaping a bountiful havest of fruits and vegetables, holding hands and looking out over a pristine landscape. There was a crystal-clear lake where a cougar was taking a drink...right next to the kids and some dear, some bunnies...

apparently, the artist figured that cougars can be reformed. That all that whole "meat-eating" thing was some sort of fad that would pass. They don't understand that not all predators can physically handle a vegetarian diet. And though most mammals can scavenge, a lot of reptiles simply fail to see dead things as food. There are also certain issues that make eating meat found dead unsafe for creatures not designed to be scavengers.

Designed. Funny word for this discussion. :)

If the Garden of Eden was devoid of death, then it would also have to have been devoid of birth...or its boundaries would have had to have constantly expanded to make room for an ever-exponentially growing number. Why would Adam and Eve be male and female - a differentiation of sex - if there was to be no births? I mean, maybe just for fun...but why would Eve have breasts? Why does anything have breasts? But I find a deathless/birthless Garden more believable than an ever-expanding into infinity one.

Actually, the only way I can reconcile this issue is to say that God fully intended Eden to be a very temporary thing (being omniscient and all) and so created the different sexes and created some animals to feed off of others and so on and so forth...setting into motion our current existence. This IS the way things were intended to be.

The cycles of birth and death are a beautiful waltz that sustain and nourish us all. I would not choose a physical immortal life were it offered to me. What is this strange fascination with physical deathlessness?

JeanneTGC
01-29-2008, 08:15 AM
I hate to have to ask this, but it was asked before and no one answered, and I guess I don't cruise the same places, but...

Is the comic that Haskins posted in the OP serious? As in, there is a daily/weekly strip out there that's dedicated to this kind of creationist dogma? (Using dogma here in the same way I'd use it for any other kind of religious "this is so because" statement, not in a derogatory way, just to forestall unintentionally upsetting anyone.)

Pat~
01-29-2008, 08:46 AM
i was taught christian theology based on the augustian view. maybe you have a different understanding of it, but according to them, adam's original sin is passed on the generations. even babies are born 'sinful' and thus must be cleansed through baptism.

wasn't it adam, after all, who brought death to the world of men (according to paul).

Yes, that's from Romans 5:12:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...

I understand the concept of "original sin" to mean that we inherit a tainted spiritual nature from Adam--one that is 'fallen' and predisposed to sin. Therefore we all do sin, just like he did. Adam's sin made me a sinner in the sense that I have spiritually inherited his sinful nature. Therefore I sin. But if I am condemned by God, it will be not because I'm morally responsible for Adam's choice, but because I have not believed on the name of the Son of God to save me from condemnation:

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)

And regarding baptism, there are different schools of thought on that in Christian belief. Personally, I believe baptism is a sign, an outward profession of the decision of faith in the heart--that it is not baptism which saves a person, but the decision of faith itself. Therefore, I don't believe that infants 'need to be' baptized. I believe that babies/children who die before 'the age of accountability' go to heaven. (This reference to an age of accountability also comes from Romans but I'll have to look it up.) One of the reasons I believe what I do about baptism--that it alone doesn't 'wash away' sin--is the thief on the cross (the one who believed). He verbally countered the one who didn't believe, and Jesus then said to him, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise." His faith in Christ is what saved him.



the fact that christ has to get punished for our sins in the first place is illogical and unjust.

i never asked for someone else to take my burden and die for me.

maybe it's my republican parents talking, but basically, i want to be fully responsible for my actions.

In one sense it seems unjust, because Christ did no sin. But in another sense, it's all about justice, in that the requirements of justice were being met (the wages of sin is death). But I like your comment about illogical. God is not solely about Justice. He is also Love and Mercy. His love for us means He deeply desires our restoration to the pre-Fall communion man once had with God. Justice I suppose thrives on logic, black and white. Love thrives on 'illogical' mercy and grace...undeserved pardon, and unmerited favor.

It might be your Republican parents talking, but it might also be your sense of justice--and sometimes guilt--that would make you want to pay for your own sins. Like penance. It can make us seem to feel better. But paying the price for our sinfulness in this ultimate case won't make you feel better...the price is eternal separation from God. Thankfully, though, you can't pay for it--the price has been paid already. Because in the end, it's what God wants that counts, anyway--and God wants us.


but that doesnt make sense either though. doesn't this imply i can get away with anything as long as i believe christ will die for my sins? it's unjust to transfer my flaws onto someone else.
No, justice will have been served--the penalty will have been paid. And it will be paid in a way that will satisfy both God's Justice and His Love.

Paul addresses your other question in Romans 6:15: "What then, shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? By no means!" He goes on to say that we are no longer slaves to sin (helpless in our sin nature), but now 'slaves to righteousness.' The indwelling Spirit frees us from slavery to the old nature, though we still will have to do battle with it. And the gratitude and love that makes a person turn to Christ, and accept what He's done for them, is the thing that compels a person to resist sin. "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died [to sin]. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15).


not really.

the story of abraham clearly shows that God forbids human sacrifice.
In the OT, God did forbid the human sacrifice practices of the Canaanites; He wanted His people to be separate, and to worship the God of Abraham, not the Canaanite gods. But in spite of this, God instructed Abraham in Gen. 22 to go up the mountain and sacrifice his 'only son, the son whom you love.' (22:2) It was a pointed 'type' of the story of redemption in the NT, where God sacrificed His beloved only Son. And it was a test of Abraham's faith. As Abraham proceeded up the mountain with Isaac, the fire, and the wood, Isaac asked him where the lamb for the offering was. Abraham's response was, "God himself will provide the lamb" (v.8). And He did, just as He did in the NT. The angel stopped Abraham from killing his son, and God provided a ram in the thicket. Abraham's actions bore witness to his faith which was 'credited to him for righteousness' (Hebrews 11, Romans 4). God told him 'now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.'

The forbidding of human sacrifices does not mean that Christ could not offer Himself as sacrifice for sin. The first was a law set up for the people so that they would not sacrifice their own flesh and blood in a vain attempt to appease false gods. The second was the offering of God Himself (manifested in the flesh) to redeem and save the people He loved.
Christ was not just human; He was the God-Man



yes, for the sake of argument, i can agree that christ came an opportune as the messiah to reform judaism. but being the messiah and being god and being sacrificed for sins are entirely different things.

i gotta run for now, i'll get to the rest of the post later.
Not sure what you're saying here, but will wait till you can get back to it. :)

Pat~
01-29-2008, 09:01 AM
btw pat, if original sin isn't passed down, than why do catholics believe that mary was born sinless?
I'm not Catholic, and I don't know why they would believe that, personally.


and re: man's labors, god says to adam:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it",
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken; you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

– Genesis 3:17-19

Yes, I went back and hilited the parts that I mentioned earlier. The point is, man already was working prior to the fall:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Genesis 2:4-7, 15)

It's just that with the Fall, God cursed the ground, which make 'work' become 'toil by the sweat of your brow.' Work prior to the Fall must have been the essence of creativity and talent coupled with none of the impediments and frustrations and weariness that we commonly associate with work today.

NeuroFizz
01-29-2008, 09:06 AM
Getting back to what blacbird said about T. rex, what difference does it make whether a carnivore is a predator or a scavenger (many are likely both). Predators serve an important function in the overall balance of an ecosystem, as do scavengers. If you don't believe that about the latter, tell me how you would deal with the situation if your garbage collectors went on strike.

There are some very peculiar feeding habits among animals, and none is more noble than the next. Even coprophages ("feces eaters") like those cute little bunnies have a reason for what some would call a "filthy" eating method.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 09:34 AM
So, some Jehovah's Witnesses came by my house a while back and dropped off some literature. The whole pamphlet was beautifully illustrated, and its subject matter was the Heaven on Earth that they believe awaits the Believers.

It had children of all races reaping a bountiful havest of fruits and vegetables, holding hands and looking out over a pristine landscape. There was a crystal-clear lake where a cougar was taking a drink...right next to the kids and some dear, some bunnies...

apparently, the artist figured that cougars can be reformed. That all that whole "meat-eating" thing was some sort of fad that would pass. They don't understand that not all predators can physically handle a vegetarian diet. And though most mammals can scavenge, a lot of reptiles simply fail to see dead things as food. There are also certain issues that make eating meat found dead unsafe for creatures not designed to be scavengers.

Designed. Funny word for this discussion. :)

An apt word, I'd say. ;)

I'm not Jehovah's Witness, so I couldn't probably explain their thinking to you. But it seems to me that IF this were heaven, 'can't handle' might be a moot point. In other words, what might have been the case for earthly existence wouldn't necessarily follow in heaven. For all we know, we might all be back to being herbivores in heaven. And loving it.


If the Garden of Eden was devoid of death, then it would also have to have been devoid of birth...or its boundaries would have had to have constantly expanded to make room for an ever-exponentially growing number.
And this would be impossible for the infinite God who just created the universe?


Why would Adam and Eve be male and female - a differentiation of sex - if there was to be no births? I mean, maybe just for fun...but why would Eve have breasts? Why does anything have breasts? But I find a deathless/birthless Garden more believable than an ever-expanding into infinity one.
Actually, the only way I can reconcile this issue is to say that God fully intended Eden to be a very temporary thing (being omniscient and all) and so created the different sexes and created some animals to feed off of others and so on and so forth...setting into motion our current existence. This IS the way things were intended to be.
I don't think it necessarily follows that no death meant there couldn't be births.
Also, consider this... IF there is a God and IF He had the ability to create the animals, is it entirely inconceivable that the ones we consider to be carnivores today could have been herbivores when first created? Could God not have adapted them post-Fall (either immediately, or through an evolutionary process) to being carnivores? We're told of one immediate reptilian 'adaptation' in the Genesis account of the Fall--the serpent was cursed to crawl upon its belly on the ground. So it's not like He couldn't make some changes.



The cycles of birth and death are a beautiful waltz that sustain and nourish us all. I would not choose a physical immortal life were it offered to me. What is this strange fascination with physical deathlessness?
You mean life after death? (Because we all will physically die.) I think there's a fascination with the unknown--where we've come from, where we're headed. And I think there's a fascination about the concept of God and the meaning of life. Life after death is just one part of that picture.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 09:39 AM
Getting back to what blacbird said about T. rex, what difference does it make whether a carnivore is a predator or a scavenger (many are likely both).

Because predators are moral reprobates and scavengers are nice.


(Yes, I'm joking.)

JeanneTGC
01-29-2008, 11:03 AM
I went to a Catholic women's college (though I am not Catholic myself) and my first day of English Lit, the priest who was the teacher said that he believed in the Bible, in God, and in evolution and science, too. He said he felt that evolution and science showed God's greatness even more than the creation story, as it took a lot more skill to set evolution in motion than to just make people fully in one swoop, so to speak.

He was a great teacher.

NeuroFizz
01-29-2008, 11:27 AM
Pat, in response to your rep comment, here is a general (maybe oversimplified) explanation of why science and religion/faith don't belong in the same house.

Science is based on and built from empirically testable phenomena. Hypotheses are set up that can be tested using proper scientific technique and appropriate experimental controls, and the results are used to forumulate current theories about the world around us. Faith is thus rejected a priori as a variable in the formulation of any of these theories since it is not testable with scientific methods. And specifically, citing bible passages can't be used as a substitute for scientific testing. Ever.

Religion/Faith is more a province of philosophy (religious studies programs are affiliated or housed within philosophy departments at many universities), and serves humans by providing explanations for things that can't be empirically tested (this is not the only function of religion/faith, but the one that is appropriate here). And, while religions address matters that are covered by the broad umbrella of science, they do so in ways that are not amenable to that critical empirical testing. They are thus NOT scientific, and the beliefs that are represented are not part of science. This is not a bad thing, and that "rejection" is of natural order, not of subjugation.

Both science and religion/faith are invaluable in their own right (to many but not all humans), but they are not of the same house, and shouldn't be due to their unique constructs and differing purposes.

dpaterso
01-29-2008, 11:57 AM
Well sure, tho' some* believers believe that science will one day evolve to the point where it will become capable of proving what they've known is true all along. Science just isn't clever enough yet to connect all the dots.

* I won't say "many" and I wouldn't presume to say "all."

-Derek

small axe
01-29-2008, 01:28 PM
It's a silly cartoon.

Can I ask: Where in the Bible does it even mention "dinosaurs" ???

Some here seem to be taking umbrage over the Bible's statements concerning "dinosaurs" ... what verses are they even objecting to?


Science proves that man evolved through time from a lower life form.


'Proves' in what way?

Have experiments been conducted where lower life forms are evolved into Man in the scientific labs? Explain, please.

Is the theory that Man evolved from lower life forms able to be "falsified" to test these 'proofs' ??? Explain, please.

If it cannot be falsified, can it at least be verified?

Yes, there is variety and a variation in fossils, a change through time in fossil forms ... creatures that lived in the past do not live now (there have been asteroid extinctions, volcano extinctions, climate extinctionswe're told) ... but is that "proof" or merely logical deduction (lacking any other materialistic explanation, which is in itself merely materialistic assumption) ???

I wonder if


Science proves that man evolved through time from a lower life form.


is actually a proven statement of fact?

I mean ... I'd hate for a statement like "Faith proves ..." to go unchallenged.

But I wonder if some here could support their claim that

Science proves ...


And if they cannot support it as PROVEN (versus merely "assumed, deduced" etc) ... then for them it is "faith" ...

Religion both allows and respects statements of "faith" ...

Science may not appreciate its adherents speaking only from "faith" :rant:

But ... let's do ALL respect actual PROOF: show me some evidence where the Bible mentions "dinosaurs"

Or are the anti-religion folks reduced to debating cartoons now? :)

It's a funny cartoon, but it's neither valid Science or valid Religion.

Pat~
01-29-2008, 03:55 PM
Pat, in response to your rep comment, here is a general (maybe oversimplified) explanation of why science and religion/faith don't belong in the same house.

Science is based on and built from empirically testable phenomena. Hypotheses are set up that can be tested using proper scientific technique and appropriate experimental controls, and the results are used to forumulate current theories about the world around us. Faith is thus rejected a priori as a variable in the formulation of any of these theories since it is not testable with scientific methods. And specifically, citing bible passages can't be used as a substitute for scientific testing. Ever.

Religion/Faith is more a province of philosophy (religious studies programs are affiliated or housed within philosophy departments at many universities), and serves humans by providing explanations for things that can't be empirically tested (this is not the only function of religion/faith, but the one that is appropriate here). And, while religions address matters that are covered by the broad umbrella of science, they do so in ways that are not amenable to that critical empirical testing. They are thus NOT scientific, and the beliefs that are represented are not part of science. This is not a bad thing, and that "rejection" is of natural order, not of subjugation.

Both science and religion/faith are invaluable in their own right (to many but not all humans), but they are not of the same house, and shouldn't be due to their unique constructs and differing purposes.

Thanks for the explanation, NF. I think I agree with aspects of what you've said, in that the methodologies used in their study are different--but I'd note also that even science holds beliefs that involve a bit of faith in man's deduction of things (eg. the number of planets in our solar system), and newer discoveries rewrite the books. In other words, science is not always 'factual truth,' but only the truth as we are able to test and know thus far.

But I think what I was questioning earlier was more the second part of your statement:


Thanks, Pat. But all this just supports my contention that science and religion reside in different houses (designed for very different but separately legitimate purposes), and any attempt to make a connecting structure is bound to fall to pieces before it is even completed. This folly is underscored in the cartoon.

If both science and religion are attempting to explain the same issue, why should any attempt to make a connection be destined to fail? And why is it folly to expect otherwise? For me, I don't want to hold a belief just for the sake of having one; I hold a belief because I think it's valid and true. But if my attempts to reconcile the truths in my religious beliefs and my scientific beliefs are destined to fail, it would appear my truths are not supporting one another very well. For me at least, that would start to cause some doubt in one of those systems of beliefs.

Perks
01-29-2008, 06:52 PM
The first line of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs) is all it needs, but then it gets better.Not only is that clip funny, but it made me watch his other clips and now I'm hopelessly in love and am packing my things right now to go and be with him. Whether he wants me or not.

Thanks for wrecking a peaceful home, Paprikapink. May my children's therapy bills be on your head.

Shadow_Ferret
01-29-2008, 07:09 PM
Robert
I don't care what Robert believes. My 6th grader came home and told me the Earth is 8000 years old. Take it for what it's worth.

paprikapink
01-29-2008, 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by paprikapink
The first line of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs) is all it needs, but then it gets better.


Not only is that clip funny, but it made me watch his other clips and now I'm hopelessly in love and am packing my things right now to go and be with him. Whether he wants me or not.

Thanks for wrecking a peaceful home, Paprikapink. May my children's therapy bills be on your head.

Ah. My work here is done.

Robert Toy
01-29-2008, 07:30 PM
I don't care what Robert believes. My 6th grader came home and told me the Earth is 8000 years old. Take it for what it's worth.
Well, if your 6th grader says the Earth is 8,000 years old…who am I to argue? It HAS to be 8,000 years old.

Death Wizard
01-30-2008, 02:36 AM
Pat, in response to your rep comment, here is a general (maybe oversimplified) explanation of why science and religion/faith don't belong in the same house.

Science is based on and built from empirically testable phenomena. Hypotheses are set up that can be tested using proper scientific technique and appropriate experimental controls, and the results are used to forumulate current theories about the world around us. Faith is thus rejected a priori as a variable in the formulation of any of these theories since it is not testable with scientific methods. And specifically, citing bible passages can't be used as a substitute for scientific testing. Ever.

Religion/Faith is more a province of philosophy (religious studies programs are affiliated or housed within philosophy departments at many universities), and serves humans by providing explanations for things that can't be empirically tested (this is not the only function of religion/faith, but the one that is appropriate here). And, while religions address matters that are covered by the broad umbrella of science, they do so in ways that are not amenable to that critical empirical testing. They are thus NOT scientific, and the beliefs that are represented are not part of science. This is not a bad thing, and that "rejection" is of natural order, not of subjugation.

Both science and religion/faith are invaluable in their own right (to many but not all humans), but they are not of the same house, and shouldn't be due to their unique constructs and differing purposes.

Well said.

small axe
01-30-2008, 08:40 AM
Both science and religion/faith are invaluable in their own right (to many but not all humans), but they are not of the same house, and shouldn't be due to their unique constructs and differing purposes.

Would it be fair, then, to suggest that anyone who claims "science" as their basis to deny the validity of others' faith in "miracles" or rejects Scriptural eye-witness accounts a priori (for instance the Resurrected Jesus being seen by 500 witnesses, etc) -- (claims that can neither be proved or disproved scientifically) -- is applying "science" improperly and drawing an unsupported conclusion in ways that "science" itself must reject?

Because I hear such assumptions of faith claim "scientific" support too often:
Dead people don't rise from the dead -- They don't -- it's not "science" ...

The Loch Ness Monster is superstition -- There's no evidence -- it's not "science" ...

People who accept that UFO's may be alien spacecraft are cretins -- Aliens don't abduct people, abductees/witnesses are crazy -- it's not "science" ...

I suggest that jumping to those unsupported conclusions isn't Science.

Seeking the evidence for those things (ALL the possible forms of evidence) is "Science"

'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence' as the wise say.

Especially when absence of evidence is due to closed materialists' "scientific" minds refusing to look for the evidence.

Albedo
01-30-2008, 09:42 AM
small axe, edit your text a little:


Would it be fair, then, to suggest that anyone who claims "science" as their basis to doubt the validity of others' faith in "miracles" or discount Scriptural eye-witness accounts a priori (for instance the Resurrected Jesus being seen by 500 witnesses, etc) -- (claims that can neither be proved or disproved scientifically) -- is applying "science" improperly and drawing an unsupported conclusion in ways that "science" itself must reject?
then I don't think it's fair. Personally, this "scientific materialist" doesn't make any claims as to surety of the non-existence of Nessie, the Transubstantiation or a vast reptoid conspiracy, but at the same time I'll happily let my sense of skepticism and a good rounded scientific education come together to say "I doubt it", and not be cowed by the thought that some might consider that close-minded.

blacbird
01-30-2008, 09:54 AM
Some here seem to be taking umbrage over the Bible's statements concerning "dinosaurs" ... what verses are they even objecting to?

Axe,

Nobody's taking umbrage at anything in the Bible. People are being amused at a particular group of Creationists' interpretation of the Bible. Those are two quite different things.

caw

Joe270
01-30-2008, 10:15 AM
Quote:
Science proves that man evolved through time from a lower life form.

'Proves' in what way?

Have experiments been conducted where lower life forms are evolved into Man in the scientific labs? Explain, please.

Is the theory that Man evolved from lower life forms able to be "falsified" to test these 'proofs' ??? Explain, please.

If it cannot be falsified, can it at least be verified?

No, one cannot perform a lab test to duplicate a million years of evolution.

However, geneticists can and have mapped the human genome and can now state with no doubt that humans evolved from lesser beings to modern humans.

All the way down to the lowly yeast. We share some of the same genes.

It is proven scientific fact, not a theory.

Cassiopeia
01-30-2008, 10:38 AM
Not only is that clip funny, but it made me watch his other clips and now I'm hopelessly in love and am packing my things right now to go and be with him. Whether he wants me or not.

Thanks for wrecking a peaceful home, Paprikapink. May my children's therapy bills be on your head.Yeah well, you have to beat me to him!


This guy is fab! :D

small axe
01-30-2008, 11:17 AM
Nobody's taking umbrage at anything in the Bible. People are being amused at a particular group of Creationists' interpretation of the Bible. Those are two quite different things.

Well, I'm glad to hear it. I agree, it's one whacky cartoon.

But if not here (smart crowd here, as we all know; I didn't mean to imply otherwise) then too often elsewhere, I hear people make rude and hostile comments about the Christian Faith ... based on the ignorance and hypocrisy of so-called "Christians" who represent anything BUT the Teachings of Jesus and the Faith.

I've corrected critics before who attacked "the Bible" thinking it actually mentions Adam and Eve walking with dinosaurs. It doesn't.


No, one cannot perform a lab test to duplicate a million years of evolution.

However, geneticists can and have mapped the human genome and can now state with no doubt that humans evolved from lesser beings to modern humans.

All the way down to the lowly yeast. We share some of the same genes.

It is proven scientific fact, not a theory.

Aw well, different strokes for differing folks. ;)

I guess I'd just argue with the absolute certainty of the claim it's been 'PROVEN' scientifically.

Fossil and Genetic Evidence has been INTERPRETED. One of the strengths of Science is that it allows "interpretations" to change as new evidence arises.

When you say it has been 'proven' I guess to me it sounds like you're saying Science has ruled out the possibility of any new interpretations, or any new contradictory evidence.

And to me, that's a dangerous, dogmatic position Science cannot in principle or in practice allow.

But hey ... that's why we have quantum voodoo and Hindu maya ... even Reality needs its rabbit hole offramps to Wonderland. :D

http://www.tfo.net.ru/uploads2/2006_05_29_17_50_34_Alice_and_Blue_Caterpillar_by_ BlueBlack.jpg

blacbird
01-30-2008, 11:22 AM
When you say it has been 'proven' I guess to me it sounds like you're saying Science has ruled out the possibility of any new interpretations, or any new contradictory evidence.

Not. But scientific "proof" is based on the principle of "preponderance of evidence". If you want to propose a new interpretation, you need to come up with significant contradictory evidence. Your particular interpretation of Biblical scripture does not, in any sense, constitute contradictory evidence.

caw

Joe270
01-30-2008, 11:45 AM
Fossil and Genetic Evidence has been INTERPRETED.

Now you're changing the question after I answered it.

You asked specifically about human evolution from lesser forms, I answered you. The genetic proof is availible to you on the internet.

Some things are absolute facts and some are empirical facts. Evolution was a theory, which became an empirical fact and is now, because of gene research, an absolute fact.

Personally, I cannot understand why some Christians see evolution as a threat to their religion. It fits perfectly well in the whole picture to me.

'Because the bible tells me so' isn't an appropriate answer. The bible's writing, while containing the word of God, was, regrettably, outsourced to humans. Humans are rather prone to error. Then it was compiled by humans. Then it was edited by humans in a council where parts of it were thrown out. The Catholics kept some that the protestants did not keep.

Then the American fundamentalist preachers pound down the word of God in English, of course, not the original hebrew, greek, whatever. Little nuances are lost in translation, but by darn and damnation, they'll fight to the death over a single word in the bible.

When I sailed merchant ships as crew, often money would get tight as I waited on a ship. For extra money, I'd go into bars and pick a mark. After a few beers, I'd make note that Delilah did not cut Samson's hair. The word of God had been blasphemed, and the mark swore to do God's work. I'd bet a hundred. We'd shake, witnessed by the barkeep who held the funds while another would scurry to a nearby hotel for a Giddeon.

Hey, not the nicest bit in the books, but it kept me fed and in fleabag hotel rooms. The Lord helps those who help themselves.

Many of those railing about the 'theory' of evolution stike me as informed on the bible as those barflys.

small axe
01-30-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2012663#post2012663)
When you say it has been 'proven' I guess to me it sounds like you're saying Science has ruled out the possibility of any new interpretations, or any new contradictory evidence.



Not. But scientific "proof" is based on the principle of "preponderance of evidence". If you want to propose a new interpretation, you need to come up with significant contradictory evidence.

I was just allowing that 'it sounds to me' like I may have a different interpretation of when a thing is 'PROVED' rather than it's being merely the current accepted interpretation (but open to re-interpretation).

The 'preponderance of evidence' isn't final,it's just what we know for NOW.

An example: by your definition of proof, 'preponderance of evidence' Earth is the only planet where Life exists. (Unless you have evidence to the contrary?)

But that isn't 'PROVED' I'm sure you'd agree.

I don't need to provide 'contradictory evidence' that Earth is the only planet with Life ... to know that it hasn't been PROVED that Earth is the only planet with Life.

I can point out "there's not enough evidence to call a thing 'proved' ..."

I don't mean to argue, I just questioned someone's claim of 'PROOF' versus mere INTERPRETATION.

Now, I can only assume that a mathematical "proof" carries the kind of weight I'm thinking of as "proof" ... I'm assuming math isn't satisfied with mere "interpretations" that are subject to re-interpretation ("Maybe 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, after all" etc) ... but who knows?




Your particular interpretation of Biblical scripture does not, in any sense, constitute contradictory evidence.
caw


I doubt I've even offered any 'particular interpretation of Biblical scripture' here as 'evidence' :)

That doesn't prohibit me from challenging others' statements of "proof" though.

I ASKED people to state what Scripture verse mentions people living with Dinosaurs. No one replied.

I suggested no such Bible verse exists.

I agreed that was one silly CARTOON ... and that the cartoon doesn't reflect Scriptural verse.

small axe
01-30-2008, 12:42 PM
Fossil and Genetic Evidence has been INTERPRETED.


Now you're changing the question after I answered it.

I don't think I did, but if I did (how did I?) ... I didn't mean to.


You asked specifically about human evolution from lesser forms, I answered you. The genetic proof is availible to you on the internet.

Well, again (see previous post) I guess I'm just using a different understanding of "proof" than you may be using.

I'd say that your "EVIDENCE" is available on the internet, yes.

The evidence won't change, most likely (though the evidence might be shown to be misunderstood or in error?) ...

But I suggest that hypothetically the same EVIDENCE might still be used to arrive at a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.

Newton's "evidence" of Gravity is correct, I think ... but Einstein gave the same evidence a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.

Right?


Some things are absolute facts and some are empirical facts. Evolution was a theory, which became an empirical fact and is now, because of gene research, an absolute fact.

Genetic similarity between an amoeba and a human is evidenced.

How that similarity came to exist ... is an interpretation.

Facts don't change, interpretations can ... is all I'm saying. :Hug2:

Pat~
01-30-2008, 07:08 PM
Sigh. See what you started, William? (Here we go again.)

Small Axe...regarding dinosaurs and scripture--why are you fighting a battle that no one else is fighting?

Joe...regarding this:


Originally Posted by Joe270 http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2012599#post2012599)
No, one cannot perform a lab test to duplicate a million years of evolution.

However, geneticists can and have mapped the human genome and can now state with no doubt that humans evolved from lesser beings to modern humans.

All the way down to the lowly yeast. We share some of the same genes.

It is proven scientific fact, not a theory.


Just my lowly non-scientific opinion, but correlation has never proved causation. Darwinian evolution has never been 'proven.' What you've said is that it has been proven that we share some of the same gene structures, period. The why and how of that is man's deduction.

Joe270
01-30-2008, 07:59 PM
What you've said is that it has been proven that we share some of the same gene structures, period.

Sure, that's what I've said thus far, but your oversimplification will elicit a fuller response. It is not a simple sharing of gene structure.

Geneticists can map, down to relatively short periods of time, changes in that DNA to map a sequence of genetic (read: evolutionary) change. Absolute proof, not fodder for more theories.

I can get more details and research some links for everyone. I don't have a lot of time right now, but it might help to have a 'sticky' thread we can refer to in the future when one of these 'evolution is only a theory' threads show up.

Evolution is a science fact, period.

The only debate is why do some people think that evolution undermines the bible. It doesn't for me, and I attended a pentacostal bible college at one time.

Pat~
01-30-2008, 08:25 PM
Sure, that's what I've said thus far, but your oversimplification will elicit a fuller response. It is not a simple sharing of gene structure.

Geneticists can map, down to relatively short periods of time, changes in that DNA to map a sequence of genetic (read: evolutionary) change. Absolute proof, not fodder for more theories.

I can get more details and research some links for everyone. I don't have a lot of time right now, but it might help to have a 'sticky' thread we can refer to in the future when one of these 'evolution is only a theory' threads show up.

Evolution is a science fact, period.

The only debate is why do some people think that evolution undermines the bible. It doesn't for me, and I attended a pentacostal bible college at one time.

Joe, just so you know, I have no problem with evolutionary change, nor with reconciling it Biblically. In fact, I studied anthropology at Wheaton (a Bible college), and we studied the evolutionary changes of homosapiens. What I said is that Darwinian evolution has never been proven to be scientific fact. It has never been 'proven' that man evolved from, say, yeast (citing your example above). (In other words, that man evolved from an entirely different species.) It may have been shown that they share similar genetic structures, but that is a correlation. Scientists use correlations to formulate hypotheses and theories about why the correlation exists.

And I agree that a "sticky" thread would sure be handy. ;)

Cassiopeia
01-30-2008, 08:45 PM
For your consideration:


Evolution is fact and theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

Evolution: Fact or Fiction (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html)

Evolution, Science and Society: Controversy (http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/evolu_fact_theo.htm)

And that is just a sampling of the information on the topic at hand. It does not matter to me whether we evolved or were just created.

However, it's a good idea to establish the understanding that a theory is a hypothesis that is standing the test of time and the continual process knows as "proofs". That testing is essential to the establishment of truth and fact. A hypothesis that becomes a theory does NOT mean that it is now fact. It's more than a hypothesis but it still not a PROVEN fact.

NeuroFizz
01-30-2008, 09:14 PM
Evolutionary theory describes a PROCESS of change. No offense Pat, but when someone says it doesn't prove that man came from yeast (or even chimps) it just shows that person doesn't really understand what evolutionary theory is all about. This is the massive problem in this entire debate. The vast majority of the population of this country (U.S.) does not have a clue about the details of evolutionary theory and what it "says" and doesn't "say." Same about science in general--most people don't have a clue about how it works. But, it doesn't stop some of these people from trying to point out evolution's (or science's) shortcomings.

Pat~
01-30-2008, 09:18 PM
Evolutionary theory describes a PROCESS of change. No offense Pat, but when someone says it doesn't prove that man came from yeast (or even chimps) it just shows that person doesn't really understand what evolutionary theory is all about. This is the massive problem in this entire debate. The vast majority of the population of this country (U.S.) does not have a clue about the details of evolutionary theory and what is "says" and doesn't "say." Same about science in general--most people don't have a clue about how it works. But, it doesn't stop some of these people from trying to point out evolution's (or science's) shortcomings.

Well, NF, I thought that's what my posts were saying...that is 'evolution' means a process of change. The reference concerning man coming from yeast was given solely to illustrate Joe's contention in his post--be assured that I do not believe that is what evolutionary theory states.

davids
01-30-2008, 09:22 PM
I TOOK SOME EVOLUTION FOR MY CONSTIPATION-IT LIGHTENED THE LOAD-SORRY KIDS JUST TRYING TO LIGHTEN THE LOAD-BESIDES WHICH WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO THE TRUTH-BTHOOM!!!! I AM HOWEVER IMPRESSED BY PAT AND MR. FIZZ RUNNING NECK AND NECK-ALMOST LIKE THEY BE CHASED BY ONE OF THEM THERE DEYENOSORES-LOVE DAVE-ALRIGHT ALRIGHT DON'T GET ALL TWISTED I AM LEAVING!!!!

Pat~
01-30-2008, 09:34 PM
(I do think it mentioned something about davids being the missing link, though.)

:D

Cassiopeia
01-30-2008, 09:39 PM
I hope you guys will take the time to read the links I posted. To say that the Theory of Evolution is proven fact or just a theory is inaccurate on both accounts.

NeuroFizz
01-30-2008, 09:55 PM
Well, NF, I thought that's what my posts were saying...that is 'evolution' means a process of change. The reference concerning man coming from yeast was given solely to illustrate Joe's contention in his post--be assured that I do not believe that is what evolutionary theory states.
You are right, Pat. I should have said, "No offense to anyone..." and not singled you out on that one. Sorry. But, what I said about the topic still stands. And, for anyone who doesn't understand evolutionary theory and The Modern Synthesis (essentially the bridging between evolutionary theory and genetics via modern molecular biology), you are not alone. Too few people do and it is a shame. Part of that shame goes to the scientists (including me) who are not doing a very good job of conveying the important information to the public so they (the public) can make informed decisions on the matter.

paprikapink
01-30-2008, 10:21 PM
Part of that shame goes to the scientists (including me) who are not doing a very good job of conveying the important information to the public so they (the public) can make informed decisions on the matter.

Yeah. If someone could prove, once and for all, that I'm not made of stardust, I could finally decide whether to have another cup of coffee or meditate now. Meanwhile, I'm stuck here in clicking-New-Posts-again purgatory.

Pat~
01-30-2008, 10:29 PM
You are right, Pat. I should have said, "No offense to anyone..." and not singled you out on that one. Sorry. But, what I said about the topic still stands. And, for anyone who doesn't understand evolutionary theory and The Modern Synthesis (essentially the bridging between evolutionary theory and genetics via modern molecular biology), you are not alone. Too few people do and it is a shame. Part of that shame goes to the scientists (including me) who are not doing a very good job of conveying the important information to the public so they (the public) can make informed decisions on the matter.

No problem, NF. :) I'm sure there's much about the topic I could still catch up on...

*runs off to google The Modern Synthesis*

Plot Device
01-30-2008, 10:33 PM
you shouldn't be ashamed of your faith because of others' interpretation of it.

in my view, if one does believe in god (i'm not one of them), faith and science aren't incompatible.

no one can prove that god set the universe and even evolution in motion, but then no one can prove that he didn't. so as long as one is comfortable with a belief system that weaves together the measurable and the immeasurable, no harm is done.

anyone who believes what is presented is the cartoon, however, is just plain silly.


Wow. I used to think you were down on religion. But this post reveals a hitheroto less obvious warm and fuzzy side to you. :)


*terrified of being proven wrong*

Pat~
01-30-2008, 10:47 PM
I hope you guys will take the time to read the links I posted. To say that the Theory of Evolution is proven fact or just a theory is inaccurate on both accounts.

I did start to read the first one, Cass, but have to admit, gave up after reading this:


A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. ... When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

So now a 'fact' is something which is probably true...tell that to this guy...
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j240/pb10220/joefriday.jpg

davids
01-30-2008, 11:05 PM
WELL I AINT NO MISSIN STINK AT'S FOR SHORE-SNEAKS OUT WITH PAT CHASING AND CHASTIZIN'-OOHH PAT STOP-NO DON'T YET DO-NO DON'T-NOW MR. HASKINS CAN RUN BACK INTO HIS THREAD AND SWEAR AND ME OR US-OOH DON'T DO THAT-OOOH DON'T STOP-OOOHHHHHH!!!! SORRY-WELL NOT REALLY-I DON'T GIVE A SPUD EYE-LOVE DAVE

PS-NOW PAT I KNOW FOR A FACT YOU CANNOT HAVE COURAGE WITHOUT FEAR SO DOES IT FOLLOW THAT TO HAVE GREAT FAITH THERE COULD BE GREAT DOUBT-I KNOW I KNOW =DERAILMENT-WHERE IS A CHASTIFICATING MOD WHEN I NEED SOME CHASTIFICATIN'?

Joe270
01-30-2008, 11:11 PM
(I do think it mentioned something about davids being the missing link, though.)

I must agree with you there, Pat, or a complete and divergent evolutionary track.

Then again, perhaps he was created. That could make sense in the Lobstrosity's case as well.

davids
01-30-2008, 11:17 PM
THAT WOULD BE LOBSTEROSITY'S CASE YOUNG MAN-ONE IS EITHER A LOBSTROSITY OR ONE POSSESIVE-AT TIMES A COMBINATION OF BOTH UNFORTUNATELY! ATTROCIDEA AS VERDI'S OTTELO SANG-HEY MAYBE VERDI IS THE MISSING STI-ER LINK? THEN AGAIN HE WAS ONE OF GOD'S GREATEST CREATIONS-SHOOT THERE GOES ME ATHIOTICNESS AGAIN RIGHT DOWN THE DAMNED TUBE--I KNOW I KNOW GREAT ART IS A CHEMICAL ABERRATION IN THE BRAIN AS IS GREAT LOVE AND THOUGHT AND KINDENSS AND GENEROSITY AND FORGIVNESS AND IT IS ALL SOCIOLOGICEYELY PROGRAMMED I KNOW I KNOW---OUT AGAIN SORRY KIDS-JOE AND PAT AS WELL!

Pat~
01-30-2008, 11:20 PM
WELL I AINT NO MISSIN STINK AT'S FOR SHORE-SNEAKS OUT WITH PAT CHASING AND CHASTIZIN'-OOHH PAT STOP-NO DON'T YET DO-NO DON'T-NOW MR. HASKINS CAN RUN BACK INTO HIS THREAD AND SWEAR AND ME OR US-OOH DON'T DO THAT-OOOH DON'T STOP-OOOHHHHHH!!!! SORRY-WELL NOT REALLY-I DON'T GIVE A SPUD EYE-LOVE DAVE

PS-NOW PAT I KNOW FOR A FACT YOU CANNOT HAVE COURAGE WITHOUT FEAR SO DOES IT FOLLOW THAT TO HAVE GREAT FAITH THERE COULD BE GREAT DOUBT-I KNOW I KNOW =DERAILMENT-WHERE IS A CHASTIFICATING MOD WHEN I NEED SOME CHASTIFICATIN'?

:rolleyes:

Well, Dave, that's an interesting analogy. Personally, I think courage isn't the absence of fear, but the drive to do something that is stronger than that fear. I think we've similarly all experienced doubt, but I guess "great faith" is where your faith is much more deeply rooted than that doubt. Generally, great faith is not just something you elect to have--it's something that grows deep roots over time. For example, I have great faith that this chair I'm sitting in will hold me up, because in over 50 years, I've never had one collapse under me.

ETA: I do think that there's countless people down through the ages who have had great doubt, and a seed of faith germinated and grew into what we would call great faith. Look at C.S. Lewis, for one.

Joe270
01-30-2008, 11:40 PM
THAT WOULD BE LOBSTEROSITY'S CASE YOUNG MAN-ONE IS EITHER A LOBSTROSITY OR ONE POSSESIVE-AT TIMES A COMBINATION OF BOTH UNFORTUNATELY!

Sorry, I should have said, 'Mr. Lobstrosity'. Please accept my sincerest appologies.

Cassiopeia
01-30-2008, 11:56 PM
I did start to read the first one, Cass, but have to admit, gave up after reading this:LOL...but the thing is...people want to think of Evolution as only man evolving from Apes or Chimps. When it means a multitude of things. So when people talk about Darwin and his theories, it's a good idea to remember they aren't fact...they are hypothesis' that have come far enough to be a theory that is still being worked on. There is no "proof" that makes it fact.

Much of life is like that isn't it? All about theory and perspective and what not?

;)

I know for a fact though, that I NEED to finish getting ready for an appointment and stop goofing around on AW. :D

jessicaorr
01-31-2008, 12:25 AM
Wow. Just, wow.

small axe
01-31-2008, 04:28 AM
Small Axe...regarding dinosaurs and scripture--why are you fighting a battle that no one else is fighting?


Because I'm not 'fighting' :) ...

I am reiterating (and yes, I know the definition) the point that Creationists may not be making claims supported by the Bible.

That anyone who makes fun of the certain cultural aspects of stereotypical "Creationists" (oh, they dress funny, have funny hair, didn't graduate from third grade, marry their cousins ... silly bigoted stereotypes and nonsense like that) ... is not only practicing something just short of what the racists used to practice against African Americans ... but is also NOT honestly or intelligently representing what SCRIPTURE actually states, or suggests.

Scripture, by the way, is allowed to "suggest" ... everything isn't stated and carved in stone. :)

The parts that were carved in Stone were ... y'know ... carved in stone!

But I ain' fighting.

The thread began with a Cartoon, not Scripture.

I don't feel the need to 'fight' about a silly cartoon.

Silver King
01-31-2008, 04:55 AM
The way this thread is heading reminds of why I no longer share my strongest held beliefs. I don't have the energy anymore, nor the inclination, to try to change anyone's mind. Too often, it becomes a study of spitting in the wind to see how many words will blow back in our faces.

I like to listen, though, and appreciate the subjects which move us the most.

davids
01-31-2008, 05:07 AM
:rolleyes:

Well, Dave, that's an interesting analogy. Personally, I think courage isn't the absence of fear, but the drive to do something that is stronger than that fear. I think we've similarly all experienced doubt, but I guess "great faith" is where your faith is much more deeply rooted than that doubt. Generally, great faith is not just something you elect to have--it's something that grows deep roots over time. For example, I have great faith that this chair I'm sitting in will hold me up, because in over 50 years, I've never had one collapse under me.

ETA: I do think that there's countless people down through the ages who have had great doubt, and a seed of faith germinated and grew into what we would call great faith. Look at C.S. Lewis, for one.

HEY PATSTER BACK AGAIN-I SAID YOU CANNOT HAVE COURAGE WITHOUT FEAR-NOT THAT THERE IS NO FEAR FOR IF THERE IS NONE THERE IS NO COURAGE MY OPENONION-AND JOE-THE APOLOGY ACCEPTED ALTHOUGH NONE NEEDED-I MEAN HOW CAN A FELLA IN NEVADA UNDERSTAND LOBSTERIAN RIGHT?

OH AND C.S? WHAT ABOUT OLD MALCOM MUGGERIDGE THE GREAT BRITISH ATHEIST WHO FOUND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LATE IN LIFE AND BEHAVED AS A NON SMOKER IN A CIGAR STORE-LOVE DAVE

Pat~
01-31-2008, 05:15 AM
I didn't make that post very clear, davids...sorry. :) I was agreeing with you about the courage/fear thing.

Oh, and how about John Newton, too?

Pat~
01-31-2008, 05:30 AM
The way this thread is heading reminds of why I no longer share my strongest held beliefs. I don't have the energy anymore, nor the inclination, to try to change anyone's mind. Too often, it becomes a study of spitting in the wind to see how many words will blow back in our faces.

I like to listen, though, and appreciate the subjects which move us the most.

Well now you're just being a tease.

How about sharing what you believe just to let people get to know you better? (People don't change other people's minds, anyway.) ;)

SpookyWriter
01-31-2008, 05:32 AM
People don't change other people's minds, anyway. ;)I'd like some people to change my diaper once in a while. :rant:

Cassiopeia
01-31-2008, 05:41 AM
I'd like some people to change my diaper once in a while. :rant: I tried but you didn't like the way I did it. :(

SpookyWriter
01-31-2008, 05:44 AM
I tried but you didn't like the way I did it. :(That's because you had it backward. :flag: And you forgot to powder me up proper.

Cassiopeia
01-31-2008, 05:51 AM
That's because you had it backward. :flag: And you forgot to powder me up proper.OH! Is that what I did wrong?

;)

davids
01-31-2008, 06:03 AM
I didn't make that post very clear, davids...sorry. :) I was agreeing with you about the courage/fear thing.

Oh, and how about John Newton, too?

YUP!!

ErylRavenwell
01-31-2008, 06:06 AM
Science is based on and built from empirically testable phenomena. Hypotheses are set up that can be tested using proper scientific technique and appropriate experimental controls, and the results are used to forumulate current theories about the world around us. Faith is thus rejected a priori as a variable in the formulation of any of these theories since it is not testable with scientific methods. And specifically, citing bible passages can't be used as a substitute for scientific testing. Ever.



Not taking any side. I'm assuming a neutral stance.

Science also demands a certain degree of faith. I understood that when I started Discrete Maths as part of my Engineering course. Mathematics is axiomatic to start with, and many laws do break down outside a certain boundary; and even within the limits where the laws apply, when tested there are always deviations to be reckoned with.

Kerr
01-31-2008, 08:00 AM
I find that I am constantly irritated when I hear that scientists have yet to prove or disprove some insanely simple thing like how icebergs carved out the great lakes, etc. Well, at least it takes quite a few of them running the same tests and coming up with similar answers to decide on facts. Of course, then there comes the possibility that someone else may come along with a better test that blows their theories all to hell. Granted, we can never get the iceberg to go back where it started from and make its movement all over again. But scientifically proven fact is 9 out 10 times something that is already known to anyone choosing to sit and ponder that particular thing.

God? None of us will know the answers to that question while we are alive. I mean, really! The only way we have gained knowledge of the human anatomy was to take humans apart. But those people were dead! And they have dissected the world down even smaller that the atom, and they're gaining knowledge of the universe every day. But none of this will tell them how the first bang came about, or if there is really a force that keeps it all dancing together in perfect time--unless they can figure out how to unravel it. But then, who will there be to have the answers at that point?

Religion? Well that's just a whole nuther ball game. That's just one nutcase with a big mouth telling their interpretation of God. Most religions sprang up out of an individual's need to get something his religion wasn't offering, like a second wife (the Mormons,) etc. And none of this has a thing to do with science or God, but if it's around long enough and can pretend to dig up ancient records, people are certain to follow if it suits that individual, or if they can force it down their children's throats and make them believe by the time they are adults that it was always there.

billythrilly7th
01-31-2008, 08:54 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWmanMadeMonsters.gif

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/24/attention-to-word-meaning

When I was young, I heard the same story about the Sleestacks.

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/sleestack.jpg

SpookyWriter
01-31-2008, 08:57 AM
When I was young, I heard the same story about the Sleestacks.

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/sleestack.jpgThey evolved.

http://www.urban-resources.net/covers/cover_0371_B.jpg

Cassiopeia
01-31-2008, 09:59 AM
When I was young...



... I never needed anyone..and making love was just for ...


*stops*

What?

Spooky! Where'd you go? We were singing!