Evolution Vs Creation

[Mother Duck]

Hello All

Would love to open this little can of worms (mainly bc I love the diversity let alone sheer intelligence of my fellow hub-bubbers)

Just a little note before we begin - ALL WELCOME

Now then, I believe that 'God' (a far superior being with purpose and plan - the 'alpha' and the 'omega') created us and all that lies within the universe.

I believe that he/she did so with a view for change knowing that this 'universal' system was dynamic (ever-changing)

In various degrees throughout my life I have been and still am both a 'christian' (for want of a better term) and a geologist (for want of a better term!)

So, in summary - I believe that we were created to evolve - can't wait to hear what you believe.

LOL

[Ana Gram]

Personally I believe in evolution not creation.

[Mother Duck]

Fair enough ... tell me more ie reasons etc.

[Ana Gram]

I don't believe there is a god.

[SixtiesChild]

Hello Jessie,

To be honest, I have never had any choice in the matter, because I was taught evolution right throughout school as it appeared right in all the textbooks, encyclopaedias, documentaries etc…..
The THEORY of evolution was forced upon me.
As a result along with many of my classmates, I swallowed this theory without even questioning it …..and as a result of not questioning it, couldn’t even begin to understand the remote possibility of there being a Creator.
As a result of not understanding, I felt myself slowly growing from agnostic into atheism.
But I am glad that I simply decided to honestly question its authenticity because it was the beginning of realizing that if there is a God then I’d like to know about it.
I understand that not everyone does want to know for various reasons.
And now I have come to understand that if there is a God then there could only be one- otherwise He/She is not God.
I really believe that if you embark on a search for the one and true God with an open heart, you’ll find exactly what you’re looking for.

Evolution simply doesn't hold up upon closer inspection as many scientists are beginning to admit.
Even Charles Darwin didn't fully support his own theory and no one has ever proven it. It has no place in textbooks to be presented as fact when it is not.
I definitely believe in creation and that it contains countless amazing variations.

[Seekrit]

This is one of the biggest reasons that I am agnostic.

I cannot believe in creation. It's just not something that I see can happen. (I know I know.. God can do anything, yada yada yada)
There's strong proof that there were neanderthal, and yet the bible doesn't recognise this. (I don't think so, anyway)
I guess they don't REALLY go into Adam and Eve's appearance, really but it's just my interpretation - and I probably get that interpretation from watching seasonal cartoons.

[MonMic]

I have to say I lean more towards evolution because it makes more sense to me, as I am more of a scientific person.

The entire universe is constantly evolving and recycling so the idea that you are created by an entity and you only have 1 life does not correlate with everything else I see around me.

As science says there is no destruction of energy it simply changes form.

After saying that I also like the sound of a new theory going around (the minister for education was talking about it recently) I can't remember what it is called exactly something like Intelligent Creation, where it kind of combines the two theories and says that we evolved but at some points we were accelerated in our development by an outside force.

Some people choose to see this force as 'God' although I am not so sure.

M.

[Tea Lady]

I think that new theory is called "intelligent design".

In my state high school I was taught by a (non-christian) biology teacher that the theory of evolution is now doubted by alot of (non-christian) scientists.

I think it's important to remember that scientific theories change over time (eg flat earth was considered fact) and we certainly don't know everything yet.

L

[Mother Duck]

Hi Guys - Thanks for the responses, Nadia what a beautiful explanantion.

So does it have to be 'God' that created us?

If we did just evolve - what was the initiator? The big bang???

Tell me more.

[Supermum]

There are so many reasons for my opinion. I didn’t just decide one day to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. I have researched both sides of the argument at length and for me, the holes in the creationist theory are too many for it to be sensical.

Say there was a God.

OK … in the beginning the earth was without form and void. So God really did start his work on a blank canvass. In six days, he created heaven and the earth, the oceans, the mountains … every single plant and animal in our carbon-based world. If the Earth is only 6 thousand years old as many creationists claim (can't be proven), then evolution cannot be true. Scientists have reliable ways of estimating the age of the earth and it is estimated at 4.55 billion years old give or take a percent (can be proven). So all of this happened 4½ billion years ago? Who scribed to ensure history was correctly reported? And if there is a God, which one is he? Why would there be so many variations if there is only one?

And why would he create an imperfect being?

Why create a being capable of destroying themselves and the earth on which we live, which he created?

Why condone incest when we all know it degrades the gene pool? (referring to Cain finding a wife when the only people on the earth at the time were Adam and Eve and their children … Cain must have married his sister – Moses apparently changed the laws some 2500 years later)

Why create a being with the intelligence to question or disprove his existence?

Let’s consider Noah and his Ark for a moment (simply because God created ALL living things and Noah was responsible for hauling them onto his boat before the flood). Here's the scenario:

God told Noah to construct an Ark. It was to be made of gopherwood (not prime ship building material), 300 cubits (feet) long, three decks high, entrance on the side in the middle. He was to load a male and female of all living creatures. Now we are talking about the beginning of our time here and God created ALL living animals so we need to consider 240 species of herbivorous dinosaurs alone, microorganisms, mammals, reptiles, birds, insects etc. At the time of Noah, science has also proven about 5 million different species of beetle and countless hermaphrodidic and parthenogenic animals. He would have had to feed them all which is fine and dandy if you are a herbivore but what about the carnivores? Hide the sheep!!! Oh and Noah, take a big shovel because what goes in has to come out!!!

This is purely for illustration of how many animals we can prove existed back then and how nonsensical it is to believe that they all fitted into one 300 foot boat. To me, the story of Noah is just a story, and certainly not one I would take literally. I feel the Bible is a collection of stories, written by different authors with the same beliefs, illustrated with some clever metaphors. And Genesis is just another metaphorically smattered story.

Whilst Darwin's theory is just that, a theory, carbon dating fossils proves the existence of dinosaurs and creatures long gone. None of the human remains ever found pre-date our prehistoric creatures. Did God create Adam and Eve in the form of incredibly hirsute primates? Why do we share genes with chimps - did God do that on purpose?

[alicesmum]

oh Deb. You are so articulate and passionate in everything I have ever read by you. I'll definitely have to meet you one day, since you only live around the corner from me!!

I went to catholic schools from Yr 1-12. We were taught that Noah's arc was a story, a metaphor. Also taught that Adam and Eve was a story with a message. We were taught not to take either story literally. I think the Adam and Eve story is fantastic if you "get it" - which I didn't until I read a book by Ken Wilber called "No Boundary" where he says these characters represent our original nature - connected to all, not perceiving boundaries that make them feel seperate from everything else. but then, ego gets involved, and everything goes to $**t!! :) hehehe

i just found this:

"Perhaps Adam was the "first man" not becasue he was created ab nihilo, but because he was the first man in whom we recognize our own heavily linguistic consciousness. (I do not think consciousness is only linguistic, and agree with Nabokov that we "give too much verbal body to thought" but language powerfully influences our consciousness at many levels and in many ways.)

Adam would thus be the "first man" in the same way that, say, Don Quixote is often considered the "first novel." There were previous book-length narratives, but DQ has qualities that set it apart from earlier tales, and together with modern novels."

Anyway, I don't know if other churches teach that these bible stories are myths with great teachings within them (though not sure about the deeper meaning behind Noah's arc...??? it seems like rather a cruel story to kill everyone except one man and his family in a great flood!!), but that's what we got, at a Catholic school no less!!!!

We also got taught, as someone else was saying on another thread, not to worry that all non-christians were going to hell - which is good when you remind yourself that over 4 billion people on this planet are non-christian. it'd be a very crowded place otherwise!!!!


In terms of my beliefs, I don't have any!!!! I practise Buddhism but still take lots from Chritianity. I will bring up my children with both sets of teachings. when it comes to questions/beliefs like 'who created the earth', 'how long ago', w'hy are we here', 'what happens when we die', I will say "I just don't know" because that is the truth. How can our little brains "know" these things, especially in a way that is done any justice by the limitations of language. That's what I personally like about Buddhism. There are no "beliefs" as such, though many "believe" in reincarnation/rebirth, you don't have to, and I don't.

Before I go wash the dishes, I have always loved this parable of the poisoned arrow, so wanted to share it in case anyone else finds it helpful too:

"When asked whether God existed, who created the earth, how long ago, etc., the Buddha usually responded with complete silence. But on one occasion, he responded with a story of a man shot with a poisoned arrow:

When the doctor arrived to remove the arrow, the man grabbed the doctor's hand and asked:
"Before you start treating me, Doctor, tell me, who was it that shot me? Was he of warrior? Was he tall or was he short? Was he young or was he old? Was he dark skinned or light skinned? From which direction did he shoot me?"
The doctor ignored the questions and removed the arrow. Had he taken the time to answer the questions, the patient would have died.
"For this reason," said the Buddha, "I will not answer your philosophical questions. If I did, you would just spend your time in endless speculation, and never awaken from your current state."

Have a good day everyone :p

[Mother Duck]

Ah Deb - I love reading your posts.

The points that you have made are clinchers indeed, particularly the incest part.

Which poses another question - is the biblical description of time wrt creation etc to be taken literally or not?

Hmmmm

Love the Noah description! Poor old bugger what a calamity!

And Alicesmum - groovy reading indeed.

PS - I still love a good rainbow!

[Supermum]

It's all a bit too esoteric for me.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

The fact that any religion is open to personal interpretation screams inconsistency.

I'm a practical girl. I've said it before though, am happy to be disproven but I want cold hard facts, I want something concrete, I want something I can believe in. Not an interpretation, or opinion. Proof. Parables and metaphors don't cut the mustard.

I believe in people being considerate of each other and the earth (man she cops a beating). I personally don't need to turn to an external force to make sense of my world.

Religion is a bit like mathematics for me - if I try and think about it too long and hard it hurts my head .....

[Jaileth]

I was raised a Christian by my Mum (Dad couldn't care less, really - he was a jockey, so his religion is the horses), but changed due to the pressure of some friends to Wiccan for a while. Due to all this, I am now an athesist - if that's the right word for someone who isn't in a main stream religion.

I have two theriores. That the world evolved - big bang or something similar - and that the creatures on it slowly evolved, and that 'God' or an outside force is the 'missing link' between ape and man.

Although some times I wonder if its ape and man or pig and man seeing we share so many genes with pigs. But any way

The second one is that we were created - like when a child does a science experiment (ie Lisa and her mini people on the Simpsons) - and that the creator made us, watched us for a while, and then either got bored or so disgusted that they just decided to walk away and leave us to it.

Those are my thoughts anyway. We'll probably find that really, our world is just a marble in some oversized creatures toy bag :D

[alicesmum]

Wow. It just dawned on me that this forum has got way too deep since this section was created!!! :)

Deb, I agree with you about it being esoteric. It is. I was trying (badly!) to point out that many Christians (well, none who I know) don't take the creation story 100% literally......or do they????? :confused:

Shaelia - i like the marble theory!!!!!

[Jaileth]

lol - men in black stole it from me!!! We used to have some serious debates about this when I was in High School and that's when I discovered my marble theory - I blurted it out during one debate and everyone went quiet, and then cracked up. It was really funny. :p

[rainbow]

As for me, I agree with Jessie's original post.

I also wholeheartedly agree with the following.

I really believe that if you embark on a search for the one and true God with an open heart, you’ll find exactly what you’re looking for.
As for carbon dating etc, I can't see how the accuracy of these tests can possibly be "proven" since they are fairly new tests and to really prove them we would have to run the experiment over all those thousands or millions of years in order to see that the technique was accurate. Seems to me that it's no more than an educated guess. "Proof" is a strong word.

As for incest and the gene pool in terms of early Genesis - since we are talking about something from the bible I am going to discuss it with things that are also from the bible - creation was in top shape to begin with (you may notice that when God changes something it's then written "And God saw that it was good.") but people rejected God's god-ship (IYKWIM) and tried to share God's role. This ruined the design because that wasn't the way things were meant to be. Once the design was flawed, the flaws generated more flaws and the process is still continuing today (it's known as the Fall). From what I can tell... in the early days since the Fall the design was only mucked up a bit whereas now it's mucked up a lot. Incest became a problem when the Fall messed up our gene pool. In those early days I reckon it wasn't an issue but it's clear that it did become an issue later and I feel that we should see it as an issue in current times.

As for why God created us to be able to mess up like that - who knows the mind of God that they can answer? It's still a bit of a mystery to me however it makes it easier to understand when I consider the fact that when someone chooses to love you (having the full ability to choose not to love you) it's really special but when they are forced to love you (like a robot) it's pretty dull. I feel that God is totally worthy of heaps of praise and so I'm glad that he can enjoy the praise he gets knowing that it's genuine and not forced.

[Ana Gram]

The way you can't believe scientific carbon dating rainbow, is how a lot of us feel about god. For us it is something that can be seen and studied, where as to us god is nowhere and never seen.

Also when you are answering a disbelief of (for lack of a better word) a non-believer, could you please try and do it with out explaining it with something else from the bible? Not trying to be rude but one of the main problems a lot of people have with the bible is that it doesn't make sense to us and neither do peoples explainations of it.

[rainbow]

The way you can't believe scientific carbon dating rainbow, is how a lot of us feel about god.I can totally understand that. In both cases we are talking about things that can't be 100% proven. In both cases we are talking about things where in the end you have to make up your own mind.


to us god is nowhere and never seen.Personally, that's something I love about the God I believe in - he has gone to great lengths to make himself known.


Also when you are answering a disbelief of (for lack of a better word) a non-believer, could you please try and do it with out explaining it with something else from the bible?Thank you Chelle - I will try to keep your advice in mind in future... however in this instance I was responding to things Deb said that were based on the bible to begin with. It would be hard to discuss the bible without mentioning the bible.

[Ana Gram]

I understand that rainbow but I still didn't get the answer as the bible is complete gobbledy-gook to me.

[xkwzit]

I believe in creation and one of the reasons is that I like the thought of the world being a deliberate, planned design rather than a series of random mutations. The more I learn about how complex our bodies are (for example the beauty of DNA molecules or the complexity of the human genome) the less I believe that we could be here as the results of several million fortuitous accidents.

I believe man was created in God's image and maybe this is why we have free will (and hence the ability to royally screw up :D ).

I wonder why ice floats? If it didn't, life on our world as we know it would not be possible and yet, what other material is LESS dense in the solid form - why is water different? Because it was made that way perhaps?

This has been fun - cheers

[Ffrenchknickers]

Yup i know what you mean.

There are just too many amazing things in the world too not have a creator. Especially when you take into consideration our feelings. They are not there for no reason.

Evolution is just a theory and one that has changed many times. I believe in Creation obviously becasue I believe in God and the bible but also becasue it has always been the same. The creation story has never changed and God has never changed (and never will)...only peoples interpretations.

[rainbow]

I understand that rainbow but I still didn't get the answer as the bible is complete gobbledy-gook to me.Chelle... I just wanted to come back to let you know I'm not ignoring you.
I'm going to say something in friendly response to what you said so I hope you do not think that I am preaching to you or anything of that sort.
The bible is an unusual text and reading it can be as challenging as it is exciting. It comes across as gobbledy-gook to many people (just for the record - I do not consider myself any better than others because I think I can understand bits of it - it's my belief that God has opened my heart to understand it and there is still soooo much I don't understand).
Since it looks like it bothers you that some explanations don't make sense, I want to offer to try to clear up anything that didn't make sense if you let me know what bits didn't make sense. This offer I make in friendship to you - take it or leave it, it doesn't bother me. Hope you get where I'm coming from.

[j&k'smum]

I am going to be brave and say I have no idea how the heck we got here and how we were created. From what I have read, alot of you have alot of knowledge on the theories, but not this little black duck. I get confused with what to beleive with religion never mind how we all got here.
I think more so it was evolution...but then I really don't know. It completely baffles the crap out of me. :confused:

[SixtiesChild]

Jessie,

As far as I understand the bible “The Big Bang” was initiated by God’s words. As ridiculous as that may seem to some, I believe that science really does support the bible. Untainted science that is!
I do believe that science unfortunately has become polluted by the evolution theory. I feel that many people are getting science mixed up with evolution because of the way it’s presented as fact and not theory. So it has become difficult to separate the two for some.
Before the theory of evolution was fed to the world people generally were more believing in God and the bible. And generally people had more respect for each other. All that changed after the evolution theory kicked in and people became colder and indiffernet towards each other.
Science exists and operates very well outside of evolution. We don’t have to include evolution into science in order to understand it or to make progress.
Actually, I think that without it science would become clearer and more truth would be revealed. More of God would be revealed.

The God that I write about is an entity so massive and complex that the human mind could not possibly comprehend fully. So I, in my limited capacity as a human can only give small bits of information on this thread that I have been able to piece together over the years. There is so much I could say but I do not wish to turn this into preaching, just sharing a few of the things I have discovered over the years from putting my trust in the living God.
Getting to know the God of the bible is a long journey that cannot be hurried, some call it their walk with God, some call it something else, whilst many do not understand.
I can understand why anyone might say that they cannot believe in something that one cannot see with their eyes. That is a perfectly understandable and logical comment though God works outside of our logic as well as in it.
God cannot be seen because He/She is spirit and is not confined to a body, time or a place.
God is much bigger than what people think of Him/Her. (All of creation, throughout all time included)
The bible gives some history but not all of it, that is why it is so inconsistent to those who don’t believe. But there are other little known writings that can be accurately cross referenced with the bible. One that springs to mind is called “The Book of Jasher” and it is mentioned in the bible (Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18) It can be accessed on the internet and offers greater detail of the old testament. Even that won’t cover it all as there are many more that can be read, if you are lucky enough to find them.
The bible is not intended to be read from cover to cover like a book and the best place to start would be in the gospels as God's character is expressed through Jesus Christ.

[pegasus]

Let's just consider the Human Factor. Whether evolutionist or creationist the human factor is a huge contributor...will let you ponder on my beliefs

[Mother Duck]

science ........it’s presented as fact and not theory.

...generally people had more respect for each other. All that changed after the evolution theory kicked in and people became colder and indiffernet towards each other.


I see in your post a respect for science and that you are not bagging it just the way that it is presented. I could'nt aggree more with the point about it being presented as fact and not theory.

I laugh when you hear on the news or in conversation "Scientist's say blah" what scientist? how do they know this etc. People are daft if they just believe a theory. For every science there may be an equal and opposite science - pardon my cheek Mr Newton!

Anyway the other point though about people being warmer to each other, I can't see that personally - as far as history shows we have had incredible injustice and cruelty since the dawn. To me Medieval times seem the most brutal but that could be just interpretation. Who knows

Pegasus - sorry - I don't get it - tell me more

[rainbow]

I reckon some of the "science" that's floating around involves a lot of blind faith... kind of ironic.

[pegasus]

It's funny how I looked back on my post and I must have been really night owling last night - I didn't even remember posting it...What was I doing at 12.30in the morning - I should've been in bed.

Anyway, the gist of it is that some people continue to evolve due to "the human factor" - it's a term I learnt in high school English Lit where it's to do with the fact that you can try to predict events, define things, or make sense of things logically, but the fact that we're dealing with humans and not computers here means that there will always be unpredictability about situations.

So whether we believe in creation or evolution, things are continuing to evolve today because as humans we have a natural drive to control our environment - sorry, starting to get a bit philosophical here, but that's something I deal with as a therapist.

I was raised a christian and to the most of the fact, I believe in creation as the big bang theory doesn't work for me in terms of why we do what we do etc. I feel like there's too many intricacies in the way our brains work, but there are definitely ways that we have evolved in documented history.

Hope that makes it clearer Jessie - basically just that because we're human you can never be sure of how exactly we're going to act...so I find it hard to believe that science can completely explain the same things about us that they can explain about dinosaurs etc - there's too many variables.

[cosmic]

Maybe evolution was created... :rolleyes:

[SixtiesChild]

Yes Jessie,

I think you are right about the cruelty since the dawn of time. That is fact. The human heart has the potential to be very cruel and selfish. That potential exists in everyone.

Allow me to clarify though, when it comes to evolutionism what I meant about people being cold and indifferent towards each other:

With the theory of evolution, it strongly portrays people as mere organic matter and the human spirit gets no mention and so it devalues them in an unspoken but powerful way.
So for those who believe this, there is the basis for viewing other people as mere relatives of monkeys or at best - glorified monkeys called humans.
This theory doesn’t flow with the human heart because if it did people would never have brought up the idea of God in the first place.

In contrast creationism suggests that there is the possibility of life beyond the grave and so has much more space for the human heart to connect with other people and ideas that flow from the initial concept.
I have lived on both sides of the belief spectrum as a sceptic and I really feel that with the Creation theory there is more potential for the human heart to open up to other people.
Creation embraces eternity, the human spirit and all of its potential.
Evolution embraces monkeys!

[meshan]

Can I ask why does beliving and Evolution and believing in God have to be mutally exclusive? I believe evolution was how God decided the world should work - What's wrong with that.

I believe the story of Adam and Eve is the way God explanined creation to us in the same way we simplify the facts of lift to a small child. We are just not ready to understand the facts so we get a very simplified version.

[Mother Duck]

Hi Meshan

Nothing wrong with that from where I sit - what you are saying sounds fairly similar (I think) to what I have been saying.

[pegasus]

Yay Meshan and Jessie

You found a way to say what I was trying to say, but got lost in too many words. :p

[Angel_baby_1982]

I prefer to believe in evolution, there's too much in the bible that just dosen't make logical sence, like if you wanted to wipe the earth clean of all organisms why send a flood? That just wipes out all land organisms, so what about the sea-going ones? If all people came from 1 origional man (Adam) our gene pool would be severely limited, it dosen't explain how caucasian, asian and negro human beings assumed their current differences or even how they got to the countries where they lived for thousands of years before jesus apparently existed!

Just nonsence childrens stories to me, and its those inconsistancies that for me make the bible impossible to take seriously. The theory of evolution IS flawed, just like all science there is always room for improvement, we are only human, it takes time to develop an understanding of all that exists around us, but I ithink evolution explains a heck of a lot more than the bible!

[pegasus]

I'm probably not the best person to interpret the bible, but in response to some of your queries angelbaby1982, the flood wasn't to rid all creatures - hence the ark and two by two.

The stories about the tower of Babel accounts for a lot of the racial differences. The answer about people living all over the world goes to scientific reasoning - see Pangea - all of the continents used to be one. The theory of Pangea supports both the creation theories and the evolution ones - which supports what Meshan and I've been saying that the two theories can coexist :)

[Angel_baby_1982]

I appreciate that some people can interpret it that way but not me! To each their own!

[pegasus]

Fair call - we're here to support each other and have healthy debate - no one's ever going to know who's right or wrong for certain (maybe when we die - but who knows? :p )

[JohnC]

To pose the question as "evolution vs creation" is to fundamentally misunderstand the natures of both science and religion. Science deals with the material world - its structure, workings and development - while religion grapples with metaphysics and morality - the reasons for existence and our place in that existence. Science tells us what, religion asks why. Science constructs theories, religion commands belief. The two should not - cannot - trespass on each other's turf. Their cognitive realms are incommensurable.

It was not always thus. Prior to the Scientific Revolution - an event that happened only once in all of human history - knowledge was indistinguishable from dogma. Popes, priests and the pious were held to be the ultimate authority on everything from why the stars shone to the cures for disease. People believed what now seems to be fanciful stories not because they were stupid but because there was no other way of knowing.

We are more fortunate :) . But let us not take this good fortune for granted. The cathode ray tube you are looking at this very moment, the antibiotics that have turned life-threatening diseases into mere inconveniences, the car, the radio, the light globe, and much, much more - all this would not exist but for the sciences. And at the heart of the sciences are a set of powerful theories without which the modern world would not exist. For physics, these theories include relativity and quantum mechanics; for biology, evolution and genetics.

It would therefore be as perverse to deny that all life had a common ancestor and evolved over time through natural selection as it would be to deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is itself a star whose energy derives from nuclear fusion.

These ideas would have been not just astonishing but incomprehensible to Paul or Muhammad or Buddha. But their ignorance about, for instance, the common genetic inheritance of Homo sapiens and chimpanzees does not invalidate their dogmas about salvation or paradise or nirvana, any more than such doctrines impugn the science that predicted, and then verified, that all primates (including us) had a common ancestor.

Science cannot prove or disprove the doctrine of the soul, because by definition the soul is an immaterial entity. Likewise religion has nothing to say about to which branch of the hominid family the Homo florensis fossils recently discovered in Indonesia should be assigned.

So "creationism" is a fraud: it is religion masquerading as science, and damaging both in the process.

[flower]

What is interesting is that the vast majority of 'scientists' believe in God!
O's mom.

[alicesmum]

when i saw this thread opened again i must admit to heaving a heavy sigh!!! ((((here we go again)))))

but your arguments were interesting John C. :)

i don't have time or energy to get into a discussion about it all I'm afraid (would love to as I am deeply passionate about such aimless pontification!!!! ;) )

i just wanted to say though that, as far as I understand, Shakyamuni Buddha (i.e., the famous one) would not have been aghast at the idea of natural selection. When he was asked about the originals of life or how the world began he was silent; did the big "I dunno!" "Who cares really"!!!!

Also, maybe it's why many ppl don't regard buddhism as a "religion" but it doesn't, as you say, "command belief" (certainly not in the West anyhoo).

Pls allow me to share one of my fave Einstein quotes:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism".

-- On ya Albert !!!

[JohnC]

What is interesting is that the vast majority of 'scientists' believe in God!


Actually, surveys that have been regularly conducted in the US* since the turn of last century show just under 50pc of scientists believe in God (the percentage has fallen, but not by much). This is exactly what we would expect if my argument above is correct.

However, virtually no working scientists (ie those publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, for want of a better definition) believe in creationism.


* The figure is less in Australia, but I don't have the numbers to hand

[flower]

Wow!! Not aware the stats have changed?!
Interesting..must go investigate that one rainy day...
O's mom.

[Mother Duck]

Well thanks for that John C

Lucky you have set me straight with all your facts and figures - I guess I should now stand corrected hey!

Except for the fact that it is meant to be a light hearted discussion - was never intended as a 'debate' - phoney or otherwise.

Goodness me, what a full on reply you have posted!

Alicesmum - I find it a shame to think that I have posted a thread that makes you heave a sigh when it is reopened

Gee whiz - better stick to talking in 'mummies' groups instead of venturing into finding out what others believe about some more in depth stuff!

[JohnC]

It is meant to be a light hearted discussion - was never intended as a 'debate' - phoney or otherwise...
Goodness me, what a full on reply you have posted!


Well, these things have a life of their own and tend to veer from the whimsical to the portentous as the mood takes those who post. That's part of the fun :)

But let us not kid ourselves: this is a very real, very serious controversy, and right now cases are being heard by US courts, and school boards are being voted out of office on the strength of it. Meanwhile in Australia the "animated raccoon" Brendon Nelson has popped it firmly on the agenda for all parents , while the evangelical Christian Right has been bombarding schools with DVDs promoting so-called intelligent design.

Under those circumstances, I thought I was rather restrained ;)

[alicesmum]

it's nothing personal jessie. apologies that you read it that way. hey I would say exactly the same thing if the "Why i am not christian" thread got reopened and I started that one!!!! :D it's just that things got a little steamy around here some time back when the religion threads were going full steam ahead. maybe my perceptions are off, but it seemed to create tensions among people who were otherwise very friendly to one another. Religious topics seem to have that effect (though elective c/s and circumcision can be even more troublesome apparently!!!!).

like you, i really enjoy hearing about what others believe. But I don't enjoy hearing others condemn or belittle what others (and I) believe, which seems to inevitiably happen (even if rather subtly) and so yes, maybe debates regarding religions or one belief versus another are best avoided. JMHO ! i know you didn't set it up as a debate, as i didn't with my aforementioned thread. it just tends to end up that way. i have since decided not to start any more such threads even though I am bursting with questions for my christian and pagan counterparts on bubhub !!! (oh dear...i shouldn't even be here then should I....????). Anyway, now I am rambling.....oh dear :p

[Ana Gram]

The first post stated all welcome and that you wanted to hear what everyone believed. That's what John C believes.

[Mother Duck]

Nice bit of chastising there Chelle - thanks

[cosmic]

I'm not a scientist, though I do have an analytical brain. And I don't subscribe to any particular religious doctrine, but I consider myself to be very spiritual.. and I certainly haven't spent the time some of you obviously have in exploring this topic.

But while I think it would be naive to think that God created Adam and Eve and we are all descendents of theirs, isn't it equally naive to think that the only reality that exists is the 3-dimensional one, which we process with our 5 senses using some 10% of our tiny little brain..??

What about universes within universes? What about parallel universes?

I thought that qantum physics was already demonstrating that we can and do create our reality with our thoughts (isn't that what prayer is?... slightly different topic, but an example of science supporting religion) and surely as we continue to make scientific advances, increasingly we will come to know how much we don't know.

[JohnC]

Lucky you have set me straight with all your facts and figures - I guess I should now stand corrected hey!

Might I suggest that when it comes to "controversial" topics such as this it is often of great assistance if people of differing opinions at least try to agree on those facts that can be independently and inarguably ascertained. Perhaps there are fewer of such facts than we might like, but that makes them even more precious. For instance:


What is interesting is that the vast majority of 'scientists' believe in God!

Research on this topic began with US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in a somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively.

In 1996, Edward Larson repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported the results in Nature magazine. He found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. These surveys were the basis of my earlier statement.

Larson has since gone on to try to replicate Leuba's survey of "greater scientists", sending questionaires to all 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences in the core physical and biological sciences. Half replied, and of these only 7% expressed a belief in a personal God and 21% expressed doubt or agnosticism.

So yes, it would be "interesting" if the "vast majority of scientists" believed in God. Problem is, they don't.

This phenomen (substituting opinion for fact, when the facts are available) is positively epidemic in the creationist debate. To take another example from this thread:


As for carbon dating etc, I can't see how the accuracy of these tests can possibly be "proven" since they are fairly new tests and to really prove them we would have to run the experiment over all those thousands or millions of years in order to see that the technique was accurate. Seems to me that it's no more than an educated guess. "Proof" is a strong word.

Now the relative dating of strata in much of geological column was already well established by the end of the 19th century, based in part on the embedded fossils. This is how people knew that dinosaurs had been around and then died out long before modern mammals, including us, had arrived on the scene.

Assigning absolute dates to these strata had to await the emergence of isotopic dating techniques which, when combined with other paleantological and geological methods, allows us to be highly confident that, for instance, the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, not 6 million or 6,000, and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Radiocarbon dating, which is used for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods, was developed in the years immediately after World War II. Nowadays high precision dating is accurate to +/- 16 years, and moderate precision is available from samples as small as 100mg. Precise calibration using samples of a known age (tree rings usually) now extends back 10,000 years. To say that such dates have not been "proven" is to misunderstand the meaning of scientific proof.

[xkwzit]

the "animated raccoon" Brendon Nelson

I love that description ... can I use it at dinner parties? :D

Cheers

[JohnC]

I love that description ... can I use it at dinner parties?

Absolutely! Though you should be aware that it comes from Beazley's speech to the WA Labor Conference last week. The full quotation is:

"Then you've got Brendan Nelson, an animated raccoon on nasty pills."

He didn't deliver the line very well, unfortunately, so I have taken upon my humble self to popularise what I consider an inspired metaphor :)

[draught]

And you have done it nicely too JohnC!
Thanks for sharing your resources with us - it is always nice to have well researched facts thrown into the debate/discussion/conversation. :)

[jojosdad]

JohnC: To pose the question as "evolution vs creation" is to fundamentally misunderstand the natures of both science and religion. Science deals with the material world - its structure, workings and development - while religion grapples with metaphysics and morality - the reasons for existence and our place in that existence.

True, but for a lot of people the theory of Evolution acts as a ‘myth of origins’ (‘myth’ not implying falsehood but rather ‘story with a meaning’). As such it has a strong influence on their morality eg ‘My wife shouldn’t be upset that I slept with my secretary. After all, aren’t we all just animals? It’s in my genes to spread my genes!’

JohnC: Prior to the Scientific Revolution - an event that happened only once in all of human history - knowledge was indistinguishable from dogma. Popes, priests and the pious were held to be the ultimate authority on everything from why the stars shone to the cures for disease.

Problem is, for many people blind faith in priests etc has simply been replaced by blind faith in scientists. Unfortunately, scientists are just as human, and therefore just as capable of bias and error, as anyone else.

JohnC: It would therefore be as perverse to deny that all life had a common ancestor and evolved over time through natural selection as it would be to deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is itself a star whose energy derives from nuclear fusion.

Except, of course, that the scientific observations which suggest the earth revolves around the sun etc are infinitely stronger than the observations which suggest that all life had a common ancestor and evolved over time through natural selection. The mechanisms of evolution, like natural and sexual selection creating small changes within a species over many generations, are widely accepted as fact. The idea that these mechanisms could be responsible for all of the biodiversity we have observed in nature is much more tenuous.

JohnC: So "creationism" is a fraud: it is religion masquerading as science, and damaging both in the process.

I actually agree that Creation Science isn’t right (though I haven’t studied it thoroughly myself, have you?). What I believe it has done well is expose massive holes in the theory of Evolution. What it hasn’t done well (in my opinion) is provide a scientific alternative. Instead it seems to have provided a religious alternative and called it scientific (it may be a true alternative, but it’s not scientific, it’s religious).

But I should back up, because saying it has exposed massive holes in the theory of evolution is going to be controversial. I am actually referring to the scientific theory of Irreducible Complexity. This can be taken on its own without the rest of Creation Science or Intelligent Design because by itself it has no reference to God or anything religious.

The theory of IC is that there are many organic structures, easily observed in nature already, which are complex (made up of smaller elements of different kinds) and which need several of their comprising elements (maybe not all of them, but at least more than one of them) in order to function and allow their host organism to survive. The point is that there is a lot of nature that cannot have evolved incrementally. Why not? Because just having one element of the organic structure and then evolving the second and third elements over time is not going to work. Why not? Because the organic structure, which happens in many cases to be essential for the host organism to survive at all, will not work at all until you have several of its elements all working together at once. The elements cannot have evolved one at a time or the organism would never have been alive at all.

So far, the best that evolutionary scientists have provided in response to IC is to say that, even though the greatest minds in the world can’t yet work out how these structures could occur through evolution, maybe one day someone will be able to work it out. This means that even if Evolution isn’t absolutely proven to be false by IC, IC has shown that accepting the theory of Evolution is really a matter of faith, not science. People hope that one day we can explain our biodiversity by evolution, but at the moment they can’t.

The question is, if the theory of Evolution is really just a matter of faith (ie current evidence indicates that it is wrong, only in the future will someone possibly be able to save it), why do so many scientists still believe it? Because scientists are human, and humans have many different reasons for believing things.

One reason might be: no one has thought of a better scientific explanation of biodiversity yet. Scientists have to think of their careers and so they either have to work within the paradigm that other scientists are currently working in, which at the moment is Evolution, or get others to join a new paradigm, which needs to be a lot better than what came before it or they’ll just be laughed at. No one can think of how the biodiversity we see today came into being (except that maybe God created it, but just saying that isn’t being scientific) so they keep working with a broken theory until a clearly better one comes along.

Another reason people might cling to the theory of Evolution is that it is so important to them as a myth of origins. As I said before, they can use it to justify a godless lifestyle. They have too much invested in it and founded on it to just let go of it because it seems to be false. They have to believe against the evidence because the theory means so much to them personally.

ps My wife told me about this forum, and this is my first post. I hope to join in the other parts of the forum at some stage (just to make it clear I'm not just here to crusade against evolution or anything!).

[JohnC]

jojosdad,

I might try to draw some general themes from your interesting post, rather than a line-by-line dissection, in the hope of advancing the discussion while definitively closing the door on some of what has come before.

1. There is a difference between scientists as people and science as a form of knowledge. Newton may have been a gay-closet alchemist, but that has no bearing on the status of his Laws of Motion or the magnitude of the Gravitational Constant. Similarly, the general public's attitudes to science (whether of faith or scepticism) do not affect the truth or otherwise of its findings.

2. Religious scepticism about evolutionary biology currently comes in three forms: strong creationism, weak creationism and intelligent design. Strong creationsim is the position of biblical literalists, holding that the Genesis account is literally true and to the extent that science (including physics, chemistry and geology) contradicts this account it is wrong. Weak creationism tries to avoid this clash with science in general, but still insists that species were created and are immutable. Proponents may say for instance that the Genesis "days" were in fact epochs, and that Noah's flood was a local not global phenonemon. Intelligent Design, at least its public face, admits the possibility that species evolved but says that biology has failed to make a case for the mechanisms of this process (eg natural selection) and only the intervention of a supernatural (or perhaps extraterrestrial) "designer" can explain the emergence of complex biochemistry.

3. Strong creationism, nowadays often known by the oxymoron "scientific creationism", was dealt a death blow in the US Supreme Court in 1987 by a 7-2 margin with Edwards v Aguillard (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html), which found - as per my characterisation - that it is religion masquerading as science and therefore it is unconstitutional to compel its teaching in public schools, even as a so-called "alternative". This position was supported not only by leading theologians but a submission of 72 Nobel laureates (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html) and a range of leading scientific organisations.

4. Scientifically, strong creationism's undoing need not even involve evolution or biology. This is because a central part of the theory is the so-called "young earth theory" - the notion that the Earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. An argument based on geology and physics, such as I presented in my previous post on dating Fact and opinion (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=85339#post85339), is sufficient for a complete refutation. This is why this form of biblical literalism has attracted little support outside American fundamentalist circles.

5. Weak creationism has never really made much ground because, having conceded that some parts of the Genesis account are at best metaphorical, it has no basis for asserting that other components - specifically the creation of immutable species - must be taken literally. Logic alone is sufficient for refutation, and in any case it has too little internal coherence for anyone to suggest it as an alternative to standard biology.

6. This leaves Intelligent Design, apparently the new kid on the block but in fact an updating of an argument most eloquently made by William Paley in 1802: "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."

Now jojosdad gives as good a summary of the central tenet of Intelligent Design (irreducible complexity) as you'll find. But he fails to mention that convential science has a very strong response to this argument. Now rather than trying to summarise this debate let me refer instead to a special forum published in Natural History magazine (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html) (just click on this link to open a new window), which has short essays by the leading proponents of ID (including Michael Behe on irreducible complexity) and responses by some leading scientists.

Perhaps when we are all reading from the same page :) we can then see where the discussion takes us next.

John

[JohnC]

Having dealt with creationism, we are left with "irreducible complexity" (IC), a term coined by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box to describe what biologists had previously termed "irreversibility". Following the defeat of creationism 10 years earlier, IC emerged as the great white hope of the American evangelical Right in its fight to get religion into school science classes.

What is it? Well, first of all IC accepts common descent (the fundamental premise of evolution), the fossil record and the geological antiquity of Earth. However, it says that certain biochemical pathways of the cell (the "black box") cannot be explained by evolutionary science ("Darwinism") and therefore must have been the result of "intelligent design" by an unnamed entity. (You'll note that the second part of the argument is not the only logical conclusion from the first.)

Behe, who is a practising biochemist, provided several, now well-known examples in his book, the strongest of which is undoubtedly mammalian blood clotting - a complex cascade involving many separate proteins. The current publicity of the exceptionally well-funded intelligent design movement portrays science as being struck dumb by the Behe critique facts.


So far, the best that evolutionary scientists have provided in response to IC is to say that, even though the greatest minds in the world can’t yet work out how these structures could occur through evolution, maybe one day someone will be able to work it out.

The problem is that this characterisation is simply wrong. There have, for example, been numerous recent studies of the evolution of blood clotting. (I am happy to provide extensive documentation and explanation if anyone is in any doubt about the truth of this proposition.) More generally, go to a
scientific database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed) and type in the words "molecular evolution". You'll find an awful lot of science doing exactly what Behe and his supporters say is impossible.

So the critique fails, and so does its conclusion ...

This means that even if Evolution isn’t absolutely proven to be false by IC, IC has shown that accepting the theory of Evolution is really a matter of faith, not science. People hope that one day we can explain our biodiversity by evolution, but at the moment they can’t.

But let's be honest, the issue here is not biochemistry, about which the religious zealots care little and know even less, but a political campaign to overturn the Englightenment values that underpin Western secular society.

In that regard it is hard to see how the Christian Right is any different from Islamic fundamentalism: both link the alleged moral decay of modern society with a medieval view of truth that is profoundly distrustful of science.

[Tea Lady]

John, you may want to clarify which "religious zealots" you're talking about - I personally know several who know and care alot about biochemistry! :)

[JohnC]

Certainly. My point is that this is a political, not scientific, issue

The Intelligent Design DVD, an American production, is allegedly being sent to all Australian schools by an outfit called Campus Crusade for Christ, which is linked to a number of similar organisations all of which have agendas that have nothing to do with science (let alone biochemistry) but everything to do with fighting "atheism" or "materialism" or even "naturalism".

Such propoganda unfortunately finds a fertile ground not just with children and the feeble-minded but among the scientifically illiterate as shown repeatedly in this very thread.


I believe that science really does support the bible. Untainted science that is!
I do believe that science unfortunately has become polluted by the evolution theory. I feel that many people are getting science mixed up with evolution because of the way it’s presented as fact and not theory. So it has become difficult to separate the two for some.

On the other hand, if there are biochemists out there who take Behe seriously they have yet to publish anything in scientific literature (and it's been 9 years). Indeed, I can't find a single research paper supporting irreducible complexity from any scientist in any of the biological sciences.

[Ffrenchknickers]

Gee I'm glad I have 100% faith in God and the Bible.... ;)

[WeThree]

hi john, you are clearly an educated man, which i appreciate and respect, but your last couple of posts have been a bit mocking and i think some ppl may take offense. not everybody has a swag of degrees under their belt, but this does not mean their points are not valid, nor should they be made fun of. if i have misread what you have said i apologise, but maybe a bit more tact might be a good idea? (or if not you can tell me to get stuffed and carry on lol)

[JohnC]

Presumably the offending statement was: "Such propoganda unfortunately finds a fertile ground not just with children and the feeble-minded but among the scientifically illiterate as shown repeatedly in this very thread."

Well, I think we have to grant a place for occasional robust expression if it helps get a (hopefully well argued) point across. After all to describe evolution as "tainting" and "polluting" of science, and by implication those who support evolution as "polluters", is also colourful :)

Also, as I tried to make clear in my first post in this thread, I don't have a problem with religion but with creationism in all its guises. Those who believe there is an incompatibility between evolutionary science and religion are being hoodwinked by hypocrites who are manipulating people's ignorance of science to achieve a political goal. And I'm in good company, including the Vatican's Chief Astronomer, Jesuit Father George Coyne, who presumably knows a little something about both sides of the debate:

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Finally, it is clear that a large part of the problem is that people just don't understand how science works, which is why we keep hearing the refrain "evolution is a theory not a fact". Under this dictum, we would have chemistry without the periodic table, physics without relativity and medicine without bacteriology. This confusion, and surely "scientific illiteracy" is not too strong a term, is so widespread that I will reproduce a lengthy passage from the submission of Nobel laureates I referred to several posts ago.


The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever increasing body of observations that give information about underlying "facts." Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method involves the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation for those facts. To be a legitimate scientific "hypothesis," an explanatory principle must be consistent with prior and present observations and must remain subject to continued testing against future observations. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.

The process of continuous testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support. Such hypotheses become known as scientific "theories." If a theory successfully explains a large and diverse body of facts, it is an especially "robust" theory. If it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed, it is an especially "reliable" theory. Even the most robust and reliable theory, however, is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and -- as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy -- may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability.

Every scientific discipline embraces a body of facts and one or more theories to explain them. Significantly for this case, scientific facts and theories are not interchangeable: An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain. This relationship between scientific theory and fact permeates all scientific disciplines; it unifies the enterprise of all scientists, from astronomers to zoologists.

[katesmom]

John, you're reminding me very much of my high school science classes. My instructor always drummed into our heads that there is no such thing as a science fact. One time I asked him why gravity wasn't a science fact (having been on the down side of it a time or two on my bicycle ;) ). I can't remember what he said. I think it's amusing when people say to me "I don't believe in science." Ahh... but you do believe in heart surgery. Hmm...

[Mother Duck]

hi john, you are clearly an educated man, which i appreciate and respect, but your last couple of posts have been a bit mocking and i think some ppl may take offense. not everybody has a swag of degrees under their belt, but this does not mean their points are not valid, nor should they be made fun of. if i have misread what you have said i apologise, but maybe a bit more tact might be a good idea? (or if not you can tell me to get stuffed and carry on lol)
Hi Coops - I don't think you have misread anything!

John seems to think that this thread is posted in a "New Scientist" mag or science page maybe?

Obviously very passionate about the subject but certainly doesn't mind insulting a few apparently 'lesser' beings to make his point clear

There is more than one scientist present in this forum - most of whom it seems are able to recognise that there is no need to be quite so adamant and 'detailed' - obviously JohnC has a point to make - lets hope he feels he has made it!

[mummycloud]

Well... if you've seen Mr Bean, you will see at the start of each episode how we were created :p


Hey Jon, gett'n a tad pompus mate ;)

[MariaO]

Thanks JohnC - I found your post very informative -

[mummycloud]

Thanks JohnC - I found your post very informative -


LOL...I'm buying a Thesaurus today so I can become as informed as all you guys

[JohnC]

Well, there are clearly differing views about how "detailed" or "adamant" one should be in a discussion of this sort.

But given this is a parenting forum we should perhaps bear in mind that "intelligent design" is a controversy that is coming to a school near you, if it hasn't arrived already. And the opinion (informed or otherwise) of parents will be of some importance in the ensuing debates.

Most scientists and science teachers I know are highly alarmed by the apparent resurgence of creationism, but it would be informative to hear from those who are not, and why.

I would also be very interested to hear from parents who think ID or other forms of creationism should be taught in science classes in our schools, or from those where this is already happening.

While it is clear that there are some organisations that are directly linked to the American fundamentalist Right, religious politics in Australia has thankfully always had a different complexion to that of the US. There is for instance a very thoughtful discussion paper by the Australian Evangelical Alliance, Should ‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in schools? (http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/pdf/Intelligent%20Design%20Detailed.pdf) which many Christians in this forum may find useful reading.

[wattle]

I think this thread might need a pair of floaties.

Surely looking at a newborn baby you have all thought how innocent and pure they are, and how close to God (or Buddah, or the Universe, or whatever your thing is) they are.

They have no uni degree, no belief systems, no ideals, they just ARE. Totally in the moment.

This morning I was lucky enough to hold a newborn baby in my arms. I was in awe. He was created, he will evolve..... and so it is with the species. Simple really.

Perhaps over complicating things just takes us further away from the real essence.

[mummycloud]

Sorry for my ignorance guys, I just have a silly question :o

I don't remember seeing anything about dinosaurs in the bible, yet there have been bones dug up by scientists for years. I've even seen a huge skeleton at the museum :confused: There have even been human remains found which resemble ape like beings, but more human in posture
Were Adam and Eve Ape like, or did the bible skip a few thousand years :confused:

How embarrassing..lol..I feel like the biggest loser now :o

[WeThree]

I think this thread might need a pair of floaties.

Surely looking at a newborn baby you have all thought how innocent and pure they are, and how close to God (or Buddah, or the Universe, or whatever your thing is) they are.

They have no uni degree, no belief systems, no ideals, they just ARE. Totally in the moment.

This morning I was lucky enough to hold a newborn baby in my arms. I was in awe. He was created, he will evolve..... and so it is with the species. Simple really.

Perhaps over complicating things just takes us further away from the real essence.

beautiful Cathy :) :)

[alicesmum]

Just stumbled across this article printed in the "Toronoto Star" newspaper last week. I thought some of you might be interested to read it, especially John C but others too.

it asks:
"Darwinian natural selection accounts for quite a bit, but can it explain everything?"

It gives a Buddhist perspective on the evolution vs creationism debate.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133391012506&call_pageid=970599119419

:)

[cosmic]

Were Adam and Eve Ape like, or did the bible skip a few thousand years :confused:

How embarrassing..lol..I feel like the biggest loser now :o

That is so funny Mummycloud. :D I'm not sure people really believe there was an Adam and an Eve (do they??). I thought that story - like many of the stories in the bible - was a metaphor..

[mummycloud]

See Cosmic...told ya I'm a loser :D I always thought the Bible was taken as "gospel" LOL rather than metaphorical.

[JohnC]

Just stumbled across this article printed in the "Toronoto Star" newspaper last week. I thought some of you might be interested to read it, especially John C but others too.

it asks:
"Darwinian natural selection accounts for quite a bit, but can it explain everything?"
It gives a Buddhist perspective on the evolution vs creationism debate.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133391012506&call_pageid=970599119419


Very interesting indeed :) , and for my money goes to show why Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia :cool: (according to the 2001 census). I particularly like the fact that it singles out for criticism the extension of Darwinism to explanations of human consciousness and behaviour ie socio-biology and more lately "evolutionary psychology". These pseudo-scientific endevours have long been the target of such admirable evolutionists as the late Stephen Jay Gould.

That is so funny Mummycloud. I'm not sure people really believe there was an Adam and an Eve (do they??). I thought that story - like many of the stories in the bible - was a metaphor..
If you want to get a real laugh, Cosmic, check out Kangaroos, Dinosaurs and Eden (http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html) by Ken Ham, Australia's most high-profile evangelical export to the United States. In it he explains, among other things: "I have found that most Christians are mystified at how to explain dinosaurs. However, if we know God’s Word, we can make many authoritative statements about dinosaurs ... There was no death and bloodshed of man or animals before sin. So the dinosaurs whose bones we find could not have died millions of years before Adam."

There is much, much more in this vein, but I don't want to spoil the fun ... so check it out if you want to see where this creationist stuff leads :eek:

[Supermum]

There was no death and bloodshed of man or animals before sin. So the dinosaurs whose bones we find could not have died millions of years before Adam."

Excellent John - so carbon dating is a metaphor for ???????? :p

[alicesmum]

John

not sure if I should laugh......or cry!!! :eek:

[cosmic]

oh dear.....

[onabreak]

Personally I believe in evolution not creation.

I believe in the same thing

[Ffrenchknickers]

I'm not sure people really believe there was an Adam and an Eve (

Well, I do:)

[cosmic]

Katie I was waiting for someone to tell me they do!! :o

[Ffrenchknickers]

I don't remember seeing anything about dinosaurs in the bible

There is actually...start with the book of Job:) The word dinosaur wasnt used because it is a modern word..they were referred to as "bohemiath" and "Leviathin" (sp??) There is no mention of plenty of animals in the Bible but we know they exist:)

[Ffrenchknickers]

Hahaha Cosmic:).....

[alicesmum]

ok ok ok i have bitten my tongue a long time now and i have one quick quick question. please don't send me to anther thread or start a new one with my name in the title :p . i just want one of the lovely christian mammas on bubhub to give me their brief thoughts on my Q.

my question is this: as I am surprised that some folks take the old testament literally (in my christian school we were taught that genesis tales were myths based on things that happened and real places that existed but not to be taken to the absolute letter), so i am dying to hear a genuine answer to how it is that one can believe these stories, but not also believe that if someone's daughter becomes a prostitute she should be burned alive or that you should kill your neighbour if he works on the sabbath or that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. i have asked Google these questions and found a range of somewhat unsatisfying answers. one answer from a real person and I will be happy and go away and the thread won't be hijacked. just a quickie!!!! i apologise for going a little off tangent, but i don't want a whole thread on this....just one person's answer. the original topic can continue in the meantime.

thanks in advance.

[JohnC]

I think the relevant references (from the KJV) are:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. (40:15)

and

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? (41:1)

Interpretation of course depends on knowing the original Hebrew words used. "Behemoth" is the plural-intensive of the word translated elsewhere (eg Genesis) as "cattle" or "beast", and most likely refers to an elephant or rhinoceros. "Leviathan" is a transliteration of "their mourning" but may mean "twisted creature", according to some authorities. There seems to be a general consensus that the Job reference is to a salt-water crocodile (which has a small or non-existent tongue).

The intention seems to be to refer to the largest and most ferocious land and sea creatures known to the Jews (at least by repute) at that time. But before someone accuses me of being too detailed, let me ask two questions that your posts raise:

1. When you say you believe in Adam and Eve, does that mean you take the Genesis account of Creation to be the literal truth?

2. Does you reference to Job mean you believe dinosaurs and people actually co-existed during biblical times (as would be logical if the answer to the first question is yes)?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then presumably you don't find the Ken Ham document I referenced earlier laughable at all, and perhaps kangaroos really did live in the Middle East 4,000 years ago ...

[Ffrenchknickers]

Alicesmum, I remember you asked that question ages ago...I forgot to answer (actually I typed a response a couple of times and got disconnected or whatever:)) Sorry.

I definately do take the Bible literally. For me, you cant take some parts literally and not others. It is clear in the Bible which parts are parables - everything else is truth. I am definately glad that I am not living in old testament times and forever grateful that Jesus came and paid the price for our sins. I know what you mean about getting heaps of different made up responses to questions such as these - as far as i am concerned (as a Christian) we are not supposed to lean on our own understanding (as in Proverbs 3:5) to support the Bible - there are so many different opinions - so what is left is to just trust every single word of God's book, which I do. The harsh and often horrific things that happened in the OT show me just how vital it is to follow Gods word. The way I see it, God sees the big picture and we see such a small, tiny, minute part...He knows that there is more to life that just our earthly one. We focus so much on the here and now and often forget (or find it hard to understand) that eternity is a loooong time ;) To Him, it is so vital that as many people are saved as possible and I totally trust that he knows what he is doing - as he did in OT times. You could either choose to follow God and live according to His laws or not, knowing full well what would happen to you. FOr such horrific punishment to occur makes me believe even more just how important it is to trust in the Lord with all my heart.

So, yeah, as far as women speaking in church, I do believe that it is our duty to be respectful and not talk over other people when they are speaking. Put together with outher scripture, it is clear that women have roles in the church as well. I personally dont think scripture supports women preaching to men - scripture tells us that women are needed in ministry to other women and to children (something that I see as VERY important. I dont believe it is about equality but about roles. Men and women have different roles - just as important as each other but different and all runs smoothly if they are respected without all the power stuggle that goes on these days. Of course we have all seen examples of this being abused and men treating their women like slaves or lesser beings etc. God said that in Heaven there is no male or female and that everyone is equal. That makes it clear to me that we are all created to be as important as each other and that we have different roles to fulfill.
I dont want to try and intellectualise the Bible, it is truth to me and nothing will ever change that..God has made himself known to me and I continue to have a realtionship with HIm everyday - that will never go away:)

I dont have an answer for everything (no one does.) God says in the Bible that everything will be revealed once we die. I have total faith in that this is so and cant wait to find answers to the questions many people have pondered and tried to explain and intellectualise throughtout the years.


1. When you say you believe in Adam and Eve, does that mean you take the Genesis account of Creation to be the literal truth?
Yes, sure do.


2. Does you reference to Job mean you believe dinosaurs and people actually co-existed during biblical times (as would be logical if the answer to the first question is yes)?
Yes to this one too.

Not one person is smarter than God although many try to be. I feel no need to "prove" that any of these things happened because I trust God's word and I am not afraid to stand up for it without needing to use complicated explanations. I believe it becuase God said it!! That's it for me.

[alicesmum]

katie
thank you for your detailed answer. your conviction and faith are strong and clear i can see that.

still not completely satisfied though!!!! :D does this mean christians believe that the stuff in the OT about killing your daughter or your neighbour are the word of God or of someone else???

rach

[Ffrenchknickers]

The thing is, I dont believe that one can be completely satisfied with the Bible without a personal realtionship with God and 100% trust IYKWIM. While I believe that the Bbile is literal, I also believe that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand it.
1Corinthians 1:21For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." (I Corinthians 2:12).[/B]

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not understand them, because they are spiritually discerned," (I Corinthians 2:13-14).

So, it is clear that without accepting God and receiving the Holy Spirit, we cant understand the Bible correctly. God helps us with that. I think that is wonderful because it means that everyone has the same oppotunity to learn about God. It doesnt matter how intelligent you think you are or how many uni degrees you have, God will reveal His truth to anyone that asks for it:)

I believe that everything in the bible was inspired by God...so, yes, everything in the Bible is of God. Man was simply the tool he used to get it down on paper
II Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were caried along by the Holy Spirit."

For me, everything is in the Bible and anything else is just guesswork - including intelligent design as a science, "christian" theories that step outside the Bible and, evolution and the big bang:)

[WeThree]

See Cosmic...told ya I'm a loser :D I always thought the Bible was taken as "gospel" LOL rather than metaphorical.

~for millions of pple around the world it is taken as gospel :)
~ Katie you are a wonderful woman of God :)

[Ffrenchknickers]

~ Katie you are a wonderful woman of God :)
Thanks Erin:D I can think of no better compliment than that!

[xkwzit]

katie
thank you for your detailed answer. your conviction and faith are strong and clear i can see that.

still not completely satisfied though!!!! :D does this mean christians believe that the stuff in the OT about killing your daughter or your neighbour are the word of God or of someone else???

rach

Hi Alice'sMum
I believe that this was the word of God and the law for OT times. But Jesus coming as the Messiah has changed the way we look at those laws. The laws are now written "on our hearts" and so the very "harsh" punishments of the OT are not as important to Christians. Jesus demonstrated the new law when he refused to stone a woman for adultery and saved her life and her soul. She repented and was saved and we believe this salvation is available to everyone (and has been since Jesus). I think the salvation of humanity is an even greater miracle than creation.

I believe in God and I believe in miracles. If I believe in my God, I have to believe that he created the universe because he has said so. I do not care if it was seven 24 hour days (as we know them) or if it was 7 ages. My God is omnipotent, so creating a world in 7 minutes is completely believable to me. If he couldn't do this, he wouldn't really be God, would he?

Just my thoughts...

[mummycloud]

Not one person is smarter than God although many try to be. I feel no need to "prove" that any of these things happened because I trust God's word and I am not afraid to stand up for it without needing to use complicated explanations. I believe it becuase God said it!! That's it for me.

I love your strong faith, I wish I could have such faith in something or someone. :)
My question is this, how do we know that GOD really DID say these things and that the bible is actually God's book?

[JohnC]

My question is this, how do we know that GOD really DID say these things and that the bible is actually God's book?

As the song says ... because "the Bible tells me so"

[JohnC]

I dont want to try and intellectualise the Bible, it is truth to me and nothing will ever change that..

I feel no need to "prove" that any of these things happened because I trust God's word and I am not afraid to stand up for it without needing to use complicated explanations. I believe it becuase God said it!! That's it for me.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that if one starts from the notion that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God (a notion that almost all Christians find questionable, at best) one quickly arrives at postions that are simply wrong, unless one in prepared to junk all science and rational argument.

Take the idea that God(s) (Hebrew = Elohim) conjured humanity together with the rest of known universe into existence during a week of intense activity about 6,000 years ago. If we leave the life sciences to one side (which are thoroughly based on evolutionary science), all other historical sciences, such as geology, must also be completely wrong. So what we learn in school about oil, gas, coal, limestone, or indeed almost any other geological feature, must be completely wrong! There were no ice ages or plate tectonics, so the Himilayas were not formed by plate collissions, most of Mt Kilimanjaro was not constructed during the Pleistocene, etc etc.

This disconnect from reality continues in the realm of physics. To take one example: in 1987, for the first time in 400 years, a brilliant supernova lit up the sky when a star known as Sanduleak 69 202 exploded in the Large Magellenic Cloud, a neighbouring galaxy some 160,000 light years away. But if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how could astronomers have seen this event, one of the most exciting in the past 100 years. Indeed, how could we see anything in the night sky beyond 6,000 light years away. Most of our own galaxy, the Milky Way would not be visible, let alone the rest of the known universe.


These problems have spawned a whole new branch of fundamentalist apologetics (know as creation science), whose solutions are often sillier than the original problems, but that as they say is another story...

[Ffrenchknickers]

That's fine if you want to believe that science has the answers. Whatever works for you... I can see you have thoroughly researched this to arrive at your decision.

Nothing will ever make me doubt that God is infinately more intelligent than any other being therefore this is who I choose to trust:) God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...humans are always changing. If that puts me amongst the "feeble minded" to you then so be it, I'll try to sleep tonight;) My beliefs have never hurt anyone.

Mummycloud, for me it is exactly as John said "The Bible tells me so" also, God has made himself known to me and I cant possibly deny Him. If you really want to know the truth about God and his book, just ask him:) Thanks for the compliment about my faith.:)

[Ffrenchknickers]

if one starts from the notion that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God (a notion that almost all Christians find questionable, at best)

Where did you get that from? :confused: I dont know any Christians that think this at all...

[JohnC]

Where did you get that from? :confused: I dont know any Christians that think this at all...


since bubhub won't let me finish my other post :mad: i may as well move on ...

except i don't understand whether your questioning that 1. some christians believe the bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God 2. most christians don't believe this ?

[Ffrenchknickers]

I was just asking where that information came from that "most christians dont believe the Bible to be literal" because I was interested as in my experience most Christians believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. You need not be angry with me because we believe different things:)

[JohnC]

Sorry, occurs to me I probably don't need to understand the question, to provide some sort of answer. The following site
http://www.spirithome.com/scrip6.html

deals with the meaning of these and other words used about Christian understanding of the Bible, pointing out the main differences between different strands. Note, in particular, that fundamentalist have a unique position:
"Some Christians ('fundamentalists' or 'literalists') teach that the Scripture is without error in every way on all sorts of matters : chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on. There can't be any mistakes in a divine work, fundamentalists say, for God is perfect and cannot lie. This idea is very ancient, even if the word 'inerrant' wasn't how they describe it until the past two centuries."

[JohnC]

You need not be angry with me because we believe different things:)

Very sorry if I at all seemed upset with you (I am peeved with Bubhub, which keeps freezing my computer when I try to post).

Hope previous link I posted clears all up. Namely, fundamentalists (a small fraction of the world's Christians) believe the Bible is "inerrant". Most others do not.

[WeThree]

. Namely, fundamentalists (a small fraction of the world's Christians) believe the Bible is "inerrant". Most others do not.
im not going to go into my experiences with my walk with God, (sorry but i have discovered it to be too much of a touchy subject) but just curious John, how many Christians do you actually know? seems a big generalisation based on one website that you have read.

[JohnC]

im not going to go into my experiences with my walk with God, (sorry but i have discovered it to be too much of a touchy subject) but just curious John, how many Christians do you actually know? seems a big generalisation based on one website that you have read.

Quite a lot, over quite a long time. Indeed my (voluntary) activity at the moment involves working with lay and religious Catholics in caring for people with schizophrenia and similar problems (though I am not myself a Catholic). My interest in creationism goes back quite a long way and I've had the opportunity to talk to a great many Christians (and people of other faiths) about the issues involved.

The web reference is just that, a reference, and should not be taken as the final word on my or anybody's else's knowledge on the subject of inerrancy. It is however well-informed without being particularly controversial

And though I know some people do get touchy about the subject of religion, I'm not one of them :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

Argh, I just typed out a huge reply and the computer froze on me too:(

Very sorry if I at all seemed upset with you
No probs ,now I understand lol :p


The web reference is just that, a reference, and should not be taken as the final word on my or anybody's else's knowledge on the subject of inerrancy
Thats why I simply choose to believe the Bible, eveyrthing else is merely someone's opinion:)

[WeThree]

sorry, but i was curious :) it just seemed like a huge comment to make, their are millions of christians in the world, and i was just wondering how you came to a point where you feel you know what the majority of them do or dont believe? but now i know, thanks ;)

[Ffrenchknickers]

Nothing in the bible tells me not to take it literally at all. Just the opposite in fact...

Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
1 Thesalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

When Jesus spoke in parables (which are not literal but have a real meaning...) he was always clear that it was a parable. There are visions and dreams in the Bible and we are always told that that is what they are...for me, everything else, is literal until God tells me it isnt:)

I feel that people who say that this part or that part of the Bible isnt literal but symbolic, are just tyring to change the meaning to make it fit more with modren times or make it more "PC." LIke the scripture that Alicesmm was referring to earlier regarding women in the church.....years back, this would have been accepted as "just the way it is" but with the rise of feminism ect, people have tried to justify it by saying that it was just a particular problem they were having at that time with the Women of Corinth. I cant accept this because if you can apply it to that scripture then you could apply it to any - saying, it wsa just relevant to those times.
Lol, getting way off track now....what it comes down to is I believe in God and the bible 100%:D

[Ffrenchknickers]

Hey Erin:D *waves*

[WeThree]

Hi Katie! *waves back* well im out of here now, just popped my head in to give my lovely Katie a bit of support, but she seems to be doing just fine on her own! :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

Hehe, ta Erin:D...

Oops, I better go too....gotta get ready for church lol ;)

[JohnC]

Nothing in the bible tells me not to take it literally at all...
I feel that people who say that this part or that part of the Bible isnt literal but symbolic, are just tyring to change the meaning to make it fit more with modren times or make it more "PC." Like the scripture that Alicesmm was referring to earlier regarding women in the church.....years back, this would have been accepted as "just the way it is" but with the rise of feminism ect, people have tried to justify it by saying that it was just a particular problem they were having at that time with the Women of Corinth. I cant accept this because if you can apply it to that scripture then you could apply it to any - saying, it wsa just relevant to those times.

Well, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the idea that the Bible can be taken as literal truth and inerrant in matters as diverse as the position of women or slavery is a very minority position indeed.

If we look at the results of 2001 census (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9658217EBA753C2CCA256CAE00053FA3?Open) as regards religion, we can see that fundamentalist denominations constitute a very small proportion of Christians, and an even smaller proportion of the total population - certainly less than 10 per cent and probably less than 5 per cent.

I think most people would in fact be deeply disturbed by the kind of theology that Katie has embraced. To quote in part from a satirical email doing the rounds after the US election:
“Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?”
“I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?”
“My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife, by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend.) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them, as suggested by Leviticus 24: 10-16? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws as per Leviticus 20:14?”

Now while most of us might have a laugh at this, it is as well to remember what we have heard in this forum about such "laws"?

The laws are now written "on our hearts" and so the very "harsh" punishments of the OT are not as important to Christians.
So such "laws" are still to be obeyed, but we no longer get stoned/burned to death if we break them (which is I guess why we no longer burn witches).

Fundamentalism is a problem not just for people who prefer logic over superstition, it is an issue for those who prefer to take their sick child to a doctor rather an exorcist. And it is on the bedrock of science that the entire enterprise of fundamentalism is ultimately shipwrecked.

[Ffrenchknickers]

Well, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade

lol lol!! Dont worry love, you dont have that kind of power :rolleyes:

You certainly seem to be on a mission of some description...

I guess I will try to explain my beliefs to you.....not sure why but anyhow...

Jesus fullfilled and revealed the full extent of the law of the OT...that is why we no longer have these harsh punishments. God didnt want anyone to be punished so he sent his only son to earth who died for all of us, he paid the price and I am eternally grateful for this. You certainly have the wrong end of the stick about my faith and what I believe. The whole of the commandments can be summed up in one word, "love." If we do everything out of love then we cant go wrong. I actually dont give 2 hoots about the census or percentages, our family is doing what we believe to be right and that wont change.

I can assure you that nobody who knows me is "disturbed" by me or my beliefs at all:) You think we sit around stoning people and performing exorcisms? lol We actualyy dont subscribe to any denomination at all...we are Christians and take our teaching directly from the Bible. Some people that I know would be laughing their heads off at me being called a fundamentalist - our chuch plays rock music for goodness sakes...and anybody is welcome and encouraged to join us. But, if believing the whole bible is being a fundamentalist the I guess I am one. We arent legalistic (as in we dont wear skirts only or avoid pubs with alcohol or any of that stuff ) at all but we do try to follow the bible 100%. For us, it is about loving all people, helping the needy and being kind no matter what is thrown at you whilst honoring God in all we do. We dont chase after money or power or material possessions but try to earnestly seek the kingdom of God. Sorry, but if you think my beliefs are disturbing then you are very mistaken.

I wish you well on your journey:) Ultimately we'll all find out the truth one day...as long as no one gets hurt in the process, all will be OK ;)

[alicesmum]

and anybody is welcome and encouraged to join us.

can i come and still maintain my Buddhist meditation and study as well???? (have genuinely always wanted to find a church that i could attend that wasn't separatist....it doesn't make sense to me that in almost all areas of your life you can participate in different groups but not when it comes to religion....call me strange but i think you can get a lot out of different teachings, and maybe the same thing ultimately).


Ultimately we'll all find out the truth one day...;)

i was on retreat this weekend and felt this at a very deep level. how do you describe the experience of the one pure and clear thing not dependent on life and death, unmoving, that doesn't age or die, that transcends suffering. i am very happy to call that God or true self or buddha-nature. these are only words. God to me is beyond words, before our thinking minds arise, timeless and only accessible when we live in the eternal moment. Doctrine cannot capture God. The word "God", the Bible, all genuine spiritual teaching is only the finger pointing at the moon. To see the moon, you have to actually look at it and leave looking at the finger behind. The teachings, the words, are only a map. To get too attached to any words or any scripture or any religion is like eating the menu instead of the meal!! you have to experience God (true self, Buddha nature, whatever your words). It is no good just talking about it, using dead words. God has been revealed to me with the same depth of experience as many Christians have talked about on this forum. Like them, I too suffer at times from "eating the menu instead of the meal", so have decided not to get too bogged down in the words/debates.

But seriously, it would be nice to go to church sometimes too. If a Christian follower can teach me, how wonderful!! If a Jew can teach me, also wonderful. If a Hindu can teach me, i welcome that too.

:p

[JohnC]

But, if believing the whole bible is being a fundamentalist the I guess I am one.

While I am sure that no-one would question the sincerity of your faith or the strength of your convictions, that is not really the issue. If "believing the whole of the bible" also means believing the universe was created 6,000 years ago then you are setting up Christianity as an easily falsifiable, and indeed laughable, belief.

I know this is not your intention, but that is the effect. Most people are simply not prepared to believe that dinosaurs walked the planet a only few thousand years ago or that the stars we see in the night sky actually don't exist. And again, most people are aware that the Bible itself is full of contradictions: for instance, in chapter 1 of Genesis animal and plant life was created before man, but in chapter 2 Adam was created first.

Simply restating your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is no help at all when your logic is completely circular: Why believe the Bible? Because "the Bible tells me so"! And invoking the power of the Holy Spirit is problematic when the revelation that it/he/she has given to you has clearly been denied to 2 billion other, equally sincere but non-fundamentalist, Christians.

It is for these, and other reasons, that most Christians hold the position that the Bible, as a work of man, must be interpreted to make any sense at all. And yes, interpretation is a human activity, but there are simply no shortcuts to truth, no highway to God, except through the efforts of our very fallible selves.

From this perspective, science and religion do not stand at odds but are both human activities aimed at finding knowledge and meaning in the world.

[Ffrenchknickers]

you have to experience God (true self, Buddha nature, whatever your words). It is no good just talking about it, using dead words

Omgosh, I so agree, and I think that you know how strongly I feel about that Alicesmum....faith without works is dead. Those Christian leaders out there who are all high and mighty and "untouchable" or "holier than thou" are no better than the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked many many times in the Bible. One must live their faith...I cant stand churches that just preach a textboook God. Yes, I take the Bible as 100% truth but so strongly believe thatGod communicates with everyone of us as much as we are open to Him. As I said earlier, I dont think that one can truly believe without having that personal experience with a living God. I agree that the words are a "map" of sorts but I also believe that they are truth....beleiving in the Bible and knowing and feeling the awesome power which is God dont have to be mutually exclusive. For me, they work hand in hand. I love your description of God ALicesmum, I feel the same way. God is pure and amazing and is LOVE.

Of course you would be welcome in our church...it is not for me to say what you do and dont do...that is between you and God:) Actually, I reckon you would love our pastor - he is such a passionate man and is on a constant search for absolute truth. He is just one of us, he doesnt put himself above anyone. His 5 grownup children stil lattend our church too whicvh I think is a really great sign:)

John C. Good luck to you....I hope that you continue to enjoy your studies. To make it clear, I have never rubbished another Christians faith nor said that mine is stronger - I wouldnt dare do that as I belive that it is totally up to the Lord to judge. The body of Christ is the body of believers throughout the world, not dependant on which church you go to. As I said, my beliefs dont hurt anyone so lets just leave it at that:) I wont deny God or his word simply to be more politically correct or worldly.

[rainbow]

Hello there,
Was just skim-reading (time is short) and came to this point:
So such "laws" are still to be obeyed, but we no longer get stoned/burned to death if we break themIt seemed as though it could be worth mentioning that I have been taught that Jesus has fulfilled the requirements of the laws in the Old Testament and while wisdom can be gained from plenty of OT laws (such as adultery being a bad thing to do) there are plenty of other OT laws that are no longer relevant to us (such as which foods are clean/unclean) - we are lucky we live in simpler times where we no longer need to agonise over all the details of the laws but just need to concentrate on the point of the laws and stick with Jesus so we can be carried through the judgement. It's really important to read the bible in context and it's dangerous to pluck bits out and deal with them separately from the rest of the bible's message. It's hard because you gotta start somewhere... but it's so worthwhile to keep reading and re-reading the bible and discussing it with other people who are also reading it.

[Ffrenchknickers]

Yup, I agree Rainbow. I did kind of mention that Jesus was a fulfillment of the law earlier in the thread - and I am soooo grateful that he came and paid the price for us! I am so glad that we are not living in the OT times:D The whole law can be summed up in one word, Love. This was what Jesus made clear to us.

[alicesmum]

Of course you would be welcome in our church...it is not for me to say what you do and dont do...that is between you and God:) Actually, I reckon you would love our pastor - he is such a passionate man and is on a constant search for absolute truth.

that is good to know. how would people react to me if they knew I felt that christian and buddhist teachings actually can and do work together for many people though?

can you tell me which church it is and whether they are having a service on Christmas morning? I have no plans until lunch time on Dec 25 and told DH i would really like to go to church on xmas morning....i live on the northside too as i think you know :)

[JohnC]

It's really important to read the bible in context and it's dangerous to pluck bits out and deal with them separately from the rest of the bible's message.

Well, if rainbow's right, then katie is wrong. I'll stick with rainbow - the bible must be interpretated, and it is dangerous to just "pluck bits out".

I also note that no-one has touched any of the substantive points I made in my last post. 1. The bible, literally read, contains contradictions 2. A literal reading of the bible contradicts scientific understanding of the world.

I really would like to know how fundamentalists reconcile the two different accounts of creation given in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. And some (any!) answer to the many contradictions a fundamentalist reading presents to a modern (scientific) understanding of the world would be greatly appreciated.

[Sarie]

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time :D

[WeThree]

lol lol Sarie ;) :D

[Sarie]

hehehehe, I just couldn't help myself :D

[alicesmum]

....faith without works is dead.

i very much agree. my teacher was the chaplain of mt olivet hospital (a palliative care hosiptal) at kangaroo pt for nearly 9 nine years until she retired last month, responible for the spiritual care of dying people and their families - a pretty big task really in most people's book!!

can you imagine....a zen buddhist nun in a christian hospital!!!??? a few found it quite strange but overall she was so well received and valued by many and is now sorely missed.

she is awesome and also on the search for truth as you described your pastor, or as i have heard someone else say, always "on fire with the question of life and death"!!!

she may not be "christian" but she is the most "christian" person i have probably ever come across if you get my meaning. :D a person who has truly "died to the self", you get no sense of ego when you are with her. a rare find!! such people are the reason i simply can't accept teachings about hell for nonchristians. gosh, for all we know, the Dalai Lama might be sitting up next to the Lord himself when he dies and Hitler might be burning down below despite his conversion and repentance on his death-bed!!! :D

(Sorry to be tangential again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[rainbow]

Hi John :)
Well, if rainbow's right, then Katie is wrong.I'm not sure which bit Katie said that you are saying is wrong (the dear girl writes more than I can ever keep up with!) but for the record I do think Katie has the important basics of the truth nicely figured out. I can't say any more than that without knowing which comment bothered you.
I'll stick with rainbow - the bible must be interpretated, Interpretation is a dangerous word in itself because it means different things to different people. To one person it may mean that the bible is to be read and understood in context. To others it may mean that the bible is to be used as a tool to come to various different conclusions, or whatever.
I also note that no-one has touched any of the substantive points I made in my last post. Have patience, there is not an abundance of academic theologians frequenting this site; I hope someone who feels well studied enough to answer your questions satisfactorily will surface soon.
The bible, literally read, contains contradictions From what I understand, then a) there are some sections of the bible that are intended to be taken literally, eg. Jesus' miracles, and some that aren't, eg. the book of Revelation, and b) I have heard of so many perceived contradictions that do not turn out to be contradictions at all.
A literal reading of the bible contradicts scientific understanding of the world. I regret not studying enough science, I feel underqualified to comment on this at all. However I know plenty of strong Christians who are right into science and academic stuff - if you are genuinely interested in speaking with them I am sure I could arrange something for you.
I really would like to know how fundamentalists reconcile the two different accounts of creation given in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. I am curious why you would like to know, is it a) because you are genuinely interested or b) because you love a good argument (equally valid!) or c) some other reason.
And some (any!) answer to the many contradictions a fundamentalist reading presents to a modern (scientific) understanding of the world would be greatly appreciated. Could you please explain what fundamentalist means 'cos I don't know. Thanks.

[rainbow]

Did Hitler repent on his death bed?! Wow, I didn't know that!

[JohnC]

Rainbow,

While most of your questions are probably answered in the previous few pages of this thread, now is as good a time for a recap as any.

"Fundamentalist" means someone who believes the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God and not open to interpretation. For definitions of these words, I am happy to go with those provided by a Christian site (see page 9 of this thread for the link), which says:

"Some Christians ('fundamentalists' or 'literalists') teach that the Scripture is without error in every way on all sorts of matters : chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on. There can't be any mistakes in a divine work, fundamentalists say, for God is perfect and cannot lie. This idea is very ancient, even if the word 'inerrant' wasn't how they describe it until the past two centuries."

The question about contradictions in the Genesis account is important, because any contradiction would be a refutation of fundamentalism. I don't think you need to be an academic theologian to answer the question. In fact almost all biblical scholars recognise that the two accounts were written by different people at different times to make different moral points..

A literal reading of the Bible says creation occurred 6,000 years ago, which means virtually all modern scientific understanding - from astronomy to zoology - is wrong. This issue came up because Katie wanted to assert that on the basis of the book of Job dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago but were around in biblical times.

And despite that fact you say "interpretation is a dangerous word in itself because it means different things to different people" :confused: it is clear that you believe the Bible must be interpreted, otherwise how would we know which bits are metaphorical (Revelations, no argument) and which bits literal (miracles of Jesus, you say, though many would disagree).

[alicesmum]

hey guys!!!
i just re-discovered this article which addresses why "never the twain shall meet" when it comes to this issue. i have pasted the relevant paragraphs below and the link at the very bottom. v interesting i reckon. do you agree with it folks? tell me what you think.
--------------------
"I think we have two different sorts of people, and of course they’re shaped by their upbringing as well, and they’re a little bit at loggerheads because one says, “Look, there’s got to be something more. I just feel it intuitively. I don’t care what science says; I know there has to be something more.” That’s one side.

The other side says, “No, science is really our reliable way of knowing about things, and, sticking with that we can see that nature is what there is, and nature is enough. We don’t need anything more to have religious experience or feel this sort of cosmic consciousness.”

Really that’s a gap that’s not easily crossed. They are different ways of looking at the world, and that is, I think, the problem with the science-and-religion debate: you’ve got two styles of explanation, two preferences about how the world should look, and they’re not going to agree. So we can have dialogue, but I think at the end of the day, we have to understand that we’ll probably never convince each other. But that’s why it takes all kinds of people, and science doesn’t have all the answers., What I would say is that science and nature are enough to have a perfectly rich, valid, religious and spiritual life.

[Qustion from Interviewer): Is it possible to develop a third preference or perspective that’s neither science nor religion, but is informed by both?

You could take a philosophical perspective which draws on both, I would imagine, but... I think people do place their cognitive bets with science or not. The alternative to science is vague intuition, revelation, tradition, all these things that are not empirical, and that’s fine. To combine them, to admit, say, revelation into your worldview as well as science would be to say that there’s something besides the empirical way of deciding what is.

Now the way I would recommend to combine the two is to have the intuitive, revelatory side of yourself be your source of direct experience, but not your source of knowledge. Have science and empiricism be your source of knowledge. Look to intuition and revelation for what I would call the direct experience of divinity, which is really consistent with what science says about the self. This combines empiricism on the one side, with direct experience on the other.

The key is that you shouldn’t suppose the direct experience of unity is knowledge, the way scientific knowledge is. It’s an intuition, which happens to be correct, given what science says about ourselves. We are, in fact, fully part of this world, of this cosmos. The unitary experience of cosmic consciousness people have in their deepest meditative states or in their religious transports reflects the truth that science tells us, but it’s not cognitive. It’s an intuition that needs to be backed up by empirical research about who we are, and that what science gives us. So, I think the advantage of a religious naturalism is that it combines scientific, valid knowledge with the insight of unity, that we can get through religious and spiritual experience.

[from http://www.stnews.org/News-522.htm]

[alicesmum]

Rainbow
apparently he did. i suppose plenty of evil people repent on their death beds out of fear, perhaps out of genuine remorsefulness sometimes too. it makes it a little hard to believe that people of other religions who spend their whole lives doing good works don't get into heaven and that these ppl do, don't you think???

[JohnC]

Have science and empiricism be your source of knowledge. Look to intuition and revelation for what I would call the direct experience of divinity, which is really consistent with what science says about the self. This combines empiricism on the one side, with direct experience on the other.

That really does make a lot of sense, and allows us to expand our thinking beyond self-referential bible quotations.

ps when the link alicesmum posted doesn't work, just delete the end square bracket :)

[WeThree]

I also note that no-one has touched any of the substantive points I made in my last post. 1. The bible, literally read, contains contradictions 2. A literal reading of the bible contradicts scientific understanding of the world.
.

John, i made a decision a while ago to no longer share my beliefs any more on this site, but i will quickly let you know what i feel about some parts of the Bible, then feel free to mock me and pull apart my words all you like :) I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, written in such a way that we will understand. Obviously there is too much evidence to doubt the presence of dinosaurs etc on earth millions of yrs ago. Faith for me, means simply trusting and believing in the Lord, even when i dont really understand what it all means. I feel that the book of Genesis is probably a very simplified version of events, that the 7 days (which in our narrow human minds we take to mean 24 hrs ) may have meant 7 eras in the history of the world, or it could have again just been another way to explain things more simply. i think alot of the animals were given their time, then God thought 'nope that doesnt work, i'll start again' and then he tried something else :) i continue to try and gain a deeper understanding of the Bible, without trying to make my own interpretations to much, but there is much that i dont yet understand, but seeing as i am not God, i choose to believe that he knows what is best as there is much that i am sure i will never understand, and like Katie, he has revealed himself to me in many ways to many times for me to ever deny him.
There are so many other points that you have bought up that i would be here forever trying to answer it all, but please know, most Christians dont claim to have all the answers, we simply have faith, which may seem laughable to you, but once you have opened your heart to the Lord, it is all you need :)

[WeThree]

i forgot to add, i am going to get my dh to read this thread tonight or tomorrow and i am sure he will have some answers for you, he has studied theology quite extensively and im sure he will have some stuff to share :)

[JohnC]

coops,

thanx for that. I find little in your post to disagree with, let alone "mock" :)

Where I draw the line is when people confuse the different roles of science and religion, as I tried to make clear in my first post (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=84068#post84068) in this thread:


Science cannot prove or disprove the doctrine of the soul, because by definition the soul is an immaterial entity. Likewise religion has nothing to say about to which branch of the hominid family the Homo florensis fossils recently discovered in Indonesia should be assigned.

So "creationism" is a fraud: it is religion masquerading as science, and damaging both in the process.

There are different ways of harmonising what science tells us about the empirical world and religion about spiritual dimensions. I am rather attracted to the direction that alicesmum has pointed us in her recent post. Of course there must be Christian ways of finding a productive reconciliation, otherwise there wouldn't be Christians who are also scientists.

But standing in the way of that process are dogmas such as creationism, fundamentalism and biblical literalism. And I am particularly concerned to stop such dogmas infiltrating their way into classrooms as an "alternative" to science.


i forgot to add, i am going to get my dh to read this thread tonight or tomorrow and i am sure he will have some answers for you, he has studied theology quite extensively and im sure he will have some stuff to share :)


And would be most interested to hear what you dh has to say on these matters. The more the merrier :D

[Tea Lady]

Hi. I've got literally (no, not metaphorically :D ) about 5 mins to write this so I'll be brief even though there's heaps I'd like to ask and say. sorry in advance if this is a bit thought disordered - I usually think more before i type!

John, I think you've raised an interesting issue with the idea of interpreting the bible. In this case though I don’t think statistics necessarily tell the whole story because I think that more important than how many percent of christians believe such and such is WHY they believe it, which a survey can't tell you.

For eg if we talk about ppl not taking the bible literally, there's a big difference between someone who tries to "explain away" bits of the bible to make it sound more appetising to our culture, or someone who doesn't think the bible is true, but thinks it's a nice collection of stories, and someone who believes the bible IS true but there are bits which the writers did not intend to be taken literally. Personally I think it's vital when trying to get the real meaning of any text to think about what the author themselves was getting across, so although I do believe the Bible to be true (inerrant) I also think there are bits that the writers didn't intend to be taken literally (eg to take an obvious example I don’t think the author of Song of Solomon really meant us to think that a flower picked up a pen and wrote ch2 verse 1 ("I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys").

I think the important thing though is to try to find out how the writer themselves actually intended the text to be read rather than just to impose our own agenda on it (eg trying to make an ‘unpalatable’ section easier to take in our culture as mentioned earlier). I think in this case it’s really worth listening to people who know about Bible texts rather than just going by what ‘most christians’ think. BTW I don’t consider myself to be an expert in this area and I acknowledge that there are plenty of parts of the bible where even people who know lots about the texts disagree. It would be very helpful if we could go back in time and ask the authors themselves what they meant!

Just one other point I thought of too (sorry to harp on about statistics here) is it would be interesting to know how the census people (or whoever) decided who fits into the “Christian” category. The reason I was thinking about this is that there are lots of people who feel an allegiance to Christianity or even a particular denomination that don’t necessarily believe the gospel (good news about Jesus) which at least according to the Bible is what makes someone a Christian (ie it was disciples of Jesus who were called this, not just people who happened to grow up in a particular country or whatever). Please note I’m NOT taking it upon myself to decide who is a Christian and who isn’t but just pointing out that the categories in the census may be broader than God’s (unless the census was inspired, but I think not).

D’oh. Turns out my 5 mins was metaphorical after all…..even though that wasn’t my intention. Hmmmm.

[JohnC]

I think the important thing though is to try to find out how the writer themselves actually intended the text to be read rather than just to impose our own agenda on it (eg trying to make an ‘unpalatable’ section easier to take in our culture as mentioned earlier).

Actually have to run myself ;) but 2 quick things.

The ABS figures are based on what people themselves say to the religion question in the census. I provided the link just so people could get an idea of "nominal allegiance" since we know from church attendance (total only 18pc of the population) that things are a bit different on the pew or the prayer mat.

The really interesting question you pose is what the biblical writers themselves intended ... it's a big topic but most biblical scholars have come to some sort of consensus about what they believe are hands behind the first 5 or 6 books of the bible. Am looking forward to discussing that tomorrow .....

[alicesmum]

Christians dont claim to have all the answers :)

yay erin. a bit of realism and groundedness always helps a situation!!

to me it has always been funny that muslims (not all i suppose) feel they have a monopoly on truth and that everyone else on the planet is wrong and destined for somewhere 'orrible, and that some (but not all i expect) Christians, even by Lucy's deinfition of a Christian, feel that christianity is the one and only truth and that everyone else is wrong. i expect most people perceive the irony in this situation....???

but to me, it is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

You probably know it. This parable tells of six blind men who came upon an elephant for the first time. As each man touched a different part of the animal, he came to a different conclusion about the elephant. The first felt the elephant's side and said that an elephant is like a wall. Others, upon touching the elephant's tusk, trunk, knee, ear, and tail, argued, respectively, that the elephant certainly was more like a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, or a rope. Each was right but had only perceived part of it because an elephant is so huge.

So different religions disagree and are separatist by nature ("you can't join us if you're with them") - a fact I find lamentable. But this happens because all have (at least originally) found a truth that is so ungraspable and vast, that to adequately put it into words or say you understand it all is impossible (as Erin alluded to). However, religious people often fail to see the possibility of the whole "elephant" because they are attached to their bit of it.

Would love to know what you all think about this take on it????

[xkwzit]

Hi John

I'm no well read theologian, but in answer to a point below:


If "believing the whole of the bible" also means believing the universe was created 6,000 years ago then you are setting up Christianity as an easily falsifiable, and indeed laughable, belief.


I'm sure that what follows is not an original thought, but I believe that it is entirely possible that God did create the earth approx 6000 years ago (or whatever) complete with its geological and fossil records intact. And so why not create a galaxy complete with light from stars already on its way to earth? Or deliberately satisfy any of the other current scientific beliefs that make Christianity "laughable". If he's God, he's omnipotent, it is completely possible so I don't think that current science disproves the bible. If you believe that God can work miracles, the laws of physics (geology, paleantology, astronomy, etc) don't rock your faith :) .

Which leaves the question of "why do it that way?", to which I'd cheekily say "why not?". Maybe he didn't want to be too obvious about leaving signs of creation all over the place. I don't know and I can honestly say it doesn't matter to me. I don't want God to be reduced to something I can understand. In that case he wouldn't be God.

[WeThree]

fabulous xkwizit!!!!:D

[xkwzit]

Hi John
I had to do some research, because I could not remember any contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. And the way I read (interpret :p ) it, I don't think there is one. Here is my reasoning: we both agree that in Gen 1 that plants and animals are created before Adam. In Gen 2 I have the following from the NIV:


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.

I think here the writer is not talking about plants in general, but agricultral plants or tended fields, particularly as the reason he gives is that "there was no man to work the ground".

In the next few verses it supports Gen 1 by saying:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
so the Garden of Eden, and therefore plants, were created before man

and also:

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
this can be read either way, but I don't see it as a contradiction.

So I don't think that this is a clear contradiction, as it can be interpreted (there's that word again!) either way.

Cheers

[Ffrenchknickers]

Christians dont claim to have all the answers, we simply have faith, which may seem laughable to you, but once you have opened your heart to the Lord, it is all you need

That's exactly how I feel and hence the reason I havent gone into disputing and arguing with every point you make John. Basically, my answer for everything will be "because I trust God and I believe that he is smarter than any man" - which to you John is nonsense - so be it, I think I'll still stick with God thanks!!! You see my arguements as circular, so be it! I wont go outside the Bible and try to explain it away because for me it is absolute truth!

I dont think any Christian has all the answers in fact we are told the our spiritual poverty and thirst is something we should never lose. WE should continue to learn our whole lives and never claim to have all the facts. Basically, for me all it comes down to is that God is smarter and more amazing than any one of us and like someone else said, there are many different human interpretations of the Bible - which can be dangerous. YOu cant take bits that suit you and leave others. GOd is the only one who can interpret the Bible correctly for us.

There is no arguement here and absolutely no point in throwing in useless scientific facts to disprove the Bible. AS I said many times, my faith doesnt hurt you John and for me science just doesnt cut it over the awesome power of God. We'll all know the truth one day and until then, I choose to serve God:D

[Ffrenchknickers]

OK, one more thing :rolleyes:

Bible must be interpreted, otherwise how would we know which bits are metaphorical

We know because the writers tell us! There are parables, dreams etc etc...but it is clear when they are used.

Matt13:24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.

And it even explains why they are used....

Matt 13:10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

Matt 13:13This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

And there are dreams and interpretations of dreams in there as well.
Genesis 41:12 Now a young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard. We told him our dreams, and he interpreted them for us, giving each man the interpretation of his dream.

Just examples of the parts of the Bible that aren't literal (I think it makes it pretty clear)...although I believe that Jesus was literally there telling the parable or that God literally caused someone to dream a dream and it literally happened :p :p

[Ffrenchknickers]

Oh, and Alicesmum, about church. What would they say about the Christian/buddhism stuff? Seriously, I dont know, it's between you and God...but there is absolutely no reason why you couldnt go and just enjoy the service! I mean of course we will be celebrating the birth of Jesus and all the normal stuff:) We have a service at 9am xmas day and 7pm xmas eve:) My church is at The Gap :)

[rainbow]

Just really quickly...
alicesmum I loved your elephant illustration. It's such a good way of showing that there's only one ultimate truth even though lots of people will get glimpes of parts of the truth. I'm going to try and take this one step further, bear with me if it ends up sloppy. What if the people needed the elephant for a particular purpose? Just for example, squirting water? Those who are touching the elephant's ear or tail will have part of the truth, yes, but they will not have the part they really needed. Only those who are touching the trunk will have the part of the truth that really matters to them. This is how I see it with religion. Many religions will have recognised some part of the truth, but it's my belief that only through Jesus can we find the redemption of our souls, which is something that's far more important than any kind of enlightenment. These are just my thoughts.
apparently he did. i suppose plenty of evil people repent on their death beds out of fear, perhaps out of genuine remorsefulness sometimes too. it makes it a little hard to believe that people of other religions who spend their whole lives doing good works don't get into heaven and that these ppl do, don't you think??? If you're asking me, then my thoughts on this are best summed up with another illustration. I can't remember whether I've already used this elsewhere but I think it's a good one. Imagine you are walking through a city. Some buildings are small and others seem to reach impressively all the way into the sky. Then imagine you're flying in a plane high above the city. All you can say about the buildings is that they are all "way down there" and not anywhere near being as high up as what you are. I think that while we are in this world all mixed up together, we compare ourselves to each other using our own standards and see some people as really good and others as really bad. But from God's perspective, we're all falling far short of where we should be, and although there are differences between us, none of us are "good enough" so we are all in the same boat. That's not to undermine how God feels about our good and bad deeds - he cares about these more than we do. He understands the results and consequences better than we ever will. I just think that when we get upset when a dreadful sinner receives pardon, we fail to recognise our own situation as a sinner also. Thankfully God has thought about the whole justice thing a lot longer than any of us have and he's come up with the best possible solution. These are my thoughts.

[alicesmum]

thanks for that rainbow. i liked your city analogy and i also believe we are all just doing what we are doing. the murderer feels compelled (i,.e. has reaons for his behaviour) as does the amnesty international worker. and yes we are all fallible, even Mother T!!! :)

i guess i really still think it's ironic that the almost 1 billion muslims in the world are as 100% convinced as you are that their way is the only way to heaven; that they are right and you are wrong. do you ever consider that?

one question for you or katie or anyone who might answer it for me. it's a dumb one and might show my limited knowledge of the bible but here it is:

how did the world become populated with so many people if it started out with just one man, his wife and their 2 sons??????????? did Eve go onto to have more kids (daughters) who then had offspring born of their own brothers/father? or did God create more human beings in his own image after adam and eve? how does the bible account for all the different races (aboriginal, caucasian, chinese, red indian etc).

katie, just looked at the UBD and there are a couple of churches at The Gap. Which street? I might see you there xmas morning!

:p

p.s. rainbow, that parable is an old buddhist one. my take on it is that you might need the trunk, its function might suit your needs perfectly, but i might need the back to rest on, and my neighbour might need the tail to sweep up!!!!

[JohnC]

I'm sure that what follows is not an original thought, but I believe that it is entirely possible that God did create the earth approx 6000 years ago (or whatever) complete with its geological and fossil records intact. And so why not create a galaxy complete with light from stars already on its way to earth?

I think most people would find this "last resort" argument very unsatisfactory, since it is basically saying we can never have any knowledge of the empirical world, because God set it up to fool us into believing things that are untrue.

This would mean for instance that the supernova we witnessed in 1987 never actually happened or the fossilised bones we see in museums are not the remains of long dead creatures. So while this is "possible" it is so implausible (both empirically and theologically) that I don't know of anyone who seriously holds such a view - even so-called creation scientists. That is why creationist spend so much time trying to prove that dinosaurs existed in biblical times (and all fitted aboard the Ark) or that "the Flood" is responsible for the geology we see today or even that the speed of light was different in earlier times.

If we are going to lose our grip on reality to this extent we may as well all go back to goat-herding on the plains of Mesopotamia.

[JohnC]

I had to do some research, because I could not remember any contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. And the way I read (interpret :p ) it, I don't think there is one.

While I sure some form of apologetics can conjure away any contradiction, it is probably more fruitful to accept that these are different accounts of creation and ask why they are different. In other words treat the manuscripts we have in a rational manner in the same way we would any other ancient source.

Most biblical scholars (more than 90pc according the Vatican) believe the first 5 books of the bible were written by different people at different times. Consensus seems to have formed around some form or other of the documentary hypothesis. An excellent and well-balanced article on this can be found at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

As far as Genesis 1 and 2 are concerned, what scholars believe is that they were written by different people (known as E and J, respectively) and that chapter 2 (from 2:3 on) was written earlier (its style of Hebrew is older). Seen this way, it is no surprise or slur that the two chapters should disagree since they clearly have very different concerns.

It is only if you start from a fundamentalist position that the contradictions present a problem. Since 95 per cent of people don't believe the Genesis account should be taken literally, appreciating the different styles and concerns in these chapters deepens rather than confuses their appreciation of the text.

[alicesmum]

oh john
while i agree with you mate i think you are "preaching" to the unconvertible!!!

still, perhaps it makes interesting reading for anyone surfing out there and considering all these issues.

:D

just thinking on my way to work this morning that, it's kinda like, creationists are happy to put all their faith in some sciences but not others. eg., we put all our faith in the physical sciences when we turn the key in our ignition and drive to our destinations each day. we put all our faith in medical sciences when we go to hospital for an operation. we put all our faith in chemical sciences when we pop panadol or give our kids antibiotics. but faith in the scientific method for producing reliable results goes out the window when it comes to the geological sciences. Interesting. But perhaps i have misunderstood the creationists' viewpoint .....

this thread certainly has made me think (too much actually....not such a good thing!!!) :D

[Ana Gram]

oh john
while i agree with you mate i think you are "preaching" to the unconvertible!!!




I think it is more flogging a dead horse and they are all doing it!

[WeThree]

I think it is more flogging a dead horse and they are all doing it!
hey thats a bit rude!!! :confused: :rolleyes: :)

[WeThree]

[QUOTE=JohnC]To pose the question as "evolution vs creation" is to fundamentally misunderstand

the natures of both science and religion. [QUOTE\]

John C you are absolutely correct. My wife asked me to hop on and see what you had written and

put my thoughts forward but your first line addressed it beautifully.

Imagining two lines parallel to each other. They will go on forever never meeting.
The purpose of debate is so two or more lines of thought intersect and where they intersect or

collide they are refracted and change trajectory and hopefully the people with them.
(This could be seen as the evolution of thought? lol)
Evolution and Faith though will never ever meet.

It is a terrible mistake for Christians to depend on science to prove themselves correct

especially when science itself can be incorrect. Consider what happens when a biblical concept or

issue is "proven" by science only to later on be found to be flawed science. What happens to that

biblical concept or issue? What happens to those who come to Christ based on supposed "fact"

rather than faith. (Eg flat earth theory whilst the Roman Catholic Church suppressed new findings

we had the dark ages and the like.)
Remember the book of Hebrews "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word

of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."


Do not get me wrong, science can be supplementary to faith as we are in the physical realm but to

use it as a means to propping up faith is a terrible mistake.

Infact I call into question the faith of many staunch creationists who fight tooth and nail over

this issue. So what if it is true or not. The apostle Paul stated to the church at corinth "For I

determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."


This the real issue for Christians and we get side tracked all the time. The issue of sin in

mankind requires remedy. Science might provide a chemical solution to suppress sinful desires but

it leaves the machinery intact. Christ is about rebirth and thus changing this machinery within.

I ask, though Evolution is called "evolution" is it about mankind naturally getting better?
Are we able to gauge the direction in which we are traveling?
In space one cannot tell up from down. There is no up and there is no down. It is all relative.
We know where evolution says we have come from we know where we are but where are we going? Do

not the laws of the universe flow against evolution (the definition of the word not just the

theory)? The law of thermodynamics, gravity, etc everything deteriorates. Why does evolution buck

the entire traits of the universe being devolution? And if so then surely it holds out hope for a

perpetual motion machine.

Science branches from the tree of knowledge. But according to Genesis we need the tree of life

(which we neglected to take - for good or bad?). Thus science will not fill us with what we need

to live.

Science will never disprove God.
Faith will never disprove evolution.

The only thing I feel will evolve over time is that science will prove or disprove evolution.

Faith though will still be there when this happens, and afterwards regardless of evolution being

true or not.

I personally believe God created but the fact He created does not tell me how He created.

The greatest problem I have with evolution is that it is very closely aligned with Hindu

traditions something of which I have completely come to appreciate philosophically but detest in

reality as it leaves a terrible emptiness within and makes each persons existence without

purpose, importance, or uniqueness. More on that later maybe.
I have not read all your threads as of yet but I feel I shall enjoy doing so. (I need a bit of a rest as I am working night shifts the next 3 nights.)
Nathan

[WeThree]

oops :) dh wrote that before he went for a lie down and asked me to copy and paste it for him :) i created a user name for him ('nathan' how original lol) but accidently used my own, oh well :)

[Ana Gram]

hey thats a bit rude!!! :confused: :rolleyes: :)


Wasn't intended to be rude but i stand by the comment. If you read back through the entire thread, everyone involved is pretty much rehashing the same arguement over and over with no way of convincing the other side. Hence flogging a dead horse. Not going to get anyone anywhere.

[JohnC]

Thanks for your initial thoughts, nathan. I might comment on a couple of points (taken the liberty of cleaning up spacing - shame on you, coops :p)
It is a terrible mistake for Christians to depend on science to prove themselves correct, especially when science itself can be incorrect. Consider what happens when a biblical concept or issue is "proven" by science only to later on be found to be flawed science. What happens to that biblical concept or issue? What happens to those who come to Christ based on supposed "fact" rather than faith.
...
Science will never disprove God. Faith will never disprove evolution.
I think this is in fact the position of most mainstream Christians and just about everybody else, excepting fundamentalists on the one hand and very militant atheists on the other.


I ask, though Evolution is called "evolution" is it about mankind naturally getting better?
....
We know where evolution says we have come from we know where we are but where are we going? Do not the laws of the universe flow against evolution (the definition of the word not just the theory)? The law of thermodynamics, gravity, etc everything deteriorates. Why does evolution buck the entire traits of the universe being devolution?
Evolutionary science does not suggest any "direction" - the popular writings of Stephen Jay Gould are particularly good on this point, eg (from Tires to Sandals, in Eight Little Piggies)

“We talk about the ‘march from monad to man’ (old-style language again) as though evolution followed continuous pathways of progress along unbroken lineages. Nothing could be further from reality. I do not deny that, through time, the most ‘advanced’ organism has tended to increase in complexity. But the sequence from protozoan to jellyfish to trilobite to nautiloid to armored fish to dinosaur to monkey to human is no lineage at all, but a chronological set of termini on unrelated evolutionary trunks. Moreover life shows no trend to complexity in the usual sense—only an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point constrained to be simple.”

So we are largely on the same track here. But be careful of citing science loosely, particularly the second law of thermodynamics. This canard is a favourity of creationists and is probably one of the most misused bits of science ever (and that's saying something!). Increasing entropy is a property of closed systems, but that's another story.

Meanwhile, I think we can agree that "science branches from the tree of knowledge."

[WeThree]

i know chelle, was just having a bit of a joke :)

[JohnC]

If you read back through the entire thread, everyone involved is pretty much rehashing the same arguement over and over with no way of convincing the other side. Hence flogging a dead horse. Not going to get anyone anywhere.

Probably biased here ;) but "convincing the other side" may not be the purpose of the exercise, though it's a pleasant surprise when it happens. For my part I try to expand on issues in a way that some people might find informative. Whether I succeed is another question, of course :rolleyes:

[WeThree]

Probably biased here ;) but "convincing the other side" may not be the purpose of the exercise, though it's a pleasant surprise when it happens. For my part I try to expand on issues in a way that some people might find informative. Whether I succeed is another question, of course :rolleyes:

very true John, i enjoy a healthy debate :) i like reading others opinions who may differ from mine just as much as i enjoy sharing my own :) i think the purpose of this thread was to give ppl a chance to share their thoughts and ideas, rather than to try and convince anyone of them.

[xkwzit]

Hey JohnC
You're always informative, no need to worry on that point :) . And I'm not so sure that we're rehashing the same stuff. Most of the discussion points are new although, I admit no ones' beliefs appear to have changed (but you never know about those who are listening hard to the discussions while watching from the wings :D ).

Hi Nathan
Thanks for some additional eloquence. I loved the way you put it:

Science will never disprove God. Faith will never disprove evolution.

And Alice's Mum, no one has answered you yet, have they?

Adam and Eve had another son, Seth:
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth (Gen 4:25)

and even more children:
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. (Gen 5:4)

Does that help?

Cheers

[pegasus]

If we want to get the answer back down to ancestors again - remember the next population growth was from Noah and family :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

I think this is in fact the position of most mainstream Christians and just about everybody else, excepting fundamentalists on the one hand and very militant atheists on the other.

Well, seeing as you have referred to me as a fundamentalist, I'll comment on this one....I have not said that faith can disprove evolution as such (as in a "scientific" way), I have freely said many times that my faith in God means that I wont believe in evolution....I dont have the answers, its just that from the Bible, I cannot find anything to support evolution. As I said, I am happy to be disproven by God and only God - I dont claim to have all the answers but if its not there in the Bible then I wont "make it up."
Infact I call into question the faith of many staunch creationists who fight tooth and nail over
Although it is not up to us to "question" other Christians faith, I know what Nathan was saying here...to rely upon scientific proof for the existence of God kind of misses the point...

ALicesmum...about relying upon some sciences and not others....I think that there is a huge difference between life saving medication and something that tries to disprove creation!! They are worlds apart. My view on medication is not a typical one (Christian or otherwise) - we tend not to use medication/panadol/vaccines or visit doctors etc (although we HAVE at times) but that is mostly for health reasons and not much to do with our belief in God (well, some of the immunsation issues are but thats another thread lol.) Science definately has its place - that goes without saying but it also greatly flawed and forever changing - alot of it as we have seen throughout the years, has done alot more damage than good - think thalidomide, Ddt, CFC's. :rolleyes: SCience to me is experiemental and will always be...they are forever disproving things that they have once "proven."

For the record, I dont support ID being taught in the science classroom. :eek: I am happy for my kids to learn about current science etc. They learn about Creation at Church, through prayer and through us talking about it to them constantly and they can make their own deductions through their own personal realtionship with God. I dont support the "theory" of evolution being taught as fact, but at the same time, God is bigger than any of that and my children will hopefully know that. To learn "creationism" or whatever in a classroom is to miss the point about God...I believe there needs to be a personal revelation and one needs to be born again to have a true faith in God. I dont believe that one can have faith by learning Creation or intelligent design or whatever it is as a science.

[JohnC]

For the record, I dont support ID being taught in the science classroom. :eek: I am happy for my kids to learn about current science etc. They learn about Creation at Church, through prayer and through us talking about it to them constantly and they can make their own deductions through their own personal realtionship with God.

Well, that's a huge point of agreement :D Thanks for clarifying that.

You say a number of other things about science that from my point of view I've dealt with in previous posts, so I might just leave that there (do I hear sighs of relief ;) ) since I want to say a couple of things about Genesis creation, which I'll do in a separate post.

[JohnC]

Here is my reasoning: we both agree that in Gen 1 that plants and animals are created before Adam. In Gen 2 I have the following from the NIV
...
So I don't think that this is a clear contradiction, as it can be interpreted (there's that word again!) either way.

Hi xkwzit,

While I gave a general reply to that post, I wanted to say a couple more things about interpretation since I don't believe even the most ardent believer can maintain that the Bible gives us some kind of direct, unmediated access to God - it was after all written by people (by the way, did you get a chance to look at that stuff on the documentary hypothesis?).

Genesis comes to us as an ancient Hebrew text, and the very act of translating it necessarily involves interpretation. You are likely aware of this since you specifically chose the NIV translation, with its awkward use of the perfect tense, to suggest there was perhaps no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. So looking at 2:19, the NIV gives us, as you previously quoted:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
But this reading is not shared by almost anyone else! Other translators are in no doubt what the Hebrew is trying to say. The KJV

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Young's Literal Translation:

And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.
Contemporary English Version:

So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names.

more to come ...

[JohnC]

(sorry doing this as separate posts, since Bubhub has developed a nasty habit of chewing things up)

So on this rather important question of whether man was created first or last, the two creation accounts give different answers according to just about everybody.

Interpretation is also required to make sense of Genesis 1 itelf, since it is clearly the product of a Bronze age cosmology.
1. God does not create the heavens and the earth out of nothing, rather the principal materials - water, air and earth already exist in a kind of primeval ocean (about as close to chaos as a non-seafaring people such as the Jews could conceive of). The waters are divided, not created, dry land is uncovered, etc.

2. The imagery makes little sense to a modern reader until you realise this is a geocentric and flat-earth universe, with the firmament being virtually in reach of the earth itself (which is why later on the story of Babel would not have sounded silly and Moses goes up a mountain to talk to God).

3. The account aims to answer some mysteries of the day eg it would be more than 2000 years before it was understood that the water that fell from the sky came from ocean evaporation, so explaining how water came to be both below (rivers etc were thought to be supplied by "springs") and above the earth was an answer to an important contemporary puzzle.

4. The writer is not at all worried by having night and day happening in absence of the Sun, since the whole theological point of the account was to establish the primacy of the Sabbath, at that time one of the most distinctive practices of the Jewish people, hence the 6 days of labour and one day or rest.

And so forth ... Clearly to try to read such a wonderful creation myth as "literal truth" is a nonsense ...

[alicesmum]

katie
thanks for your response re the sciences. :p
you still haven't told me what street your church is on!! :)

xkwzit
thanks for your response about how the world became populated from just adam and eve, but does this mean that their children produced offspring with one another!!!??? :eek:

and i would still like an answer to this one too....


i guess i really still think it's ironic that the almost 1 billion muslims in the world are as 100% convinced as you are that their way is the only way to heaven; that they are right and you are wrong. and that christians believe the reverse about christianity. do you ever consider that?

rachel :p

[rainbow]

Hi all,
In a rush again, my apologies.
Looking forward to having more time for this stuff - it should be coming soon.


i guess i really still think it's ironic that the almost 1 billion muslims in the world are as 100% convinced as you are that their way is the only way to heaven; that they are right and you are wrong. do you ever consider that?
Personally? I would say two things.
1) It is well worthwhile for a person to put every effort into investigating until they feel very sure they are on the right track. The consequences can be huge!
2) My personal experience with Christianity has left me no reason to doubt it.
Does this answer your question?


that parable is an old buddhist one. my take on it is that you might need the trunk, its function might suit your needs perfectly, but i might need the back to rest on, and my neighbour might need the tail to sweep up!!!!
I guess the reason you and I look at this parable differently is because you seem to be suggesting that most needs are equally valid whereas I see one particular need (the need to be on the right track when it comes to eternity) as far outweighing any other need of life in general. In that way, those who are not touching the trunk miss out.


i think the purpose of this thread was to give ppl a chance to share their thoughts and ideas, rather than to try and convince anyone of them.
I am genuinely curious to hear how other peoples minds work and I love discussions like this because they expose the fabric of peoples thinking. I love it when people bring something up that stirs my thinking in a direction I hadn't taken before, and I love to be involved in stirring other peoples thinking for the same reason. At the end of the day if we are all better off for having crossed each others paths then we will be entirely successful, that's the way I see it.

[alicesmum]

you seem to be suggesting that most needs are equally valid whereas I see one particular need (the need to be on the right track when it comes to eternity) as far outweighing any other need of life in general.

not necessarily. i also have the need to find God but i don't do it primarily through church and through reading the bible. i do it through meditation. "There are many paths to the top of the mountain but the view is still the same" as they say, though i am sure you would disagree with that statement.



The greatest problem I have with evolution is that it is very closely aligned with Hindu traditions, something of which I have completely come to appreciate philosophically but detest in reality as it leaves a terrible emptiness within and makes each persons existence without purpose, importance, or uniqueness.

geez...i hope there are no Hindus listening. Actually I hope there are and that they spring to their tradition's defence!!!

[alicesmum]

My personal experience with Christianity has left me no reason to doubt it.

And this would clearly be the case for many Muslims (and Jews etc) too I suspect (i.e., they have no doubt in their experience or in their minds about their path).

[rainbow]

"There are many paths to the top of the mountain but the view is still the same" as they say, though i am sure you would disagree with that statement.To make it suit my perspective I would just say that while there are many paths, most of them are blocked or deadly and there's only one path that will actually get you there safely in the end.
But hey, that's just my perspective, based on the Bible. I don't mind who agrees or disagrees.
I just hope that the Ultimate Truth (whatever it may be) is grasped by as many people as possible. We'll all find out eventually, right?
Let's face it though, to continue with the elephant analogy, even those who have the precious trunk still don't see the whole elephant. They may have the important part, but they don't have ALL the answers. Only the elephant really knows the whole story.
Seems we just gotta do the best we can with what we've been given.

[rainbow]

And this would clearly be the case for many Muslims (and Jews etc) too I suspect (i.e., they have no doubt in their experience or in their minds about their path).
If this is the case then I would view it this way: anyone who is not as "100%" convicted as they are would do well to investigate all claims until they have their own "100%" conviction one way or the other. It's serious stuff, is all.

[Ffrenchknickers]

(do I hear sighs of relief )

LOL:)

Alicesmum, sorry, I will PM you the details of our church....our phone line was damaged in the storm on Thursday and I can only get on here half the times I try... :rolleyes:

[JohnC]

If this is the case then I would view it this way: anyone who is not as "100%" convicted as they are would do well to investigate all claims until they have their own "100%" conviction one way or the other. It's serious stuff, is all.

I don't think that the benchmark is being 100 per cent convinced, since by that standard every jihadist, fundamentalist or extremist is right, and those with a more sceptical and cautious frame of mind are forever denied access to the "truth". This is completely the reverse of the real situation.

Many Muslims believe the Koran is literally 100pc the word of God as transmitted to Muhammad (sound familiar? it's not only Christians who make such claims ;) ) What basis do we have of denying such claims or deciding between competing claims, particularly if we treat this as "serious stuff".

I would say that only branch of human knowledge that has a proven track record in terms of backing up its claims is science. Now many would say, well that's fine but science cannot tell me about the spiritual aspect of our existence, just the empirical. I agree with that. But the conclusion that follows is that whatever spiritual path we take has to at least be in accord with a scientific approach to knowledge the world. And, just as importantly, claims to spiritual knowledge simply do not have the same level of exactitude or universality as scientific claims about, for instance, heliocentrism or plate tectonics or genetics, even though these (scientific) claims are themselves always only provisional and subject to continuing testing and adjustment.

So a certain humility is warranted when we make claims about "spiritual truth", which would indicate that compared with the false comforts offered by certainty and conviction, tolerance and scepticism are high virtues indeed .

[rainbow]

I don't think that the benchmark is being 100 per cent convinced I was using the "100%" loosely too which was why I had it in quotation marks


since by that standard every jihadist, fundamentalist or extremist is right, and those with a more sceptical and cautious frame of mind are forever denied access to the "truth".that is an excellent point. i will readjust my thinking and try to be more careful next time.


What basis do we have of denying such claims or deciding between competing claims, particularly if we treat this as "serious stuff".there are ways, such as by looking at how many manuscripts were found and how spread out they were and how well they matched each other etc, this is just one example.


I would say that only branch of human knowledge that has a proven track record in terms of backing up its claims is science.doesnt it only back it up with more science? if we did that with bible quotes we'd get jumped on.

Im not against science at all. But i do think its one of those words that is too ambiguous to use definitively in a discussion like this. there is good science and junk science floating around and when we only say "science" we dont know which bits a person is referring to.


But the conclusion that follows is that whatever spiritual path we take has to at least be in accord with a scientific approach to knowledge the world. what if ppl took that view when it was scientifically believed that the earth was flat, if for example the bible was to say that the earth was round. am i making sense - im in a rush sorry.

[Ffrenchknickers]

***DISCLAIMER. The intention of this post is to explain my understanding of Chrisitanity - NOT to preach to anyone or condemn anyone to hell lol***

But you see, even in our Bible, we are told about all these other religions...."false prophets will go out into the world and they will deceive many.." stuff like that. As a Christian, I cannot have anything but 100% faith...I cant accept that any other religion "might" lead to salvation because our Bible says loud and clear many times that we are only saved through God's son, Jesus Christ. I personally cant accept any religion that doesnt believe that Jesus is God's son (and God himself.) I would not be a Christian if I believed that salvation is via any other means than Jesus. CHristianity is the only religion that claims that Go walked the earth in the form of a human. A muslim described Islam to me once...she said that all Christians were Jews before Jesus and that all Muslims were christians before they became Muslims....anyone know how correct that is??? Because, I think that it is pretty clear in our Bible that the book of revelation is a definate closure...it is pretty clearly the end:) They believe that Jesus existed but dont believe that he was infact God. (correct me if I am wrong.) So, as a Christian, this definately looks like a case of being dragged away from the truth and deceived (false prophet.) I have nothing against muslim people at all, I feel that we should love everybody, I just choose not to follow their belief system. I used to question in the same way...."there are so many religions, whos to say which ones right??" I understand that but since being born again, I just know...and all that stuff has gone away:)

The parable of the elephant and the blind men is one that would receive alot of postive attention. It is pleasing to the world in that it kind of lets us lose our sense of accountability to God. Many people seem to want to hold onto things like this because it suits our modern society and seems more politically correct. It is way more pleasing to the ear than alot of Christian doctrine.


those with a more sceptical and cautious frame of mind are forever denied access to the "truth".

But they aren't!! I can tell you first hand that God works in mighty ways...my hubby was a staunch atheist not long ago....would not even consider that there might be a God and was the most sceptical person in the world! One night he decided to be just a tiny bit open to the possibility and WHAM, he became a Christian right then and there...after 31 years of being an atheist!

[Ffrenchknickers]

lol Rainbow, we posted at the same time:D

One more thing, I think there is significant evidence that Jesus existed...its not the year 2005 for no reason. Do you guys believe that he existed at all?

[JohnC]

doesnt it only back it up with more science? if we did that with bible quotes we'd get jumped on.
No, science is not self-referential - it produces results in the real world. And you use the results of science's progress every day, including the computer you are using (electricity, quantum mechanics for the semiconductors). These results provide the basis and tools for further science - so its knowledge is cumulative.


Im not against science at all. But i do think its one of those words that is too ambiguous to use definitively in a discussion like this. there is good science and junk science floating around and when we only say "science" we dont know which bits a person is referring to.

There is of course no end of crank science (the internet is full of it). But actual science is not hard to find or distinguish from its zany imitators. Science's primary institution is the peer-reviewed literature, which is how we know for instance that "intelligent design" though it may be an interesting philosophical critique of natural selection has yet to produce any science (and indeed is unlikely to do so).

Navigating our way through this does involve a little work on our part, and the media can often be as much of a hinderance as a help. But we are lucky enough to live in a country where just about everybody can access the resources to inform themselves, so there really is very little excuse not to do so ;) But finally that is also why the battle to maintain the integrity of science in schools is so important, and why I was so pleased to read katie's post that she opposed the teaching of ID in schools :D

[rainbow]

i dont know a lot about this ID stuff which is why i havent said much about it, but when i read katie's post i felt exactly the same way.
i want the schools to teach the most accurate material possible and where i disagree with them, i will be providing my child with an alternative and encourgaing them to think for themselves.
for the record i wholeheartedly believe in the bible and am seeking to understand it in context the way it's meant to be read.

[rainbow]

No, science is not self-referential
surely it would be with some things atleast, such as dating the earth or saying what material is in the middle of the earth.

i am related to a scientist and ive asked her to have a look at this thread when she has time.

[Sarie]

I'm sure my hubby would love to put his two cents worth in, so any funny comments are actually him - ie Lambchopsman, not me ;)

[rainbow]

we are lucky enough to live in a country where just about everybody can access the resources to inform themselves, so there really is very little excuse not to do soi've looked at my science friend's notes before and they go way over my head, some people have academic limitations in terms of delving into science.

[Ffrenchknickers]

I'm sure my hubby would love to put his two cents worth in, so any funny comments are actually him - ie Lambchopsman, not me

LOL...thats funny:D

[Sarie]

He calls me lambchop, so let's return the favour!

[JohnC]

surely it would be with some things atleast, such as dating the earth or saying what material is in the middle of the earth.

Neither isotopic dating nor the composition of the Earth are speculative or self-referential. For dating you may want to see my post Fact and opinion (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=85339#post85339), and for other geological questions I notice that Jessie, who started this thread, is a geologist and may be of some assistance, though I would be happy to give more details on either if you really think that is required.

for the record i wholeheartedly believe in the bible and am seeking to understand it in context the way it's meant to be read.
As for understanding the Bible in context, you may be interested to consider my earlier post Genesis and interpretation (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=97666#post97666)

[alicesmum]

katie
in answer to your question and just for yours and others' interest....(coz, as others have said, it is pretty interesting to know what others think....long as you don't silently mock them...hope this ain't happening out there in cyberspace)...
i definitely believe jesus existed. i think he was an amazing man, a great and wise and charasmatic prophet, ahead of his time, ahead of our time!!! i also think this of buddha who lived 500 years earlier. i have read much to convince me that jesus went east (to afghanastan and nepal) in his teenage years and learned a lot about buddhist teachings and brought them back to the middle east where he taught very similar teachings in a way that suited the jewish ear and not the eastern ear as they were very very different societies (i think the middle east was rather more violent as we see in the OT). his teachings were wonderful and i do get lots and lots out of them. and that's why they caught a lot of people's attention. but he didn't write the bible in my view. a range of other people did based on what he taught. i know this is not the view that christians take and that is why i am not a christian, because it doesn't resonate with me one tiny little bit to believe that all the words in the bible and all of our translations of those words over the last 2 millenia would all be endorsed by Jesus. if you believe they are all his words, hats off to you. i for one would never tell you or imply to you that YOU ARE WRONG. that would be rather arrogant. but i cannot reconcile my experience and my knowledge of science with the literalism that people use to understand christian doctrine. as I have said on another thread i don't believe in doctrinal belief. i think it does more harm than good. and i personally think he would not endorse some things that have gone on in churches or some of the arrogance of christians over the centuries.

but there's no doubt to me that there was this amazing man called jesus who lived about 2005 years ago. there are many books written about why the calendar is now based on his time of life and death (i.e. BC and AD) and those reasons are political. no doubt you know how tumultuous the history is of early christianity. but the powers that endorsed it prevailed, as did the powers that worshipped Ra the Sun God in ancient Egypt (a civilization that lasted longer than our own currently). and i think it's a good thing, as it has united the western world in a global calendar, though other parts of the world don't record it to be the year 2005 (though they concede nowadays for the parsimony it brings when dealing with western countries and their systems). such things like what year we say it is really are all relative and pretty arbitrary, though i know you probably see more in it than me!!! :)

[JohnC]

but there's no doubt to me that there was this amazing man called jesus who lived about 2005 years ago.

Might just add for the record that he must have been born before 4BC

[rainbow]

john,
as for the old earth stuff, i just dont see how we can be fully confident in something that we cant physically test in a complete final way - the age of the earth is something we can only feel "quite confident" about but can you really say you know for sure? and what's in the middle of the earth - well we may have an idea but who has gone there to say that we're right? this is the way i see it but i am no scientist.
as for your links, i had already read those posts, maybe you can summarise your particular point so my head doesnt swim so much. otherwise i dont feel able to comment.

[Ffrenchknickers]

i personally think he would not endorse some things that have gone on in churches or some of the arrogance of christians over the centuries.

You know....I couldn't agree more:D:D:D

Thanks for answering my question btw...before that, I have only heard people say that they believe he existed but dont believe he was the son of God and left it at that...not explaining that they dont believe the Bible is the word of God. That makes more sense (not that I agree with you lol but it makes sense at least!!)

[mummycloud]

i've looked at my science friend's notes before and they go way over my head, some people have academic limitations in terms of delving into science.

I started a bachelor degree in health science and so many of Jon C's posts and links go over my head :rolleyes: the big words start to frustrate and bore me. It's a shame because I am interested in this thread but it's so draining :(

[rainbow]

it is pretty interesting to know what others think....long as you don't silently mock them...hope this ain't happening out there in cyberspace yikes, me too!


but he didn't write the bible in my view. a range of other people did based on what he taught.I'm a Christian and I agree with you. I just think that God led them to write what they wrote ("inspired")


the literalism that people use to understand christian doctrine.many christian churches have differing ideas over which things to take literally and which not, as far as I know.


i personally think he would not endorse some things that have gone on in churches or some of the arrogance of christians over the centuries.I totally agree.

I love the way your mind works alicesmum.

[Mother Duck]

I started a bachelor degree in health science and so many of Jon C's posts and links go over my head :rolleyes: the big words start to frustrate and bore me. It's a shame because I am interested in this thread but it's so draining :(

Indeed it is a shame!

While this thread has become incrediably interesting, it is largely due to the open discussion that is NOW happening.

John C's post seem to have settled a little - not quite so harsh as they began.

WRT to the mention of dating methods - these are by no means infaliable - they all contain margin for error - science is as we understand it now - science itself 'evolves' - there are still to this day Geologists (very credible ones too) who do not believe in Plate Tectonics - yet this is taught in schools as fact - hmmmm

A key point regarding what they teach in schools - as was stated earlier - the thing that matters is that a child/children are coming home to people who teach them to look into what they are told and not just believe it all no matter what the 'curricular fashion' may be at that time!

[pegasus]

Totally agree with your last statement Jessie - that we should be teaching our children to question everything and look into what they are told.

I also agree with Katie that I don't agree with the teaching of ID in schools. I went to Sunday School when I was a kid and also had religious instruction at school. I always knew that what we learned in church (or in RI at school) was to remain in those classes and that the evolution learnings remained in the other classes. As my education continued, I further learned of radioactive half lives, physics and the like which further gave weight to some of the theories of evolution. While I have looked at these theories and equations (and watched some of them change over the years), I am yet to be convinced that they rule out creation theory (I doubt any scientific theory could do that). However, I do worry about the fact that society seems to be fading religion out of schools and replacing it with "explainable" theories (like ID).

I believe that religion should be taught in schools as just that, and I'll be making sure my DS gets exposure to the scriptures the same as I've had so that he can make up his mind as well as to his beliefs.

I also find it interesting that as Jessie says - that some scientists don't believe in the Pangea theory (you're a geologist aren't you?) - I'd always just accepted that it was a tried and true theory that many scientists had researched and therefore was all part of the evolution theory....Proves a point really that we'll never know for sure. ;)

[sweetangel2811]

Hello!

I love conversations like this!!!!

My take - I am one of those who sit in the middle. I am a roman catholic and strongly believe in God, therefore believe in His creating everything around us, including ourselves.

What I find disappointing is the Bibles use in this argument. This book was written by men in the last few thousand years or so. These were men who thought they were right at the time, but as human beings have evolved, and learnt new things throughout the course of time, we have subsequently also learnt how simplistic, overtly narrowminded and factually incorrect these stories are.

I don't believe that simply because the Bible is incorrect that we can therefore naturally assume that God doesn't exist, nor have a hand in the creation of all that we know.

I know this sounds strange coming from a catholic/christian, however I believe that God did create everything around us, which includes imperfection. Unlike what the bible says, God meant for imperfection, for us all to live our lives as best we could, to find the goodness in ourselves to help those born less fortunate than others etc etc.

A higher being had to be involved. I cannot comprehend it in my mind any other way. I have studied the evolutionist theory, and believe in most of it as well, but what gets me everytime is - where did the stuff come from BEFORE the Big Bang? What was there before? What sits on the outside of the universe? What is the universe expanding into? Who is to say we have it correct now? In a few thousand years, our ancestors could be looking at our theorising and say exactly what I have said about those who wrote the bible those many years ago.

Oooo - it is such a curly thought pattern!! But I love it!

[JohnC]

WRT to the mention of dating methods - these are by no means infaliable - they all contain margin for error - science is as we understand it now - science itself 'evolves' - there are still to this day Geologists (very credible ones too) who do not believe in Plate Tectonics - yet this is taught in schools as fact - hmmmm

I think only the Pope is infallible:rolleyes:

Dating methods, like all scientific measurements, have a margin of error (as Jessie says) that needs to be calculated and specified. In the case of the much discussed dinosaurs, pottasium argon dating gives the date of the K-T boundary (when dinosaurs disappear from the fossil record) as 65.2 million years ago +/- 400,000 years.

As far plate tectonics and the additional comment by pegasus:

I also find it interesting that as Jessie says - that some scientists don't believe in the Pangea theory (you're a geologist aren't you?) - I'd always just accepted that it was a tried and true theory that many scientists had researched and therefore was all part of the evolution theory....Proves a point really that we'll never know for sure.

Plate tectonics is not "part of the evolution theory" but it is a central paradigm of present-day geology. Now is probably not the time to discuss the various positions of its critics (clustered around the "new concepts in global tectonics" movement) except to say that no serious geologist doubts either the antiquity of the earth or empirical data supporting "continental drift".

[Some science definitions follow, skip to conclusion if not interested ;)]

Plate tectonics, like evolution or relativity, is not a "fact" or taught as such in schools or anywhere else. It is a theory (or model). Facts are properties of the natural phenonema, and we get information about them by experiment or observation. Theories help explain, organise and predict observational data. Theories may be more or less powerful, reliable and robust.

This may all seem unnecessary or irrelevant but such distinctions - common to all science - are absolutely vital is we are to have a sensible discussion about evolution at all. As an extraordinarily well-established and powerful theory common to all life sciences, evolution is not something one "believes in" or not based on whether it is "a fact". This is just misusing concepts that are supposed to be taught in junior high school (year 8 in NSW, I think).

[conclusion:D ]
No doubt because of my own limitations :( , I can't think of a simpler or shorter way of making these points, but I still firmly believe they must be made if we are not going to talk at cross-purposes all the time.

[JohnC]

... what gets me everytime is - where did the stuff come from BEFORE the Big Bang? What was there before?

I think that "before the big bang" is a question that cannot be posed by physics, which sees space-time as a property of the universe.

Philosophically, the question "why does anything exist at all (including God, for those who believe)", doesn't seem to me answerable by science or any other human endevour. Even if there were an answer (and there may not be), we probably couldn't understand it. And this, for me anyway, provides a clue to the spiritual aspect of life.

[Tea Lady]

Plate tectonics, like evolution or relativity, is not a "fact" or taught as such in schools or anywhere else.

You can't just say this John. Even if some science teachers stop and think "this is just a theory so I won't teach it as fact" most just teach what they're told without thinking too much about it. I personally taught plate tectonics as fact last year and I would consider myself one of the more "thoughtful" type of teachers (JMO of course!!) and I can guarantee you that evolution IS taught as a fact (along with many other things that are just theories BTW) by many teachers. My mum is a science teacher and is regularly frustrated by this.

In my opinion this is a big problem (and for the record one reason that I currently wouldn't support the teaching of ID as fact in schools) and you can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't happen.

Sorry if that came out a bit strong - I'm frustrated because I've got lots to say and barely any time on the net!!

L

[mummycloud]

All I know is, when I had religous studies at school and it was taught as "factual" I still came to my own conclusion as an adult. Kids are impressionable, but they aren't kids forver. Eventually, when they live through their own personal expieriences, they will decide if what they were taught makes sense to them or not.
I believe if kids have questions about this subject, they will only believe what they learn if the questions are answered. With scientific fact there will be alot of questions answered. Unfortuanlty there are too many unanswerable questions when it comes to the "big bang", so we all have to follow our hearts with what we want to believe. I know it's comforting to my kids to think they will go to heaven when they die rather than just being burried in the ground. They have also been told about reincarnation and they don't know which one is going to happen to them, but they are still both more comforting to a child than nothingness.

Sorry, if I just rambled on about something irrelevant :o I know what I'm thinking but can't get it out right..LOL

[JohnC]

You can't just say this John ... I personally taught plate tectonics as fact last year and I would consider myself one of the more "thoughtful" type of teachers (JMO of course!!) and I can guarantee you that evolution IS taught as a fact (along with many other things that are just theories BTW) by many teachers. My mum is a science teacher and is regularly frustrated by this.
In my opinion this is a big problem (and for the record one reason that I currently wouldn't support the teaching of ID as fact in schools) and you can't just dismiss it by saying it doesn't happen.

Hi LuWa,

Yes, I think you're right, and the way I put it was misleading :o .

What I meant was the textbooks make abundantly clear the meaning of the word "theory" and that evolution and plate tectonics are theories. And since I am not myself a teacher I should not make claims about what happens in classrooms:) .

The problem is that in everyday usage "theory" means what scientists call a conjecture, and "fact" is regarded as the equivalent of true. That the everyday and scientific meanings of these words are quite different does create a big problem is proven by the constant repetition of the complaint that "evolution is taught as fact".

Now the central hypothesis of evolution which is the source of controversy - that the diversity of life is the result of common descent with modification - is as empirically well validated as anything in quantum mechanics or relativity (which are moreover formally incomplete theories, unlike evolution). But no-one complains that the Schroedinger-Dirac formalisation of quantum mechanics is "taught as fact" (even though they probably should :rolleyes: ).

So why is evolutionary science singled out with this peculiar accusation? Part of the reason is that while people readily admit they know nothing about quantum mechanics, they think they know about evolution, particularly its evidence base.

What do we do about these problems? Better science education (including for teachers)? Higher standards in media reporting of science issues?

We can at least take comfort in the fact that we are in infinitely better shape than the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html), where apparently only 26pc of the population believes in common descent .

John

ps don't apologise for putting things strongly. i get accused of this regularly, and it's nice to have company :D
pps (ADDED) Should say that what some people really mean when they complain "evolution is taught as fact" is that creationism (which is not a scientific theory or indeed science at all) should be taught as an "alternative theory". This is not what you meant, of course.

[alicesmum]

I think that "before the big bang" is a question that cannot be posed by physics, which sees space-time as a property of the universe.

Philosophically, the question "why does anything exist at all (including God, for those who believe)", doesn't seem to me answerable by science or any other human endevour. Even if there were an answer (and there may not be), we probably couldn't understand it. And this, for me anyway, provides a clue to the spiritual aspect of life.

Absolutely! In Zen we say that to live a spiritual life that you need great faith, great doubt, and a great question!!!

a question, or questions, like this (also along the same lines, but more personal, are 'who was i before "I" was born?', 'when i die, where will "I" go?') are the important part, not the answers that we like to "think" we have to these questions!!! as you imply, that is the spiritual aspect of life. to me, spirituality is in the "not knowing" because we can't "know" these things like we "know" facts.

thanks for reminding me of this John. It was really helpful to me last night while i was sitting in meditation! :)

[JohnC]

don't know how I missed this :confused: , but from The Australian newspaper last month:

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference.

[cosmic]

Well that about wraps up that conversation doesn't it. :eek:

[WeThree]

mmmm, yes and no cosmic, there are many many christians who have little if any respect for the pope, the vatican, and the catholic church in general, although that is completely irrelevant to this topic so i will shut up now:D

[cosmic]

oh yes, sorry I forgot we are talking about Christians, not just Catholics. Silly me. :o

[JohnC]

there are many many christians who have little if any respect for the pope, the vatican, and the catholic church in general



oh yes, sorry I forgot we are talking about Christians, not just Catholics. Silly me. :o


Well, you are more than half right, cosmic ;)

There are estimated to be 1 billion Catholics, more than half the world's Christians.

But what do other mainstream denominations say?

This from the official website of the American Episcopal (ie Anglican) Church:

Has the Episcopal Church spoken officially on evolution?
No. However, clergy and scientists from both the Catholic and Evangelical traditions in Anglicanism have accepted evolution from Darwin’s time to the present. In a resolution passed by General Convention in 1982, the Church affirmed the ability of God to create in any form and fashion, which would include evolution.

The official statement of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A:

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory ... The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction ...


And I note the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harris, saying recently:

First, the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it. This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn’t just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself. God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has as it were woven creation from the bottom upwards, with matter giving rise to life, and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me. The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago, with life beginning to evolve about three billion years ago, simply underlines the extraordinary, detailed, persistent patience of the divine creator’s spirit.

No one, of course, can speak for all Christians but one would hope the broadly tolerant and informed approach shown by these church leaders (including Catholics) might encourage a less sectarian approach all round :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference

LOL!! SO now you have a newfound respect for the pope John C??
Anyway, what Erin said:)

[cosmic]

I didn't think the point was to profess a newfound respect for the Pope but to demonstrate that leaders of predominant Christian religions have espoused their support for scientific theories of evolution.

[Ffrenchknickers]

LOL I didnt think that was the point either C. I was being silly:p

[tickle]

Sorry I haven't read this whole thread, been a bit busy, you know.;)
Just wondering......has Katesmom's question re the rainbow strollers been cleared up?
If so, what conclusions have we come to?:p

[Ffrenchknickers]

I definately believe in the evolution of strollers.....The Bible gives me no reason not to:p

[Ffrenchknickers]

But, do all strollers go to Heaven?? That is the real question...

[tickle]

I had an evil one once, it was returned to the store immediately and probably resold to the next poor sod that came along thinking they were getting a bargin.:rolleyes:
I'm sure it did not go to heaven.:rolleyes:

[Ffrenchknickers]

My $27 umbrella stroller is definately a gift from God:D SO light and easy to manouvre...I love the way you can just pick it up with one hand, or lift and carry dtroller and child up the stairs at the same time...its great for throwing in the shopping trolley and in the back of the car...ahhhhh, the stroller....a magnificent creation which has evolved to become almost perfect:p :p :rolleyes:

[Ffrenchknickers]

I'm sure it did not go to heaven.

But, are you sure? :eek: Are you really sure???:eek: Is it up to us to judge? :eek:

[tickle]

When my time comes, if there is bub hub in heaven, I will be sure to post about strollers in heaven to you all as I'm sure this thread will still be going.;)

[Ffrenchknickers]

LOL thats right:D

The question is, have YOU forgiven your stroller Happy Rady?:p

[tickle]

I don't believe I have....yet.
Very spitful woman I am.
Currently working through these issues.
I hope to one day...........any advice to help me?

[tickle]

Did you like the way I posted that KB?
You love the short sentences don't you?:rolleyes:

[Ffrenchknickers]

Very spitful woman I am

LOL "Spitful" to be full of complete spit.....

[Ffrenchknickers]

I hope to one day...........any advice to help me?

Well, you know, I totally believe that by not forgiving your stroller fully, you are only hurting yourself...not only that, but you are holding yourself back from giving yourself totally to any other strollers that may come along in the future. Think of what it will do to your kids;)

[tickle]

LOL yes, I have lots of spit.
Surprised KB isn't on my back.
Sorry SPITE, or was it SPRITE I was wanting to say.:confused:
Well I'm very annoyed with my ex-stroller.:mad:

[Ffrenchknickers]

I hope to one day...........any advice to help me?

Well, you know, I totally believe that by not forgiving your stroller fully, you are only hurting yourself...not only that, but you are holding yourself back from giving yourself totally to any other strollers that may come along in the future. You are not hurting that stroler by holding a grudge against it...its either dead and buried or has moved on and is happy with another family.

Gee now whos full of sPit:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[tickle]

Should we go to a professional do you think?

[Ffrenchknickers]

LOL, I think you need to go somewhere..........

[WeThree]

lol lol. i had a feeling i might find you girls here:D i think the only proof we need that strollers have indeed evolved, is their ability to now recline back, what saviours they are:D

[cosmic]

When my time comes, if there is bub hub in heaven, I will be sure to post about strollers in heaven
Bit presumptuous aren't you, Happy Rady?
Who says your ticket is guaranteed?
Short sentences....... is that good? At least I do paragraphs. :p

[tickle]

Yes, I have a sure ticket, I'm special.:rolleyes:
Erin, I would like to disagree with you on that point. If they have evolved, as such, how come some have just stopped evolving and are stuck in a non reclining time.:rolleyes:

[WeThree]

mm good point E, but one that i dont have an answer for without first consulting my dictionary to find some really big words to use:D

[tickle]

Where's JohnC?
He seems to have all the answers!;)

[WeThree]

yes that might be true E, but none of us will understand what the answer is!!! :p (sorry john, only joking, you know we all think your fab:D )

[alicesmum]

this thread has become way too esoteric for my liking.

:D :p :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

Lol.....:d:d:d

[tickle]

Ok, very sorry if I've killed this thread!

Please come back JohnC and use some big words................:)

[WeThree]

hehe E, too late im afraid, i think you've ruined it;)

[tickle]

Should I start another, or is it kind of a relief for you guys?

[WeThree]

na, leave it for now, cause just when we think its all over, my dh will come along and finally get around to reading all of johns posts, and rehash the bloody thing!!! :D

[JohnC]

In the first test case of "intelligent design" in the US, a federal court judge has just rejected the scientific credentials of ID and stopped its introduction into the classroom. At this early stage the best news report I can find of the case is from Time Online:
'Breathtaking Inanity': How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1142625-1,00.html)

This decision is bound to have repercussions in Australia, hopefully restraining the likes of Brendan Nelson from making more silly comments on the issue as well as giving pause for thought to those schools that have already begun presenting ID as an "alternative".

The fundamentalist lobby is of course furious :D, but its pretty hard for them to present this one as part of an atheist conspiracy since the judge is a church-going Republican appointed by Bush!

Of relevance to some of the issues discussed in this thread, the judge found:

After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

An early Xmas present for those battling the forces of darkness ;)

[tickle]

Excellent.

[Ffrenchknickers]

SO whatdya all reckon? Creation or evolution LOL:p :rolleyes: :o

[alicesmum]

katie
r u trying to start a bubhub ground-hog day or something? :D :p :D

[WeThree]

glad to see you back john :) ive been forced to converse with the likes of E and frenchie, they are soooo immature and hardly know any big words;) :p

[tickle]

Well I was going to come up with some big words to come back with but alas I can't be bothered.
I will now leave this thread, so it can get back to the same boring way it was before.....
Enjoy my boring friends.:p

[WeThree]

lol lol lol:D

[JohnC]

For those, like me, who think this battle between biblical literalism and science is not only important but fascinating, here is the link to the full text of the court's decision, Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf)

Its 139 pages long (double-spaced, though) but contains some fascinating insights into not just the issues, but how these God-fearing Christians repeatedly lied in the witness box about their activities.

John

ps u should try it coops, might help you with your vocabulary :p :D

[WeThree]

hehe john, i just might do that :D

[Ffrenchknickers]

LOL Alicesmum, something like that:D

Coops, I do too know big words! Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious:D:p:D

[WeThree]

oh sorry frenchie, it appears i have misjudged you:D ;)

[Ffrenchknickers]

LOL.....quadratus laborum, rectus abdominus, sternocleidomastiod, brachioradialis :p:p:p LOL

[WeThree]

Roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!:d

[flower]

Well...some one please reach for the padlock and close this thread!!!

[JohnC]

Well...some one please reach for the padlock and close this thread!!!

The fact some people have nothing of content to add to the discussion does not mean no-one does. Perhaps we should look more broadly at the problem.

In the first sensible critique of the sensationally good Dover school judgement, Slate's national correspondent writes (http://www.slate.com/id/2132807/):


Scientifically, Jones [the judge] settles the issue. Culturally, he fails. And until we learn the difference, the fight over creationism in schools and courts will go on.

This of course is more of a problem in the US, but we have seen the same phenonemon right here in this very thread. The problem of people being totally resistant to any form of logical argument raises the question of how to engage in meaningful dialogue. I don't know what the answer is, but we sure as heck won't find it by playing ostrich.

[tickle]

So how bout them strollers huh?;)

[flower]

Right you are John!!
BTW JC..I'm assuming your speaking figuratively as Ostriches don't really put their head in the sand....but I bet you knew that didn't you?
OM.

[xkwzit]

Hi JohnC
There is ABSOLUTLEY no way I am going to find time to read 139 pages, do you have the address of the cheat sheet that sums it up in a page?

Cheers

[wattle]

Yes well it's nice to have an opinion, it's great to learn others opinions, and it's even better if we have the maturity to recognise that there are many ways to have a discussion.

A tiny remark can sometimes have far more meaning than a lengthy discussion. Actually as this forum is mostly visited by highly intelligent but extremely busy mums, I would guess that the succinct posts are read (and understood, and appreciated) more than the drawn out ones.

However, each to their own. If we were all the same, there probably wouldn't need to be so many of us here.

[Mother Duck]

Here here Wattle!

[tickle]

Actually as this forum is mostly visited by highly intelligent but extremely busy mums, I would guess that the succinct posts are read (and understood, and appreciated) more than the drawn out ones.

So, how bout them strollers huh?:rolleyes:

[Ffrenchknickers]

OK ok, E! About the strollers.....your answer is the sqaure root 5 million, 927 thousand 5 hundred and 61 to the power of 19 divided by Pi:D