TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Where does everyone stand in regards to...
- Thread starter Amateur_Expert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- widely
- Status
no because you'll say they're metaphors.[b said:
I think that if you believe the bible, you believe what it says (not make everything that disagrees with science a metaphor). I would either believe the bible literally or not believe it at all.
let me put it this way... You have a friend right? You want him/her to believe something. If they don't believe it, you have to send them to eternal punishment in the hands of the most evil thing in the universe.
Do you use metaphors that seemingly go against science or do you tell them what you want them to believe?
The bible is using metaphors that seemingly go against science.
ETERNAL punishment... ETERNAL. Do you get what ETERNAL means? F-O-R-E-V-E-R !!! infinite! never ending!
I'm supposed to believe that the thing (god) that puts us in the earth without knowing a thing, that CREATED us and gave us our personality and reason how it is, that put us in the environment we are in (some people in some places have NEVER even HEARD of the bible or it's teachings... oh yes... all men were created equal... right) would cruely punish us ETERNALLY for what we did in our short and ignorant life span? You experience basically NOTHING in your lifespan.
but we should have believed the bible right? not to mention the fact that some people have never even heard of the bible, a collection of books (and there were many others that the church didn't pick) gathered by the church that were written thousands of years ago?
and then I'm supposed to believe that that thing (god) that put us there is pure niceness and fairness and omnipotent and everything?
Why the heck did he CREATE evil anyway? there was no evil before he existed. For there to be something (even an idea) there has to be a creator right? So he created evil. He KNEW the devil was going to be evil... yet he created the devil...
to give us a choice? ok, let's give my little ignorant baby brother (hypothetical brother lol) a loaded gun and let him choose if he wants to live or not. How does he know it's loaded and could KILL himself? he doesn't. he's too ignorant to know the difference.
oh... he killed himself so let's punish ALL that comes after him (like god punishes US for what adam and eve did). Lets punish criminal's babies.
I'm supposed to believe that the thing (god) that puts us in the earth without knowing a thing, that CREATED us and gave us our personality and reason how it is, that put us in the environment we are in (some people in some places have NEVER even HEARD of the bible or it's teachings... oh yes... all men were created equal... right) would cruely punish us ETERNALLY for what we did in our short and ignorant life span? You experience basically NOTHING in your lifespan.
but we should have believed the bible right? not to mention the fact that some people have never even heard of the bible, a collection of books (and there were many others that the church didn't pick) gathered by the church that were written thousands of years ago?
and then I'm supposed to believe that that thing (god) that put us there is pure niceness and fairness and omnipotent and everything?
Why the heck did he CREATE evil anyway? there was no evil before he existed. For there to be something (even an idea) there has to be a creator right? So he created evil. He KNEW the devil was going to be evil... yet he created the devil...
to give us a choice? ok, let's give my little ignorant baby brother (hypothetical brother lol) a loaded gun and let him choose if he wants to live or not. How does he know it's loaded and could KILL himself? he doesn't. he's too ignorant to know the difference.
oh... he killed himself so let's punish ALL that comes after him (like god punishes US for what adam and eve did). Lets punish criminal's babies.
AE,
What conflict? There are an overwhelming number of scientists who are Christians (Most of which do not have a view that the Earth is young)
So as for science and the bible being polar opposites, please take a look at this link to a recent paper by a Dr Christine Done of Durham university. She is a Christian and very much a scientist and has no problem with science with her relationship to God
http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/pn0309ras.html
Personally, I do not subscribe to literal interpretation of the genesis text. If you firmly believe in order to accept Christianity and having to take poetry as historical fact you will never reconcile the 2. if you are interested, I can send you some notes which shows there is no problem with science and Christianity
as a word document which explains the Genesis chapter 1 and 2 accounts of creation which won't conflict with anyones scientific point of view. Please send me an email if interested.
What conflict? There are an overwhelming number of scientists who are Christians (Most of which do not have a view that the Earth is young)
So as for science and the bible being polar opposites, please take a look at this link to a recent paper by a Dr Christine Done of Durham university. She is a Christian and very much a scientist and has no problem with science with her relationship to God
http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/pn0309ras.html
Personally, I do not subscribe to literal interpretation of the genesis text. If you firmly believe in order to accept Christianity and having to take poetry as historical fact you will never reconcile the 2. if you are interested, I can send you some notes which shows there is no problem with science and Christianity
as a word document which explains the Genesis chapter 1 and 2 accounts of creation which won't conflict with anyones scientific point of view. Please send me an email if interested.
Wesley
God must have an interesting sense of humor
It's so hard to avoid not giving my opinion on this topic. I'm just gonna say that this is an interesting topic.... but we are starting to get personal. I guess you could say that AE and I are watching to make sure everything stays calm. If you need to be refreshed on the rules AE put down for the topic go to page 33, the second post.
Keep it clean,
~Wes~
Keep it clean,
~Wes~
so? people aren't perfect. There are scientists who believe things I don't. That doesn't mean they're right or that they are true scientists.[b said:
Most people have a need to know where they fit in in life (I'm perfectly fine not knowing), and religion provides it (it's all wishful thinking to me). Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they're not people.
Most proffesional scientists are actually athiests anyway.
when that poetry is written as historical fact then yes...[b said:
Hello
Capslock there are two main explanations for that...
1. Like organisms require a similar environment to survive so it make since that you would find them in similar area of rock.
2. The more "highly developed" organisms would be able to find higher ground (in the flood) therefore wound not have near the rate of petrifaction and be higher up in the "layers". All together vertebrates fossils are only a fraction of the fossil record.
One other thing it is not always the case hundreds of trees have been found standing through millions of layers worth of starts such as this
thanks
-Jeremiah-
I'm sorry but macroevolution (going from rock to human) has absolutely no proof. All I have seen is stuff like a fly having 4 wings instead of 2, the DNA for the wings is already there it just put them in the wrong spot, there was nothing new added.
Next question how was first cell capable of ual reproduction? And how was the gene pool in that first cell larger enough to produce such a divers array of living things?
thanks
-Jeremiah-
Capslock there are two main explanations for that...
1. Like organisms require a similar environment to survive so it make since that you would find them in similar area of rock.
2. The more "highly developed" organisms would be able to find higher ground (in the flood) therefore wound not have near the rate of petrifaction and be higher up in the "layers". All together vertebrates fossils are only a fraction of the fossil record.
One other thing it is not always the case hundreds of trees have been found standing through millions of layers worth of starts such as this
thanks
-Jeremiah-
I'm sorry but macroevolution (going from rock to human) has absolutely no proof. All I have seen is stuff like a fly having 4 wings instead of 2, the DNA for the wings is already there it just put them in the wrong spot, there was nothing new added.
Next question how was first cell capable of ual reproduction? And how was the gene pool in that first cell larger enough to produce such a divers array of living things?
thanks
-Jeremiah-
Wesley
God must have an interesting sense of humor
We never went from rock to human and if you mean going from inorganic to organic.. it was pretty easy. I've e-mailed a scientist from AMNH for a more thorough explanation of how the first bacteria got to be, but for now that question can be answered by my explanation or self replicating RNA.[b said:
The first cell wasn't capable of sexual reproduction, it reproduced asexually. I don't think we've asked a question yet...[b said:
more "highly developed" (there's no such thing.... even if there was, roaches would be more "highly developed" than humans because BOY can they survive!) but assuming there is such a thing as more "highly developed", that is not the same as bigger, faster, or able to go to higher ground.[b said:
a snail from today is not found below velociraptors (as an example). Velociraptors are way faster and by your thinking would be able to get to the younger rocks.
But you do not find lions among llamas, etc. Right now there are many places with very similar climate and organisms from others parts of the would would do very nicely in other parts of the world. (Ie. cane toads are from south america but do GREAT in australia, etc)[b said:
Besides, the age of the rocks and the fossils are totally inconsistant to your thinking.
Jerimiah, your site doesn't work with me.[b said:
If you're saying what I think you're saying (that certain species of trees have been found in old rocks as well as young layers) That doesn't go against evolution at all. Some species (sharks, roaches, etc) are more succesful than others and are therefore able to survive longer.
what john said.[b said:
even right now there are many organisms (from single cells to plants and animals etc.) that ONLY reproduce asexualy.
The gene pool didn't have to be large. Have you ever heard of organisms that have multiple of the same chromosome? there are many species of plants that have dozens of extra chromosomes (some may be bad, like down's syndrome but many plants/etc have extra chromosomes and are perfectly fine)
evolution of new information
"We never went from rock to human and if you mean going from inorganic to organic.."
What inorganic material are we talking about?
"The first cell wasn't capable of ual reproduction, it reproduced asexually. I don't think we've asked a question yet..."
But if it reproduced asexually then the daughter cells would have the exact same DNA right?
Yeah Capslock did right?
"more "highly developed" (there's no such thing...."
All the evolution charts I have seen would place an elephant above something like a protozoan even if they my be just as complex.
"The gene pool didn't have to be large."
So are you saying that one single cell could have the genetic code for the tens of billions of unique organisms found today?
thanks
-Jeremiah-
What inorganic material are we talking about?
"The first cell wasn't capable of ual reproduction, it reproduced asexually. I don't think we've asked a question yet..."
But if it reproduced asexually then the daughter cells would have the exact same DNA right?
Yeah Capslock did right?
"more "highly developed" (there's no such thing...."
All the evolution charts I have seen would place an elephant above something like a protozoan even if they my be just as complex.
"The gene pool didn't have to be large."
So are you saying that one single cell could have the genetic code for the tens of billions of unique organisms found today?
thanks
-Jeremiah-
Yes, it did have the exact DNA (usually... sometimes extra chromosomes slipped into the daughter cell) which then mutated.[b said:
Nobody said that. Like I said before, sometimes there are extra chromosomes, etc in daughter organisms. That's how the chromosome number increased over time.[b said:
as for the trees, Floods do happen. That doesn't mean that it's proof of one giant flood that covered the whole entire earth. They go through many rock LAYERS not periods of time.
- Status
