Much is made of the debates about Creation-Evolution.
You may find this a useful read (I think the debates are a waste of time and more based on a misreading of Gen. 1 through a literalistic lens of the modern enlightenment rather than a picture reflecting the human perspective of ancient cosmic geography). I lean toward an "evolutionary-creationist" view. The site pdf below is from biologos.org which is a very good site for research on these matters on a more scholarly level.
Biologos was founded by Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project and now Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Link to the article on Ancient Cosmic Geography - give it a read - would love to hear comments on this.
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf
-
Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member
-
The argument should be more centered around the concepts of fact and belief and how they cannot be the same thing and still retain the qualities that make a thing a fact or a belief.
Evolution is fact and is not a belief. The Biblical Genesis is a belief and is not a fact. That makes neither concept inherently less or more valuable than the other. They are just subject to the relativity that a given person applies to them.MrClean likes this. -
Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member
They are both based on faith. Both are evidenced based. All belief is based on evidence is of testimony. Evolution is a belief that is robust; but macroevolution (evolution across species; certainly having strong components of evidence) has never been "observed" in the way microevolution (evolution within species) is.
But, you're confusing categories. The parallels are as follows:
Science is the study of nature and it is subject to continual review and reevaluation and may at times be correct or incorrect. Any dogmatism that doesn't allow questioning results in a kind of blind faith. As a result the science becomes distorted.
Theology is the study of God/religion and it is subject to continual review and reevaluation and may at times be correct or incorrect. Any dogmatism that doesn't allow questioning results in a kind of blind faith. As a result the theology becomes distorted.
But the point of this article, if you bother to read it, is that a literalistic reading of Genesis (which both believers and non-believers engage in) is not warranted by the historical-cultural-literary context of the book. And the greater point is that it does not -
God created nature. Why would He not work through the nature He created? To say He couldn't have done this, in cosmic time, because of literal adherence to an allegory inspired in the minds of ancients ignorant of modern science is to deny God's omnipotence.
We have a long way to go before we can dictate how God could or couldn't have done something. Tail wagging the dog. -
I can hold a pen above my desk and let go. Assuming this happened on Earth under everyday circumstances, it is a fact the pen drops to the desk. Its inarguable. Now, before I let go of it, a person can believe it won't fall. They can think this one time, their deity/higher power will stop the pen from dropping and let it hover in mid air. That faith can be real and significant, but only exists until I let go of the pen. Even if the pen does float this one time, its no longer a matter faith that its floating, its fact that is floating now. Your faith may have brought you to that moment, but that moment is now a fact.
Fact:
something that actually exists
Faith:
belief that is not based on proof
Just because facts can change as more data is collected doesn't put fact and science in the same realm as faith and religion. They are still opposites.MrClean and LandShark13 like this. -
Your last sentence, due to it's total contradiction, has ripped a hole in space and at the same time caused the eyes of all the scientists in the world to bleed and their faith in humanity to dwindle. Lol Facts don't change. That's why they are called facts. -
-
Evolution deniers understand the science perfectly well. They also understand that it's accepted as no longer subject to debate by the properly credentialed scientific community. They deny it because it threatens their view of the universe. So they resort to sophistry, misdirection, exaggeration, and outright misrepresentation, all of which violates the commandment about bearing false witness that they supposedly espouse. You haven't seen anything truly sad until you see a poor, loyal kid in science class doggedly insisting that evolution is "just a theory."
-
-
Parts of evolution are fact. Parts of evolution are theories. Thus, the theory of evolution is not totally fact. Something that is not totally fact has to be part theory or faith based upon either evidence or belief. -
Let's start with the difference between scientific theory and the layman's definition of theory. And no, don't even try to tell me you understand the difference between the two, because you've already proven you do not.Frumundah Finnatic likes this. -
(I also got a good chuckle when you suggested that you're not a lay person and in your other post writing your reasons for teaching others about evolution. Too funny.) -
I never implied I was anything.
However, you're ignoring the question at hand, Sport. What is the difference between scientific theory and theory as used in regular speech. You made a lot of blustering bs, but neglected to answer a fairly easy question....I wonder why that is?????? -
Frumundah Finnatic and Fin D like this.
-
As for your question about scientific theory I'm sure that you're aware I understand it completely. If you say otherwise you're just arguing to argue. -
As for the hiding, I'm confused, are you not sitting there, anonymous, behind a keyboard? Should I start a web cam for you so you can watch me type? Why would I hide? What would I need to hide from?
Why are some of you so angry? It's like I wrote before, it's either your way or the highway. If someone disagrees with you guys you immediatedly turn to fight or flight mode. It's common for the un/undereducated to get so emotional when they feel like their beliefs are being questioned. Why? Because they can't handle the fact that they may be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. -
1) You aren't answering a very simple question. Instead of answering it, you're implying you know the answer.
2) You're firing blindly at the wall to see what sticks. I have given religion equal respect to science, in this thread and many others.
3) Your "compliments" are false and followed by insults. Its why I insulted you then followed that with an insult, because i want you to understand I am not a troll and I know your game.
4) As has been pointed out by CD, you imply I'm X and you're X+Y in regards to education, without defining the values of X & Y. -
Tell you what, since you already demonstrated you don't understand the difference between scientific theory and regular theory, by making this asinine statement:
-
-
Again, you refusal to answer basic questions proves you to be a troll. Which is one thing for the other forums here, but is really pretty pathetic and low in a religion forum. It won't be long before you're banned from this site for being the baiting, POS troll you have been since you've been here.Frumundah Finnatic likes this. -
I don't need to answer such basic questions. Nor do i need to obey your wants. I'm sure if one of my 400+ posts were trolling I'd have heard about it from a mod. I haven't broken any forum rules. At least none of the rules posted. You, OTOH, have in nearly every reply to me you've made. lol I hope you're on blood pressure meds. You're going to stroke out if not. lol -
-
This entire site is about discussion, not you coming on, telling people they are wrong and have no idea what they are talking about, without backing up your claims.
This has been the entirety of your MO in your short time here. You breeze in to a conversation/debate/argument and say crap like you did in here, without providing a single fact, piece of evidence, link or anything. That is the very definition of troll.
You have very clearly illustrated that you don't understand the difference between scientific theory and regular theory, yet not only will you not admit it, you won't prove me wrong either. That is trollish. Just like this form the PoFo:
-
There actually MUST be a god. There has to be, otherwise how can you explain the fact that this guy actually has me siding with FinD? :p
Frumundah Finnatic and Fin D like this. -
If you make a statement like that than the burden of proof falls on you.Fin D likes this. -
Yawn.Justright, Frumundah Finnatic and Fin D like this. -
'Nuff said. -
And just in case...
[video=youtube;2z-OLG0KyR4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/video]
The defense rests.Frumundah Finnatic likes this. -
I'm not religious, but my wife is a Southern Baptist. We've had conversations on the topic, and while she will always believe in God and be a Christian, she is open to the idea that a "day" to God could be billions of years to a human, that God could have created Earth as part of a larger, vibrant, alive universe, and that God set evolution in motion billions of years ago himself. She's a woman of deep faith, but also open to interpretation, and find literal creationists silly and embarassing. I wish that more people were as well.