Kids evolution book with God
minny
Christians. A girl dreams about seeing things evolve and hearing a
voice discribing what to do next to get earth getting for life. After
waking she asks her mother who the voice belonged to. Mother answers
that some would say it was Mother Nature, some that it was God, and
some that it was just a dream.
It's from a series of books for 5-8 year olds with titles like Atomic
Physics, Chemical Bonding, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Site is
http://members.xoom.com/heykid.
They even have three books and their art online. I'm going to get all
the series because my two love the stories.
Minny
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Jaynee
evolution is death before humans. There was no death in the world before the
curse of the original sin. That cannot be reconciled with Creation.
Jaynee
minny <min...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:vAkM4.5489$0n5....@c01read04.service.talkway.com...
Ladeebkwrm
minny wrote in message ...
>Found a book that covers evolution in a way that doesn't offend
>Christians.
This is an oxymoron. Say what you want about scientific evidence for
creation, but the Bible says that death entered the world because of Adam
and Eve's sin. Period.
Kristina
Steve Estvanik
nonsense -- most scientists in the US are christians and none of the
mainline churches have any difficulty with accepting evolution. it's only
the few who hold that the bible is the literal truth that have trouble.
Adam and Eve are myths, they never existed, just like the flood, the tower
of babel and most of the rest of the pentateuch.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Make Your Site Sell! http://www.sitesell.com/cascoly.html
Build traffic http://cascoly.com/webdesign.htm
BLAST your site to thousands of FFA links pages
http://www.submitad.com/reseller/show.cgi?1339
Promote your contest or giveaway for free http://cascoly.com/contest.htm
Jaynee
Jaynee
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eEIRumjr$GA.238@cpmsnbbsa03...
Ladeebkwrm
Jaynee wrote in message <965N4.41139$h01.3...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
And it must be great to be able to know how to differentiate between the
parts God meant and the parts He didn't.
Kristina
Ladeebkwrm
David W. Varidel (BD) wrote in message
<2c8N4.155$PL4....@ozemail.com.au>...
>Ladeebkwrm <ladee...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> >How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
>>
>> And it must be great to be able to know how to differentiate between the
>> parts God meant and the parts He didn't.
>
>GUFFFchuggggftttt
>
>[clean coffee out of keyboard and sinuses]
Sorry 'bout that. <g>
Kristina <not really>
Julie Pascal
"Steve Estvanik" <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eEIRumjr$GA.238@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> > minny wrote in message ...
> > >Found a book that covers evolution in a way that doesn't offend
> > >Christians.
> >
> > This is an oxymoron. Say what you want about scientific evidence for
> > creation, but the Bible says that death entered the world because of
Adam
> > and Eve's sin. Period.
>
> nonsense -- most scientists in the US are christians and none of the
> mainline churches have any difficulty with accepting evolution. it's
only
> the few who hold that the bible is the literal truth that have trouble.
> Adam and Eve are myths, they never existed, just like the flood, the tower
> of babel and most of the rest of the pentateuch.
I'll accept the first statement, but not the second. I don't
see evolution as necessarily opposing Christianity. It does
mean understanding Genesis in a way that allows it. But the
thing I've always liked the best about Genesis is the ambiguities.
Stuff like Cain going off to a city that was presumably full
of people. The statement that the sons of god came down and
had children with the daughters of man. Stuff like that. Lately
I realized that the "two creations" in the first two chapters could
be taken linearly rather than as a repetition with added detail.
(Of course, one of my major regrets is that Neanderthals died
out. It is all so very fascinating. It would be just too cool if
there were two sentient species on the earth. Even if I'm half
convinced they weren't any different from us. ;-)
Not that I would ever try to base theology on those sorts of
questions because I don't pretend to *know* and I don't see the
need to *know* just exactly all the... exact stuff. It's more like,
"That is so cool! God is so *amazing*." Why should I be
distressed because I can't comprehend *God*? I have a human
mind, I don't expect to know everything that there is to know.
The fall is, however, totally theologically necessary. Without
it the rest of the Bible is nothing. Which makes the fact that
an account of the fall is the first thing in the Bible very
understandable. A person *could* take Eden figuatively.
That the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil can be taken symbolically does not make the
account any less *true*. Humans fell. They were separated
from communion with God. *This* is totally clear from the
account... no matter how you take it.
And like I said, I disagree with the second statement that Adam
and Eve are myths, along with the flood, tower of babel and
everything else.
There is a huge difference in claiming that the whole Bible is
*literal*, and claiming that it is infalible. It is *exactly* what
God wants it to be. It is *true*. No one takes every part of
the Bible literally because some parts are obviously meant to
be figurative... under His wings... that sort of thing. But it is a
*huge* jump from "The creation story is not a literal and
complete account" to "Adam and Eve never existed."
It isn't even *reasonable* to figure that some bits are figurative
or symbolic therefore *all* of it is. I believe Balaam's donkey
talked. Is there any reason to think that it didn't?
I've got to go feed my family. I never intended to get into
this and have no desire to debate with anyone. I've got
no desire to convince any person who believes that Creation
happened in seven 24 hour days that it didn't. I just wanted
to give an option other than "throw it all out." The only
possible harm I can see is that a child may decide that
to reject a seven day creation *requires* that they throw out
the whole Bible. Setting up a new earth Creation as a
determining question of faith seriously risks that if a person
(wrongly perhaps) decides that scientists aren't idiots and
that evolution really happened may then be compelled to
reject Christianity entirely.
Or at least decide that the Bible isn't really the word of God,
and is only a collection of myths.
--Julie
JamieK
>
>
I agree! The Scriptures themselves say (2 Timothy 3:15), in part, that ALL
Scripture is God-breathed. (Look it up...don't take my word for it!)
Since God inspired each and every man to write what he wrote, I doubt that He
would have any reason to tell us anything but the truth. Accepting only parts
of Scripture is just like accepting only part of a dollar. If it's only part,
you don't have the real thing at all!
But He will gladly show you the truth if you take but a moment and ask. Of
course, you need to mean it!
Just had to put in my $.02.
"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."
Jeremiah 29:13
To email me: please remove nospam from end of my address.
David W. Varidel (BD)
> >How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
>
> And it must be great to be able to know how to differentiate between the
> parts God meant and the parts He didn't.
GUFFFchuggggftttt
[clean coffee out of keyboard and sinuses]
Hmmmmm. Very well said Kristina
--
David W. Varidel
www.varidel.iwarp.com
dvar...@ozemail.com.au
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
While "good" is better than "bad"
it is also the true enemy of "best"
Ladeebkwrm
Mike Marlow wrote in message ...
>When I get to heaven I'm gonna tell Jesus just how wrong he was when he
said
>that "just as sin entered the world through one man" and when he referenced
>Moses, and heck, all of those fanciful Old Testament things he referenced.
>Thank you Steve for so enlightening me. And all this time I was believing
>Jesus....
Silly man....
Kristina <grin>
Mike Marlow
that "just as sin entered the world through one man" and when he referenced
Moses, and heck, all of those fanciful Old Testament things he referenced.
Thank you Steve for so enlightening me. And all this time I was believing
Jesus....
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eEIRumjr$GA.238@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> > minny wrote in message ...
> > >Found a book that covers evolution in a way that doesn't offend
> > >Christians.
> >
> > This is an oxymoron. Say what you want about scientific evidence for
> > creation, but the Bible says that death entered the world because of
Adam
> > and Eve's sin. Period.
>
> nonsense -- most scientists in the US are christians and none of the
> mainline churches have any difficulty with accepting evolution. it's
only
> the few who hold that the bible is the literal truth that have trouble.
> Adam and Eve are myths, they never existed, just like the flood, the tower
> of babel and most of the rest of the pentateuch.
>
Jaynee
Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:OMLN4.55$884....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steve Estvanik
> How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
>
> Jaynee
what's the problem? like ANY other book, some of it may be true, some
false. (of course there's also the possibility that ALL of it is false.)
i realize some people think it's god's literal word, but they have no
evidence for that (other than the bible itself)
all the mainline protestant sects, along with catholics recognize that the
bible is not the literal truth.
Steve Estvanik
>
> I agree! The Scriptures themselves say (2 Timothy 3:15), in part, that
ALL
> Scripture is God-breathed. (Look it up...don't take my word for it!)
> Since God inspired each and every man to write what he wrote, I doubt that
He
> would have any reason to tell us anything but the truth.
but that argument is useless nonsense -- you're USING the bible to prove
it is the word of god.
Accepting only parts
> of Scripture is just like accepting only part of a dollar. If it's only
part,
> you don't have the real thing at all
not at all -- the bible has a bunch of fairy tales that dont mean a lot
to modern folks, but it also contains wisdom and moral guidance. and in
that area it's one among many choices. trouble is when some people think
they have a monopoly on the truth...
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Online educational , trivia games http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Food Chain -- online ecology http://cascoly.com/games/food/foodmain.htm
Life, the game http://cascoly.com/games/life/lifemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart and screensavers http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
=============
Steve Estvanik
> The fall is, however, totally theologically necessary. Without
> it the rest of the Bible is nothing
true but irrelevant -- the point was whether the bible has much use as a
scientific text re evolution.
>
> And like I said, I disagree with the second statement that Adam
> and Eve are myths, along with the flood, tower of babel and
> everything else.
ok, then present some EVIDENCE that any of these things actually
occurred -- not, figurative interpretatiions, but actual events or people --
when did adam live? where? when did the flood happen? where's the
evidence?
. But it is a
> *huge* jump from "The creation story is not a literal and
> complete account" to "Adam and Eve never existed."
not THAT big a jump. they are 2 differnt propositions, but that
doenst mean they cant both be true. you havent done anything to prove the
existence of a&e other than to just say the bible tells you so.
--
====
Travel Photo Trivia http://cascoly.com/games/triv/trivmain.htm
Travel notes & contests: http://cascoly.com/trav/travel.shtml
Turkey Travel notes: http://cascoly.com/trav/turkey.shtml
Egypt Travel notes: http://cascoly.com/trav/egypt.shtml
=======
David W. Varidel (BD)
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote
Mike Marlow
>
>
> > How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
> >
> > Jaynee
>
> false. (of course there's also the possibility that ALL of it is false.)
> i realize some people think it's god's literal word, but they have no
> evidence for that (other than the bible itself)
>
> all the mainline protestant sects, along with catholics recognize that the
> bible is not the literal truth.
>
The catholics may claim this, but it's hard to see how they can "recognize"
this, since that assumes a truth present to be recognized. Aside from this,
any errant catholic or protestant doctrine does not invalidate the Bible, it
only invalidates that particular doctrine. I'd further take exception to
your use of the word "all" in regard to the protestant sects. I've
belonged to or associated with many protestant sects who all believed the
Bible to be the literal truth.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
> Accepting only parts
> > of Scripture is just like accepting only part of a dollar. If it's only
> part,
> > you don't have the real thing at all
>
> not at all -- the bible has a bunch of fairy tales that dont mean a
lot
> to modern folks, but it also contains wisdom and moral guidance. and in
> that area it's one among many choices. trouble is when some people think
> they have a monopoly on the truth...
>
No - the problem is when people develop the mistaken notion that they have
figured out the real truth better than the God that gave it to them in the
first place.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Wayne
Excuse me, a question ------
Do you, Mr Estvanik, have any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?
Other than the Bible?
TIA,
Wayne
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:55:24 -0700, Steve Estvanik wrote in message
<exKf#LKs$GA.295@cpmsnbbsa04>...
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
-----------------------------------------------
Proverbs 16:9 A man's mind plans his way,
but the LORD directs his steps.
JamieK
>occurred -- not, figurative interpretatiions, but actual events or people --
>when did adam live? where? when did the flood happen? where's the
>evidence?
This is a distractionary attempt to lead people from what is important - the
Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves souls!
We cannot waste our time going down rabbit paths when there are so many lost
and on their way to hell! You, and we, both know that NOT ONE of us was there
at the beginning of the world. We can't give you "proof" that it was the way
God said just as you cannot give us "proof" that it was not as God said. But
that whole point is moot. It is not up to Christians to present EVIDENCE of
historical data. God told us exactly what we needed to know. You either have
faith and believe it or you do not. You cannot have partial faith. You believe
God all the way or not at all.
Incidentally, there is not much "proof" that the things God says are NOT true
either. In MHO, it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in a
creationary account!!!!
I repeat what I said last week....if you REALLY want to know the truth, ask God
and seek the Scriptures. He promises to show you Himself (Jeremiah 29:13) and
He will (I am living proof of that....10 years ago, I was a diehard
evolutionist and the Lord has completely and totally changed my heart to the
truth). But remember, there must be a heart change and your heart must be
willing to accept the truth even (or especially) if it is different from what
your human reasoning tells you. Human reasoning is NEVER above God. His ways
are above our ways, and we could never understand how He accomplished certain
things. But just because He doesn't tell us doesn't mean we rush in and add
all kinds of things to or take all kinds of things away from Scripture. If you
want to know the end result of that, read Revelation 22:18-19. We really need
to rely on Scripture only and that should be good enough for anyone of faith.
My personal opinion is that God did not tell us how the whole world was
populated b/c He knew (in His foresight) that the evolutionary theory would
rage in academic circles. What a wonderful way to prove the worth of
professing believers. Either you choose to believe God's way, or you choose to
believe the world's. As the Scriptures make clear, you cannot have it both
ways!
If you want to believe in the Christ of the Bible, you have to accept the whole
thing as truth. If you do not, you are merely worshipping a god of your own
imagination who can provide for you what you want, and not what you need!
A great passage you might want to check out is in Romans, starting in verse 18
and going on to the end of the chapter. God speaks in this passage about
people who choose to go the world's way and their end result. One of the
groups of people is those who choose to worship the created rather than the
Creator. If you are placing man's "theories" above the Creator's expressed
truth, you probably fall into this category. All you need to know has been
evident in creation since the beginning. God says that if you don't see it,
that is your choice! But He is right there waiting for you! Will you actually
stand in front of Him and tell Him that He was wrong in what He said? Just
something for you to ponder today.
In prayer,
Jamie
JamieK
>figured out the real truth better than the God that gave it to them in the
>first place.
>
>-Mike-
Thanks, Mike...just what I would have said! Ya' either have faith or you
don't. I, personally, am not going to stand in front of my Creator and tell
Him that He was wrong when He said He formed me in my mother's womb and created
my inward parts! What audacity!!!!
In Christ,
JamieK
>18
>and going on to the end of the chapter.
OOps....meant to say start in Romans 1, verse 18 on to the end.
Sorry for the confusion..
His servant,
Steve Estvanik
>
> Do you, Mr Estvanik, have any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?
> Other than the Bible?
>
nope, none at all -- did i ever indicate i believed that story too?
however, i specifically made a distinction between a belief that is the
basis for all christians, and those beliefs (the literal truth of genesis,
exodus, etc), that MOST christians do not hold.
Steve Estvanik
> > what's the problem? like ANY other book, some of it may be true,
some
> > false. (of course there's also the possibility that ALL of it is
false.)
> > i realize some people think it's god's literal word, but they have no
> > evidence for that (other than the bible itself)
> >
> > all the mainline protestant sects, along with catholics recognize that
the
> > bible is not the literal truth.
> >
>
> The catholics may claim this, but it's hard to see how they can
"recognize"
> this, since that assumes a truth present to be recognized. Aside from
this,
> any errant catholic or protestant doctrine does not invalidate the Bible,
it
> only invalidates that particular doctrine. I'd further take exception to
> your use of the word "all" in regard to the protestant sects. I've
> belonged to or associated with many protestant sects who all believed the
> Bible to be the literal truth.
>
i specifically said the mainline sects -- excluding the fundamentalist,
charismatics, etc .
the point is that the 'christian' view of the bible is wide ranging, and
most sects do NOT hold to a literal belief. these arent 'errant'
catholics -- the Pope has said there is no problem with reconciling
evolutino and christian belief.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> > ok, then present some EVIDENCE that any of these things actually
> >occurred -- not, figurative interpretatiions, but actual events or
people --
> >when did adam live? where? when did the flood happen? where's the
> >evidence?
>
> This is a distractionary attempt to lead people from what is important -
the
> Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves souls!
> We cannot waste our time going down rabbit paths when there are so many
lost
> and on their way to hell!
it's not a distraction, it's a separate issue -- the DISCUSSION was
about teaching science, and I was just pointing out that the bible isnt a
very good reference for that.
You, and we, both know that NOT ONE of us was there
> at the beginning of the world. We can't give you "proof" that it was the
way
> God said just as you cannot give us "proof" that it was not as God said.
But
> that whole point is moot. It is not up to Christians to present EVIDENCE
of
> historical data.
it most definitely is, IF, as is the case here, someone is making
claims that the bible is a source for history or science, AND, when those
bible claims are at odds with the overwhelming evidence that we do have.
God told us exactly what we needed to know. You either have
> faith and believe it or you do not. You cannot have partial faith. You
believe
> God all the way or not at all.
again, a different issue, but if your statement is true, then all
those who believe in god should believe the same thing.
> Incidentally, there is not much "proof" that the things God says are NOT
true
> either.
In MHO, it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in a
> creationary account!!!!
you obviously dont know much about evolution or science to make such a
silly statement. where is your SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR creation?
> If you want to believe in the Christ of the Bible, you have to accept
the whole
> thing as truth. If you do not, you are merely worshipping a god of your
own
> imagination who can provide for you what you want, and not what you need!
nope again, i worship no gods at all....
One of the
> groups of people is those who choose to worship the created rather than
the
> Creator. If you are placing man's "theories" above the Creator's
expressed
> truth, you probably fall into this category.
again, an alternative is to worship NOTHING.
Will you actually
> stand in front of Him and tell Him that He was wrong in what He said?
Just
> something for you to ponder today.
sorry, such theoretical meetings dont hold much water with people who
dont believe in a god inthe first place...
larissa
>> Incidentally, there is not much "proof" that the things God
says are NOT
>true
>> either.
>
>
> nope again, i worship no gods at all....
Why, then, would you want to participate for *years* in a group
that states very clearly that they are Christian??? Look at the
name of the group...misc.education.home-school.CHRISTIAN!!
And, for someone who has *participated* for years, I surely have
missed everyone of your posts in the last year I've been on.
Anyone else miss those?
>
>
>
> again, an alternative is to worship NOTHING.
A mighty bleak alternative. Again, why participate in a
Christian newsgroup if you have no faith whatsoever?
>
>
>
> sorry, such theoretical meetings dont hold much water with
people who
>dont believe in a god inthe first place...
Then, ONCE AGAIN, you are not a Christian, so maybe it would be
best if you participated in a group that shares your beliefs, or
at least doesn't really care if you have them or not. There are
other homeschool venues out there.
You also made the comment in another post that you did not take
any shots at Christian beliefs. I am sorry, but telling someone
they are a fool to believe what they believe, and telling them
they are wrong, and asking them to prove their beliefs when you
don't care to listen and learn, only to argue....that is taking
shots!
You may believe as you will, but when you enter a forum with
people who clearly label themselves as Christians, the least you
could do is be respectful of their beliefs. We will pray for
you and your soul, as Christ has called us to do.
Blessings,
Larissa
>
>
>--
>==========
>>=============
>
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Steve Estvanik
>
> Why, then, would you want to participate for *years* in a group
> that states very clearly that they are Christian??? Look at the
> name of the group...misc.education.home-school.CHRISTIAN!!
>
MISC.EDUCATION.HOME-SCHOOL.christian -- since I write educational
programs, I participate in groups like this. most people are willing to
accept some diversity.
> And, for someone who has *participated* for years, I surely have
> missed everyone of your posts in the last year I've been on.
sorry about that, i'll add you to my mailing list <g>
> A mighty bleak alternative. Again, why participate in a
> Christian newsgroup if you have no faith whatsoever?
> >
> >
because i enjoy the discussion, and my total lack of faith doesnt mean i
have nothing to discuss with MOST christians.
> You also made the comment in another post that you did not take
> any shots at Christian beliefs. I am sorry, but telling someone
> they are a fool to believe what they believe, and telling them
> they are wrong, and asking them to prove their beliefs when you
> don't care to listen and learn, only to argue....that is taking
> shots!
i never called anyone a fool; as for the others, that's not taking
shots, that's just asking someone to back up claims. ALL christians dont
make those claims, so obviously this is an issue where there is disagreement
among christians too.
Steve Estvanik
> the issue as I am obviously upsetting you and this is certainly not the
way I
> would want to win you to my faith
no problem -- i didnt take anything you posted personally, and i am not
upset at.
. It was my mistaken impression that you were
> a Christian since you were posting on this board, and I believe that the
> Christian viewpoint and the evolutionary viewpoint are definitely two
different
> sides of the coin.
only according to SOME christians, and they are a minority. most,
including catholics like the pope see no problem with accepting both views.
my personal opinion is that evolution is the scientific explanation, and i
have no religious belief. however, i have no arguments with most christians
who agree that evolution is the scientific explanation of the facts and go
on to a religious view of 'why'. they are 2 distinct magisteria -- the
problem comes when someone tries to claim that a religious text like the
bible is also a scientific one.
, just posting on a Christian ng
> about evolution.
again, just to be clear -- i NEVER start such discussions, but i do
participate when they occur.
=====, I humbly ask your apology for telling you things
thanks, but again, none needed...
Steve Estvanik
> No, but I thought it relevent to the discussion that people where
> having with you. I believe they where speaking to you as if you were a
> believer.
understood -- i think everyone's clear now <g>
> > however, i specifically made a distinction between a belief that is
the
> >basis for all christians, and those beliefs (the literal truth of
genesis,
> >exodus, etc), that MOST christians do not hold.
>
> What does it matter what the majority believes? What does that have to
> do with either religion or science?
>
in scientific terms, it's not a necessity, but when the overwhelming
scientific evidence (not just opinions), points in one direction, then
someone who proposes an alternative view is required to provide some
evidence. and, there also appeared tobe some who were claiming that they
were expressing the ONLY possible christian viewpoint, when in fact most
christian sects have very different views.
for religious beliefs, it's a different question entirely, since by
definition, you must have faith, but that's an area where i dont tread
Julie Pascal
>
> > The fall is, however, totally theologically necessary. Without
> > it the rest of the Bible is nothing
>
> true but irrelevant -- the point was whether the bible has much use as a
> scientific text re evolution.
If so, that's not what you said. Or rather, you said that the Bible
isn't relevant to science because it was a bunch of myths. Using
the word "myth" is the same as saying "cute stories no one with
a brain believes anyway." I would not use the Bible as a
scientific reference any more than I would use it as literature.
It is neither.
> >
> > And like I said, I disagree with the second statement that Adam
> > and Eve are myths, along with the flood, tower of babel and
> > everything else.
>
> ok, then present some EVIDENCE that any of these things actually
> occurred -- not, figurative interpretatiions, but actual events or
people --
> when did adam live? where? when did the flood happen? where's the
> evidence?
Do I need evidence? No, I do not. Why? Because my belief
does not depend on proof. It is the hope of things not seen. It
is faith. I am allowed to hold religious belief without being
required to provide proof that my belief is true. I am allowed to
teach my children according to my religious belief without being
required to provide proof that my belief is true.
The discussion involved the reconciliation (or inability to
reconcile) Christian belief with current scientific opinion.
Science *does* require proof... actually, science is the
*process* of discovering how the natural world works, so
even science exists when the proof is not available or is
not yet discovered.
> . But it is a
> > *huge* jump from "The creation story is not a literal and
> > complete account" to "Adam and Eve never existed."
>
> not THAT big a jump. they are 2 differnt propositions, but that
> doenst mean they cant both be true. you havent done anything to prove the
> existence of a&e other than to just say the bible tells you so.
I think you are confused about just who the burden of proof
rests upon. You can not prove that Adam and Eve did not
exist and were not real people. You can not prove that the flood
did not happen. Or that Balaam's donkey didn't talk to him.
You can not prove that there was not a real tower of Babel.
--Julie
Julie Pascal
>
>
> > How can you claim to believe only part of the Bible?
> >
> > Jaynee
>
> false. (of course there's also the possibility that ALL of it is false.)
> i realize some people think it's god's literal word, but they have no
> evidence for that (other than the bible itself)
>
> all the mainline protestant sects, along with catholics recognize that the
> bible is not the literal truth.
For some reason I get the really strong impression that
you don't understand how "literal" truth compares to
the concepts of "inspired" and "inerrant" and the several
specific terms used to describe specific things.
NO ONE believes that *every* word of the Bible should
be taken *literally*. That you think that they do leads
me to believe that you haven't a good grasp of basic
Christian beliefs and how they differ from one another.
The Bible uses parables, which are obviously stories
for the purpose of instruction. It uses metaphors. No
Christian church teaches that God has wings or the world
has corners.
--Julie
JamieK
>they are a fool to believe what they believe, and telling them
>they are wrong, and asking them to prove their beliefs when you
>don't care to listen and learn, only to argue....that is taking
>shots!
Thanks Larissa! I agree with you! I'm so glad that I don't need to get drawn
into an argument about this or any other issue of faith. The argument truly is
not with us, but with the Creator! It is truly a comfort to know that we can
all stand united on this issue!
Jamie (gracefully exiting this issue at this time!)
JamieK
>about teaching science, and I was just pointing out that the bible isnt a
>very good reference for that.
>
>
I am sorry. I was jumping in to express my views on evolution. I believe the
Bible is a good reference, as you have probably figured out. My views on the
Word of God are very strong, as you have seen. I will not argue with you on
the issue as I am obviously upsetting you and this is certainly not the way I
would want to win you to my faith. It was my mistaken impression that you were
a Christian since you were posting on this board, and I believe that the
Christian viewpoint and the evolutionary viewpoint are definitely two different
sides of the coin. That is why I was trying to use scriptural references with
you. However, since you have now told me, quite emphatically, that you do not
worship God, I understand why you are upset. I am not the kind of person who
goes around attacking others. However, if I feel that they are saying they
believe as I do (In Christ), but then take a viewpoint that is wrong, I will
attempt to point to scripture as I believe that we must hold each other
accountable for what we believe in Christ. Today's messages would have been
completely avoided had you told me after my last note that you were not a
Christian and that you were, for some reason, just posting on a Christian ng
about evolution. But, until today, I actually thought you were a person of
faith. That is why I was responding to you the way I did. Again to follow the
example set by my Savior, I humbly ask your apology for telling you things you
just didn't want to know.
I leave you with one last thought: neither I nor anyone else can provide you
with the evidence you so desire. But you keep coming back with that again and
again. I urge you, please, ask the One who can really show you the Truth!
Prayerfully,
Jamie
Wayne
<#1wBB9Us$GA.231@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
>
> >
>> Do you, Mr Estvanik, have any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?
>> Other than the Bible?
>>
> nope, none at all -- did i ever indicate i believed that story too?
No, but I thought it relevent to the discussion that people where
having with you. I believe they where speaking to you as if you were a
believer.
Maybe you do consider yourself a Christian. Seems unlikely though in
consideration of First Corinthians 15:14.
>
> however, i specifically made a distinction between a belief that is the
>basis for all christians, and those beliefs (the literal truth of genesis,
>exodus, etc), that MOST christians do not hold.
What does it matter what the majority believes? What does that have to
do with either religion or science?
Wayne
> s
>
>--
>==========
>Steve Estvanik
>Online educational , trivia games http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
>Food Chain -- online ecology http://cascoly.com/games/food/foodmain.htm
>Life, the game http://cascoly.com/games/life/lifemain.htm
>Royalty Free clipart and screensavers http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
>=============
>
>
>
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
Wayne
<1400ac60...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>...
>>
>>> Incidentally, there is not much "proof" that the things God
>says are NOT
>>true
>>> either.
>>
>
>>
>> nope again, i worship no gods at all....
>
>Why, then, would you want to participate for *years* in a group
>that states very clearly that they are Christian??? Look at the
>name of the group...misc.education.home-school.CHRISTIAN!!
>
>And, for someone who has *participated* for years, I surely have
>missed everyone of your posts in the last year I've been on.
>Anyone else miss those?
Actually he has been around for quite a while. Search Deja if you want
specifics, but I pretty sure its been over a year since I've seen his
first post here.
Wayne
>> again, an alternative is to worship NOTHING.
>
>A mighty bleak alternative. Again, why participate in a
>Christian newsgroup if you have no faith whatsoever?
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry, such theoretical meetings dont hold much water with
>people who
>>dont believe in a god inthe first place...
>
>Then, ONCE AGAIN, you are not a Christian, so maybe it would be
>best if you participated in a group that shares your beliefs, or
>at least doesn't really care if you have them or not. There are
>other homeschool venues out there.
>
>You also made the comment in another post that you did not take
>any shots at Christian beliefs. I am sorry, but telling someone
>they are a fool to believe what they believe, and telling them
>they are wrong, and asking them to prove their beliefs when you
>don't care to listen and learn, only to argue....that is taking
>shots!
>
>You may believe as you will, but when you enter a forum with
>people who clearly label themselves as Christians, the least you
>could do is be respectful of their beliefs. We will pray for
>you and your soul, as Christ has called us to do.
>
>Blessings,
>Larissa
>>
>>
>>--
>>==========
>>>=============
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
David W. Varidel (BD)
> i specifically said the mainline sects -- excluding the fundamentalist,
> charismatics, etc .
According to "The Bulletin" (a large national business magazine here in Oz)
there are more Charismatic/Pentecostal weekly worshipers in Oz then any
other Christian group other than the Catholic Church.
Looks pretty "mainline" to me!
--
David W. Varidel
www.varidel.iwarp.com
dvar...@ozemail.com.au
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
While "good" is better than "bad"
it is also the true enemy of "best"
David W. Varidel (BD)
> In MHO, it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than in a
> > creationary account!!!!
>
> you obviously dont know much about evolution or science to make such a
> silly statement. where is your SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR creation?
IF:
Evolution = EVERYTHING is the result of random actions over an infinite
period
and
Creation = There is a planner behind the sciences
I pick the second option as being more logical.
HOWEVER, I do not rule out natural selection as a process that improves a
group of living things. That is to say, I do believe G-d did not make
*everything* 100% as we see it now.
I see a plan to the world. Plan means *somewhere* there is a planner.
David W. Varidel (BD)
> in scientific terms, it's not a necessity, but when the overwhelming
> scientific evidence (not just opinions), points in one direction, then
> someone who proposes an alternative view is required to provide some
> evidence. and, there also appeared tobe some who were claiming that they
> Christian sects have very different views.
"most"? "most"?
Really. "most" Christians don't believe the Bible to be true? Wow. Based
on .... what? Evidence wise, that is.
BTW, as you noted in a deleted section, faith is not based on a majority
vote - it is a belief structure. So, even if you post a link to a site that
show 50.0001% of people who call themselves "Christian" feel the Bible is
not 100% true, I will still believe what I believe.
BTW2, how's the hit rate on MEH-SCers to your site? The report is only a
$$$ away.
Steve Estvanik
> > in scientific terms, it's not a necessity, but when the
overwhelming
> > scientific evidence (not just opinions), points in one direction, then
> > someone who proposes an alternative view is required to provide some
> > evidence. and, there also appeared tobe some who were claiming that
they
> > were expressing the ONLY possible Christian viewpoint, when in fact most
> > Christian sects have very different views.
>
> "most"? "most"?
>
> Really. "most" Christians don't believe the Bible to be true? Wow.
Based
> on .... what? Evidence wise, that is.
most christians do not take the bible to be literally true. that is
true of most of the mainline protestant and catholic sects.
>
> BTW, as you noted in a deleted section, faith is not based on a majority
> vote - it is a belief structure. So, even if you post a link to a site
that
> show 50.0001% of people who call themselves "Christian" feel the Bible is
> not 100% true, I will still believe what I believe
and i never tried to tell you differently -- i was just reacting to the
DIFFERENT claim that the ONLY view is your view. i recognize your position
as a valid, if minority, position in the christian camp. you dont seem to
recognize that there are many christians out there who do not believe as you
do.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Contests & Free Stuff http://cascoly.com/cascfree.htm
Online horse racing, trivia, Life, puzzle games
http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart, puzzles and screensavers
http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
Free CD giveaways, weekly http://cascoly.com/realsoon.htm
SweepsWinner - internet contest wizard
Steve Estvanik
>
> According to "The Bulletin" (a large national business magazine here in
Oz)
> there are more Charismatic/Pentecostal weekly worshipers in Oz then any
> other Christian group other than the Catholic Church.
>
> Looks pretty "mainline" to me!
>
postiion? but you're warping the numbers a bit there -- i was talking about
total number of people who consider themselves christians (which of course
includes catholics), and you're talking about 'weekly worshippers'. for
the US i've seen numbers as high as 20-30% for charismatics/fundamentalists
leaving about 60-70% of US christians.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> >
> > you obviously dont know much about evolution or science to make such
a
> > silly statement. where is your SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR creation?
>
> IF:
> Evolution = EVERYTHING is the result of random actions over an infinite
> period
> and
> Creation = There is a planner behind the sciences
>
trouble is, your logical setup is flawed. your definition of evolution
is wrong, and there is no evidence for your claim on creation.
> I pick the second option as being more logical.
on what basis? merely claiming it to be logical doesnt count -- where
is the EVIDENCE
>
> HOWEVER, I do not rule out natural selection as a process that improves a
> group of living things. That is to say, I do believe G-d did not make
> *everything* 100% as we see it now.
you're getting closer -- if you want to believe (as most christians do,
and as the pope explicitly stated) that god is behind the process of
evolution, then you're close to reconciling the 2
>
> I see a plan to the world. Plan means *somewhere* there is a planner.
nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
Steve Estvanik
> >
> > > The fall is, however, totally theologically necessary. Without
> > > it the rest of the Bible is nothing
> >
> > true but irrelevant -- the point was whether the bible has much use as
a
> > scientific text re evolution.
>
> If so, that's not what you said. Or rather, you said that the Bible
> isn't relevant to science because it was a bunch of myths. Using
> the word "myth" is the same as saying "cute stories no one with
> a brain believes anyway."
no, those are YOUR words, not mine. myths are stories unsupported by
facts. but if you are trying to use those myths as the basis for a
scientific claim, then you may be ignorant (a state of knowledge, not a
slur) of science.
I would not use the Bible as a
> scientific reference any more than I would use it as literature.
> It is neither.
fine -- so, do you believe that the world was created a few thousand
years ago? or is that just a myth? did the global flood happen or not?
if you believe these to be true, then you are making a scientific claim.
.
> >
>me > ok, then present some EVIDENCE that any of these things
actually
> > occurred -- not, figurative interpretatiions, but actual events or
> people --
> > when did adam live? where? when did the flood happen? where's the
> > evidence?
>
> Do I need evidence? No, I do not. Why? Because my belief
> does not depend on proof. It is the hope of things not seen. It
> is faith. I am allowed to hold religious belief without being
> required to provide proof that my belief is true. I am allowed to
> teach my children according to my religious belief without being
> required to provide proof that my belief is true.
and i never said otherwise. however, we were talking about teaching
SCIENCE, and at that point, while you have the right to teach your children
something that is scientifically invalid, others have the right to point
that out in a public forum.
=====> I think you are confused about just who the burden of proof
> rests upon. You can not prove that Adam and Eve did not
> exist and were not real people. You can not prove that the flood
> did not happen.
i'm not at all confused -- you have to examine the consequences of those
beliefs -- a belief in a global flood implies that there should be SOME
evidence of such an event. we have NONE. therefore, the only
scientifically valid conclusion (today) is that it never happened. if
someone wants to claim it might have happened they need to offer SOME
evidence. if someone wants to just believe it, fine, but that's outside
the realm of science and your children are still going to have to function
in a world in which science works.
s
Steve Estvanik
> NO ONE believes that *every* word of the Bible should
> be taken *literally*. That you think that they do leads
> me to believe that you haven't a good grasp of basic
> Christian beliefs and how they differ from one another.
actually, there are some who DO claim such a thing....
>
> The Bible uses parables, which are obviously stories
> for the purpose of instruction. It uses metaphors. No
> Christian church teaches that God has wings or the world
> has corners.
>
fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor and
what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years ago
or is that just a parable or metaphor?
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Jeffrey Wilcox
> > I see a plan to the world. Plan means *somewhere* there is a planner.
>
> nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
> behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
>
Why?
Michael Oberle
"Jeffrey Wilcox" <jwil...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:W8KO4.9221$g4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Why Indeed?
That is the question. Of course Steve will respond with because that is the
way things work with the laws of Physics. But who wrote the laws. Of
course Steve would then possibly say no one wrote them they just happened.
Of course he could be right but let us consider the probability of a
universe created to adhere to physical laws so complex that we are just now
begginning to realize how little we really know. Having been created
accidently by an extreemly powerful explosion of something that was made up
of a substance that we dont have a clue as to what it was. This is pretty
damned improbable to me. Now lets add life to the equation. In the caose
that followed the big fire cracker. On a small planet in an insignificant
solar system in the milky way galaxy. A bunch of amino acids mix together
in a pond and somehow (we are never able to find out how) suddenly life
springs forth. First single celled then more complex life forms. Probably
plants. Then magically the DNA and RNA strands change into animal life. Of
course the DNA and RNA are intrinically complex. This is course happening
in an environment that is deteriorating and winding down. But lets forget
that for a moment. Somehow accidently the complex DNA is formed adhering
to a code that has more than 100,000 key combinations. (As an example the
most complex computers (currently) cannot break coding that is more than
1024 bit encoded. We have identified less than a thousand of the DNA
genes.) Thus creating ever more complex life forms in a universe that is
becoming more and more caotic due to the physical laws that it must follow
in its course. But life is accidently doing the opposite. It is becoming
less caotic and more organized as time goes on. Of course in the end the
universe will begin to collapse upon itself completely destroying the life
forms that accidently sprang up inspite of the laws of Physics and
Thermodynamics. Now you tell me which takes more faith to believe. A
universe created by an intelligent being adhering to the laws of physics as
laid out by the creator or a universe that was created by the explosion of
the worlds biggest nuclear fire cracker. Never mind the complexities of
adding life. And not only life but sentient beings into the mix. I think
I will stay with the easier and more logical of the two answers to lifes
biggest questions. Where did we come from and why are we here.
I appoligize for the lack of grammer and syntax in my ramblings. Perhaps I
should have paid more attention to my govt school teachers instead of
contemplating the world around me.
His Servant in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Michael
Mike Marlow
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:u$iCRCVs$GA.230@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> > > what's the problem? like ANY other book, some of it may be true,
> some
> > > false. (of course there's also the possibility that ALL of it is
> false.)
> > > i realize some people think it's god's literal word, but they have no
> > > evidence for that (other than the bible itself)
> > >
> > > all the mainline protestant sects, along with catholics recognize that
> the
> > > bible is not the literal truth.
> > >
> >
> "recognize"
> > this, since that assumes a truth present to be recognized. Aside from
> this,
> > any errant catholic or protestant doctrine does not invalidate the
Bible,
> it
> > only invalidates that particular doctrine. I'd further take exception
to
> > your use of the word "all" in regard to the protestant sects. I've
> > belonged to or associated with many protestant sects who all believed
the
> > Bible to be the literal truth.
> >
>
> charismatics, etc .
So you did. However, I did not suggest or imply charismatics or
fundamentalists. There are indeed many mainline protestant churches that
believe in the inerancy of Scripture. Perhaps you've not been exposed to
them, or perhaps you have a limited definition of the word mainline -
neither of which would suffice as evidence of your claim.
>
> the point is that the 'christian' view of the bible is wide ranging, and
> most sects do NOT hold to a literal belief. these arent 'errant'
> catholics -- the Pope has said there is no problem with reconciling
> evolutino and christian belief.
>
We might disagree on whether the pope is errant or not. I personally don't
see his opinion as all that significant. I would like to know though just
why you say that most protestant sects do not hold to literal beliefs of the
Bible. That sure is inconsistent with my experiences. You further missed
my point above. The use of the word errant in my reply to you was to state
that a belief does not validate the truth. There are and will always be
errant beliefs. They do not affect the truth. Errant doctrines only
invalidate themselves, not the truth outside of them.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
take exception with your delivery or your intent at all. In fact your
delivery is pretty good. Having read your replies below though, I have a
problem with what you say. Your points on science vs non-science are well
taken. Your burden of proof though seems a bit weighted against those who
hold to Scriptural beliefs. I'd give you the point that you can't or won't
accept the flood because you can't see the evidence you need to see. You
further go on to say that an absence of evidence is proof that it did not
occur. This is not very strong science. Absence is not conclusive proof to
the contrary. Further - every variant of the evolution theory and theories
of origins have missing pieces. Speculation points by different scientists
and disciplines. Absent the proof, shouldn't you conclude those to be myths
too?
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OHPjWahs$GA.226@cpmsnbbsa03...
> s
> --
> ==========
> Steve Estvanik
Mike Marlow
>
> > NO ONE believes that *every* word of the Bible should
> > be taken *literally*. That you think that they do leads
> > me to believe that you haven't a good grasp of basic
> > Christian beliefs and how they differ from one another.
>
> actually, there are some who DO claim such a thing....
Only the KJV-only crowd. We don't let them talk in this group though.
>
>
>
> >
> > The Bible uses parables, which are obviously stories
> > for the purpose of instruction. It uses metaphors. No
> > Christian church teaches that God has wings or the world
> > has corners.
> >
> fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor
and
> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years
ago
> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
>
I usually let those who spend a lot more time than I do studying languages,
cultures, times and all that than I do figure these things out.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Wayne
<#MPmtThs$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
> > > in scientific terms, it's not a necessity, but when the
>overwhelming
>> > scientific evidence (not just opinions), points in one direction, then
>> > someone who proposes an alternative view is required to provide some
>> > evidence. and, there also appeared tobe some who were claiming that
>they
>> > were expressing the ONLY possible Christian viewpoint, when in fact most
>> > Christian sects have very different views.
>>
>> "most"? "most"?
>>
>> Really. "most" Christians don't believe the Bible to be true? Wow.
>Based
>> on .... what? Evidence wise, that is.
>
> most christians do not take the bible to be literally true. that is
>true of most of the mainline protestant and catholic sects.
It could be possible that most of the clergy and seminary teachers of
the mainline churches do not take much of the Bible to be literal. I
believe that is the case in the mainline denomination of the church of
my youth.
Problem is, many (possibly most) of the members of these denominations
don't know this, and/nor do they believe (disbelieve) as their clergy.
You see, they still make the "mistake" of teaching us all those
"fables" in Sunday school. When they get around to telling us that
they were just stories, its often too late. Blows our feeble little
minds that we've been educated by people that don't actually believe
the stories that were taught us. At least that's been my experience.
>> BTW, as you noted in a deleted section, faith is not based on a majority
>> vote - it is a belief structure. So, even if you post a link to a site
>that
>> show 50.0001% of people who call themselves "Christian" feel the Bible is
>> not 100% true, I will still believe what I believe
>
> and i never tried to tell you differently -- i was just reacting to the
>DIFFERENT claim that the ONLY view is your view.
No, no, no, ---- I believe we are talking about the only correct &
*true* view. :-)
> i recognize your position
>as a valid, if minority, position in the christian camp. you dont seem to
>recognize that there are many christians out there who do not believe as you
>do.
Of course there are. Just visit the zoo at alt.christnet.public
Wayne
>s
>--
>==========
>Steve Estvanik
>Contests & Free Stuff http://cascoly.com/cascfree.htm
>Online horse racing, trivia, Life, puzzle games
>http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
>Royalty Free clipart, puzzles and screensavers
>http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
>Free CD giveaways, weekly http://cascoly.com/realsoon.htm
>SweepsWinner - internet contest wizard
>
>
>
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
David W. Varidel (BD)
> > > NO ONE believes that *every* word of the Bible should
> > > be taken *literally*. That you think that they do leads
> > > me to believe that you haven't a good grasp of basic
> > > Christian beliefs and how they differ from one another.
> >
> > actually, there are some who DO claim such a thing....
>
> Only the KJV-only crowd. We don't let them talk in this group though.
You haven't figured out how to silence *me* yet!!
--
David "KJV" Varidel
The Last of the True Believers
David W. Varidel (BD)
> > According to "The Bulletin" (a large national business magazine here in
> > Oz)
> > there are more Charismatic/Pentecostal weekly worshipers in Oz then any
> > other Christian group other than the Catholic Church.
> >
> > Looks pretty "mainline" to me!
> >
> i thought we just got thru saying that numbers alone dont define a
> postiion? but you're warping the numbers a bit there -- i was talking
about
> total number of people who consider themselves christians (which of course
> includes catholics), and you're talking about 'weekly worshippers'. for
> the US i've seen numbers as high as 20-30% for
charismatics/fundamentalists
> leaving about 60-70% of US christians.
Again, steve, where do you get your numbers?
Or, are you saying "numbers alone dont define a postiion", its just that I
know more people think the way I do?
--
David W. Varidel
David W. Varidel (BD)
>
> most christians do not take the bible to be literally true. that
is
> true of most of the mainline protestant and catholic sects.
Again, based on what study or source?
> > BTW, as you noted in a deleted section, faith is not based on a majority
> > vote - it is a belief structure. So, even if you post a link to a site
> that
> > show 50.0001% of people who call themselves "Christian" feel the Bible
is
> > not 100% true, I will still believe what I believe
>
> and i never tried to tell you differently -- i was just reacting to
the
> DIFFERENT claim that the ONLY view is your view. i recognize your
position
> as a valid, if minority, position in the christian camp. you dont seem
to
> recognize that there are many christians out there who do not believe as
you
> do.
There are Christian who do not believe as I do. I recognize this as a fact.
You say "most" do not believe as I do. I am asking (5 times so far) for
*FACTUAL* backing for your statement. A link maybe?
David W. Varidel (BD)
> > IF:
> > Evolution = EVERYTHING is the result of random actions over an infinite
> > period
> > and
> > Creation = There is a planner behind the sciences
> >
> trouble is, your logical setup is flawed. your definition of
evolution
> is wrong, and there is no evidence for your claim on creation.
Both positions must be taken on faith. Please provide "The Correct
Definition of Evolution" (tm).
> > I pick the second option as being more logical.
>
> on what basis? merely claiming it to be logical doesnt count --
where
> is the EVIDENCE
It seems more logical to me. It may not seem that to you. Please let me
know if you have a different opinion to me. Don't hold back.
> > HOWEVER, I do not rule out natural selection as a process that improves
a
> > group of living things. That is to say, I do believe G-d did not make
> > *everything* 100% as we see it now.
>
> you're getting closer -- if you want to believe (as most christians
do,
> and as the pope explicitly stated) that god is behind the process of
> evolution, then you're close to reconciling the 2
G-d is behind the process of natural selection. It is a big jump from there
to saying that there is no G-d and everything is the result of random
actions over an infinite timeframe.
> > I see a plan to the world. Plan means *somewhere* there is a planner.
>
> nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
> behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
Order = Plan = Planner (aka G-d).
JamieK
>and
>> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years
>ago
>> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
>>
>
>I usually let those who spend a lot more time than I do studying languages,
>cultures, times and all that than I do figure these things out.
>
>
Yep, me too. Also, the Word is pretty clear on it. It *usually* says
something like....
And Jesus spoke in a parable, saying...
That is what lets me know if I need to take the stories of Jesus literally or
if He was trying to teach me a deeper truth using an example from the world.
Pastors who teach topically today often use parables (or real life examples) as
well. It doesn't mean that something that has happened to me or any other
believer necessarily happens to all believers. That is the cool thing about
being a born-again Christian....it's not a "religion" or "denomination." It's
a relationship that is highly personal and unique to each believer.
Praise the Lord!
JamieK
Hey, wouldn't that be "silenceth" me???
Heehee....just kidding!
JamieK
>and as the pope explicitly stated) that god is behind the process of
>evolution, then you're close to reconciling the 2
>
>
>
please remember that a true, born-again Christian will not rely on man's words
ahead of God's. For us, it always needs to go back to the Scriptures. If we
don't do that, then we are placing man before God and that breaks the very
first commandment of our faith!
Many of the main-line denominations are not what I would consider born-again
congregations. I was raised in one of these churches and never missed a week.
But I didn't have a relationship with Christ until I was in my mid-20's because
noone ever told me I had to. Instead I was taught the cute stories (Tower of
Babel, Daniel and the Lions Den, etc. etc). But, after I did hear the truth,
understand, and believe...I fully appreciated (and still do) the deep beauty
and truth of those stories.
I don't mean to cut down mainline denominations. But I'm not sure that is a
good defense on this ng. It doesn't sound like most of us are toeing a
denominational line. Sounds like we rely merely on Scripture. It also doesn't
sound to me like very many of these folks are fools for what they believe!
They are coming across to me as intelligent.
Steve Estvanik
> > >
> > i thought we just got thru saying that numbers alone dont define a
> > postiion? but you're warping the numbers a bit there -- i was talking
> about
> > total number of people who consider themselves christians (which of
course
> > includes catholics), and you're talking about 'weekly worshippers'.
for
> > the US i've seen numbers as high as 20-30% for
> charismatics/fundamentalists
> > leaving about 60-70% of US christians.
>
> Again, steve, where do you get your numbers?
NYTimes, Scientific American, etc
>
> Or, are you saying "numbers alone dont define a postiion", its just that I
> know more people think the way I do?
>
you're confusing 2 different uses of numbers -- in the case of a
scientific idea, it's not the number of people who hold the position, but
the amount of evidence in its favor. so, for something like noah's flood,
there is an enormous amount of evidence that the flood did not happen (eg,
all the civilizations that never mention it, no flood debris, no evidence of
worldwide death, etc) and NO evidence that it did happen. this is different
from just taking a poll of people who believe it or not.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> [Steve says]
>
> > nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
> > behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
> >
>
>
in the case of crystals, it's because of inherent chemical and
physical characteristics; string together a linear group of amino acids
and they automatically form a 3 d shape like hemoglobin. a single ant or
bee cant do much; as a colony they act as if they were an intelligent being.
Steve Estvanik
> That is the question. Of course Steve will respond with because that is
the
> way things work with the laws of Physics. But who wrote the laws. Of
> course Steve would then possibly say no one wrote them they just happened.
> Of course he could be right
the larger point is that we're now moving outside the realm of
science and into the realm of philosophy and religion. the scientific fact
is, eg, that evolution is what we observe. WHY it happens may be just
chance, it may be because there's a divine creator behind it. however,
that is NOT what is meant by scientific creationism. in fact, most
scientists (who are usually christian in western countries) hold just this
position, and most christian churches also hold this view.
. This is pretty
> damned improbable to me. Now lets add life to the equation. In the
caose
> that followed the big fire cracker. On a small planet in an insignificant
> solar system in the milky way galaxy. A bunch of amino acids mix together
> in a pond and somehow (we are never able to find out how) suddenly life
> springs forth.
it may be improbably, but this is the argument from incredulity and it
is a basic logical fallacy. the fact remains that we DO see life on this
planet, and we DONT see any evidence it is of recent origin.
We have identified less than a thousand of the DNA
> genes.) T
actually we've identified tens of thousands of genes now.
ng ever more complex life forms in a universe that is
> becoming more and more caotic due to the physical laws that it must follow
> in its course. But life is accidently doing the opposite. It is becoming
> less caotic and more organized as time goes on.
this is another argument used by creationists who do not understand basic
physics. you are quoting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but misapplying
it. the 2LOT only applies in a closed system.
Of course in the end the
> universe will begin to collapse upon itself completely destroying the life
> forms that accidently sprang up inspite of the laws of Physics and
> Thermodynamics.
most people who make this statement dont understand thermodynamicsz in
the first place; it's a typical misunderstanding
Steve Estvanik
> >
> >
> One quick comment....you keep relying on the pope and what he has said.
no, i dont rely on the pope, i merely use his statement as evidence that
there is no problem for catholics in reconciling evolution and religion
..but
> please remember that a true, born-again Christian will not rely on man's
words
> ahead of God's. For us, it always needs to go back to the Scriptures.
yes, and you are confirming my initial statement -- the mainline sects, do
NOT hold this position as rigidly as you do.
If we
> don't do that, then we are placing man before God and that breaks the very
> first commandment of our faith!
> Many of the main-line denominations are not what I would consider
born-again
> congregations.
i understand that, but the fact remains that they are also christian,
and i was replying to the statement that ALL christians have problems with
evolution.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> > >
me> > fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a
metaphor
> and
> > what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years
> ago
> > or is that just a parable or metaphor?
> >
>
> I usually let those who spend a lot more time than I do studying
languages,
> cultures, times and all that than I do figure these things out.
ok, but how do you resolve disputes or contradictions when different
'christians' claim different things? again, did the flood really happen?
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> > fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor
> >and
> >> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years
> >ago
> >> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
> >>
>
> something like....
if it's so clear, why the controversy? is genesis a parable or a
statement of actual fact? did the global flood happen or not? if so,
when? these are anything but clear.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
. There are indeed many mainline protestant churches that
> believe in the inerancy of Scripture. Perhaps you've not been exposed to
> them, or perhaps you have a limited definition of the word mainline -
> neither of which would suffice as evidence of your claim.
that's possible -- what groups do you consider mainline that hold to
inerrancy?
>
> We might disagree on whether the pope is errant or not. I personally
don't
> see his opinion as all that significant.
understood, the point was merely that this was the official statement
from a large christian community.
I would like to know though just
> why you say that most protestant sects do not hold to literal beliefs of
the
> Bible. That sure is inconsistent with my experiences.
episcopal, methodist, congregational, some baptists, quakers, for
starters -- none hold to literal belief in the bible.
====You further missed
> my point above. The use of the word errant in my reply to you was to
state
> that a belief does not validate the truth. There are and will always be
> errant beliefs. They do not affect the truth. Errant doctrines only
> invalidate themselves, not the truth outside of them.
no argument -- the question is who has the truth?
Jeffrey Wilcox
You mean, like the other civilizations that record a similar catastrophe in
their
religious record as well?
Jeffrey Wilcox
>
> > [Steve says]
> >
> > > nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
> > > behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
> > >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> in the case of crystals, it's because of inherent chemical and
> physical characteristics; string together a linear group of amino acids
> and they automatically form a 3 d shape like hemoglobin. a single ant or
> bee cant do much; as a colony they act as if they were an intelligent
being.
>
> s
>
No, that was 'what'. The question was "Why?"
Jeffrey Wilcox
>
> . There are indeed many mainline protestant churches that
> > believe in the inerancy of Scripture. Perhaps you've not been exposed
to
> > them, or perhaps you have a limited definition of the word mainline -
> > neither of which would suffice as evidence of your claim.
>
> that's possible -- what groups do you consider mainline that hold to
> inerrancy?
>
Presbyterian, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, pretty much any other Reformed,
many Roman Catholics (and other Catholics) in spite of one leader's
proclamation,
Assemblies of God (sorry, but they get counted. They've been about for
a good long time. Mennonite, many Congregationalists, the bulk of Baptists)
[]
>
> episcopal, methodist, congregational, some baptists, quakers, for
> starters -- none hold to literal belief in the bible.
>
The very nature of Congrationalism would preclude making any claim involving
the entire denomination.
>
> ====You further missed
> > my point above. The use of the word errant in my reply to you was to
> state
> > that a belief does not validate the truth. There are and will always be
> > errant beliefs. They do not affect the truth. Errant doctrines only
> > invalidate themselves, not the truth outside of them.
>
> no argument -- the question is who has the truth?
>
God.
Steve Estvanik
> There are Christian who do not believe as I do. I recognize this as a
fact.
> You say "most" do not believe as I do. I am asking (5 times so far) for
> *FACTUAL* backing for your statement. A link maybe?
but there are polls and surveys and reports in newspapers and other sources
from time to time. most americans claim to be christians, and most do not
claim to be born again.
here's more (originally posted on compuserve, permission granted to repost)
"Resolved, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of
God
to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this
affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the
"Creationist" movement, and be it further
Resolved, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of
the
Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God
has
given and entrusted to us; and be it further
Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize
Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively
their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of
the
"Creationists" into legislating any form of "balanced treatment" laws or any
law requiring the teaching of "Creation-science."
(67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982.)
"Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history
conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to
the
nature of science; and,
Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular
religious dogma; and,
Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary
to
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce
"Scientific" creationism into the science
curriculum of the public schools."
(Passed June 1984, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church)
Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the
interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with
uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters,
whether
moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with
the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by
Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of
Protestantism,
Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory
of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of
life found in Biblical literature. "
(Presbyterian General Assembly, 1982)
In the McLean vs. Arkansas creationism case, most
of the briefs filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and against the Arkansas
creationism law were filed by religious organizations. Several prominent
bishops from mainline denominations took the stand against that law and in
favor of evolution.
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Online educational , trivia games http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Food Chain -- online ecology http://cascoly.com/games/food/foodmain.htm
Life, the game http://cascoly.com/games/life/lifemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart and screensavers http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
=============
support for creation or bible inerrancy from mainline groups?
s
Jaynee
>>> you're confusing 2 different uses of numbers -- in the case of a
scientific idea, it's not the number of people who hold the position, but
the amount of evidence in its favor. so, for something like noah's flood,
there is an enormous amount of evidence that the flood did not happen (eg,
all the civilizations that never mention it, no flood debris, no evidence of
worldwide death, etc) and NO evidence that it did happen. this is different
from just taking a poll of people who believe it or not.
This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard! Flood *legends* are
found in virtually EVERY culture. Flood debris covers the earth. Fossils are
found worldwide. The only way a fossil can be formed is by rapid covering of
mud. The earth is literally covered with evidence if we only open our eyes
to it and close them to the religion, and YES it IS a religion, of
evolution.
Julie Pascal
"Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:jrMO4.9417$g4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Steve - I'm leaving the entire post intact below for reference. I don't
> take exception with your delivery or your intent at all. In fact your
> delivery is pretty good. Having read your replies below though, I have a
> problem with what you say. Your points on science vs non-science are well
> taken. Your burden of proof though seems a bit weighted against those who
> hold to Scriptural beliefs. I'd give you the point that you can't or
won't
> accept the flood because you can't see the evidence you need to see. You
> further go on to say that an absence of evidence is proof that it did not
> occur. This is not very strong science. Absence is not conclusive proof
to
> the contrary. Further - every variant of the evolution theory and
theories
> of origins have missing pieces. Speculation points by different
scientists
> and disciplines. Absent the proof, shouldn't you conclude those to be
myths
> too?
>
> -Mike-
Thanks, Mike. Well said. A negative can not be proven. And
science offers more uncertainties than certainties. That's one of
the things that makes science so much fun.
--Julie
Julie Pascal
>
> > NO ONE believes that *every* word of the Bible should
> > be taken *literally*. That you think that they do leads
> > me to believe that you haven't a good grasp of basic
> > Christian beliefs and how they differ from one another.
>
> actually, there are some who DO claim such a thing....
Who? I know I've heard that there is some little "flat earth"
loonie group somewhere but I wasn't including them.
> >
> > The Bible uses parables, which are obviously stories
> > for the purpose of instruction. It uses metaphors. No
> > Christian church teaches that God has wings or the world
> > has corners.
>
> fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor
and
> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand years
ago
> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
Every person gets to choose. Every person may or may not
be right on a given point.
The general guideline that is given by the church I grew up
in is to take literally anything that can be. Obviously this
is a very loose guideline. Passages internally identified as
parables are easy. As are things like God's "wings" and the
"corners" of the world. There are things generally taken
figuratively that I think might not be figurative; the moon as
blood in Revelations, and the people being shaken from the
surface of the earth in Isaiah. Being the twisted science
fiction fan that I am I can't help but wonder if these passages
mean that we will leave the surface of the earth, and if there
will be actual blood-shed on the moon.
But it's important, I think, to use that rule, to take literally
what can be... otherwise we end up with people who don't
simply decide that the flood is a stylized description of
actual events (and possibly not reliable in scientific detail)
but that *anything* miraculous is simply untrue. This
seems *not* to be supported internal to the scriptures as a
rather major theme seems to be God's involvement with
people... miracles. People freak on internal contradictions
in scripture and then disregard thematic unity. Does it
make any sense to do that? But some churches do, and
they have done so since the very first Christian churches
existed. There has always been groups that denied and
deny miracles... not just now because we have science.
The denial of miracles and the miraculous is a theological
issue, not a scientific one.
Considering the nature of God, it is perfectly possible that
he created the whole world in 7-24 hour days. I don't
personally hold that view, but that isn't the point.
When I was a kid I sometimes heard that David and Goliath
was simply not true because giants aren't real.
Well, now we know that they are. There is no
reason not to accept David and Goliath as an *accurate*
historical account. It was only the *lack* of knowledge
that made it seem to have to be a fable for children. But
it was just as true then, as it is now. The Truth
doesn' change just because we have some odd ideas.
--Julie
Jayne Kulikauskas
[]
>And, for someone who has *participated* for years, I surely have
>missed everyone of your posts in the last year I've been on.
>Anyone else miss those?
[]
Steve has posted to this group many times. I recognize his name.
And he is quite right that the majority of Christians do believe in
evolution.
Jayne
David W. Varidel (BD)
> >You haven't figured out how to silence *me* yet!!
>
> Hey, wouldn't that be "silenceth" me???
Beware, thou mockers, lest the child of thy youth see thy merryment, and
even to thy children's children, they also mock thine ways. Seek not to see
jollyness in thy brother (David)'s ways. For, behold, doth he not speak
much wisdom - betwixt Alt.Humor reposts that is?
David W. Varidel (BD)
> > Again, steve, where do you get your numbers?
>
> NYTimes, Scientific American, etc
.... and again - date or site link or .... something. Please.
> > Or, are you saying "numbers alone dont define a postiion", its just that
I
> > know more people think the way I do?
> >
>
> you're confusing 2 different uses of numbers -- in the case of a
> scientific idea, it's not the number of people who hold the position, but
> the amount of evidence in its favor. so, for something like noah's
flood,
> there is an enormous amount of evidence that the flood did not happen (eg,
> all the civilizations that never mention it, no flood debris, no evidence
of
> worldwide death, etc) and NO evidence that it did happen. this is
different
> from just taking a poll of people who believe it or not.
The question I placed relates to your statement that most christians do not
believe the bible literally. Based on (again) what?
David W. Varidel (BD)
> in the case of crystals, it's because of inherent chemical and
> physical characteristics; string together a linear group of amino acids
> and they automatically form a 3 d shape like hemoglobin. a single ant or
> bee cant do much; as a colony they act as if they were an intelligent
being.
And just where did this "inherent" "characteristics" come from? Random
stuff 'learnt' how to be orderly? Wow.
David W. Varidel (BD)
> scientists (who are usually christian in western countries) hold just this
> position, and most christian churches also hold this view.
Most most most ARRRRGGGHHHTTT!
A link, if you please, mate.
> most people who make this statement dont understand thermodynamicsz in
> the first place; it's a typical misunderstanding
Please explain.
David W. Varidel (BD)
> ok, but how do you resolve disputes or contradictions when different
> 'christians' claim different things? again, did the flood really
happen?
Christian = Bible believer
Therefore - the Bible speaks of a flood, there was a flood.
David W. Varidel (BD)
> Several prominent
> bishops from mainline denominations took the stand against that law and in
> favor of evolution.
"Several" does not equal "most".
Steve Estvanik
>
>
> > most people who make this statement dont understand thermodynamicsz
in
> > the first place; it's a typical misunderstanding
>
> Please explain.
>
explain it. it usually turns out they dont even know what the 2 LOT is,
much less how to interpret it.
Steve Estvanik
> Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > ok, but how do you resolve disputes or contradictions when different
> > 'christians' claim different things? again, did the flood really
> happen?
>
> Christian = Bible believer
>
> Therefore - the Bible speaks of a flood, there was a flood.
>
sorry, but you are wrong. MANY christians do NOT believe that
everything the bible says is literally true.
--
====
Travel Photo Trivia http://cascoly.com/games/triv/trivmain.htm
Travel notes & contests: http://cascoly.com/trav/travel.shtml
Turkey Travel notes: http://cascoly.com/trav/turkey.shtml
Egypt Travel notes: http://cascoly.com/trav/egypt.shtml
=======
Steve Estvanik
.
> >
> > no argument -- the question is who has the truth?
> >
>
> God.
>
should we believe YOUR particular version over any other?
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Steve Estvanik
> > Several prominent
> > bishops from mainline denominations took the stand against that law and
in
> > favor of evolution.
>
> "Several" does not equal "most".
>
>
>
that mainline churches take a literal view of the bible?
Steve Estvanik
> > > you're confusing 2 different uses of numbers -- in the case of a
> > scientific idea, it's not the number of people who hold the position,
but
> > the amount of evidence in its favor. so, for something like noah's
> flood,
> > there is an enormous amount of evidence that the flood did not happen
(eg,
> > all the civilizations that never mention it, no flood debris, no
evidence
> of
> > worldwide death, etc) and NO evidence that it did happen. this is
> different
> > from just taking a poll of people who believe it or not.
> >
>
> You mean, like the other civilizations that record a similar catastrophe
in
> their
> religious record as well?
>
>
of years off, for their myths. and in each case, these myths developed in
areas that had severe local floods. in no case do we have a flood myth in
an area that was not prone to floods -- they have DIFFERENT creation type
myths.
but actually, i was asking for SCIENTIFIC evidence for such a flood -- we
have evidence for massive die offs 230 M years ago and 65 M ya, but NOTHING
to show such an event in more recent times.
s
Steve Estvanik
> >>> you're confusing 2 different uses of numbers -- in the case of a
> scientific idea, it's not the number of people who hold the position, but
> the amount of evidence in its favor. so, for something like noah's
flood,
> there is an enormous amount of evidence that the flood did not happen (eg,
> all the civilizations that never mention it, no flood debris, no evidence
of
> worldwide death, etc) and NO evidence that it did happen. this is
different
> from just taking a poll of people who believe it or not.
>
>
are
> found in virtually EVERY culture. Flood debris covers the earth. Fossils
are
> found worldwide. The only way a fossil can be formed is by rapid covering
of
> mud.
and you thought MY statement was ludicrous? what SCIENTISTS claim
that any fossils come from Noah's flood? those fossils come from MILLIONS
of years ago. and even so, NONE of that fossil evidence points to a
worldwide flood even then.
s
Jaynee
Jaynee
Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#ZNHsE6s$GA.307@cpmsnbbsa04...
MaG Douglas
> [...] in no case do we have a flood myth in
> an area that was not prone to floods [...]
There is at least one Indian tribe in the four
corners region of the United States that has a
global flood story in their verbal records. In
case you aren't aware, that's a desert region
that isn't prone to floods.
MaG
VR106
> >
> >
> >
> rather than play debating games -- how about presenting some
evidence
> that mainline churches take a literal view of the bible?
>
Steve Estvanik
> Please, explain how fossils are formed.....
>
if you're really interested, i can give you some references. the point
here is that your claim that fossils are evidence for noah's flood is just
wrong. the short answer about fossil formation is that they are formed
when living creatures do not decay -- whether covered by mud, silt, sand,
etc, and over many years their organic matter is replaced by minerals.
in order for your theory to be correct, we should find fossils of ALL types
of animals in a layer that is just a coupla thousand years old. there is
no such layer.
again -- what SCIENTISTS claim
> that any fossils come from Noah's flood
> ==========
Steve Estvanik
> is genesis a parable or a
> > statement of actual fact?
>
> Actual fact.
>
> did the global flood happen or not?
>
> Yes - it happened.
>
> if so,
> > when?
>
> Why, during Noah's time, of course.
>
and your evidence for this claim? since the bible makes the claim, you
cant use the bible as evidence for it -- what independent evidence do you
find for these claims?
s
--
Steve Estvanik
>
did the global flood happen or not?
Yes - it happened.
if so,
> when?
Why, during Noah's time, of course.
And approximately 4,500-6,000 years ago by Biblical dating.
which is utter nonsense scientifically -- where's your evidence for this? there is NO scientific evidence for a global flood at that time. there is also no evidence for civilization being wiped out -- instead we have records of civilizations around the world that existed before AND after that time, and that never seem to ahve noticed they were destroyed by the flood.
Mike Marlow
>
> > [Steve says]
> >
> > > nope -- crystals form beautiful patterns automatically. emergent
> > > behavior and self-organizing systems are actually quite common.
> > >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> physical characteristics; string together a linear group of amino acids
> and they automatically form a 3 d shape like hemoglobin. a single ant or
> bee cant do much; as a colony they act as if they were an intelligent
being.
>
True of the crystals - beautiful indeed. But still random and chaotic.
Remember the natural order of things - from order to chaos - not the other
way around. You are mixing thoughts too. Ants are quite complex (and oh by
the way, created) creatures. As a colony though, they are only able to
amass a certain amount of work, this is quite different than acting as if
they were an intelligent being.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
> > > >
> me> > fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a
> metaphor
> > and
> > > what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand
years
> > ago
> > > or is that just a parable or metaphor?
> > >
> >
> languages,
> > cultures, times and all that than I do figure these things out.
>
> ok, but how do you resolve disputes or contradictions when different
> 'christians' claim different things? again, did the flood really
happen?
>
Some I just have to chalk up to preferences. Some I disagree with based on
what seems to be just plane old bad doctrine or bad exegesis (although I do
have to rely heavily upon sources I trust here). Some I find are easily
decided upon by simple reference to Scripture with an eye that seeks its
meaning and not some predetermined intent. Some I pray a lot about and I
find that there are multiple meanings and applications (both in literal
application and in and in a figurative application), and that those meanings
take on certain relevancies based upon need, times in a life, etc. How do I
resolve them? I try to avoid the doctrinal disputes as much as I can, since
I've long ago learned that those of us that think we've got it all figured
out are the ones that really have the most to learn. The flood - did it
really happen? Sure.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
>
> > Steve Estvanik <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > > ok, but how do you resolve disputes or contradictions when different
> > > 'christians' claim different things? again, did the flood really
> > happen?
> >
> >
> > Therefore - the Bible speaks of a flood, there was a flood.
> >
>
> sorry, but you are wrong. MANY christians do NOT believe that
> everything the bible says is literally true.
yeah but, yeah but, yeah but! That may well be true, but all by itself that
does not make David wrong. Now you could take exception with David's claim
that Christian = Bible believer....that's one that by some definitions might
be an inarguable exception.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
> > > fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor
> > >and
> > >> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand
years
> > >ago
> > >> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
> > >>
> >
> > something like....
>
> if it's so clear, why the controversy?
Heathen influence in the world.
is genesis a parable or a
> statement of actual fact?
Actual fact.
did the global flood happen or not?
Yes - it happened.
if so,
> when?
Why, during Noah's time, of course.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
> .
> > >
> > > no argument -- the question is who has the truth?
> > >
> >
> > God.
> >
> and there';s the rub -- EVERY religion claims they know god. why
> should we believe YOUR particular version over any other?
>
>
You should not accept anyone's particular version of anything. What you
should do is delve into it yourself with reckless abandon. Do this with a
spirit of willingness, accepting that there is (or could be) a god so big
and so real that he could really have done the things written of in the
Bible. Then let Him speak to you the things that you need to understand.
And if this isn't one of them then don't sweat the small stuff. In the end
it comes down to searching for God, and He'll provide the truths that we all
need in His time, in our time. Hope that didn't sound condescending. It
wasn't meant to be. All this crap of doctrines though, just gets in the way
of simple faith.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Jaynee
>
> > > fine -- who gets to choose what's a parable and what's a metaphor
> > >and
> > >> what's the truth -- did the flood really happen a coupla thousand
years
> > >ago
> > >> or is that just a parable or metaphor?
> > >>
> >
> > Yep, me too. Also, the Word is pretty clear on it. It *usually* says
> > something like....
>
> if it's so clear, why the controversy?
Heathen influence in the world.
is genesis a parable or a
> statement of actual fact?
Actual fact.
did the global flood happen or not?
Yes - it happened.
if so,
> when?
Why, during Noah's time, of course.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
David Varidel (dvar...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> IF:
> Evolution = EVERYTHING is the result of random actions over an infinite
> period
> and
> Creation = There is a planner behind the sciences
when Steve Estvanik wrote that this definition of evolution was wrong,
Mr Varidel replied:
> Please provide "The Correct Definition of Evolution" (tm).
I believe the definition in use by evolutionary biologists is "a change in
allele frequency over time".
*
Perhaps an introduction is in order: I am a lifelong Southern Baptist, the
listowner of the Christia mailing list, which is gated to Usenet as
"bit.listserv.christia" (of which I am moderator). I am also one of the
feedback answer people at the web archive for the "talk.origins" newsgroup,
"www.talkorigins.org".
As you may imagine from the above, I have been a participant in, and a
witness to, lots of evolution discussions. Most of them have generated
far more heat than light, which is more often than not the result of
Christians speaking in haste instead of with discernment. In discussions
of a topic which has so many side issues and technical matters, one needs
to think carefully about what the area of disagreement actually is, as
opposed to lots of related issues which aren't really central.
Here are some things the dispute is NOT about:
1) Are the Genesis stories myths?
A "myth", as commonly understood, is a story which illustrates or
represents some truth that a culture considers important. Who we are, what
God wants of us, what we are to be. If the Genesis stories do not serve
the function of telling us about our relationship to God, they don't really
belong in the Bible.
The dispute is about whether the Genesis stories are histories in addition
to being myths. If they weren't myths, they'd be uninteresting.
Everybody agrees that the Genesis stories teach and illustrate important
truths, and are therefore myths.
2) Do we believe God or men?
No matter who you agree with about evolution/creation, you are believing
men. Men who translated the Bible, men who copied it down, men who teach
what it means. Some men say that Genesis was meant literally, and is a
literal history. Some say that it was not. No matter who I agree with,
the arguments are published by human beings, posted to Usenet by human
beings, presented by human beings.
My challenge is to try learning as much as I can to figure out which group
of human beings I should believe. Because no matter what I do, much of
what I know about the Bible and science and religion was taught to me by
human beings. Unless God chooses to drop a best-case English translation
of the Scriptures in my lap from Heaven, my beliefs are going to depend on
human beings. (If any of you has had such a thing happen, by all means do
type it in. 8-)
Everybody agrees that diligent study and research are needed to find the
best manuscripts, assemble them correctly, translate them properly, and
interpret them as intended. These activities are all conducted by human
beings.
3) Extra-Biblical evidence is a good thing.
There are some people who claim that the events of the Bible took place in
the British Isles. The place names have all been distorted over time, but
these people insist that modern-day England is the promised land. If I
were restricted to ONLY the Bible, I could never disprove them. The Bible
doesn't say anywhere in it "We were at latitude X and longitude Y", or
"Oh, we weren't in England".
What the Bible does say is that they were in Egypt, and crossed the Jordan
River, and other such things. I can look on a map to find those places,
but that map is not part of the Bible: it's extra-Biblical evidence being
used to help figure out which group of human Bible teachers is right and
which group is wrong.
Everybody agrees that some Bible teachers are wrong, and that we should
find out all we can to tell which ones are good and which ones aren't.
Extra-Biblical evidence is a useful and necessary tool.
4) Evolution is impossible.
This is one that many Creationists, including most of the publishing
"scientific creationists" get completely wrong. Even if evolution is
possible, that wouldn't prove that it actually happened. The dispute is
not about whether evolution could theoretically happen: it's about whether
evolution DID happen.
Now, if it could be proved that evolution is impossible, that would take
care of the question. But that proof probably cannot be constructed, and
most attempts don't make a bit of sense. I've read nonsense about the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics written by people who couldn't even do a simple
entropy problem; I've seen arguments about information theory written by
people who had clearly never even HEARD of Claude Shannon. I've read
attacks on carbon dating by people who can't name the guy who invented it,
have certainly never read his work, and are just shocked when they discover
that the research won its author the Nobel Prize.
I can't imagine why people feel competent to criticise work they haven't
read and don't understand. If someone was criticising the Bible without
reading it, most Christians would find that ridiculous. But Christians
who would never accept Biblical criticism from those who hadn't read
the Bible are happy to criticise scientific ideas they haven't learned
about.
If evolution didn't happen, then it doesn't matter whether it's possible.
Creationists should argue the *history*: ie, did evolution happen. The
notion that it might not be possible is one tool for making that historical
argument -- but many Creationists have gotten hung up on the "impossible"
argument, thus wasting much of their time.
5) Evolution is a religion.
Consider the usual "design versus random" discussions. Many people write
as if it's a one-dimensional choice. I think there are two dimensions:
"organised plan <--> random" and "accidental <--> intentional". That gives
four categories:
A) intentional results accomplished via random methods (such as flipping
a coin to ensure fair distribution of chores from the Job Jar),
B) accidental results which arose from random activity,
C) intentional results achieved by planned courses of action,
D) accidental results achieved by planned courses of action
(which is either empty, or includes unintended results, depending
on how you want to class unintended results).
If we assume that God created everything how he wanted it created, we
can get to A or C. Scientists argue that the activity certainly appears to
have been random, giving A or B. The problem for many believers occurs
when atheists go beyond the science, saying that random activity can have
only random results, and that therefore evidence for evolution is somehow
evidence against God.
But the science can only get you as far as "A or B" (and maybe not even
that far). Someone who takes the science and insists on "B" has in fact
gone beyond the scientific evidence and is now pushing a religious
conclusion.
But evolution doesn't give that conclusion: that final jump into a
competing religion isn't scientific, and has nothing to do with evolution.
*
All of these things have come up in this discussion. But in fact, they
are not really important areas of disagreement, and to some extent are not
areas of disagreement at all.
If evolution was proven possible, most Creationists wouldn't change their
minds; whether evolution is possible isn't really the important issue. If
it were proven that there was an active designer behind the Creation of
life on Earth, evolutionary biologists may be impressed by the proof but it
probably wouldn't have much effect on their continued study of drug-
resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant bugs. Whether there is a
creator isn't really the important issue for evolutionary biologists.
It is not my purpose here to tell people what to think or why. But I do
believe that if everybody thought more carefully about what they believed
and why, and considered carefully where their disputes really lay, these
discussions would be shorter and happier.
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
Wayne
<OsTZoB6s$GA.304@cpmsnbbsa04>...
>
>.
>> >
>> > no argument -- the question is who has the truth?
>> >
>>
>> God.
>>
> and there';s the rub -- EVERY religion claims they know god. why
>should we believe YOUR particular version over any other?
>
> s
>--
>==========
>Steve Estvanik
Excuse me, I know the question wasn't directed at me but -----
You can't believe any particular "version" until you have investigated
at least one of them.
If I was comfortable with the world as I found it, I would never have
investigated. If I'm a walking ape and there is no God then nothing is
amiss. Eat, find shelter, mate often with a fetching upright female
ape and all is fine. Life is good.
But something in me says no, there is more than this. Probably just a
chemical imbalance in the species, with a particularly nasty symptom
in my case.
Oh well -----
Wayne
>Contests & Free Stuff http://cascoly.com/cascfree.htm
>Online horse racing, trivia, Life, puzzle games
>http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
>Royalty Free clipart, puzzles and screensavers
>http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
>Free CD giveaways, weekly http://cascoly.com/realsoon.htm
>SweepsWinner - internet contest wizard
>
>
>
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
-----------------------------------------------
Proverbs 16:9 A man's mind plans his way,
but the LORD directs his steps.
Michael Oberle
'discussion' if you want to call it that. I will not be making more because
I have found that arguing biblical topic and origins with non-believers to
be a very unprofitable use of the time that God has given me.
Secondly I have do not hold the same belief on origins as most believers.
For example if you go back to the original hebrew in genesis. The word that
is rendered create also can mean replentish. So I believe in both an
ancient creation (Billions and Billions of years ago to quote that moron
Carl Sagan. Of course God created it then too) and I also believe that
God replentished the earth in seven days as described in the bible. This of
course will get me flamed by both the unbelievers and the believers but so
be it.
Thirdly I only engage in one ng fight at a time and Conni's situation and
the rabid response to what I wrote is far more important.
By the way. You guys always say we dont understand what we are talking
about. But I have found that to be an easy way for the unbelievers to keep
the blinders on.
His Servant in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Michael
"Steve Estvanik" <steve...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OEEmMA6s$GA.90@cpmsnbbsa04...
>
> >
> >
> > > most people who make this statement dont understand
thermodynamicsz
> in
> > > the first place; it's a typical misunderstanding
> >
> > Please explain.
> >
> i'm waiting for the person who made the claim about thermodynamics
to
> explain it. it usually turns out they dont even know what the 2 LOT is,
> much less how to interpret it.
>
> s
>
> --
> ==========
> Steve Estvanik
Mike Marlow
>
> > is genesis a parable or a
> > > statement of actual fact?
> >
> > Actual fact.
> >
> > did the global flood happen or not?
> >
> > Yes - it happened.
> >
> > if so,
> > > when?
> >
> > Why, during Noah's time, of course.
> >
>
>
you
> cant use the bible as evidence for it -- what independent evidence do you
> find for these claims?
>
Well - I'm sure you could see the tongue in cheek nature of that answer, but
your question bothers me a bit. I understand circular logic (which I
suspect is the basis of your disclaiming the Bible as a valid reference),
but I can't concede the need for independent support. I hold the Bible to
be the true word of God, therefore I do not need outside verification for
things contained in it. That would be asking an inferior device to
substantiate the superior.
I personally don't spend a lot of time worrying about when it happened,
precisely how it happened and all that. Nor do I spend a lot of time
worrying about how old the earth is. I don't find the age of the earth to
be a threat to my faith in God, nor in His word. Maybe someday I'll find
these matters to be more important, but today I just don't. I do wonder
though why so much fuss is made about the fossil record. Why is it assumed
that all the living creatures had to become fossilized? I've seen big
floods, and I've seen big mud. What I've not seen is everything submerged
in the mud by the floods. I don't see where the fossil record either
substantiates or denies the global flood of the Bible. But then again, like
I said, I don't pay a lot of attention to these things.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net