Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as a Starting point for Scientific questions
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 44 (205350)
05-05-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 3:53 PM


Jorel writes:
But you do it all the time if one cares to see where you have been posting. In many cases you use those same arguments to show discrepencies.
http://EvC Forum: Forum List

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 3:53 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 32 of 44 (205351)
05-05-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 4:36 PM


Notice that I said "most Christians" and you said "creationist factions".
Yes, there is a conflict between science and YECs who misinterpret the Bible.
No, there is no conflict between science and Christians who read the Bible properly. I repeat, many of the "evolutionists" on this forum are Christians (or believers of other faiths).
It is the "creationist factions trying to discredit TOE at all costs" who want their peculiar interpretation to be accepted by everybody. That's not going to happen. If YECs want a meaningful discussion, they'll have to learn to understand the Bible the way the majority of Christians do.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 4:36 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 44 (205352)
05-05-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 4:36 PM


While you may find it hard to believe, it's true. The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Churches, the Methodist Church, the Luthern Church and many, many more support teaching the TOE and oppose teaching Creationism.
Sorry but almost all Christian churches have no problems with the TOE.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 4:36 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 05-05-2005 5:05 PM jar has replied
 Message 38 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 6:46 PM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 44 (205353)
05-05-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 4:36 PM


Creationists take the view that the Bible must be more or less literally accurate. Many take this all the way insisting on a literal 6-day creation about 6000 years ago. That view is in contadiction to the conclusions of science.
Other Christians do not accept that the actual descriptions of the creation process must be literally accurate and are prepared to accept scientific conclusions as to what happened and even to an extent as to how it happens - yet see God as the ultimate cause of the universe and the workings of the universe as expressions of His will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 4:36 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 44 (205355)
05-05-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 4:36 PM


So you are saying that a christian easily accepts TOE as long as things are explained to him, and that that doesn't effect his beliefs in the slightest because both ceationism and TOE can work together.
That's certainly the only conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that most Christians accept the fundamental accuracy of the theory of evolution but also believe in a Creator God.
I have to apologise for my desbelief but if that were true the members of this forum would all be agreeing with one another and the debate would not exist.
If there were not those who understood neither the theory of evolution nor the Bible itself, then the debate wouldn't exist. The "debate", if it can even be called that, is between ignorance and those who oppose ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 4:36 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 44 (205359)
05-05-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
05-05-2005 4:53 PM


jar writes:
Sorry but almost all Christian churches have no problems with the TOE.
Shouldn't it be most of the major christian churches?
There are many churches where their congregation is the only congregation of their denomination. And I believe that most of those small churches support the teaching of creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 4:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 5:11 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 44 (205365)
05-05-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
05-05-2005 5:05 PM


Yes, it probably should have the 'c' in churches capitalized to differentiate from the small independant sects. I would say though that the position of the Church is not always representative of the belief system of the church-goers. Even within the Anglican Communion we have our share of ignorant parishioners.
But, IMHO, the answer is not to exclude education and exposure but rather to increase it. It is only through discussions as found here and other places that progress can be made.
This message has been edited by jar, 05-05-2005 04:12 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 05-05-2005 5:05 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 7:16 PM jar has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (205393)
05-05-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
05-05-2005 4:53 PM


Yes they do, although there is but in that support (at least for the R.C.C.). They also insist that it is necessary to accept the teaching that God created Adam and Eve and that they are the original pair from which the rest of the human race has descended.
Dear Dr Geraghty,
Your thought as to whether the Church has ruled out the possibility of Adam's body having been formed by some form of evolution is answered by Rev Dr Brian Harrison like this: "With great respect, therefore, I submit that it is high time for Catholics at all levels to 'rediscover' Leo XIII's Arcanum, which bears witness to, illustrates, and confirms the perennial Catholic doctrine -- certain and unchangeable, and yet presently languishing in oblivion -- that both Adam and Eve, in body as well as soul, owed their existence to direct supernatural interventions of the Creator. The fact that the doctrine, as it has been proposed up till now, does not necessarily exclude the possible evolution of Adam's body in accordance with the hypothesis of special transformism does not, of course, shed much light on the distinct question as to whether or not special transformism represents the historical truth as to how Adam's body was in fact formed."
On this subject, recent questioners might include the following for facts and comment: The Roman Theological Forum at http://www.rtforum.org, click on "our archive of articles" and see #26 "The Failure of Darwinism and its Fuller Implications", #37 "Rolling Back The Tide of Evolutionism", #63 "Anti- Darwinism Today"and "The Foundations of Evolution Theory Just Don't Add Up", #64 "Theistic Evolution: A Vain Search For Spontaneous Generation", #72 "Evolution and the Truth About Man" (especially the conclusions), #73-74 "Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration" (momentous), #99 "Evading The Truth: Did Darwin Get It Right?", and "Where George Sims Johnston Went Astray: Did Darwin Get It Right?", and #100 "The Myth of Evolution".
The articles cited critically expose the paucity of historical evolutionary views, strengthen the historicity of scripture and explain Catholic doctrine, while "Communion and Stewardship", referenced by Greg and written by theologians, seems to use the pseudo-scientific jargon of the evolutionist scientist.
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 02-08-2005:
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the information. It may well be the the Church will get around to endorsing the view of Fr. Harrison, who is a very reliable theologian. I think it would be wise to follow him. But it still leaves many questions open. What is not open is the teaching that God created Adam and Eve and that they are the original pair from which the rest of the human race has descended.
The link to the aformentioned article is here: www.ewtn.com
This is a site that answers questions put to a panel of experts who are Roman Catholic.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 4:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 7:07 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 7:19 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 39 of 44 (205395)
05-05-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 6:46 PM


The problem is that EWTN and the Roman Theological Forum are not official arms of the Vatican. The International Theological Commission, of which the current Pope was chairman before his papacy, is. And the document "Communion and Stewardship" , so maligned in the above material, is an official Vatican document, signed off on by the International Theological Commission. And it takes IMO a more favorable view of evolution than is presented by Harrison or EWTN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 6:46 PM Jor-el has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2005 7:25 PM paisano has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 40 of 44 (205397)
05-05-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
05-05-2005 5:11 PM


Even within the Anglican Communion we have our share of ignorant parishioners.
Oh, the RCC has its share of creationists and even geocentrists. There have to be a few anomalies in a population of a billion. Fortunately they have no official standing, their protestantions to the contary notwithstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 5:11 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 44 (205398)
05-05-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jor-el
05-05-2005 6:46 PM


The authors of that might want to review JP II's position. LOL
Leo XIII died in 1903. In the over 100 years since then one or two things have been discovered, including the whole science and knowledge base of Genetics. More recent Popes have outlined much different views including the last two and the current Pope is sure to expand that even further.
There are folk in all religions that make fools of themselves, and the Roman Catholic Church is no exception. But the current Official position of the RC is in support of the TOE.
Read the address from the late John Paul found here.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jor-el, posted 05-05-2005 6:46 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 44 (205399)
05-05-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by paisano
05-05-2005 7:07 PM


Official Position and Unofficial
I think that Jor-el may have been making a point that, while the Church has one postition that doesn't mean that all 1 billion practioners hold to that position.
From the perspective it doesn't matter if the sourse are "official" or not. What matters is how many individuals agree with the official or unofficial position.
From a damage to socity point of view it would be better to have an anti-evolution position from the Vatican if 99% of the flock disagreed with it than have an official pro-evolution position that 60 or so % of the flock disagreed with.
Of course, I recognize that the original point that someone was trying to make is that to equate acceptance of current science to an "unbeliever" position is wrong. There is no such dicotomy.
It might be intesting to attempt to sort out just what the dicotomy is. I have some personal views about the two types of people there are. (There are always two types). The two camps are clearly NOT faithful and unfaithful. (that sorting out is NOT for this topic).
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-05-2005 07:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 7:07 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 11:27 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 44 by Jor-el, posted 05-07-2005 3:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 43 of 44 (205462)
05-05-2005 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
05-05-2005 7:25 PM


Re: Official Position and Unofficial
Points well taken. The dichotomy would indeed be a whole different topic. Maybe you can formulate it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2005 7:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 44 (205864)
05-07-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
05-05-2005 7:25 PM


Re: Official Position and Unofficial
It is also true that the official position is many times contested by the individual clergymen of the R.C.C. from the pulpit thus leading to further belief in creation. Thus, although the offical position may be what it is, it doesn't filter into the population.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2005 7:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024