When did you accept God in your life, or realize you did not believe in him?

OK - who else wants a turn on the geek-cycle?

 

so if there's a book that says the far side of the moon is littered with ruins of an ancient civilization. would you say it's good science to assume that the book is right because the scientist of the 19th century has no information to the contrary?

 

genetically speaking, the branches really ought to be simple forks. at any stage there should be only 2 choices. but then more complex subtley different organisms would have ludicrously long names to fit into the taxonomy. so the system is sort of arbitrary and sort of genetic. like the mammal orders atriodactyl and perissodactyl are segrated by how many toes the animal has -- even or odd. that's a hold-over from the strictly observational method of identifying animals. and there's something like 200 members of this order so you'd need a ton of binary splits to order them all out in a purely genetic system.

 

I won't say the Noah story is bogus until I see something to disprove it. It's possible they haven't found it yet, but it's also possible it's completely rotten away, meaning it cannot be found. We're talking about a wooden boat that's over 5,000 years old that was afloat for about a year with lots of bacteria and animal waste in it.

Agendas exist on both sides, to be sure. I can only speak for myself when I tell you that I have found very little in the way of science that I've even come close to discounting. Science is neither universally trustworthy, nor is it universally untrustworthy. It is what it is.

 

Coach Fox?

 

What we must keep in mind in this debate is that neither side is rock solid in its claims. Genesis is written in poetic form, and the scientific side is based on mathematical dating formulas and archeological and geologic theory. There is little in the way of absolutes to be found on either side.

The Genesis account's list is thus (based on Genesis 1)
1. The planet itself -- (land, sea, atmosphere)
2. Vegetation
3. Sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies
4. Marine fauna and birds
5. Land-based fauna
6. Man

The general thinking is that Moses was inspired by God to write this account. There is some merit to your assertion, though, equating a sort of heirarchy with sequence of events -- I'll concede that. But my point is that a nomadic shepherd (who, by the way, almost certainly never saw the ocean even once in his life) didn't have a lot to go on to come up with that.

Granted, the sequence does seem significantly off from a purely scientific point of view (vegetation before celestial bodies?) to the degree of being impossible. From a spiritual standpoint however, it does seem possible, even if unlikely. Another thing to consider is that I've heard that the way ancient Hebrew was written (particularly in artistic form), the sequence of words and phrases was less important than the idea that they were simply included. In other words, the point was that all that happened, not that it happened in that particular order. But again, that's from a pro-Biblical position.

That's where the purpose factor comes into play. Within the context of creation history, the Bible and general science have differing motives. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges, but not quite, I suppose.

 

You're not far off in that assessment, Nut. I'm still open to contradicting science, because I'm still interested in truth. But the dynamic of the debate has changed for me since I began my research around 8 years ago. The foundation of the Bible centers on people, not natural history. Yet the most common arguments from the scientific community seem to want to focus on the latter. To me, it's become a secondary argument. If someone wants to unravel my faith, show me scientific evidence that tears apart the Gospels, for example, because that is where the core of my faith rests -- not on whether the chicken-and-egg argument is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.

 

The Bible isn't science, but it can be proven wrong with the right evidence (taking into consideration, of course that 'proof' is a subjective term).

IMHO, the Catholic church has a bit of a history of free-lancing when it comes to Christian doctrine.

 

i don't think human intelligence has changed a whole lot in 5000 years. certainly knowledge has, but i would think a 30 year old man of any epoch could probably tell the difference between plants, fish, fowl, and land animals as sort of roughly seperate groups.

that totally valid, but is sort of like lucy pulling the football away from charlie brown as he's about to kick it. if the ancient hebrew in the bible is poetic and can't be read as a linear sequence of events, then i think it's dishonest to suggest that the genesis story mirrors the scientific account. i have tons of respect for you and your beliefs, but i think you're trying to have it both ways -- faith and proof. i totally accept that faith requires no proof or evidence or anything. i can offer no proof to counter one's faith. but when they start citing evidence to back up their faith, then i can't help but feel like responding. invariably, their faith is seperate and distinct from the evidence they provide. which is fine, but it makes me wonder why they proffer it in the first place if it's not important.

yes. science and religion and like oil and water. not to say that a religious man can't be scientific or scientific man can't be religious, just that faith has no place in science and science cannot speak to questions of faith. at least, as far as the judeo/christian faith goes.

 

i think that's more out of self defense from the scientific community. take evolution as an example. in putting together a theory that explains the fossil record, scientists came up with the notion of evolution - that species don't just materialize out of nowhere, they share common ancestry with other species. the dominance of marsupials in australia indicates that the placental mammal line came about after australia split off from pangea. new world monkeys developed prehensile tails after africa and south america split apart. there are plenty of basic bits of evidence that support the notion that the animal life today is not what it was a few million years ago.

the problem is that conflicts with biblical teachings, so bible scholars attempt to discredit the science not by simply saying "i don't believe it" or "whatever floats your boat, sinner" but by actively condemning the science with their own interpretations of the facts or sprinkled in with the bible and theology. certainly there's some back and forth, but i believe the church fired the first shots.