Discipler...
- Started
- Last post
- 248 Responses
- mrdobolina0
oh and yours isn't a myth
- mrdobolina0
I think mikotondria's post sums up my feelings on the whole thing.
- discipler0
mikotondria presents some hybrid materialism-meets- panentheism, in his post. I simply don't buy it. The neuroscience he mentions has confirmed that there is a human consciousness that is distinctly seperate from that which is material. The physical is the apparatus for the metaphysical. No amount of new scientific information is going to change that, it will only unveil even more complex systems which will point even more solidly toward a cognizant designer who is seperate (yet paradoxically part of) from the design.
The materialist's finger ends up pointing back in his own face as he posits an evolution-of-the-gaps in an attempt to explain that which gives all appearances of having been designed.
- mrdobolina0
he said that religion will constantly have to reinvent itself to deal with expanding knowledge.
like the sun travelling around earth, flat earth, etc.
noah's ark sounds good to a guy from 2000 years ago, when any person was only aware of the amount of animals they had seen in their own personal life. I have never seen a blue whale, but I know they exist. mighty big boat, eh?
- ********0
I have never seen a blue whale, but I know they exist. mighty big boat, eh?
mrdobolina
(Aug 3 05, 06:10)
-----------------------Just to play devil's advocate here, why would a blue whale need to be on a boat during a flood?
- mrdobolina0
how does noah's ark and living in a whale's belly differ from other religious myths?
- mrdobolina0
all the world's animals, no? even all of the millions of insects. noah must have been busy taking inventory on all of them.
- discipler0
On the contrary, expanding scientific knowledge is demonstrating that the Biblical account is valid. You will not find reference to a flat earth in the Bible, nor a sun traveling around the earth.
It is safe to assume that Noah brought baby animals into the ark and he did not need to bring sea creatures into it.
- ********0
how does noah's ark and living in a whale's belly differ from other religious myths?
mrdobolina
(Aug 3 05, 06:12)
------------------------
Coming up next on HGTV, Whale Belly Makeovers!
- unfittoprint0
what
about
HIV?
didn't it deserve
a place in the boat?
- mrdobolina0
It is safe to assume that Noah brought baby animals into the ark and he did not need to bring sea creatures into it.
omg, you really are a crackpot.
- discipler0
mrdobs, if you study the meaning of certain key words in the biblical account of Noah, you discover that only certain animals needed to be on the ark. Obviously, insects and such would have floating vegetation, etc... to survive on, for example.
The reason I don't believe these stories are myths is because of the reliability of the records they come from, as well as the fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament. Additionally, there is archaeological support for the places and names, etc...
- mrdobolina0
and dont forget 2 of each of every type of insect.
- ********0
once ruled the seas
- mrdobolina0
you're nuts
- discipler0
don't get me wrong, dobs. There's no question that there's a supernatural element to ark account. But I don't let a western prejuidice against the supernatural cause me to dismiss it.
- discipler0
no need to get hateful and abusive.
- bk_shankz0
But there's people who believe in evolution and god. Some people would say evolution seems very clever and maybe it was a system designed. I don't see why the viewpoints have to be contrary.
- normal0
I applaud the intelligent design afficianados for their challenge to evolution. It obviously needs it as there is still more to learn in order to solidify the standings of evolution, a concept that I personally believe in.
ID people are riding on the back of scientific theory that is in my mind not complete but the difference is that evolutionists are only working off of provable observations. As discipler stated earlier:
No, they should just teach what science observes. :)
discipler
(Aug 2 05, 13:05)In my mind until science observes an 'intelligent creator ' the whole concept of ID falls apart and does not share the view of science of 'truth' by method of proof. ID pontifs say that we're complex systems that will work only if all the components operate at once and that you could not get such a thing from 'successive, slight modifications' Hence we're products of God.
But if we were to look at something like the internet which was a simple concept that evolved into something complex from slight successive modifications and something that is being used now for things that was not the original purpose including 'evil' another concept I don't believe in as it's too overly simplistic in nature to believe that something is 'evil' and something is 'good' as with the internet and nature it's a bit of both a bit chaotic but thoroughly self-regulating.
As we know what some of us do with computers is considered to be 'magic' by others. They don't know how it works they just turn it on and it works. These same people would look for a simplistic reason for something because they want to look no further and instead of actually learning or keeping their mind open attribute it to 'God' or a 'PHP Developer' because well.. it's just easier.
We are ultimately animals with the ability to abstract and rationalise our instincts and cruelty to others. There is no 'plan' for us and for the world as most religious people would have us believe. We just have the ability to think that there is and ultimately it usually comes down to the selfish motivations of out breeding other creatures and competing for resources just like every other animal has to do. Just because we're able to write books about it does not make it any different.
- discipler0
I don't know of a scientist who would say that it would be a clever approach for God to have used evolution. I quoted one nobel prize winner above who said, "You can believe in evolution, but don't blame God for it." It is a cruel and wasteful system.
But, again the problem is not why would God use or not use evolution, rather the issue is did macro-evolution even occur? And the direction science is pointing is an emphatic "no".