subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Create a New Thread]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Specific Bible Verses backing Evolution as Truth |
Smelley JR , Jim |
May 02, 2006 |
I'm a Christian, and a lover, believer, and follower of Science.
If one reads the EXACT words from most of the King James Versions -- the new Bibles often curiously alter that verse, Genesis 1 verse 20 states --
And God said let the waters BRING FORTH abundantly the moving creature that hath life AND FOWL that may fly above the Earth...
The next verse says the WATERS BROUGHT FORTH FOWL etc. Hmm..... Did he do some big magic trick and chose water as his backdrop? or did he mean the waters produced -- brought forth FOWL, in that "day" which could've been millions of years. He also didn't say birds, he said fowl -- as in pterodactyls etc.?
I have a hard time hearing talk against evolution and hearing condemnation to prison for drug addicts and a few other things in Church,
but there's no such thing as a perfect one.
We'll never have irrefutable proof against God, and since Faith is one grounding principle of Christianity, the Rapture referenced in Revelation, will happen before we ever prove that He does exist.
What if every snippet of virus or basic cell RNA or DNA has evolution coded into the "garbage" between what we now consider the "meaningful"
segments?
I.E. the very first organism had its own very specific programming to change the applicable segments of its DNA/RNA in response to variations in its environment, and then with progressive organisms DNA coding for the same+, would always end up at point Z millions of years later given the conditions God placed in existence, knowing the outcome, at the beginning
of life on Earth?
That is testable if one were to take a simple well known organism, apply heat or some other stressor, and see if the DNA "extras" were active and predictable. BUT as I said earlier, God won't let us prove His existence as that would render Faith pointless.
Just wanted to give you all the verse in Genesis that will fluster any Christian who's arguing Evolution with you all. Even the perfection,
beauty, and "applicability" of Evolution speak volumes against happenstance, but some Preacher somewhere took the position against Evolution, and the Devil has used it turn scientists and logical people against Christianity.
God Bless You All!! |
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| not convinced |
Larson , David |
May 02, 2006 |
You may talk of reason but the ID people reason just as well as you do. You point out their errors and just as convincing they point out yours. You call them jerks and they call you a jerk. Such talk really is not helpful.
Regardless of what the current scientific arguments may be, evolution cannot be right, because it just does not "fit" with what most people experience in the daily struggles of life. Most people need a God who is all powerful and all knowing to whom they can rely on and pray to in order to successfully manage their daily affairs. Some may not need that help,
most do. When evolution can provide answers to those needs, you just might find people starting to accept it like they do Newton's or Einstein's
theories. May I refer you to Rodney Stark's assessment of the situation? He claims that Darwin never meant his ideas to be more than a theory. The whole conflict was started by Atheits such as Huxley, who is a sense "hijacked the theory" for the purpose of promoting their atheistic beliefs.
Christians did the same in response. Science has gotten lost in the fray.
In the meantime life goes on. People cannot wait for the final answer. The Biblical record of life origins ring truer to life than evolution for most people, maybe not for you. That is why I cannot accept evolution and chance as the answer to how life and the universe came to be. There is intelligence in nature. If their was not, how could anyone understand nature? Intelligence cannot come about by chance. If it did, please explain how it did. Further, atheists did not discover reason nor science. Science and modern reasoning powers were developed by Christians as they attempted
to understand God as he is revealed in the Bible and their relationship to him. In this process, human reasoning powers began to grow and develop to the point where humans could begin to understand the processes by which God created the universe and by which he causes it to run. Now that humans have learned how to reason, some feel they no longer need God. I am not ashamed
to say that I do. I can understand science as well as anyone and have held good jobs in the science field. If believing in divine creation destroys scientific thinking, how could I and may others like myself be so productive and creative in our jobs? We are not talking awards, but hard cash that comes with the ability to create, build and produce the goods that meet the real needs of people in their daily lives. Evolutionary theory may help some doctor produce medicine to cure some disease. I have not heard of that happening yet. I do not intend this to be a scientific argument against evolution. I do not think one can be made. God did not make the universe that way. He has left a certain amount of abiguity in existence to require humans to use their reasoning powers that he gave them
to make a decision on their own to accept or reject him. I am sorry, but when you take life to its limits theology trumps science. |
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller |
Moritz , Al |
Apr 30, 2006 |
I did read both Miller's book and Rossow's review, and I have to agree with Pehnec that it was Miller's intent to establish that Darwinian evolution is thoroughly compatible with faith in God (which is a non-controversial thesis, as Rossow points out), yet that it was not at all his intent to try to establish some kind of "scientific evidence" for God's existence. In this sense, Rossow's review is based on a substantial misunderstanding, one which I would not have thought possible until I read the review. I do not see how Rossow supposedly is able to infer from the cited passages from page 17 of Miller's book that the author wants to establish evidence for God from evolution. However, unlike Pehnec, I do not think that Rossow's review is entirely without merit, since it raises some interesting and well-researched points and, misunderstanding aside, tries to be fair in an admirable way. I certainly cannot see it as a "strawman attack".
The length of the "yin part" (as Rossow calls it) of Miller's book is due to the fact that it not only expounds on the compatibility of Darwinian evolution with faith, but also on the reasons why it enriches faith and elevates the concept of God. I think Miller overall does an admirable job in showing this, even though I have some philosophical disagreements with him. As I see it, the "yin part" is entirely written by Miller from a believer for other believers, without the intent to "convince" skeptics. If Rossow misunderstands it as having such an intent, it necessarily appears weak from his perspective, but this is not Miller's fault. About the strengths of the "yang part" of the book of course there is little disagreement. |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller
|
Previous |
| Next
|
|
