Dinosaurs & The Bible - Page 2

I'm pretty sure my cat has a soul. That is one funny guy.

Those are good questions. My answer is that I have no idea. Regarding the doctrine of "the church," there are roughly a zillion different Christian denominations. Which church did you have in mind?

Edit: Y'know, Stelios, I don't think I gave your question a good enough answer. Since the Bible was written by people with no concept of evolution, the book offers no guidance concerning your questions. This leads me to believe that any answer would be conjecture. Further, it would be conjecture about details, which is not my ball of wax. I've never been a detail oriented guy, which means I would've made a particularly bad scholastic monk.

Dinosaurs and the Bible? How about particle physics and the Reformation?

That's OK Frank. I'm really not expecting answers.

I'm WAITING.

Particles from cosmic radiation have been well documented* causes of DNA mutation (reformation if you will) which causes the development of a wide range of superpowers.

*See Fantastic Four #1.

Now that's brilliant. I am in awe, sir.

God added our souls when we were done, just like frosting on a cake. Mmmm, tasty, tasty souls.

I hear they taste like chicken.

Okay, an attempt at a serious answer. Being raised in the church, I've heard several different answers.

#1: God used evolution to create man, and dinosaurs were a byproduct of that.

#2: God created dinosaurs, which simply went extinct before recorded history.

#3: God created the Earth, which was a home for many creatures (mostly reptilian? I don't know the details). The Earth was destroyed by a type of flood (think, the Ice Age). God restarted creation (Genesis begins with, "The Earth was formless and void, and the spirit of God moved over the face of the deep") and this is the creation account found in the Bible. This explanation requires the 7 Days of Creation to be metaphorical.

#4: I dunno. Some things we have to take on faith. When science and the Bible disagree, some people choose the Bible, claiming that scientists have been proven wrong more than the Bible has. (This, perhaps, is true. When reading "Thunderstruck" by Erik Larson it goes into some small detail about the scientists of the day investigating ghosts as a scientific activity. Something many believed in. Scientific theories do change from era to era).

HERESY!

Herein lies the problem

lololololologlgolgolgolgupl gupl gulp cough cough dead

But that's it, though. Saying that articles of faith can't be proven through the scientific method is like saying that apples aren't orangey enough. I have faith because I choose to have faith. That faith coexists very easily with my agreement with generally accepted scientific dogma, because my faith does not rely on the accuracy of ancient Hebrew creation myths for its foundation.

One of the reasons why I avoid apologetics is because the entire field is an attempt to prove the unprovable. When, in the wake of Kant's work, Christianity got into "reason game," it bet on a losing horse. Faith is intuitive; it's heartfelt. If you don't feel it, I can't argue you into feeling it. I can just be there when you're ready.

So it didn't come to you unbidden? You chose to have faith?

Seriously, not being snarky or anything.

You are all getting hung up on one sentence, in one of the four points, and even erasing half the sentence. When I said, "This might be true" I was referring to scientific theories changing.

Evolution might be the best guess we have, but it is still, essentially, a guess. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll have a different one. I dunno.

No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Faith is a poor excuse for willful ignorance.

A hypothesis is, essentially, a guess. A theory such as evolution is a hypothesis that has undergone a degree of testing and held up. They are not the same thing. Sure, there have been thousands of hypotheses that have not held up to testing, but that does not "disprove" science. It's ridiculous to even say that "science" can be disproved, because as you use it, it's basically the process of proving and disproving things (and is at least as much about the latter as the former).

If you're going to equivocate, you need to do better than that.

Me likey.

EDIT: The video, that is.

This should answer all your questions:

I'm in the process of watching the "Evolution Proven" video. I don't think it can be proven, as we weren't there to test it while it was happening, but I'll watch it.

I didn't say that science has been proven wrong. I said that scientists have (and by extension, their theories). Science is a series of educated guesses undergoing tests to prove or disprove their likeliness.

Alls I sayin' is that things DO change. People once believed the Earth was flat. People once believed that black people were less human than white people. Evolution is our best guess (still watching the video) and maybe it will end up standing the test of time.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that it took 71 posts until someone finally posted that. I was tempted, oh lordy was I, but held back. Thank you, Overlord for fixing that.

Again, you're conflating a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone tests and has been proven likely.

My pleasure.

I don't think anyone is arguing that evolution is not likely.

I also don't think that anyone would say that it is impossible that we will ever have a better guess (hypothesis, theory) as to the origin of man.

It's still early.

Faith is simply trust. We all put some level of faith in some things. I really only have faith in one thing Jesus is the way, for me personally. Everything else I leave open to question and doubt. I personally have no problem with evolution. Science is one thing, religion is another. As I said in another thread, “ The fundamentalist put importance on so much shit which is ether wrong to start with or just not important.” Christianity is not about how the world was made nor should it be.
it about this and only this.
Luke 6:27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

That said I am a total failure at my religion, but then again why should my religion be any different that the rest of my life.

Eenin, I think you're awesome. Be kind to yourself.

Haha. I seem to have somehow become the creationist proponent here, by simply repeating things I was told during my childhood/teenage years.

I don't want to somehow become equated with those that ignore any type of reason, protest soldiers funerals, and hate gays. I understand that a lot of people have a lot of questions, and that most of those questions aren't intended to be answered, but rather to point out the folly of those being questioned. I ain't the guy you're looking for.

Again, a guess, hypothesis, and theory are 3 different things. Lumping them all together helps to make blanket statements about the applicability of science, but it ignores that it uses these terms to police itself on the accuracy and specificity of any particular claim.

For the record, I don't think you're a Creationist (or homophobe, for that matter). I think you're using terminology that the ID crowd adopts to intentionally obfuscate the mechanics and reliability of "science"*.

*I always find it weird to talk about science in such general terms, as biology and physics and astronomy are wildly different fields of study. The main source of contention here is really the scientific method, which is a framework for how to study things which is completely independent of any litany of conclusions (ie "theories" like evolution).

Easy target? HELL YEAH!

Ah, you changed tenses on me.

In my personal experience, faith is like marriage. Your heart drives you into it but, once you're there, you choose to stay in it.

I was raised to believe that religion is both a crutch used by the weak and a yoke employed by the strong. I read The Bible because of intellectual curiosity - I felt obligated to read a book that had had such an enormous impact on Western history. Even at first reading, this was obviously an anthology of books about the evolving relationship of man with God, and, to my surprise, I found that it resonated with me. This concept of a personal, yet universal, god spoke to needs I didn't know I had. I was never a fundamentalist but, by the time I was done, I realized that I bought into this idea that God is real and that we could know Him. Imagine that fun dinner table conversation:

"Hey, I'm a Christian now."

"You're a what? You didn't give anybody any money, did you?"

And so I did all the stuff that new Christians do. I went to an altar call and got baptized and all that - think of it like a honeymoon, to get back to my marriage analogy.

But I got older and read the core books of all the other major religions and travelled the world and experienced whole civilizations that got along just fine without Yahvistic religion and saw things that severely tested my faith. I became versed in the history of Western philosophy, getting a front-row seat to the demolition of classical Christian thought by a bunch of Northern Europeans from a time not all that long ago. Additionally, I bounced from church to church and Bible study to Bible study and goggled in astonishment at the dumb, dumb things people were willing to believe. The flush of romance wore off, if you will, and at some point I looked over and thought the religious equivalent of, "What am I doing with this person?"

And that's where choosing faith comes in. At some point, you choose to love your spouse. Similarly, at some point, I chose to remain a Christian in the face of all the horror the world has to offer, all the doubts an education can plant. Every day, I make that choice and every day, it feels like the right one.

That's faith, as I understand it. That's what I have on offer.

Loving one's flesh and blood spouse seems nothing at all like choosing to have religious faith, for reasons too numerous to list.

Frank, I'm a better person for knowing you.

Singer seems to be in a great mood today.

(I deleted "rare" from the above sentence). Perhaps because this has nothing to do with politics.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

I can think of a few. But, I like you Frank, so I'll say congrats on finding a balance in your home/religious life. And for serving in our armed forces. Which makes you a hero!

Man, I can't wait to raise my kids as athiests.

Oh I am. I alway take it easy.

My only real worry is self righteousness. If you don't see yourself for what you are, how can you understand your self. If you can't understand yourself, how can you understand anyone else. The truth cut both way, no mater how you handle it it will always cut you. The standard is perfection, and everyone fall short of the mark. This why for me Jesus is the way. It no longer matter if I can measure up.

OK, fair enough (Christ, somebody kill me already). I can't emphasize enough that I disagree more, but your life is your life. Faith is a pure and undying mystery to me.

Overlord is my champion here.

The problem here is it not about what the book says, but what dogmas said person believe in. I find that people say that the bible says a lot of things it does not say. You can ask them were does the bible say this thing, they can not find it. That not even counting some of the ambiguous things the bible says, like do the the dead sleep in the grave or go to heaven. It took my years to understand the what happen to the dead, because there is so much Bull Shit dogmas around the subject. Your soul or mind dies when you body dies. Your spirit goes back to God. Part of the problem is soul and spirit are not well defined by the bible. It take a lot of work to understand the meaning of the world soul as used in the bible. I still working on the word spirit. I believe that spirit for what ever reason is simple not defined with in the book.

And you, mine. Particularly as you play Dark Sector into the wee hours of the morning, gently reminding me that at least someone else is up as late as I am.

Frank, I'm interested in your use of the word "choose". That, to me, implies some kind of an intellectually-driven, rational process. Faith - and I speak as an atheist - is a belief system that is irrational (not using that pejoratively, just comparatively) in its nature; it's almost a non choice.
Perhaps it's a different perspective, but I never felt I "chose" to love; it sprung, unbidden, from the heart. Isn't faith the same?

For me I have alway understood that Love is a choice. faith is also a choice. You can argue though, that most people make such choice impulsively, with out fully understanding what it is that they are choosing first.

Jackstar, I have difficulty making it more clear than I did above. I chose the marriage analogy because falling in love happens, but staying in love takes commitment. And commitment is a choice.

I fucking knew it.

EDIT: Can we retire that picture already?

Not so long as anyone in this world believes the principles it embodies are plausible.

As Frank has said, each denomination of the faith has its own doctrine on this subject. However, if you are going to the Bible for the answer... there is no clear answer. Why? Until you get to the New Testament, the Bible doesn't even have a clear answer on the question of whether or not people have souls (See Eccl. 3:21 for a rather bleak pondering of this question). In fact, a few of the debates that Christ has with the religious authorities in the Gospels involve questions like whether or not there is an afterlife and a resurrection and--if there were such things--what they were like. However, given that Christ seemed to be able to drive demons out of people and into animals and the Hebrew words that most interpreters take for "soul" refers to the lifeforce of locomotive organisms, I think there's definitely room to suppose they do have souls.