Scientists, seminarians engaging in gracious dialogue on website
@the "truth" "I have studied evolution and understand it quite
well." clearly not true otherwise you would understand just how far off your
RE: EmajorI have studied evolution and understand it quite well.I also understand how slickly it is presented.Oh...and those
bacteria are still bacteria, and will never any but bacteria, it's adaption
within its own sphere and nothing more.And population increase is
exponential so it is very much possible, and in fact it did happen.I
understand your concerns, Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, so incest was a
NOT a problem genetically, population increase was a necessity and
inevitability, it was a natural thing. Incest has existed in many cultures, and
when you live in small world, a small village or community, unavoidable. If that's what happened, it was an unavoidable necessity, and it
doesn't bother me. But perhaps that is my faith and trust in God.More importantly, we do not have all details of what happened in those days,
or all that God did. I do know in this state of earth man has not
evolved, and no creature has ever change outside it's own kind.You can believe in God or in monkey tales the choice is yours.But
we need "gracious dialogue" on the matter.
the truth,OK, you don't buy the mountain of rational evidence
supporting the scientific theory of evolution. We'll never convince you of
it, and your language suggests you have made little honest effort to understand
the actual concept, empirical evidence, and logical structure of evolution. No
biggie, I don't get how my radio works either. But it does, and other
people get it. Oh, you know those antibiotic resistant bacteria that pop up?
That's evolution. I want to get to the statement in the article
above that the human population could never be as small as 2 people. So do you
believe the literal story of Adam & Eve is more plausible than "silly
monkey stories"? And are you comfortable with the rampant incest that would
be needed to generate a whole human population from just 2 original parents? A
literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no other possibility. I don't
see how that fits in with Biblical morality. This is an honest question, not an
attempt to insult or flame. I just really can't understand how people can
believe in the story of Genesis but think evolution is implausible.
RE: A ScientistYour dogmatic belief in silly and ridiculous monkey
stories, while simultanously mocking and attacking and castigating those who
choose believe differently, who believe in other "theories", those who
believe in a higher superior intelligence, shows there will be no honest
dialogue.Which should not be a surprise since you base nonbelief in
God on assumption, so why not belief similarly in silly monkey stories.Even the animal world demonstrates there is always a higher superior
intelligence to every creature that exists.So why should we be any
different?All of Nature is evidence there is a "God"!
RE: Sensible Scientist, studying the Hebrew and Greek original texts where we
can learn much about meanings, contexts, and intent?Biblical
hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation of the Bible.
Christians study Greek for that reason.Mt 5:4 Blessed are they that
mourn… . The reason for this theological construction used often in Mt
called divine passive. It’s obvious from the context that Jesus means God
will comfort those who are mourning. The answer lies in in the commandment that
the follower of Israel’s God should not take his name in vain. During the
period scholars call “Second Temple Israel Judaism “, the fear of
taking God’s name in vain was much greater than today.(Luke
22:70)Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them,
You say that I am.“I am” is the same as the saying used by God
when asked by Moses(Exodus 3:14) about his name. Jesus was expecting these
Jewish rulers to know this, To answer a question about one’s own deity in
their minds blasphemy upon blasphemy.
the truth,You lose all credibility when your comments make
absolutely no sense whatsoever.Good luck with that.In
the mean time, until this alleged god shows his face to all mankind, we must
presume absence is evidence of... nonexistence (or apathy, you choose).
RE: A ScientistThere is no real scientific evidence.There is supposition, assumption,, imagings, made-up relationships, made-up
evolutinary trees of life, theory composed completely of phrases like "may
have" or "might have", "possibly could have" "can
possibly" and so forth (all highly indefinte and unscientific), all to
satisfy a theory. It knows nothing, but supposes everything! when you suppose everything of course to the weak minded it seems
plausible.Wwther you believe in a literal interpretation of the
bible or not, man did not evolve.The earth was "Organized"
(the real meaning of "create") from existing matter, the current state
is approximately 6000 years old, earth's earlier states are irrelevant to
us.You lose all credibility when compare thousands or years of
belief in God, to modern created and known to be fiction for children.
It is hardly a "sensible" position to assert that one not only must, but
can, distinguish between the parts of the Bible that are to be taken literally,
from the parts that are to be taken figuratively.And it is even more
unreasonable to suppose that there will not be violent disagreement among
religious sects over which parts are which... That is the current status of
religious interpretation that has brought us the Inquisitions, fundamentalist
movements, and all the other irrational nonsense foisted on civil societies by
religion.Is there no genuine "sense" in Idaho?
I completely disagree that the Bible has to be always taken figuratively. It
has clearly figurative parts, like the "days" of creation, and clearly
historical parts. This distinction is usually more clear in the Hebrew text
than modern translations. One sweeping generality does a great disservice to
this discussion and to intelligent, well-educated religious people.In the discussion of evolution, the LDS view that truth is truth no matter its
source is a useful starting point that other Christians ought to consider.
Bible literalists should also re-evaluate their position by studying the Hebrew
and Greek original texts where we can learn much about meanings, contexts, and
In the face of scientific evidence, the only way any intelligent person can take
the Bible is as metaphorical, figurative, symbolic - in other words, not true,
just like Aesop's fables or any number of fictional stories.The
sooner religious people acknowledge that, the sooner religion can be formally
recognized as such, and it can be relegated to its proper place alongside Santa
Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Jack Skellington.