General > Off Topic

Genesis, 2001, and Darwin

<< < (3/12) > >>

Botsareus:
I dont know , but I got this of the History Channel. Kinda solid source there.

(H is no Sifi)

PurpleYouko:
I recently followed a thread in another forum where a Young Earth creationist was arguing with a geologist about the existence and provability of the great flood.

Every point that the YEC tried to make was countered by logical factual information about the geological column and various rock formations and stuff.

Eventually the YEC cam right out with it and stated this.

"I know that the flood happened because it says so in the bible. If science can't be made to agrre with Genesis then there must be something fundamentally wrong with science."

I was completely speechless at this. (That is not something that normally happens to me)

How can you argue with logic like this?

Faith absolutely denies anything that doesn't fit in with the person's beleifs.

I am also completely sick of people making the claim that there is absolutely zero evidence for Evolution.
The evidence is everywhere.

  :blink:  PY  :blink:

Numsgil:
An LDS leader (Talmadge) once said:


--- Quote ---Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of
pertinent facts is extended. The creator has made record in the rocks for
man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main
stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is.
The accounts can not be fundamentally opposed; one can not contradict
the other; though man’s interpretation of either may be seriously at fault.
--- End quote ---

That is the best counter I know.

Check out these articles on what my church's position on evolution and the record of science is.  We're probably the only orthodox religion that actually doesn't say science is wrong.

PurpleYouko:
Actually Catholics have an official line that it is OK to believe that evolution happened providing that it is accepted that God endowed Mankind with an immortal soul.

I had links to the speeches a while ago. I could probably look them up if need be.

Also your counter can be used both ways here.

Look at this point of view with regards to any religion at odds with science over geology.

"God wrote the rocks.

Man wrote the bible"

The rocks are there. Anybody can look at them, examine them, test them with all of the knowledge of modern science. Millions of hours of painstaking research all come to the same conclusions about the age of the Earth and the absence of any record of a flood.

If God made the Earth then the rocks are the truth, not some man self contradictory made book, written by uneducated goat herders, then handed down through millenia and changed at the whim of every religious leader who got the chance.

I know which I would beleive.

 :D  PY  :D

Numsgil:
You also have to think 'if I were God, how would I explain this to a pre-tech society?'  For instance, Genesis doesn't mention the creation of bacteria.  It jumps straight to plants as the first life.  That doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't make bacteria.  Then again it doesn't mean he did.

So the account we recieve in the bible goes like this:

God->Moses->supersticous, pagan Israelites -> Ancient people's tendancy for exageration and non-linear story telling (both were acceptable and normal)-> thousands of years of transcription, possible mutations over time.

And you wonder why the Bible doesn't seem to agree with science?  When in doubt, I'll trust the science record.  God only tells us what we are capable of understanding.  Can you imagine if the creation account read like a bio textbook?  It would've taken thousands of years for anyone to figure out what the heck it's talking about.

That's just bad Godhood.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page