I meant it in "slightly" larger/longer terms, but obviously yes animals do realize their mortality. I guess I meant to say that we are able to think about the hereafter and what comes after this life.
I'd have to agree with that statement 100%. They each have diffeent goals: science to describe the observable universe; religion to describe the unobservable.
Frankly, the discussion of evolution vs. creationism was/is a sticky point for me and my (somewhat) newfound faith in God. As I've mentioned in other posts, I came to faith in my adulthood as opposed to being raised that way as a child.
In fact, my entire life I was raised to believe that evolution was the way it is. Quite honestly, I'm not entirely convinced it isn't -- I do believe in microevolution, which accurately describes the changes that we see in animals that have allowed them to adapt to their environment. But unlike other areas of science that I'm very interested in and which seem to have a much more quantifiable argument for their theories, such as astronomy, I see a lot of gaps in macro-evolution. Someone else here posted that there's no difference between the two -- they're one and the same. Maybe that is the case, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say that it is or isn't. But for me, I'd really like stronger evidence. OK, I'll admit that DNA analysis is pretty darned strong evidence, but I'd sure like more in the fossil record.
As for my belief in God (the God) as a higher power in the universe... you ask where did God come from? Since I believe the Bible to be the word of God, I believe what it says. And that is that God is, was, and always will be; i.e., he's infinite. OK, that's pretty hard for my tiny brain to grasp, and the simple answer is I can't answer that. As for why he created us, again I refer to the Bible's answer for that...because it pleased Him to do so.
While these answers are not probably what you're looking for, and while they are likely to enflame other secular readers here, they are the answers as best I know them. What I do know is that I "feel" God in my life. I am close to Him and I know when I pray He hears me. Many readers have said that people of faith have a weak mind or need a crutch. But frankly, it doesn't bother me to admit that I am nothing without God's help. As to whether I have a weak mind or not, well, I can say that I think for myself and that I'm not brainwashed by religion. By that I mean that all my life, one thing that always pushed me away from God was man's ability to screw things up -- look at all of the ridiculous things that different denominations of Christians argue about and dream up to add to the equation, when in fact the Bible says none of it or at least not in the way (IMHO) they say it does. I try to boil it down to its simplest terms -- God is the creator, he made me, he sent his Son Jesus to take away the sin that destroys my life, and that when it's all over for me here on earth, that I will go to Heaven and be with Him. The rest is man's additional baggage.
Can God-fearing people also believe in theories such as evolution. Honestly, for many years, I've had a belief that He created it all before the Big Bang and just "let it happen". So what's to say that isn't the case? I've heard the argument "What's to say it is?" Nothing other than my faith in God.
Wow, that's a lot of anger you have...Not understanding Christian beliefs, as you apparently don't sadly enough, you don't realize that I don't fear Hell's fire -- believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believing that he is my Savior eliminates that fear.
What about quotes such as these from Darwin himself (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkent595/Macroevolu tion1.html)?
Quotes by Darwin in The Origin of Species:
"why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
"[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
C. Darwin quoted in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, 1974, pg 202, 292.
But if someone else rolls the dice, it makes it all better and explains it all..
Perhaps that's all religion and faith is about...a belief that there's a Higher meaning to our seemingly insignificant lives here on this rock. I mean, why else are we the only species to be congnizant of our own mortality and have the seemingly hard-wired need to search out for our origins and Creator, rather than be perfectly happy eating, breeding, and dying without caring about what/who we are?
Then again, there are those that are perfectly happy to do those things...:-)
If those that think we are just animals evolved from lower primates without a Higher purpose, then what value is there in our other beliefs of right and wrong? Who cares? We just die when it's over anyway, right? So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?
I don't believe that's macro evolution. I believe that's microevolution where the snakes are adapting to their environment. Where is the new species that came from these snakes?
First, no one said that God is always benevolent -- consider His reasoning behind the great flood of Noah's day (that is if you believe what's in the Bible). I doubt that every man, woman, and child living in that time was "wicked", but God said He would wipe them from the face of the earth.
No one can claim to know the mind of God or His reasoning for doing the things He does.
Second, I believe you are somewhat misquoting what is in the book of Revelation. Yes, it does mention 144,000 people being brought to heaven. But, then John also describes seeing before him a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).
To misuse (and misquote) a quote from the Carl Sagan book "Contact", If we are alone in the universe (without God), what a great waste of time!:-(
Besides, what would be worse? Believing in a God that doesn't exist, in which case when I die I'll be no different than anyone else that died before me -- worm food. Or, to not believe in a God that does exist and will punish you for eternity for not believing in Him and His Son when given the truth?
Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry? Where are the missing links? In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I came to my faith, not early on in my childhood, but much later in adulthood. Being agnostic most of my life and growing up with science in school, I was (and still am) very interested in things like astronomy and cosmology. Frankly, I see the beauty of God's work in the heavens every time I set up my telescope.
However, perhaps unlike many baptised-at-birth Christians who knew about the teachings of Jesus their whole life, I came to faith through my own search for answers to bigger questions. To me, it simply seems to impossible to think that the universe and all that's in it, including us, is the result of some random roll of the cosmic dice.
On the other hand, I see a certain parity between science and religion. I don't think they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe, it also can't explain the "Why am I here question?". If you can accept that science, when pursued in a truly unbiased way, helps to explain the physical universe and the phenomenon that we see in it, then it seems natural to me to think that religion is the way to explain the "Why am I here question?".
But aren't you describing microevolution? I think the strongest debates come when we talk about macroevolution. Where is the physical proof for new species coming from a predecessor?
I'm not saying that I know what happened to start the universe -- in fact, I'm saying that I don't know. And neither does anyone else.
What I am saying is that I'm willing to accept scientific explanations for natural phenomenon when the evidence supports that explanation; i.e., Newton's laws on gravity.
Can someone show me the physical proof, the missing link, between modern human beings and monkeys?
I believe that microevolution occurs, but I question macroevolution. Where is the physical evidence? Where's the missing link?
We should be separating science from theology. They have two different goals. What I don't understand is why folks like you get so bent out of shape when people of faith say that God created the universe, when no one in the scientific community can dispute it.
Since the goal of science is the pursuit of explaining the universe through observation, what's wrong with explaining the unobservable/unexplainable as God -- such as pre-Big Bang.
And I'm so sorry that you have no hope for life after the one on this earth...that you think you're bound to be worm food.
Besides, my faith is based on the observed resurrection of Jesus Christ, not by one or two people, but by hundreds.
I'll pray for you.
Why is it sad? All it's saying is to keep an open mind that it's only an unproven idea (I'd say theory, but that'll start another debate on the word usage).
I'd have to say that most "Evolutionists" have as closed a mind as us "Jesus Freaks". It's kind of funny how they treat their theory like a religion.
I always thought science was founded on observation. As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.
Why is it that when people discuss this topic they have to resort to these types of statements?
So I suppose you have an explanation for what started it all? Can anyone say with any degree of confidence what started the Big Bang? So what precludes that from having been started by God?
As someone that has spent 30+ years interested in science, astronomy, and cosmology, I have seen a lot of things change. And as a person who found Christ in the last 3 years, I have had difficulty reconciling the two. I have come to believe that life on this earth is not a random occurence driven by simple statistical probability. Instead, I find it more likely that the universe was created with intelligence.
On both sides, you find people that are hard-headed and refuse to accept new ideas. I personally think there's room in the world for both views, since no one can say definitively one way or the other that one view point is right.
Personally, I find there to be too many discrepancies in the common theories to say with any certainty that they are "the way it is."
Slashdot Mirror
I meant it in "slightly" larger/longer terms, but obviously yes animals do realize their mortality. I guess I meant to say that we are able to think about the hereafter and what comes after this life.
I'd have to agree with that statement 100%. They each have diffeent goals: science to describe the observable universe; religion to describe the unobservable.
In fact, my entire life I was raised to believe that evolution was the way it is. Quite honestly, I'm not entirely convinced it isn't -- I do believe in microevolution, which accurately describes the changes that we see in animals that have allowed them to adapt to their environment. But unlike other areas of science that I'm very interested in and which seem to have a much more quantifiable argument for their theories, such as astronomy, I see a lot of gaps in macro-evolution. Someone else here posted that there's no difference between the two -- they're one and the same. Maybe that is the case, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say that it is or isn't. But for me, I'd really like stronger evidence. OK, I'll admit that DNA analysis is pretty darned strong evidence, but I'd sure like more in the fossil record.
As for my belief in God (the God) as a higher power in the universe ... you ask where did God come from? Since I believe the Bible to be the word of God, I believe what it says. And that is that God is, was, and always will be; i.e., he's infinite. OK, that's pretty hard for my tiny brain to grasp, and the simple answer is I can't answer that. As for why he created us, again I refer to the Bible's answer for that...because it pleased Him to do so.
While these answers are not probably what you're looking for, and while they are likely to enflame other secular readers here, they are the answers as best I know them. What I do know is that I "feel" God in my life. I am close to Him and I know when I pray He hears me. Many readers have said that people of faith have a weak mind or need a crutch. But frankly, it doesn't bother me to admit that I am nothing without God's help. As to whether I have a weak mind or not, well, I can say that I think for myself and that I'm not brainwashed by religion. By that I mean that all my life, one thing that always pushed me away from God was man's ability to screw things up -- look at all of the ridiculous things that different denominations of Christians argue about and dream up to add to the equation, when in fact the Bible says none of it or at least not in the way (IMHO) they say it does. I try to boil it down to its simplest terms -- God is the creator, he made me, he sent his Son Jesus to take away the sin that destroys my life, and that when it's all over for me here on earth, that I will go to Heaven and be with Him. The rest is man's additional baggage.
Can God-fearing people also believe in theories such as evolution. Honestly, for many years, I've had a belief that He created it all before the Big Bang and just "let it happen". So what's to say that isn't the case? I've heard the argument "What's to say it is?" Nothing other than my faith in God.
Peace to you...
Wow, that's a lot of anger you have...Not understanding Christian beliefs, as you apparently don't sadly enough, you don't realize that I don't fear Hell's fire -- believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believing that he is my Savior eliminates that fear.
Quotes by Darwin in The Origin of Species: "why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
"[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." C. Darwin quoted in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, 1974, pg 202, 292.
Perhaps that's all religion and faith is about...a belief that there's a Higher meaning to our seemingly insignificant lives here on this rock. I mean, why else are we the only species to be congnizant of our own mortality and have the seemingly hard-wired need to search out for our origins and Creator, rather than be perfectly happy eating, breeding, and dying without caring about what/who we are?
Then again, there are those that are perfectly happy to do those things... :-)
If those that think we are just animals evolved from lower primates without a Higher purpose, then what value is there in our other beliefs of right and wrong? Who cares? We just die when it's over anyway, right? So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?
That would seem all too pointless to me.
I don't believe that's macro evolution. I believe that's microevolution where the snakes are adapting to their environment. Where is the new species that came from these snakes?
No one can claim to know the mind of God or His reasoning for doing the things He does.
Second, I believe you are somewhat misquoting what is in the book of Revelation. Yes, it does mention 144,000 people being brought to heaven. But, then John also describes seeing before him a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).
To misuse (and misquote) a quote from the Carl Sagan book "Contact", If we are alone in the universe (without God), what a great waste of time! :-(
Besides, what would be worse? Believing in a God that doesn't exist, in which case when I die I'll be no different than anyone else that died before me -- worm food. Or, to not believe in a God that does exist and will punish you for eternity for not believing in Him and His Son when given the truth?
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I came to my faith, not early on in my childhood, but much later in adulthood. Being agnostic most of my life and growing up with science in school, I was (and still am) very interested in things like astronomy and cosmology. Frankly, I see the beauty of God's work in the heavens every time I set up my telescope.
However, perhaps unlike many baptised-at-birth Christians who knew about the teachings of Jesus their whole life, I came to faith through my own search for answers to bigger questions. To me, it simply seems to impossible to think that the universe and all that's in it, including us, is the result of some random roll of the cosmic dice.
On the other hand, I see a certain parity between science and religion. I don't think they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe, it also can't explain the "Why am I here question?". If you can accept that science, when pursued in a truly unbiased way, helps to explain the physical universe and the phenomenon that we see in it, then it seems natural to me to think that religion is the way to explain the "Why am I here question?".
...to what benefit to you or the world in general?
But aren't you describing microevolution? I think the strongest debates come when we talk about macroevolution. Where is the physical proof for new species coming from a predecessor?
What I am saying is that I'm willing to accept scientific explanations for natural phenomenon when the evidence supports that explanation; i.e., Newton's laws on gravity.
Can someone show me the physical proof, the missing link, between modern human beings and monkeys?
I believe that microevolution occurs, but I question macroevolution. Where is the physical evidence? Where's the missing link?
We should be separating science from theology. They have two different goals. What I don't understand is why folks like you get so bent out of shape when people of faith say that God created the universe, when no one in the scientific community can dispute it.
Since the goal of science is the pursuit of explaining the universe through observation, what's wrong with explaining the unobservable/unexplainable as God -- such as pre-Big Bang.
And I'm so sorry that you have no hope for life after the one on this earth...that you think you're bound to be worm food. Besides, my faith is based on the observed resurrection of Jesus Christ, not by one or two people, but by hundreds. I'll pray for you.
Why is it sad? All it's saying is to keep an open mind that it's only an unproven idea (I'd say theory, but that'll start another debate on the word usage). I'd have to say that most "Evolutionists" have as closed a mind as us "Jesus Freaks". It's kind of funny how they treat their theory like a religion. I always thought science was founded on observation. As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.
There's a reason it's called "faith".
Why is it that when people discuss this topic they have to resort to these types of statements? So I suppose you have an explanation for what started it all? Can anyone say with any degree of confidence what started the Big Bang? So what precludes that from having been started by God? As someone that has spent 30+ years interested in science, astronomy, and cosmology, I have seen a lot of things change. And as a person who found Christ in the last 3 years, I have had difficulty reconciling the two. I have come to believe that life on this earth is not a random occurence driven by simple statistical probability. Instead, I find it more likely that the universe was created with intelligence. On both sides, you find people that are hard-headed and refuse to accept new ideas. I personally think there's room in the world for both views, since no one can say definitively one way or the other that one view point is right. Personally, I find there to be too many discrepancies in the common theories to say with any certainty that they are "the way it is."