Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elderman //
. So you can take bits and pieces out of the Bible and twist it how you like but overall it is not the true understanding of the Bible. This is one way you can tell between true Christians and false Christians because they do not twist the scriptures. //
The typical "true understanding of the Bible" amounts to interpreting it to fit whatever one has as a personal view. Those who want to speak of love and kindness can point to some passage about Jesus. Those who want to commit genocide can turn to Joshua. Whatever you want can be found to be supported by it.
Each will then claim the other is "twisting the true message".
The true message is what is written there in the actual words which expose it as a manual of bigotry and prejudice.
. So you can take bits and pieces out of the Bible and twist it how you like but overall it is not the true understanding of the Bible. This is one way you can tell between true Christians and false Christians because they do not twist the scriptures. //
The typical "true understanding of the Bible" amounts to interpreting it to fit whatever one has as a personal view. Those who want to speak of love and kindness can point to some passage about Jesus. Those who want to commit genocide can turn to Joshua. Whatever you want can be found to be supported by it.
Each will then claim the other is "twisting the true message".
The true message is what is written there in the actual words which expose it as a manual of bigotry and prejudice.
Elderman //The teaching of evolution is not designed to build faith in God. It does not encourage one to view the Bible with deep respect. //
Of course it doesn't do those things. It would not want to nor pretend to. However you make it clear why you have no respect for science because you foolishly put the worship of an imaginary deity and a book written by ignorant primitives at the pinnacle of your existence.
Evolution is designed to provide a rational explanation for the origin of species, which is do extremely well. A belief in God is irrational. It certainly doesn't encourage respect for the Bible. The Bible does not deserve respect from anyone.
// So it comes as a surprise to some persons If you are a person who believes in the Creator, you are not left in the dark as to the origin of the universe. That is not an issue that has to be dodged.
You are still in the dark. A belief in the religious text is lie pressing your fingers into your eyes. Sure you will sense light and it can even be quite decorative but you are certainly still completely in the dark
//You can with conviction quote the explanation in the first words of the Bible. (Gen. 1:1) //
The Bible is only a book that expresses the unsubstantiated and irrational beliefs of the ignorant.
// And you can confidently point to both heavens and earth as overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, the work of One who is almighty, One whose knowledge and wisdom far exceed that of any man. //
Far from being overwhelming evidence, the existence of the universe in no way confers knowledge of its origin. That knowledge comes from observing its reality and reconstructing the series of events that would have led to what is observed.
The "explanation" in Genesis is devoid of observation and theory, being simply the product of imagination and is in stark contrast with the observed reality. Only a fool would accept it and reject the vast body of scientific knowledge that explains it coherently.
Of course it doesn't do those things. It would not want to nor pretend to. However you make it clear why you have no respect for science because you foolishly put the worship of an imaginary deity and a book written by ignorant primitives at the pinnacle of your existence.
Evolution is designed to provide a rational explanation for the origin of species, which is do extremely well. A belief in God is irrational. It certainly doesn't encourage respect for the Bible. The Bible does not deserve respect from anyone.
// So it comes as a surprise to some persons If you are a person who believes in the Creator, you are not left in the dark as to the origin of the universe. That is not an issue that has to be dodged.
You are still in the dark. A belief in the religious text is lie pressing your fingers into your eyes. Sure you will sense light and it can even be quite decorative but you are certainly still completely in the dark
//You can with conviction quote the explanation in the first words of the Bible. (Gen. 1:1) //
The Bible is only a book that expresses the unsubstantiated and irrational beliefs of the ignorant.
// And you can confidently point to both heavens and earth as overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, the work of One who is almighty, One whose knowledge and wisdom far exceed that of any man. //
Far from being overwhelming evidence, the existence of the universe in no way confers knowledge of its origin. That knowledge comes from observing its reality and reconstructing the series of events that would have led to what is observed.
The "explanation" in Genesis is devoid of observation and theory, being simply the product of imagination and is in stark contrast with the observed reality. Only a fool would accept it and reject the vast body of scientific knowledge that explains it coherently.
-- answer removed --
Elderman, The difference between the bible and evolution is that evolution is a theory with masses of supportive evidence and the bible is a theory/story with absolutely no supportive evidence. The bible's version of 'creation' is just a theory/story that has been repeated so often and for so long that it leaves no room in some peoples minds for anything else. Bible scholars have been trying for centuries to find supportive evidence for it's veracity and have failed completely.
No,The Bible itself remained intact, though its message was perverted by many who professed to have the authority to teach it. Over the centuries such scholars as Jerome and Tyndale bravely translated and distributed God’s Word. Millions of people were exposed to the Bible and to a form of true Christianity.
Eventually, as foretold in the book of Daniel, ‘the true knowledge became abundant.’ This has occurred in “the time of the end”—the time in which we are now living. (Daniel 12:4) Holy spirit has led lovers of truth worldwide to an accurate knowledge of the true God and his purpose. Even after centuries of apostate teaching, God’s word prevails! Today, the good news is being proclaimed everywhere, pointing people to the hope of a delightful new world. (Psalm 37:11) As Elderman said evolutionis is Good as dead
Eventually, as foretold in the book of Daniel, ‘the true knowledge became abundant.’ This has occurred in “the time of the end”—the time in which we are now living. (Daniel 12:4) Holy spirit has led lovers of truth worldwide to an accurate knowledge of the true God and his purpose. Even after centuries of apostate teaching, God’s word prevails! Today, the good news is being proclaimed everywhere, pointing people to the hope of a delightful new world. (Psalm 37:11) As Elderman said evolutionis is Good as dead
Goodlife/Elderman, //it's clear you haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about.//
By the way, that expression looks strangely familiar to me. In fact, it's exactly, word for word, what I've said in the past. Do you plumb everything we say into your system in order to produce your computer-generated responses?
By the way, that expression looks strangely familiar to me. In fact, it's exactly, word for word, what I've said in the past. Do you plumb everything we say into your system in order to produce your computer-generated responses?
Goodlife/Elderman, why do you persist with this dual identity? It is so obvious you are the same person. Same style of writing and extreme unwavering views.
You are stuck in this mindset only because you cannot let go of the Biblical basis for your life. If that cracks you fear that you will be lost. It doesn't have to be like that.
You say the Bible gives you hope but all it will ever be is empty hope. You will die without your god ever stepping in to fulfil that hope and you will have wasted your whole life waiting.
Why not let go and start to live for today?
You are stuck in this mindset only because you cannot let go of the Biblical basis for your life. If that cracks you fear that you will be lost. It doesn't have to be like that.
You say the Bible gives you hope but all it will ever be is empty hope. You will die without your god ever stepping in to fulfil that hope and you will have wasted your whole life waiting.
Why not let go and start to live for today?
I have noticed it before, but it is worth repeating again - Many who have the more zealous approach to their faith appear to exhibit the same, rather unattractive trait of "lying for jesus" - by that, I mean misrepresenting the science, claiming a background they clearly do not have in a pathetic attempt to "argue from authority", cherry picking quotations, creation of sock puppets-to bolster their stated clap... errm position.
Given that these selfsame religious zealots, in their own mind, inhabit a higher moral plane than us nasty atheists, how is such activity explained? Does the gospel/bible/church give you absolution if you lie on behalf of your religion?
Given that these selfsame religious zealots, in their own mind, inhabit a higher moral plane than us nasty atheists, how is such activity explained? Does the gospel/bible/church give you absolution if you lie on behalf of your religion?
Anyone who reads the Bible knows that moral uprightness and cleanness are indispensable to the way of life of a true Christian. However, many people today say that this view is outdated and that the “new morality” of looseness and permissiveness is liberating people for a fuller life. Is this true? Look at today’s situation. What is the fruitage of the “new morality”? Heartaches, broken families, diseases and death. Immorality cannot enter into the way of life of any person without damaging his happiness. The apostle Paul describes the effects of immorality, and we have the situation today as glaring proof of the truthfulness of what he said. He wrote concerning some who followed the way of permissiveness:
“Although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish . . . Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created . . . That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.”—Rom. 1:21-28.
“Although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish . . . Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created . . . That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.”—Rom. 1:21-28.
We live on a stretch of jurassic coast and walk regularly over a set of dinosaur footprints. I cannot for the life of me see that the evidence of geology and natural selection or evolution can in any way alter one's belief in the existence of any god one chooses. What I do know is that the teaching of Jesus is a superb prescription for living a worthwhile life.
-- answer removed --
Beso.........Yes,You are still in the dark.
“Scientific creationists” say that according to the Bible book of Genesis, the universe was created by God less than ten thousand years ago. They also say that the earth and its life-forms were created in six literal 24-hour days.
On the other hand, evolutionary thinking views Genesis as a myth. It teaches that the universe and the earth, with all its living things, are the product of a chance evolutionary process that spanned billions of years.
However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories. Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout nature. Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are these two views, then, the only alternatives?
No. There is a third view. It is what the Bible book of Genesis itself really says. Let us consider this third alternative.
The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.
However, right at “the beginning,” the Bible puts an intelligent being, the Creator, in control of the creative work. Although many scientists are uncomfortable with this idea, it harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver.
The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation.
Was each one of those six days a literal 24-hour day? That is not what Genesis says. The word “day” in the Hebrew language (the language in which Genesis was written) can mean long periods of time, even thousands of years. (Compare Psalm 90:4; Genesis 2:4.) For example, “the seventh day” in which we now live is thousands of years long. (Genesis 2:2, 3) Hence, the evidence shows that the entire period of six days should be viewed as tens of thousands of years long.
“Scientific creationists” say that according to the Bible book of Genesis, the universe was created by God less than ten thousand years ago. They also say that the earth and its life-forms were created in six literal 24-hour days.
On the other hand, evolutionary thinking views Genesis as a myth. It teaches that the universe and the earth, with all its living things, are the product of a chance evolutionary process that spanned billions of years.
However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories. Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout nature. Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are these two views, then, the only alternatives?
No. There is a third view. It is what the Bible book of Genesis itself really says. Let us consider this third alternative.
The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.
However, right at “the beginning,” the Bible puts an intelligent being, the Creator, in control of the creative work. Although many scientists are uncomfortable with this idea, it harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver.
The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation.
Was each one of those six days a literal 24-hour day? That is not what Genesis says. The word “day” in the Hebrew language (the language in which Genesis was written) can mean long periods of time, even thousands of years. (Compare Psalm 90:4; Genesis 2:4.) For example, “the seventh day” in which we now live is thousands of years long. (Genesis 2:2, 3) Hence, the evidence shows that the entire period of six days should be viewed as tens of thousands of years long.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Family & Relationships19 mins ago
News37 mins ago
