Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
I'd argue precisely the opposite.
First, let's dispense with the OFFICIAL theological beliefs of most Christian denominations in the US regarding salvation through faith rather than good works and whatnot; the reality at a gut level of most rank-and-file believers in this country regardless of the "official" theology of their particular denomination is a belief that they will be rewarded for doing good works by reaching heaven and punished by bad deeds with hell, which are cause-and-effect consequences, albeit entirely unprovable post-death ones.
If anything I'd argue an atheist or agnostic who is a deeply moral and ethical person in his actions is more impressive than a religious person who is equally deeply moral and ethical person in their actions but is doing so because they're expecting a post-death reward or avoiding a post-death punishment.
Of course this will be dodged by people living in a fantasyland, to make themselves comfortable, that atheists and agnostics are incapable of being moral and ethical people.
"I just thought that some things in the Bible are stories, parables, etc. Thus, the world being created in seven days being not literal. The 10 Commandments are literal in their meaning. "
Verily I say unto you conservativebabe that thou are wise.
Some folks,however, think the world is but 6,000 years old.
parsy, who is a dinosaur.
But you just don't buy that God actually created human beings, right? You believe in God but not the Bible? How do you decide what you are going to believe?
Some people have an all or none view of things. Either the bible is the infallible word of god or it ain't.
As it says in Hezikiah 4:20:
"Throweth not out the mustard seed in the rinse."
parsy, the inspired.
OK, you're partly right here. I'm blending the Big Bang stuff into it, since those two theories are such frequent partners.
Evolution does, however, ask true believers to take things on faith until the future day arrives which will finally prove it true. Evolutionists keep hoping all those missing "in between" fossils will show up eventually. ;-)
1. I believe that dinosaur bones are truly as ancient as advertised but that doesn't justify Bob's affair. That's morality at the level of Bill Clinton.
2. Ancient flood stories seem to be part of pretty much every culture in the Middle East and Mediterranean area. That's probably a clue that something happened. If those two areas flooded and all the elephants were in Africa or India, then Noah didn't need them on the ark.
"The theory of evolution has nothing to do with "something or everything" appearing out of nothing."
It proposes that animals and plants have their origin in preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
What is the origin of those preexisting types? That's what we are getting at! If they always were, then, you propose that all things generated from either something or nothing. I want to know, how you can prove one or the other? And, the answer, of course, is you can't. Which leaves you unable to disqualify my "opinion" or theory (the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another) that it must be possible that the original thing from which others evolved could have been created to have existed in the first place. You can't prove the generation therefore you cannot prove the final outcome.
The second law of thermodynamics ACTUALLY declares "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
You might want to actually read about the REAL Second Law of Thermodynamics sometime, rather than the fictional, and rather hilarious, Second Law of Thermodynamics that has been fabricated by a comical assortment of rather dim-witted creationist writers.
Anti-Evo "misspeaking"?
;-)
You have the public schools, MSM, Colleges, both public and private and an overwhelming world stage. You have succesfully had your theory published in almost every single educational text dealing with history. I think you have had plenty of time and opportunity to present a one sided set.
It is relevant because the God which is the target of evolution is the Creator. If there was no creation, there is no Creator.
What does evolution predict? What will we look like in 10,000 years? How do you test it?
Evolution Theory is not science.
Its no coincidence that oceanic islands often have flightless bird species living on them. These arrived there originally as a single normal flying bird pregnant female (perhaps in a storm), millions of years ago, and over time the descendants lost the ability to fly because in the ecological niche they find themselves flight isn't that big an advantage. Usually such islands won't have predators, and the newly arrived bird finds itself at the top of the food chain. The ability to fly is no longer important and the high cost of maintaining it is greater than the reproductive benefit. Through the generations the ability is lost as less good fliers that are born outbreed better flier siblings because the less good fliers are better adapted to the island environment in other ways. That is why oceanic islands often have a unique species of flightless bird, and of course no two such islands share the same species, because the flightlessness evolved after the first pregnant female flew there.
Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species and their changes over time.
It has nothing to do with the explanation of the origin of life, or of matter, or of the universe.
You can believe life spontaneously arose out of organic chemicals, that the Christian God created the first life, that Aliens from the planet Xenu brought the first life to earth, or that a 5,000 headed Giraffe-God created the universe and also the first life, and be a full-blooded card-carrying Darwinian evolutionist.
(Note: there are no actual cards we get issued :-)
It is. Now kindly explain your slippery slope/adultery conundrum.
jla, the inquisitive
The existence of God is neither necessary nor sufficient for a moral code. Or is the only reason you haven't gone on a killing spree because God says not to?
Then you are wise and unafraid. You can separate out the stuff in the bible with reason. Kudos. As it says somewhere in there, "Timothy was not afraid to work" or something like that.
parsy, who likes the quiet in the Valley of the Shadow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.