Discussion of Beliefs [Non-Debating Thread]

[Doubtless]

This thread was made for the express purpose of myself learning more about what others (expressly Dannager and other Evolutionary-Creationists) believe. If you can't keep from debating, please don't come on here. This is a one-topic thread, meaning that I don't want people to come in here and start weaving some conversation about salvation in around what myself and Dannager are talking about. If you don't want to speak about our topic, please don't post. However, anyone is welcome to read our posts in order to further their own knowledge of our beliefs. Thank you.

Dannager, tomorrow, if I have time, I'm going to read some more of that Berkeley site. I'm trying to do this with an open mind, though that doesn't mean that you can expect me to start believing in evolution. I believe what the Bible teaches, as a literal interpretation taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The main purpose of this thread is for me to learn more about what I am fighting and thus not be ignorant. I'll probably post lots of questions on here about the site and stuff. Thanks, by the way, for doing this with me.

~Doubtless

 

[Dannager]

Dannager, tomorrow, if I have time, I'm going to read some more of that Berkeley site. I'm trying to do this with an open mind, though that doesn't mean that you can expect me to start believing in evolution. I believe what the Bible teaches, as a literal interpretation taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The main purpose of this thread is for me to learn more about what I am fighting and thus not be ignorant. I'll probably post lots of questions on here about the site and stuff. Thanks, by the way, for doing this with me.

Not a problem. And I'm confident that as you start to learn more about the topic you'll begin to discover that it's very easy to accept, and does not pose any problem to Christian faith. I've seen it happen many times before. I'll hold off on starting down any particular topic until you've had a chance to check out the Berkeley site. I'm sure you'll have questions on it, so we can start from there.

 

[Melethiel]

Welcome to Theology. Please keep in mind the forum-specific rules here and try to observe them.

I'll be following this thread with interest...but would you mind responding to my post in your other thread? It's rather lonely.

 

[KerrMetric]

Wrong Forum.

 

[gluadys]

Wrong Forum.

Maybe, but let's give the kid a chance.

 

[KerrMetric]

I didn't intend it in a mean way.

 

[metherion]

Well, you're curious as to what we believe. We're glad to answer questions! There's at least a handful of us ready and waiting.

Metherion

 

[Jadis40]

Well, as far as what I believe:

When I was in elementary school, I remember being enthralled by the night sky, and the points of light I saw above me. I wanted to learn more about them, and thus started reading books from our local public library on astronomy. There is one night I vividly remember. It was a clear evening and I was staring up at the sky. It was through that experience that I was first convinced that God existed, I truly think that he was revealing Himself to me through what He had created.. Nothing else, to my childish mind, made sense. So, now back to the subject of how I came to believe in an ancient universe (13+ billion years). It think it came from being in awe of learning about the life cycle of stars (upwards of millions if not billions of years, such as our own sun), knowing that some have exploded and left behind supernova remnants, along with other things such as quasars and pulsars.

From my perspective now, I was just thinking about this:

It is a fact that it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth.
It is a fact that it takes 4.22 light years from the light of proxima centauri to reach us.
Algol is 93 +/- 2 light years from us.
Polaris is 430- +/- 30 light years from us.
The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.53 +/- 0.07 Million light years away.

To me, it seems that if the first four are true, then the 5th must also be true. These distances are figured out by simple geometry through parallax. In my mind, it stands therefore that the logical conclusion (in my mind) is that the earth is much, much older than the 6,000 years that YEC holds.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, as far as what I believe:

When I was in elementary school, I remember being enthralled by the night sky, and the points of light I saw above me. I wanted to learn more about them, and thus started reading books from our local public library on astronomy. There is one night I vividly remember. It was a clear evening and I was staring up at the sky. It was through that experience that I was first convinced that God existed, I truly think that he was revealing Himself to me through what He had created.. Nothing else, to my childish mind, made sense. So, now back to the subject of how I came to believe in an ancient universe (13+ billion years). It think it came from being in awe of learning about the life cycle of stars (upwards of millions if not billions of years, such as our own sun), knowing that some have exploded and left behind supernova remnants, along with other things such as quasars and pulsars.

From my perspective now, I was just thinking about this:

It is a fact that it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth.
It is a fact that it takes 4.22 light years from the light of proxima centauri to reach us.
Algol is 93 +/- 2 light years from us.
Polaris is 430- +/- 30 light years from us.
The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.53 +/- 0.07 Million light years away.

To me, it seems that if the first four are true, then the 4th must also be true. These distances are figured out by simple geometry through parallax. In my mind, it stands therefore that the logical conclusion (in my mind) is that the earth is much, much older than the 6,000 years that YEC holds.

You beat me to it

 

[alphacheese]

If man evolved from animals, why did we lose all our hair? (ok, most of it, nothing to keep us warm)

 

[gluadys]

If man evolved from animals, why did we lose all our hair? (ok, most of it, nothing to keep us warm)

This is the kind of question we cannot always answer specifically.

We can give a general answer and then discuss possible scenarios.

The general answer is the one that applies to all evolution. We lost our hair because, for some reason, it was an advantage to do so.

What we don't know is precisely why it was an advantage.

We do know that protection from the cold was probably not an issue since we originated in a warm, African climate and would seldom need insulating warmth.

So we can think about why it would be an advantage to get rid of that layer of insulation. What might make our ancestors overheat when our near relatives, the apes, do not seem to suffer that problem?

Now here is where we get into developing a scenario i.e. an idea that might be the answer to the question, but is not guaranteed to be the answer or the whole answer.

The scenario says that a change in life-style could provide a danger of overheating and a reason to get rid of an insulating layer of hair. Apes, for the most part, live in well-treed areas and gather most of their food from the trees in a leisurely fashion. But our ancestors left that life for a life on the ground, actively hunting on the savannah. This often required a lot of running and sweating, and could lead to overheating. So, bye-bye hair.

Another possibility is that sexual selection played a part. For one reason or another, early humans developed a preference for less hairy bodies and selected mates that were less hairy because they found them more attractive.

Both of these reasons could work in tandem with each other.

And there could be additional reasons no one has thought of yet.

The only thing we can always say is that a characteristic that survives and becomes fixed in a species is in some way an advantage to the species, even if we don't know why it is an advantage.

 

[Doubtless]

It is a fact that it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth.
It is a fact that it takes 4.22 light years from the light of proxima centauri to reach us.
Algol is 93 +/- 2 light years from us.
Polaris is 430- +/- 30 light years from us.
The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.53 +/- 0.07 Million light years away.

To me, it seems that if the first four are true, then the 5th must also be true. These distances are figured out by simple geometry through parallax. In my mind, it stands therefore that the logical conclusion (in my mind) is that the earth is much, much older than the 6,000 years that YEC holds.

What? I like a bit of astronomy, but I'm lost.

Sorry, once again, Dannager. I tried to go to Berkley Monday, when I went to the library, but I couldn't get on there, and the past two days, I've gotten on late (I get about a half-hour of dial-up internet every day, which gives me just enough time to check the threads in the writer's guild and sci-fi and fantasy forums). I'll be gone for the weekend, so I won't get on until monday, but then, if possible, I WILL go check out the Berkley site. But don't get your hopes up; I'm not planning on changing my opinions. There is a big line which divides our beliefs, and that is the fact that I take the Bible literally, and you do not. Until one of us changes our opinions we are not even on the same level. I don't plan on interpreting the Bible any way other than literally, and I'm sure you don't plan on interpereting it literally; thus, we're doomed to never agree.

~Doubtless

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Doubtless, ur being wise about learning what ur fighting and I commend u for that. If u believe YEC is correct keep at it. I know I will.

 

[alphacheese]

Doubtless, ur being wise about learning what ur fighting and I commend u for that. If u believe YEC is correct keep at it. I know I will.

Agreed. I just keep asking all these questions to the evolutionists. And as hard as they try, I still don't see how it fits. To me it actually seems that by saying the bible is incorrect and adding all these human scientific discoveries into the mix it make it seem as though man is trying to replace God's word with his own. I know you older earthers or whatever it's called aren't denouncing God's word at all, but that's the way it seems to me.

 

[gluadys]

Agreed. I just keep asking all these questions to the evolutionists. And as hard as they try, I still don't see how it fits. To me it actually seems that by saying the bible is incorrect and adding all these human scientific discoveries into the mix it make it seem as though man is trying to replace God's word with his own. I know you older earthers or whatever it's called aren't denouncing God's word at all, but that's the way it seems to me.

But we are not saying that the bible is incorrect. We are saying that a fallible, human interpretation of the bible (a literalistic interpretation that contradicts God's creation) is incorrect.

 

[alphacheese]

But we are not saying that the bible is incorrect. We are saying that a fallible, human interpretation of the bible (a literalistic interpretation that contradicts God's creation) is incorrect.

Maybe not you, but Dannager has made it very clear that he believes it is. Not its interpretation, but the bible itself.

 

[gluadys]

Maybe not you, but Dannager has made it very clear that he believes it is. Not its interpretation, but the bible itself.

I think it is still a matter of interpretation.

For example, how do you consider that the bible is inerrant when it says that bats are birds?

I bet you have an interpretive way of dealing with that.

 

[alphacheese]

I think it is still a matter of interpretation.

For example, how do you consider that the bible is inerrant when it says that bats are birds?

I bet you have an interpretive way of dealing with that.

I take it you are refering to Leviticus and unclean fowl? I would agree with you that it is catagorized as a bird, but I don't think they had the level of taxonomy we currently have back then. (Even today organisms are constantly being rearanged and put in different classifications. Fuguses used to be considered plants by the scientific community, as was algae. And where do viruses even fit in? <- don't answer that, I already know the answer, I'm just stating the confusion of classification in the scientific community) I don't really think anybody cared, it's just listing it as an unclean animal.

Does it really need interpretation to determine THAT point? (which I believe was the point)

 

[KEPLER]

For example, how do you consider that the bible is inerrant when it says that bats are birds?

Overall, I agree with you gluadys, but in this particular case, it's abad example. The two hebrew words in question (tsippor in Deut 14:11 and owph in Deut 14:19) are better translated respectively as "twittering creatures" and "winged creatures" rather than "birds" or "fowl".

On the other hand, that word in Isaiah 40:22 is most definitely "circle" as in "disc" like a coin or a plate.. It cannot be translated as "sphere".

Carry on...

Kepler

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Glaudys, I know u said that u could pursuade me about evolution with time, but I don't think so. Cuz I'm fully pursuaded in my own mind (Romans 14:5). I stand firm in YEC. Sorry, Lo Siento. I don't feel right trying to incorporate evolution into creation regardless of other people's interpretation of scripture with evolution.