Evolution is NOT atheism

[akscience]

troodon: "I interpret Genesis to be symbolic" Sir, thats your first and biggest mistake.

 

[Praxiteles]

But when it refrences science, its always accurate. As for the bible telling the earth is flat or circluar, we can agree to disagree. The bible mentions or hints at a round earth more than a handful of times. You might be correct about the hebrew meaning of circle meaning ball, ill check it out, but honestly, my opinion is made, theres SO many other verses or hints and hebrew words to use in its place to mean circle or flat.

Have I read you right? Are you saying that you've made up your mind, and any amount of evidence to the contrary is not going to cause you to rethink?

Wow! Are you always so quick to claim the low moral ground?

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

But when it refrences science, its always accurate. As for the bible telling the earth is flat or circluar, we can agree to disagree. The bible mentions or hints at a round earth more than a handful of times. You might be correct about the hebrew meaning of circle meaning ball, ill check it out, but honestly, my opinion is made, theres SO many other verses or hints and hebrew words to use in its place to mean circle or flat.

How is it always accurate? everytime it mentions stars, it is refered to spots of light that hang a few miles up in the firmament that fall down to earth, or to be trampled upon. No mention of gigantic balls of gas millions of light years away. Any time the movement of the sun is mentioned, it always refers to geo centricity, how is that more accurate that what we know to be true today?

 

[akscience]

Ask God about it, seek and pray about it, thats it. I dont know what to tell ya.

Praxiteles: As for your little comment, ive read up on the issue before, i know both sides, and come to a conclusion. You for instance may believe in evolution, thats fine, but theres still problems with the theory, its flawed. Same here, the evidence that the bible tells of a circle earth is more than that of a flat earth, look it up, see for yourself.

 

[Arikay]

I agree with Prax, saying you will only accept evidence that fits with your opinion, is not very good. Its often a problem creationists have. They create a conclusion, then they accept or deny evidence based on how well it fits their preconcieved conclusion.

The word used in Isa 40:22 is "Chuwg" meaning The word the bible uses for ball is "duwr"

Chuwg: "1) circle, circuit, compass"

Duwr: "1) ball, circle"

From www.blueletterbible.org using Strongs dictionary.

I use Isa 40:22 is I have found its the most common verse that is twisted to try and say sphere, when in reality they do mean a flat circle.

But when it refrences science, its always accurate. As for the bible telling the earth is flat or circluar, we can agree to disagree. The bible mentions or hints at a round earth more than a handful of times. You might be correct about the hebrew meaning of circle meaning ball, ill check it out, but honestly, my opinion is made, theres SO many other verses or hints and hebrew words to use in its place to mean circle or flat.

 

[Praxiteles]

Praxiteles: As for your little comment, ive read up on the issue before, i know both sides, and come to a conclusion. You for instance may believe in evolution, thats fine, but theres still problems with the theory, its flawed. Same here, the evidence that the bible tells of a circle earth is more than that of a flat earth, look it up, see for yourself.

It's one thing to claim to know both sides, but from my reading of your posts I have concluded that you do not, in fact. I do not intend that statement as an attack of any kind, but an observation that what you believe the ToE to be is not in fact what the ToE actually is.

You could put my (and everyone else's) mind to rest by, for example, giving us a definition of what you believe the ToE to be.

As for what the Bible says, it is not my opinion that a literal reading leads one to understand that the authors thought that the earth is spherical. For example, Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain from which can be seen all of the kingdoms of the earth. How is this possible if the earth is spherical?

 

[Jet Black]

at the time of writing, empirically the earth was flat. in fact to most people, it still is.

 

[troodon]

troodon: "I interpret Genesis to be symbolic" Sir, thats your first and biggest mistake.

Do you think that mustard seeds are the smallest (again, note the superlative nature of the word) of seeds? I do not dispite the Bible saying, clear as day, that they are.

Just because a mustard seed is not the smallest seed does not mean that the message Jesus told in that parable is lost. Likewise, just because man was not literally crafted by God out of the dust of the ground does not mean that the meaning behind the first few chapters of Genesis is lost.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

Ask God about it, seek and pray about it, thats it. I dont know what to tell ya.

Praxiteles: As for your little comment, ive read up on the issue before, i know both sides, and come to a conclusion. You for instance may believe in evolution, thats fine, but theres still problems with the theory, its flawed. Same here, the evidence that the bible tells of a circle earth is more than that of a flat earth, look it up, see for yourself.

wow you KNOW everything there is to know about evo? I just bought "THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY" and it is over 1400 pages long, not to to mention all the other info avaliable, micro biology, molecular biology, geology, genetics, natural history, anthropology, paleontology, zoology, and about a hundred more "ologys" that support Evo, that invidiuals can spend a life time learning on one particular specialized subject

 

[Praxiteles]

See that rail over there in the distance? That's where Paul's thread would be had we not derailed it.

 

[Arikay]

You mean you can still see the rail?

Ive lost it by now.

 

[Jet Black]

Nobody ever said that evolution is atheism, well at least i dont say it is, but theres a fine line between believing the bible as the word of God. It says pretty plainly that God made humans, not evolved them. And theres plently of scientific evidence to back it up, its just not mainstream or taught in the schools as a second opinion. I think people on this site know a bit about evolution, science, ect, but unfortantly most dont and never question it.

it doesn't say how He made them though. thinking using a tool like evolution to make something is not an option for an omnipotent God doesn't really speak that highly of God. It is like saying "Volkswagen don't make cars" because actually it isn't them that make cars, but some machines owned by them that make cars.

 

[Praxiteles]

You mean you can still see the rail?

Ive lost it by now.

Stand on this stack of texts. You can see further that way.

 

[Cantuar]

Well, akscience did come awfully close to disagreeing with the original post. Perhaps akscience could come back and tell us if s/he thinks that evolution does imply atheism.

 

[Siliconaut]

More interesting, indeed, is how exactly akscience would like to explain his claim that the bible was "always correct" when it came to scientific issues. He only makes this claim, but does not actually provide any supporting evidence.

There are two major topics that have been mentioned: The size of mustard seeds and the question of why the bible doesn't clearly say the earth was sperical.

Maybe akscience would like to open a new thread to explain the perceived incongruences between his opinion and the facts as I perceive them.

 

[Jet Black]

There are two major topics that have been mentioned: The size of mustard seeds and the question of why the bible doesn't clearly say the earth was sperical.

what does it say about mustard seeds?

oh, and it says pi is 3 iirc.

 

[wblastyn]

what does it say about mustard seeds?

oh, and it says pi is 3 iirc.

Jesus said the mustard seed was the "least" of all the seeds, meaning it is the smallest. Of course, the point he was trying to make was theological, not scientific. It's like today if someone said "the first will be last, just like Pluto is the last planet in our solar system, and the last will be first" and then in the future we discover a new planet after Pluto, scientifically the statement would be wrong, but the point still stands about being last.

 

[Jet Black]

Jesus said the mustard seed was the "least" of all the seeds, meaning it is the smallest. Of course, the point he was trying to make was theological, not scientific.

thanks, I hadn't heard this one. It is pretty plain it was just a theological point, as it would be somewhat pointless (indeed impossible, since it wouldn't have a name) for him to name a seed that hadn't even been discovered at the time.


incidentally, there is debate as to whether pluto is a planet, or just the largest member of the Kupier Belt.

 

[Siliconaut]

Originally Posted by wblastyn
Jesus said the mustard seed was the "least" of all the seeds, meaning it is the smallest. Of course, the point he was trying to make was theological, not scientific.

My point precisely. Yet akscience seems to be a literalist, and I was trying to find out just how he reconciles the apparent differences.

 

[Nathan David]

Do you think that mustard seeds are the smallest (again, note the superlative nature of the word) of seeds? I do not dispite the Bible saying, clear as day, that they are.

Just because a mustard seed is not the smallest seed does not mean that the message Jesus told in that parable is lost. Likewise, just because man was not literally crafted by God out of the dust of the ground does not mean that the meaning behind the first few chapters of Genesis is lost.

BINGO! Heck, I learned that principle in church. Why is it so hard for the literalists to understand it?