Fair call, Darwin Theory as originally presented had its problems, and it wasnt until almost 100 years later that the basic tenent was accepted as being backed up by solid evidence. There is little doubt that in an absolute sense it had its problems when first presented. Knowledge has moved on now via things like carbon dating (etc). Its stretching it too far to say Darwin Theory in itself destroys the seven day creation, it couldnt 100 years ago, but it did point out the road to go down in search of further facts, later provided by carbon dating (etc).

The literal seven day creation as described in the Bible cannot stack up against facts now known concerning the existence of mankind millions of years ago. The latter will continue to evolve and develop as new facts are found, but sufficient exists to provide the right Freeway, we are just searching for the correct exit ramp.

Really Darwin Theory is - in todays context - just the theory that started us down the road we are travelling now, allbeit we are a hell of a long way down that road. To deny evolutionary theory completely is illogical, sufficient evidence now exists to set evolution in concrete as a true concept. As you rightly point out though, there are gaps, but those gaps are not wide enough to destroy the basic concept.

ZYDOR POSTS:


Carbon dating is great and can give useful results, but only for measuring certain things in thousands of years. It is provably unreliable especially in the case of proving something is millions of years old. So, if you want to show that humans have existed for millions of years, you'll have to come up with something other than carbon dating for that.

It's 2007, and real modern science itself is challenging Darwin's theory to the hilt and slowly but surely sending it to the scrap heap. Biochemistry has also come face to face with the fact that their science is asking questions regarding ultimate origins of life. Reasoned analysis of the latest scientific data on DNA has shown that what was considered as "mindless matter" is in fact a network of precise and exquisite processes, laws, and structures. It has demonstrated that living beings are imbued with ingenious architecture, databases, and operating systems that construct, repair and replicate themselves.

The discovery of these complex bio chemical systems that are essential for the functioning of life and their appearance cannot be attributed to chance. They discovered that these systems only work when every other part of them is in an exact order or alignment which Michael Behe describes as 'irreducible complexity'. Does this prove that Intelligence must have been involved in the origination of life. Maybe yes, maybe no. What it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the genetic barrier of DNA prevents change beyond the species. That conclusively throughs out macro-evolvution. There is no "evolving" from an amoeba to an ape to a man.

Zydor posts:


Where are you getting these fairytales?

All educated persons of Columbus' day knew the earth was round. They knew if from reading Sacred Scripture for one. If KFC reads this, she'll be able to cite that.

The Venerable Bede c.673-735 taught that the world was round, as did Bishop VIrgilius of Salzburg 720-784, Hildegard of Bingen 1098-1179, and Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274. All four ended up Saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval book on astronomy, written by the English scholastic, John of Sacrobosco, 1200-1256. It informed not only was the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.

You are anxious to claim there is a bitter warfare between religion and science. And this isn't surprising becasue it's been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on the faith. Same thing with the Hypostatic Union which I'll address later. Also, would you be more clear on your



when are you claiming the BIble was re-written? and I don't have a clue what the rest of this means.

I make no attack on Faith, I have consistently stated a genuine desire to resolve the whole issue in my mind - and most certainly not at the expense of rediculing a Faith a stance I find utterly abhorent. If others wish to believe in a particular Faith, thats fine, I make no judgements on the correct nature or otherwise of their decision - but that does not mean to say I have to agree with it. I certainly make no claim of bitter warfare between science and religion, others may have, thats their perogative. I have doubts and concerns that do not allow me to go down the Faith route, and nothing I have seen or had explained to me yet convinces me otherwise. Dont assume because I have atheist views, that I have a bigotted outlook, that is so far from reality its unreal.



Clearly it does for you, not for me. What is clear is that mankind has existed far longer than is apparent from Bible texts. As I understand it the furthest back in time an estimate can go from the Bible texts in terms of mankinds creation is 6000 years. That we have been on this planet far longer is in little doubt. The latter has been acknowldged by all the main Christian Religions, hence most no longer claim that the seven day creation is a literal explanation of events, more a parable.


I am not, I was presenting a case for it not to be rewritten, as it would serve no purpose in trying to convert non believers, in fact it would be counter productive, it would make matters worse, the last thing that should happen is to rewrite it. It was in response to an earlier post at post 18, as many others did.


Please do not assume that because I state things that others do not believe that somehow I am attacking them or their Faith - I dont. However in my mind certain things dont hold true, and until I become convinced otherwise, that will remain the case. If others wish to believe in a particular Faith, I have no issue with that at all, I hope it provides them with an inner peace that many seek. I most certainly dont have the termerity to say they are "wrong", they can believe what they wish. I have faught in many situations for others to have that right to believe in what they wish, including getting shot at and lunatic religious extremists slinging bombs at me. Not all atheists are rabid biggots.

Zydor,

When I asked:



I was referring to the last sentince in your post # 24. I didn't connect that as your reply to Adnauseum's last sentence in # 18.

thanks for explaining that...now it makes more sense.



Yes, I must admit that your comments are even-handed.

I've noticed that most supporters of Darwinism Evolution argue for it not by defending its tenets, rather by attacking the Church, the Faith, her doctrines as you with the Hypo. Union), Sacred Scripture, Christianity and even Christians themselves. It's been this way ever since Darwinism Evolution has become a worldview, an ideology.

Is it co-incidental that Adnauseum called Jesus Christ an ordinary man, and you are arguing the Hypostatic Union?

C'mon everyone of you Darwinism supporters, where's the defense... prove macro-Evolution...tell how you evolved from an ape..give all the details how that happened...show the scientific evidence..

How can any one, including Dawkins, objectively, impartially, and intellectually seriously prove Darwin macro-Evolution by attacking Christianity?

But then again proving Evolution Theory isn't what is important in the atheist crusade, attacking Christianity is.

ZYDOR POSTS #8



This reminds me of the contention that in a very short time scientists will be able to create life in the laboratory. You may have heard the story that came out of this as told my Dr. Robin Bernhoft,

"There was a very clever scientist who told God, "I don't need you anymore, I can create life." God asked him how he was going to do it. The scientist said, "I am going to do it just like you did. I am going to start with this dirt." God responded, "Not so fast--get your own dirt!"

Neat - hadnt heard of that one before   




Totally co-indidental- I hadnt even thought of that connection with that post. I am not arguing the hypostatic union, more the opposite I suppose, with a liberal dose of confusion and astonishment. The Chalcedon Council declared:

"...... that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Chalcedon Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete"

In one breath it states two natures united in one person, and the next states each was distinct and complete - the latter being a different inference from the word "united". Here was the fudge that had to occur at the Council in order to align the four main strands of previous theological thinking at the time. In the end of course the Oriental Orthodox Churches pulled out in the Great Schism.

So we had "mortal man" deciding what the correct devine theological theory was 400 years after the death of Christ. When during that time totally different theories existed in the main christian religions when compared to each other, and the Bible had not yet been fully collated and approved. Conceptually I have a problem with "mortal man" deciding what devine theory is correct, that at the very least places mankind at the same level as god if we have the authority to decide who and what god actually is - particularly when previous "truths" were held up as immutable.

Thats not to say I am attacking anything, I promise you, its pure thought process on my part, nothing more. I cant get my head around the concept that mankind has the right to dictate the nature of a supreme deity. That Council meeting profoundly changed the nature of christ in theological thinking. From my understanding of it - and many others I have spoken to have the same issue - there was not easy agreement, a lot of horse trading went on over the final wording. I am not using it to prove that god does not exist (nothing can do that, you cant prove a negative), but it does provide a powerful mental block for anyone trying to get into the core of christianity. We are not gods and never will be - even the Pope is elected by Cardinals and Bishops - not devine intervention.


That I regret to say is very true of many zealot atheists, which is sad, debate should be about understanding elements of the dilema, not demonstrate "right and wrong". The nature of this dilema means ultimately there has to be a leap of Faith else you will not get there, because no matter where you come at it from, there is no substantiated so called "evidence".

Ultimately the whole thing needs that final leap of Faith, and at the end of the day is that not what Christianity is about? Having Faith? If one does, then that individual should be inwardly content, and not be riled by zealots. If one doesnt, well thats their problem, but for their part they should leave it there, you never know, one day something may change their mind.....

These four comments are, in a nutshell, the problem ..... and also point to the solution.

The Bible as it is now is a misrepresentation of God and His religion. not that it, the Bible, is totally false. It is not. The last comment said what happened and describes why the current confusion exists. Then, to take that same Bible that we know how it was generated and start arguing about God based on it is not really fair at all. Dont blame God for the confusion of some.

The solution, however, is to apply the first comment: GO to the source that is has not been corrupted by "the mortal man". At least that is what it claims about itself.

Judging anything, particularly God and religion, based on what you yourself say is not reliable sourse is not a reasonable way to reach a fair decision.

There exists a text, Qura'an, that claims that it is the direct words of God: uncorrupted, unedited and never mixed with anything else. Discussing the topic without taking what that text say into consideration is simpley incomplete and distorted argument. That is my opinion anyway for whatever it is worth.

It is amazing, at least to me, that some people who seem to be honestly looking for a logical answer only concentrate on what they read in a document they know it is not reliable.

Very admirable of you to search and question, just dont restrict that to one book. Read and explore what is available out there.

I sent Dawkins' book to my husband in Iraq. Whenever the hell he gets home I will read it and hopefully have some insight to add to the conversation.

You mean the Bible? Why not, isnt that what I am trying to wrap my head around ? Or did I miss the point you made ..

Lula, the problem is not Darwin or his theory. as you pointed out, He never claimed taht his theory excludes the Creation or the existence of A God. The problem is that you are saying that Humans came to exist on earth only 6000+ years ago. That is when you start facing the problem created by the way the Bible was put together.

If you separate what God actually said from what others wrote the whole issue will resolve itself.

But you insist on treating everything written in the Bible as Divine. That is the Problem.

You certainly did. The Bible is NOT the only book around. Have you read #33?

I take your point - the Qura'an

That introduces another dilema - Christ is treated as a Prophet in the Qura'an, but as a devine entity in the Bible. At the moment I have an issue trying to get my head round the existence of a supreme deity at all let alone draw a distinction such as the two different discriptions of christ in the Bible & the Qura'an, and following on from that just who or what God actually is.

The latter gets into the nature of Mohammed, and at present being in a predominantly Christian country, I need to resolve in my mind the Christian version first, particularly as Mohammed was not born until 200 years after the declaration of hypostatic union, yet the muslim faith(s) existed way before then.

Not putting one above the other in a search for knowledge sense (steering delicately away from the obvious theological minefield for the moment, lets not ignite that one on this thread), but I have to start somewhere.

This post was meant to spark a debate on the relevance of the Bible and whether Dawkins (and Darwin , for that matter), were right or wrong in their assumptions or theories. We may want to divorce their works from what we believe but at the same time, realise, that we all have the right to question age-old thinking--as long as we believe there is a God in our lives. If there is no God in our lives that is for another debate.

Please continue to debate and thank you for taking part.

Zydor,

I shall gladly respond to your inquiry about the Catholic Church's doctrine concerning the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, which is that Jesus is at once and the same time, both of Divine Nature, that is True-God and of human nature, True-Man.

I would suggest that you read Aeryck's blog, Mysterious Bible Passages. I think you'll find the entire discussion (about 4 pages) enjoyable and interesting. Starting at #52, I describe the Catholic Church; # 78 Christ is God, and # 82, 86, 87, and 95,the New Testament doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, in One God there are three Persons was formally defined at Constantinople I and settled at the Council of Nicea in 325. ThinkAloud and I debate this...all good stuff.

I'll give it a whirl - keep the the Faith   

ThinkAloud posts #37



I disagree.

Please read post #23. There are social consequences to believing, i.e. putting your faith in Darwinian Evolution Theory. In my world, these of post 23 are all problems. ....and no one will ever convince me that believing, i.e. having faith in Genesis created these problems.

Think Aloud posts:


The Old and New Testament canons were finally assembled together by the Catholic Church. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, therefore, there are no problems with it or created by it. 2Tim. 3:16-17 tells us what Scripture is good for. "All Scripture, inspired by God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." The only problem that I know of with Sacred Scripture is man mis-interpreting, misunderstanding and misusing it.

I try my best not to do that. Just as the eunuch did with Philip, I appeal to the teaching authority of the Catholic Chruch to guide my understanding and interpretion of Scripture. Yet, the Church hasn't spoken definitively on every single passage, but leaves open permitting plenty of liberty.

The literalness of the Genesis 24 hour/ 7 days of Creation and the question of "age" is a case in point. The issue is far from settled.

After Scripture and faith comes reason which tells me the time frame is short, say 6,000-10,000 years, and not millions of years.

Genesis was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either a day of 24 hours, or a period of longer than 24 hours. There are strong grounds on which to claim that a meaning of 24 hours harmonizes best with the Hebrew grammar of Genesis.
1--there are other Hebrew words that would have been more appropriate for referring to the longer periods of time.
2--since this is the first time the word 'day' is used, it seems implausible that it was symbolic of a long,long as in millions of years, but more deliberate to include light and dark in each rotational 24 hour day.
3---and this is what I find most interesting---God is truly omnipotent and He can create the time span that most pleases Him. He may have desired to create the universe in 6 days of 24 hours each to harmonize best with His highest creation--human beings. Remember that the concept of a seven days week comes ONLY from Genesis. God created for 6 days and "rested" on the 7th. Day, months, and years can all be derived from astonomy, but not weeks.

ThinkAloud,

And I'll insist upon it one more time, for it never tires me to remind you that every word in the Old and New Testaments is the revealed Word of God. Through the Holy Ghost, every single writer from Moses in Genesis through St.John in The Apocalypse was inspired to write down only what God wanted written.

And you in turn keep insisting that every word of Muhammad's Qur'an is of Divine origin.

ZYDOR POSTS: #2




Upon re-reading this, I'm tempted write my own blog about where we got the Bible and would if school wasn't starting next week cutting shorter my 'free' time to strike away at these computer keys.

If I did write, the blog would be base upon Henry G. Graham's 170 page book, Where we got the Bible? I highly recommend it. Some of the chapter titles are: the making of the Old Testament--the Church proceeds the New testament--the Church compiles the NT--deficiencies in the Protestant Bibles--the originals and their disappearance--our debt to the monks---Bible reading in the dark ages---vernacular scriptures before Wycliff--

you are absolutely right in that. All I wanted to say is this: Dont blame God for the confusion you are in because of what you read in the Bible. If my experience is in any way useful, here it is: If it doesnt make sense, it is not from God. Period. HE is very logical and practical. Most of all Just, never cruel and most forgiving.

Keep that in mind. Anything, anything that contradicts that i, personally, say is not from god since HE also never contradicts Himself i.e. HE is consistent.

this is the problem i am pointed out to you. If you take a trip now to Egypt, you will find solid physical evidence, on the walls and artifacts, to convince anyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were people there more than 10,000 yrs ago so advanced to the point of creating art work and paints of sophisticated chemical composition and who wrote their own language on papyrus and used gold not in caves just scratching things or pictures. These were countries called Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. These two countries were united in one country called Egypt 8000 yrs ago. Meena's Declaration plaque of that unification stands at the entrance to the Egyptian Museum at the heart of Cairo. Written on solid Granite. you cant have more solid evidence than that.

You cant rely on times mentioned by people who just say how old persons in the OT were at certain times to draw a timeline between Creation of Adam, his descent to Earth and Now.

Your position on this point makes Darwinists doubt everything. The funny thing is that your position is not supported by anything God or any of the prophets said. It is the Church. and that is not a good authority on humanity's history and development on Earth. The church position on this is no different than their position on Galilio's science and the rest of what they did.

The church should get out of the science business. what difference does it make, religiously that is, whether we been on earth 10,000 yrs or 10 billion yrs? why get involved in science? is that what they are supposed to be doing?

it is not me who say that. It is the text itself. and i always point out that let's take the texts at their own words, be it the Bible or the Qura'an. The Bible ITSELF say that it is a collection of documents by several writers. some of their writings turned out to be incorrect, the Bible itself say that. Qura'an say it is the actual words of God and nothing else. never revised never changed even in one letter. take the texts at their words lula. that is all i am saying. i am not siding for one against the other. i am just pointing out what both texts say about themselves.

why argue with them? why inject our own words in texts that are considered sacred by billions of people. specially if the scientific evidence contardicts what we inject in the text.

TA

Can you elaborate on this more?

I've been reading this book for over 35 years and I don't recall reading this.

After Scripture and faith comes reason which tells me the time frame is short, say 6,000-10,000 years, and not millions of years.

A prerequisite for being a “young earther” is you have to believe that the natural laws and everything we can observe are simple an illusion. The only use they have for science is to fight against its findings. You demand absolute proof of evolution without a single gap because that’s where God exists, He exist in the gaps in human understanding. It has always been that way and there has been and is now many gaps for him to flourish in. We to this day cannot explain, without gaps, what glass is. We obviously know how to make it but we can’t explain what occurs in the process, or if it’s it a liquid or a solid. Our best guess is it’s a very viscose liquid. Does that mean we will never understand it because it’s a miracle of God? No we’re just getting started, by the Age of Aquarius, less than 150 years from now we will be as far ahead of present humans as present humans are ahead the Romans. The explosion of knowledge in the last century will grow exponentially.

Creationist take any finding that appears contradict the established age of the earth or not supporting evolution and hang onto it even if it’s latter proven to be incorrect. I’ve seen them quote data that has been known to be incorrect for 50+ years. The reason the even have this data is because real scientists don’t ignore data that goes against what they believe to be true. You cannot start a journey of discovery thinking you already know the answer.

There’s no credible evidence that supports a young earth, none. There is no evidence that we have a soul or that anything lies beyond death. There’s no way to prove or disprove anything in the Bible. Maybe someday science will find a way to see the soul or peer into the afterlife but now there’s no experiment and no observation that can be made to reveal such clams so they must remain outside the ream of science. Extraordinary clams require extraordinary evidence and for now we have only a belief. Science and religion do not have be at odds. There is an excellent by Dr. Lorence Collins that shows this quite clearly.

Link