17 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMedicine and religion are his strong points. Yes, even though he's a Seventh-day Adventist. Yes, even though he does not believe in evolution as a tool of creation. His parents were SDA, and so far he hasn't been able to overcome that. And he's a brilliant surgeon.
Celebration of Creation - Ben Carson, MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ChFtIDUbg
Politics is not. He should stay with what he knows and keep his extremist political views to himself.
17 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIf I had wanted the subject to be about politics, I would not have posted this on the Spirituality Forum.
Medicine and religion are his strong points. Yes, even though he's a Seventh-day Adventist. Yes, even though he does not believe in evolution as a tool of creation. His parents were SDA, and so far he hasn't been able to overcome that. And he's a brilliant surgeon.
Politics is not. He should stay with what he knows and keep his extremist political views to himself.
18 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHe's just another evangelical-type who can't conceive of evolution just being a tool of creation.
If I had wanted the subject to be about politics, I would not have posted this on the Spirituality Forum.
If someone were to ask me if I believed in creationism or evolution, I'd say "Yes." The two are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many normally-intelligent people say so.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat is only true if you define Evolution in a limited way and not the broad way as the British define Evilution. Modern day Evilution was invented by two British naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. 😏
He's just another evangelical-type who can't conceive of evolution just being a tool of creation.
If someone were to ask me if I believed in creationism or evolution, I'd say "Yes." The two are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many normally-intelligent people say so.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsThe theory of evolution is only incompatible with a literal understanding of genesis. For instance, all of mankind did not spring forth from only one man and woman. That's impossible. Incest on that level would lead to a serious inbreeding depression, unless (of course) god interfered in every single generation's genetic makeup.
That is only true if you define Evolution in a limited way and not the broad way as the British define Evilution. Modern day Evilution was invented by two British naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. 😏
But, if you read genesis as poetry, written to emphasize how great god is, who created everything and can take it all away, then it doesn't have to be scientifically correct, and evolution (or observed reality as I like to call it) is perfectly compatible with your religion.
The more I learn about ancient hebrews, the harder I find it to believe that if a god exists he would even try to convey scientific knowledge to them. They specifically didn't communicate in abstract terms (or so I understand it), but everything was communicated in practical terms. The ancient hebrews lacked both the knowledge and language to properly understand and communicate the facts of evolution, or any scientific theory. It seems unlikely then, that genesis is supposed to be a literal account about the early days of the universe.
Of course, even more likely, there is no god, and genesis simply reflects how poorly the ancient hebrews understood the physical world. 😛
18 May 15
Originally posted by C HessThat works for me.
The theory of evolution is only incompatible with a literal understanding of genesis. For instance, all of mankind did not spring forth from only one man and woman. That's impossible. Incest on that level would lead to a serious inbreeding depression, unless (of course) god interfered in every single generation's genetic makeup.
But, if you read genesis as ...[text shortened]... od, and genesis simply reflects how poorly the ancient hebrews understood the physical world. 😛
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm pretty sure that the definition of evolution does not vary between the US and the UK. That's just your bigotry raising it's ugly head again, I suspect.
That is only true if you define Evolution in a limited way and not the broad way as the British define Evilution. Modern day Evilution was invented by two British naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.🙄
18 May 15
Originally posted by C HessI have been saying that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis all along. You apparently have not been paying much attention.
The theory of evolution is only incompatible with a literal understanding of genesis. For instance, all of mankind did not spring forth from only one man and woman. That's impossible. Incest on that level would lead to a serious inbreeding depression, unless (of course) god interfered in every single generation's genetic makeup.
But, if you read genesis as ...[text shortened]... od, and genesis simply reflects how poorly the ancient hebrews understood the physical world. 😛
I have also been saying we have degenerated from the first humans too.
Genesis is classified as a Historical book, not poetry. So one must read as it was written. That is were you go wrong, not understand the scriptures.
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
(Matthew 22:29 NASB)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
18 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI think everyone should be able to express their views, labels as extremist are just some
Medicine and religion are his strong points. Yes, even though he's a Seventh-day Adventist. Yes, even though he does not believe in evolution as a tool of creation. His parents were SDA, and so far he hasn't been able to overcome that. And he's a brilliant surgeon.
Politics is not. He should stay with what he knows and keep his extremist political views to himself.
body else' opinion, which could be the extreme view, so they all should be able to air them.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
18 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI think everyone should be able to squash kittens. labels as kitten squasher are just some
I think everyone should be able to express their views, labels as extremist are just some
body else' opinion, which could be the extreme view, so they all should be able to air them.
body else' opinion, which could be the extreme view, so they all should be able to squash kittens.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
18 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, you have. I think you failed to grasp what I was saying about the ancient hebrews, but the point is that genesis probably wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's poetry for some other purpose than to detail the actual steps taken when the world was created. Ask yourself what use it would be for a people of goat and sheep herders to know how god created the world. They'd probably be more interested in why.
I have been saying that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis all along. You apparently have not been paying much attention.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
18 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd yet, no inbreeding depression except for those who keep things in the family for more than a few generations, if you know what I mean. By the logic of genesis where all of mankind living today comes from a single family, inbreeding depression should be solvable by keeping up the inbreeding. You can see, of course, how that would not work. Conclusion: genesis can not be understood literally.
I have also been saying we have degenerated from the first humans too.
18 May 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYour view is defintely an extreme view. You deserve to be thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone for that. 😏
I think everyone should be able to squash kittens. labels as kitten squasher are just some
body else' opinion, which could be the extreme view, so they all should be able to squash kittens.
18 May 15
Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, you have. I think you failed to grasp what I was saying about the ancient hebrews, but the point is that genesis probably wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's poetry for some other purpose than to detail the actual steps taken when the world was created. Ask yourself what use it would be for a people of goat and sheep herders to know how god created the world. They'd probably be more interested in why.
Scripture teaches us that God created the world and all that is in it for His own glory and because He desired to share His life with others. The creation of all these things demonstrates His glory, His love, grace, mercy, wisdom, power, goodness, etc. Compare Psalm 19:1; 8:1; 50:6; 89:5.
https://bible.org/question/what-purpose-did-god-create-world