Originally posted by RJHindsThat's total bullshyte. That is your self mutilated paranoid right wing so-called brain speaking out your ass.
Practically all those guys are taught evolution in school regardless of what field of science is their specialty. So that fact alone will bias their point of view and interpretations. And if a scientist wants to get something published in the scientific journals, he had better not try to publish something that is clearly against the sacred cow of evolution, if he wants it accepted. That is called bucking the system.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell the thread was started in Science so that is naturally the way the debate went. From a Spirituality forum point of view the question is to what extent does one expect Science and Religion to be consistent with one another? There is no particular incompatibility that I can think of unless one insists on taking the Bible literally.
Are you forgetting this is the Spirituality Forum?
In the following I'm going to make the assumption that if God exists he hasn't gone to great lengths to hide how the universe was created. I'm also assuming that if there was a historical Jesus and he was the Son of God then universal physical laws had the status of guidelines while he was around, and that God did nothing to hide the evidence of them from us.
I think that there is no particular problem from that point of view with the New Testament. The miracles were of local scope, so we wouldn't expect to be able to verify them now - since there is no chance of direct observational evidence.
The creation story and the Flood are different. We have good evidence that this is not how the universe started or how humans came into being, and we have good evidence that there was no worldwide flood on that scale at any point in geological history. So there is a contradiction between the first few chapters of Genesis and what we know about Science. For most Christians this isn't a great problem since it is the New Testament that is the important bit.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSome parts of the Holy Bible are to be taken literally and some are not. It takes wisdom to determine which.
Well the thread was started in Science so that is naturally the way the debate went. From a Spirituality forum point of view the question is to what extent does one expect Science and Religion to be consistent with one another? There is no particular incompatibility that I can think of unless one insists on taking the Bible literally.
In the ...[text shortened]... t Christians this isn't a great problem since it is the New Testament that is the important bit.
ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
There is no way for us to observe past miracles as they happened, but we can observe evidence of their occurrence and some people have as I point out in my thread about the supernatural.
I believe there is good evidence for both the creation and the worldwide flood. The New Testament is important to all Christians because it provides a way to be saved from the punishment of death and wrath of God for sins that occurred in Genesis.
Originally posted by RJHindsIn other words, you cherry pick the bible. That is good to know.
Some parts of the Holy Bible are to be taken literally and some are not. It takes wisdom to determine which.
ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
There is no way for us to observe past miracles as they happened, but we can observe evidence of their occurrence and some people have as I point out in my thread about the supernatural.
I believe there i ...[text shortened]... way to be saved from the punishment of death and wrath of God for sins that occurred in Genesis.