Is evolution compatible with theism and The Bible? image - Christians of Moddb

^^^ What he said. :-)

Everything suffers and dies because sin made things that way.

Before Lucifer's rebellion no life knew the touch of death. If you pay attention, you realize after the fall of Adam and Eve that people began to die (and younger and younger at that) as was chronicled in the book. If it weren't for sin, people would live forever.

Scientists even support this saying that the way the body is designed is to constantly regenerate itself after such an amount of years. It dying like this shouldn't have even been a factor!

You guys support evolution yet you still cannot find the missing link for mankind (in fact the whole chain seems ubsurd). No one has a clue where we come from. And there are still other links and chains out there to other species you have yet to locate.

If the universe is older than the Bible says than that's due to someone either:

A. screwing up the texts.
B. us misinterpreting it.
C. us only getting part of the whole story.

I wouldn't be surprised if the creation is older than account, but still, I have my obligations.

If you study the Genesis account carefully you'll find it's believed to have been a Raptor Satan used to trick Eve through it's limited speech capability. Even science supports raptors were extremely intelligent even more than primates. Shortly after that God cursed them to slither on their bellies forever which no doubt had many warping effects on their bodies and intellect. Mass extinction? Or mass punishment. You choose.

There's also a Biblical instance that tells of creatures with tails as long as the cedars of Lebanon. Only creature with a tail that big would be the Diplodocus. So yes, Dino's were believed to be around during Biblical times. As to why many of them died, partly due to curses and man's desire to hunt I suppose. I admit, killing something that big is tempting.

All this Dino talk makes me want to go on a safari to Jurassic park...

There is no such thing as "kinds". Thats a just a term non-scientists came up with to try and separate micro and macro evolution when its in fact the same thing. Its all evolution in that lots of small changes become a big change as a species adapts to its environment. This is the view of science, of course anyone can believe anything they want, but it means going against the bulk of evidence because of conjecture/personal opinion or giving more weight to opposing theories or issues with certain elements of evolution, giving to much weight to those things than can be justified. I don't see how anyone could be surprised that something written over 1'500 years ago could be wrong in some ways. There are some historical facts in the bible but we only knon they are because we uncovered it with research, scrutiny, burden of proof and peer review ie science.

except that isn't the evolution that is 100% science grounded. evolution is scientific explanation not a religious one, not something that any religion can just claim that their book supports it because clearly the books say that god created man, when in fact man evolved from already existing creatures.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

And they still haven't found their "missing links" yet.

A scientific theory is something that has mountains of evidence (facts) supporting it (to explain what phenomena is happening). Facts are things proven true (as in either undeniable ie something anyone can observe for themselves or something not in dispute scientifically). Evolution has become the dominant theory, it has so much evidence supporting it that its it is not dispute in the scientific community. It might be in dispute with religious people but that doesn't matter, the only place that counts is the scientific community because thats where evidence is examined, tested, shared and graduated from mere speculation, educated guesses based on past data, to graduating to a robust theory. So strong a connection is made that we can be 95% sure that its correct (which does not mean that it can't be one day proven wrong, theres always a small chance we can be wrong about everything hence why it can't be called fact). Its why parallel universe and copenhagen are called interpretations and not called scientific theories. They are mere educated guesses, or potentially true ideas explaining why atoms change state when they are observed.

So anyway, saying evolution is not a fact is stating the obvious and obscures how incredibly useful and strongly supported it is (in comparison to every other scientific and non-scientific explanation).

The scientific community refuses to take into consideration any form of spiritual or paranormal activity and explanation.

I therefore do not recognize their authority on this matter, to claim what is theory and what is fact. Since they are leaving out something of such influence we are all affected by.

You should take into consideration what the scientific community determines because they are analyzing reality, and reality is what matters not just random guesses on what happens to us when we die or what some unknown persons said thousands of years ago on what the best way to live your life is (which is something affects you now). Its best to take into account what science determines is harmful into your ethical standpoint, in that way what we believe was not harmful can be found to be harmful based on new research, therefore it is morally correct to change ones behavior/perspective as time passes. Its why Humanism appeals to me. Sticking to scriptural dogma only results in past horrors & misunderstandings being repeated over and over again.

Also understanding and appreciating science does not stop me from being Spiritualist, or friends of mine from being Pantheist/Buddhist (perhaps not the supernatural part of Buddhism but certainly the ethical/cultural part is compatible). The great thing about science however is that it can clearly point out incorrect 'facts' in scripture. Like age of the Earth, age of the universe, origin of life, and point out fraudulent claims of evidence of god (miracles, 'power of prayer' ect). So in that regard it can show there is no good evidence of the paranormal that can stand up to scrutiny, atleast when it comes to god.

Science is not a replacement of spirituality as I've said. There are no proven explanations for what exists before the universe, what our purpose is, are we alone in the universe as intelligent beings, what happens to our consciousness when we die, why does life exist beyond its basic functions of procreation and adapting to its environment as part of survival? I think its better to admit that we don't know then to believe that religions have the answer. There are of course benefits to meditation though as I've explained elsewhere and interesting ideas might lead to interesting science.

Sticking to Dogma keeps people in line.

If it weren't for the standard, people would wander off into doing things that bring harm to themselves and others. It's why were to have a clear set of rules, beliefs, and faith. People are like sheep, they need a Shepard to lead them, and if they stick to the dogma of *why* they should follow that Shepard, they won't wander off and fall prey to the wolves. But not only that, they have to *believe* the Shepard and have faith.

Humanism denies any reason to follow dogma, it believes you can apply logic or reason to any choice/decision, be it moral or ethical, and go on without guilt or consequence. That is why I do not believe in humanism. It denies the idea of a greater good or power, and grey's out any moral perspectives. It's thoughts like that that lead to Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Really now, survival is what? Logic and reason can never be allowed to override morality and love. Better to die for what's right, than what's *reasonable*.

Science may not try to replace spirituality, but it's constant criticism and oppression of any thought that there is such a thing as the paranormal or spiritual in nature is by no means constructive or open minded. Such things are dismissed by the scientific community daily and not taken seriously, even if there is evidence suggesting otherwise to their theories and hypothesis.

So, lets consider this.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you should dismiss it.
People are just going to have to accept, there are some things that go beyond our meager understanding. Things that defy the rules, because they made the rules.

It makes sense, that if there is a creator, and that he made the very laws and principles we follow in our everyday lives. Be they scientific or spiritual, that he could manipulate those laws and principles any way he sees fit. Without a trace leading back to him other than the magnificence of it all.

Poor birds... :-(