Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)

[Greta]

 

Or in this thread there was the "yom" argument claiming it only means a literal 24 hour day; that isn't true. Here is another perspective:

 

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

 

Wow, I did not even realize that this same word could be translated as "season", "age", "time", etc. Thanks for posting this!

[Joanna from CAP]

First, I just want to say that these are my personal comments, not endorsed in any way by CAP, but as creating a second profile is not permitted, this is who I am!

 

My DH teaches in a biology dept. of a Christian liberal arts college, and let me tell you, this subject comes up a lot! Over time in his studies in college and grad school, his previous belief in YEC, which is what was taught in church of course, was deeply challenged, and now he is best described as a theistic evolutionist. He still believes God created, and that Christians must be uncompromising in confessing God as creator, but the "how" and the "when" are not the hill to die on, especially if scientific evidence, which is also a testimony to God's work, says otherwise.

 

One other thing that I find important to remember is that science can not inform upon faith. Science is a measure of the natural world, and it can not inform on the supernatural. Do not be intimidated by what atheist scientists say about science disproving faith...it has not and it can't! Faith is beyond the scope of science.

 

Another thing that is hard for Christians (I know, it has been hard on my own faith) as there are implications to our understanding of sin, redemption, and God's plan. I personally don't believe that Genesis should be considered scientific, but it is deeply true, and wrestling with these theological questions is important. I recently read this essay by Tim Keller, which I believe to be a great start on this discussion, about Adam and Eve, sin, etc. in light of evolution.

 

http://www.biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

One other note: the book The Language of God was very important to us too.

 

Final note: I am not a scientist at all!

[Lovedtodeath]

Evolution is taught as fact in our CA schools, yet it is unproven.

:iagree:I see no reason to teach anything about origins in school. I went to secular school for 12 years and I was indoctrinated with evolution, but nothing specific that gives a good knowledge of the theory is explained. It is simply "this organism evolved this ability". How about saying "this organism has this ability" and leave it at that?

[Lovedtodeath]

My DH teaches in a biology dept. of a Christian liberal arts college, and let me tell you, this subject comes up a lot! Over time in his studies in college and grad school, his previous belief in YEC, which is what was taught in church of course, was deeply challenged, and now he is best described as a theistic evolutionist. He still believes God created, and that Christians must be uncompromising in confessing God as creator, but the "how" and the "when" are not the hill to die on,

True but some people have come to have faith in something that previously made no sense to them after they have studied YEC. So my point is that dogmatism in this area is not needed, but YEC does have its place.:001_smile:

[Greta]

He still believes God created, and that Christians must be uncompromising in confessing God as creator, but the "how" and the "when" are not the hill to die on, especially if scientific evidence, which is also a testimony to God's work, says otherwise.

 

This describes my feelings too! (Better, I think, than I myself did.)

 

I recently read this essay by Tim Keller, which I believe to be a great start on this discussion, about Adam and Eve, sin, etc. in light of evolution.

 

http://www.biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

 

Thank you for posting this. I am really looking forward to reading it this afternoon. Edited November 15, 2010 by GretaLynne
spelling

[Mrs Mungo]

I have to respectfully disagree. :) Yes, the word day (yowm, I believe) has several usages as do most words, but I could also say that your imposing it to mean thousands of years was never intended either, due to the very words used alongside it..."And then there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Why was the author SO specific. Why not just say...'and that was the first day'. It seems...to me...that the author is specifically clarifying the meaning of day in the creation account.

 

How can there be a morning and evening when the sun was not created until the fourth day? That doesn't even make sense. It makes more sense that they are symbolic.

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree:I see no reason to teach anything about origins in school. I went to secular school for 12 years and I was indoctrinated with evolution, but nothing specific that gives a good knowledge of the theory is explained. It is simply "this organism evolved this ability". How about saying "this organism has this ability" and leave it at that?

And what put the bee in my bonnet recently is finding out that some of the things I was taught (and they are STILL being taught) were shown to be false ages ago!

 

I thought at first it was a slip. The idea that we only use a very small portion of our brain is completely false, for instance. When it would pop up here and there I'd think, ah they must've forgotten it was in there. Now, having seen the variety in fetus growth, iykwIm, I find that science has known that the charts with fetus(es/i?) from different species looking very much the same is ironious since the 1850s. I find out that the horse evolution chart is bunk and has been recognized as such since the 70s, BUT IT'S STILL TAUGHT AS FACT!

 

Well, I've lost faith in the scientific community where biology/evolution is concerned. They have perpetuated these lies, they continue to teach them and I simply cannot believe them anymore. It makes everything else they have to say suspect. When the FACTS are false, imo, how can you trust the theories?

 

:lol: Where'd that soap box come from?!?

[Tea Time]

i could not disagree more. there are intrinsic understandings of good that transcend religion, time and culture. clustered together, they might be called "things/actions that lead to thriving" (sam harris is where i first heard this).

 

eg. having enough to eat is "good"; not having enough to eat is "bad".

 

blessings,

ann

 

Please read this with a gentle tone. As I read it over I can see how it could be read harshly, and it is not meant that way. I really do think this part of the discussion is often overlooked. And thanks for your response to my other post. I appreciate it when I am not ignored! (Being accepted socially is one of the things/actions that lead to thriving) :tongue_smilie:

 

It always seems a little to me that people who are committed to evolution fail to actually take the concept seriously at all levels and with all its vast implications.

 

One of the most obvious, profound, and influential "things/actions that lead to thriving" has been and continues to be a complex phenomenon (there are really no words to describe it accurately) we reduce down to the often misunderstood word "religion." It is, after all, that thing that takes the "intrinsic understandings of good that transcend religion, time and culture" and places it firmly in time and culture (where we actually live).

 

Someone may well want to hack out the pancreas because it offends him. There may well be results though that he was not expecting and variables in play of which he was not aware. It is often pride that makes some materialists so certain that religion should be ditched, and it is convenience, and maybe even guilt.

 

The concept of "eat/good and not eat/bad" is not really plumbing the depth of good and evil though, it is? What of beauty, integrity, justice, love (all four kinds), purity, guilt, etc.?

 

Implications of evolution: We are the transitional species, and we soon will no longer be "human" in all the ways that matter. I am not talking about just afterlife here, but principles and ideas that make us human in the here and now. Even thought itself may not survive in that paradigm if it does not prove to be necessary for survival over time. And we do not really get to choose in that paradigm! If you take this seriously, be careful what you want, you might get it. And that is why I prefer theistic evolution. I cannot live without HOPE. (One of the principles that has led to life [thriving].)

 

So, many of you will go, "Ah-ha! It all boils down to being afraid." Maybe? If I took materialism seriously (and I would have to, it is the way I am), then I would go insane like Nietzsche did. For me religion is not so much important for giving me life after death, it is just important so I do not kill myself right now.

 

I think most people who worship materialism do not take it anywhere near that seriously. They ignore the implications and cannibalize religions for coping mechanisms and behaviors as needed to fill in the vast darkness that true materialism would leave. And that is perfectly okay so long as the current tendency to discriminate against religious folks would please back off. I am not saying that is you or anyone on this board or in this discussion, but you must agree, they are out there, and their motives/agenda are very questionable.

 

God Bless (Cause I have no idea where your blessings come from. They are either sarcastic or your own fond "wishes" which are an example of the cannibalization I referred to above. But thanks, I do need blessings.),

T

[Wheres Toto]

I have never seen any evidence that Science is trying to disprove God - except claims made by religious leaders. Science doesn't address the existance of God at all. But, any in-depth study of Biology, Genetics, Astronomy, Geology, Archeology, Anthropology, Paleantology, among others is going to indicate an Old Earth. It doesn't address the place of God in Creation but there is very strong evidence that Creation took place a very, very long time ago.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dottieanna29

[TXMomof4]

I'm not sure if my previous post was seen, but this series is really good.

 

www.doesgodexist.tv

 

It's a free video series. Lots of good points.

 

I'm watching The Age of Things right now.....good stuff!

Edited November 15, 2010 by TXMomof4

[susankenny]

And what put the bee in my bonnet recently is finding out that some of the things I was taught (and they are STILL being taught) were shown to be false ages ago!

 

I thought at first it was a slip. The idea that we only use a very small portion of our brain is completely false, for instance. When it would pop up here and there I'd think, ah they must've forgotten it was in there. Now, having seen the variety in fetus growth, iykwIm, I find that science has known that the charts with fetus(es/i?) from different species looking very much the same is ironious since the 1850s. I find out that the horse evolution chart is bunk and has been recognized as such since the 70s, BUT IT'S STILL TAUGHT AS FACT!

 

Well, I've lost faith in the scientific community where biology/evolution is concerned. They have perpetuated these lies, they continue to teach them and I simply cannot believe them anymore. It makes everything else they have to say suspect. When the FACTS are false, imo, how can you trust the theories?

 

:lol: Where'd that soap box come from?!?

 

Yes, I agree with you and have had a similar experience.

 

Science is ever-evolving and ever-changing & that's to be expected of course. However, God is never changing & is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It's no wonder the bible told us the earth was round long before it could be "proven".

[lionfamily1999]

Yes, I agree with you and have had a similar experience.

 

Science is ever-evolving and ever-changing & that's to be expected of course. However, God is never changing & is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It's no wonder the bible told us the earth was round long before it could be "proven".

:iagree:

 

Ironically, that has brought me closer to God :p

 

I felt betrayed by science.

[Wheres Toto]

I felt betrayed by science.

 

Except you weren't betrayed by science. You were betrayed by a school system with out-of-date materials. After all, the new evidence - came from Science.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think most people who worship materialism do not take it anywhere near that seriously. They ignore the implications and cannibalize religions for coping mechanisms and behaviors as needed to fill in the vast darkness that true materialism would leave. And that is perfectly okay so long as the current tendency to discriminate against religious folks would please back off. I am not saying that is you or anyone on this board or in this discussion, but you must agree, they are out there, and their motives/agenda are very questionable.

 

God Bless (Cause I have no idea where your blessings come from. They are either sarcastic or your own fond "wishes" which are an example of the cannibalization I referred to above. But thanks, I do need blessings.),

T

 

That is breathtakingly rude. People were blessing one another before Christianity even existed. Even the word "blessing" derives from an Old English pagan word.

[lionfamily1999]

Except you weren't betrayed by science. You were betrayed by a school system with out-of-date materials. After all, the new evidence - came from Science.

These false ideas are in science books all over the place. It was only recently that the smithsonian finally removed some from their exhibits. What I don't understand at all is how, if we assume that the teachers are getting the facts in college, then WHY aren't they correcting the books? The Science whateverwhatever group that makes sure that ID is not included in science texts is so busy doing that that they haven't bothered updating their OWN information?!?

 

No, science showed the information to be false and the scientific community continues to perpetuate it.

 

ETA, the fetus chart was found to be false right on the heels of it being published in the 1850s, yet it is in textbooks.

Edited November 15, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[Caitilin]

That is breathtakingly rude. People were blessing one another before Christianity even existed. Even the word "blessing" derives from an Old English pagan word.

:iagree:

Elfgivas was very polite.

[Tea Time]

I have never seen any evidence that Science is trying to disprove God - except claims made by religious leaders. Science doesn't address the existance of God at all. But, any in-depth study of Biology, Genetics, Astronomy, Geology, Archeology, Anthropology, Paleantology, among others is going to indicate an Old Earth. It doesn't address the place of God in Creation but there is very strong evidence that Creation took place a very, very long time ago.

 

Technically science isn't doing anything. It is a method of study. Scientists do things, and there are a lot of them doing different things. It is a pet peeve of mine. You can talk about how science operates, or what Islam teaches, but you cannot talk about what Christianity does or what science is doing. Not really. I know that you know that, but it does cause a lot of problems in our culture when the two things get confused.

 

Some scientists, who are very outspoken in their feelings about religion, do give the impression that they consider one of the major tasks of science to dispel the belief in God. I have heard interviews, read articles, and I have a copy of a debate that almost sounds like that is the person's internal motivation, but I certainly could not prove it. I suspect the idea behind studies about prayer may have that intent. I would use that as perhaps a concrete example. But really it is more a tone that pervades the discussions.

 

My concern is that the debate is being used as leverage for religious people to be considered inappropriate for some things, a sort of litmus test if someone is worthy to hold certain positions. This is problematic as a belief in evolution is not really relevant to very many actual jobs, and the things that are holding people back for even those jobs are slipping and no one seems too worried about it. As an oversimplified example, Johnny believes in evolution but cannot do algebra, betty is a whiz at calculus but believes in creation. Johnny gets the job. See? That might be a problem, eh? Stick to the actual qualifications and let the ideology take care of itself, I think. Most people who go that far in science will grasp the needed concepts or self select out. JMHO.

[KingM]

That is breathtakingly rude. People were blessing one another before Christianity even existed. Even the word "blessing" derives from an Old English pagan word.

 

Not to mention the question that came to my mind. What does materialism have to do with the age of the earth/evolution? It's a red herring. We know the earth is old because all the evidence points to an ancient earth.

 

This is not a value judgment or a question of morality. It does not say anything about the bible except that literal interpretations must be incorrect. But we already knew that: there is no such thing as a firmament overhead, holding the waters back. The earth is not flat, nor fixed and immovable. There are no "corners" of the earth, as the earth is a globe.

 

Given the obvious scientific errors--not surprising, given the limited understanding of the world present at that time--why force yourself into the preposterous position of explaining how the earth sits between two giant bodies of water or that vegetation existed before the sun was created?

 

Just accept it as metaphor and let the Bible be the realm of religion, not of science. History has shown it does very poorly when it tries to explain the universe. See Galilei, Galileo, et al.

[Tea Time]

That is breathtakingly rude. People were blessing one another before Christianity even existed. Even the word "blessing" derives from an Old English pagan word.

 

I was not talking about Christianity though, I was talking about religion. Do you not consider pagans to be religious? It is perfectly reasonable for a Pagan or a Christian or a Hindu or any religious person to bless, it is not rational coming for a materialist. It is borrowed behavior for a materialist. That was my point. (I used the word cannibalizing - which is rather loaded though. You might want to jump on that one if you want to jump on me.).

 

Reading in an agenda to my post is also rude. Was her including it sarcastic? I thought maybe it was, but I chose to give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

However, I humbly withdraw the comment as it is being misunderstood.

 

As usual though, the bulk of my post goes ignored.

[Wheres Toto]

My concern is that the debate is being used as leverage for religious people to be considered inappropriate for some things, a sort of litmus test if someone is worthy to hold certain positions. This is problematic as a belief in evolution is not really relevant to very many actual jobs, and the things that are holding people back for even those jobs are slipping and no one seems too worried about it. As an oversimplified example, Johnny believes in evolution but cannot do algebra, betty is a whiz at calculus but believes in creation. Johnny gets the job. See? That might be a problem, eh? Stick to the actual qualifications and let the ideology take care of itself, I think. Most people who go that far in science will grasp the needed concepts or self select out. JMHO.

 

I don't understand this. I have never heard of anyone being asked their religious or evolutionary beliefs in order to get a job. I believe asking religious questions is actually illegal. Do you have anything to back up the idea that this is happening?

[Tea Time]

Not to mention the question that came to my mind. What does materialism have to do with the age of the earth/evolution? It's a red herring. We know the earth is old because all the evidence points to an ancient earth.

 

This is not a value judgment or a question of morality. It does not say anything about the bible except that literal interpretations must be incorrect. But we already knew that: there is no such thing as a firmament overhead, holding the waters back. The earth is not flat, nor fixed and immovable. There are no "corners" of the earth, as the earth is a globe.

 

Given the obvious scientific errors--not surprising, given the limited understanding of the world present at that time--why force yourself into the preposterous position of explaining how the earth sits between two giant bodies of water or that vegetation existed before the sun was created?

 

Just accept it as metaphor and let the Bible be the realm of religion, not of science. History has shown it does very poorly when it tries to explain the universe. See Galilei, Galileo, et al.

 

It is not a red herring. If it is, it is a perfectly defined red herring (different topic being discussed). I was talking about pure materialists and if that does not apply to a given scientist or a given post, then it does not apply to them. My whole post was about that. How does that get missed???? :confused:

[Wheres Toto]

These false ideas are in science books all over the place. It was only recently that the smithsonian finally removed some from their exhibits. What I don't understand at all is how, if we assume that the teachers are getting the facts in college, then WHY aren't they correcting the books? The Science whateverwhatever group that makes sure that ID is not included in science texts is so busy doing that that they haven't bothered updating their OWN information?!?

 

No, science showed the information to be false and the scientific community continues to perpetuate it.

 

ETA, the fetus chart was found to be false right on the heels of it being published in the 1850s, yet it is in textbooks.

 

Part of the problem is that in order to change a long-held theory the results must be reproducible. So, new evidence is published and distributed but until those results are reproduced and shown to hold under varying conditions, they are not considered "proven".

 

As far as textbooks are concerned - there is a lot of politics in both directions controlling what is placed in textbooks. Often it has little to do with acceptable science.

[KingM]

It is not a red herring. If it is, it is a perfectly defined red herring (different topic being discussed). I was talking about pure materialists and if that does not apply to a given scientist or a given post, then it does not apply to them. My whole post was about that. How does that get missed???? :confused:

 

You were talking about the implications of evolution and applying what looks to be a moral agency to observable aspects of the natural world. I don't see how that is germane to the discussion.

 

I may have misunderstood your post, but it looks like at least one other person did so as well. Perhaps you should clarify.

[Greta]

I'm not sure if my previous post was seen, but this series is really good.

 

www.doesgodexist.tv

 

It's a free video series. Lots of good points.

 

I'm watching The Age of Things right now.....good stuff!

 

Thanks for re-posting. I think I indeed did miss your original mention of it. Sometimes that little button that allows you to check new posts within a thread -- well, I've noticed it doesn't work all that well for me. It will often take me to a new post that is a reply to a post that I had not read yet. But I digress. Thanks!

[Mrs Mungo]

I was not talking about Christianity though, I was talking about religion. Do you not consider pagans to be religious? It is perfectly reasonable for a Pagan or a Christian or a Hindu or any religious person to bless, it is not rational coming for a materialist. It is borrowed behavior for a materialist. That was my point. (I used the word cannibalizing - which is rather loaded though. You might want to jump on that one if you want to jump on me.).

 

Your implication was that to be legitimate a blessing had to come from God. Considering that you changed it to "God bless," I assume you mean the Christian god, no? Did you have some other god in mind when you said "God bless?"

 

Reading in an agenda to my post is also rude. Was her including it sarcastic? I thought maybe it was, but I chose to give her the benefit of the doubt.

How did you give her any benefit of the doubt? You said it had to be sarcastic or borrowed behavior. I didn't see any post from her where she claimed to be irreligious. Can you point me to it if there was?

[lionfamily1999]

Part of the problem is that in order to change a long-held theory the results must be reproducible. So, new evidence is published and distributed but until those results are reproduced and shown to hold under varying conditions, they are not considered "proven".

 

As far as textbooks are concerned - there is a lot of politics in both directions controlling what is placed in textbooks. Often it has little to do with acceptable science.

Okay, you have seen the charts that depict a variety of fetuses from different species at different rates of growth and showing them to be very similar, right?

 

That chart, was shown to be falsified very soon after it was published in the 1850s. It didn't need to be reproduced. It's supposed to be pictures of fetuses. The man that came up with it altered the pictures in order to prove a point he felt needed to made (truth be darned). Soon after it was made clear what had happened.

 

All the same, books published a hundred years later STILL carry those pictures and STILL use them to "prove" that humans, elephants, and a couple other species are closely related because it shows (FAKED) similarities between the fetuses.

 

This isn't something that's hard to disprove.

 

You can run some internet searches and find all the proof you need.

 

So WHY over a hundred years AFTER this is shown to be false is it still there?!? Because that point can't be proven without it.

 

ETA, it wasn't long held either. It came out, it was disproven soon after and then it was perpetuated by the scientific community.

[Tea Time]

I don't understand this. I have never heard of anyone being asked their religious or evolutionary beliefs in order to get a job. I believe asking religious questions is actually illegal. Do you have anything to back up the idea that this is happening?

 

Christine O'Donnell was asked the question in a debate and it is probably quite irrelevant to the job she was seeking. That is different than a job application, however. We could talk a lot more about how that is still problematic, but it would take a little work to flesh out the issue completely. I do not know if it ever happens with science jobs. However, I said in my post "might be a problem." I meant that it would be very wrong if it were to happen. I wasn't really saying that I think it is happening.

[KingM]

All the same, books published a hundred years later STILL carry those pictures and STILL use them to "prove" that humans, elephants, and a couple other species are closely related because it shows (FAKED) similarities between the fetuses.

 

This isn't something that's hard to disprove.

 

You can run some internet searches and find all the proof you need.

 

So WHY over a hundred years AFTER this is shown to be false is it still there?!? Because that point can't be proven without it.

 

ETA, it wasn't long held either. It came out, it was disproven soon after and then it was perpetuated by the scientific community.

 

I don't know anything about these pictures, but there are hundreds of ways to show similarities between species or sub-populations of species. You can look at the DNA, for example and see that an Irishman is more closely related to an Italian than to a Japanese. You can see that a chimpanzee is more related to a human than to a monkey, that a dog is more closely related to a coyote than a fox, but more related to a fox than an elephant.

 

Taking this last example, we can also tell that they're more closely related because you can cross a dog with a coyote but not with a fox. You can then examine skeletons of dogs found in ancient sites and see that their skeletons are less gracilized compared to their modern counterparts, and that human skeletons have similarly become gracilized over tens of thousands of years as we've become more domesticated. Believe me, there is plenty of evidence for evolution that has nothing to do with 150 year old drawings.

[Wheres Toto]

Christine O'Donnell was asked the question in a debate and it is probably quite irrelevant to the job she was seeking. That is different than a job application, however. We could talk a lot more about how that is still problematic, but it would take a little work to flesh out the issue completely. I do not know if it ever happens with science jobs. However, I said in my post "might be a problem." I meant that it would be very wrong if it were to happen. I wasn't really saying that I think it is happening.

 

I think at this point in the 21st century, a person's religious beliefs are considered very relevant to their holding a political position. Often their religious beliefs are the basis for their stance on a variety of political issues - especially the hot button ones - gay marriage and abortion.

[lionfamily1999]

I don't know anything about these pictures, but there are hundreds of ways to show similarities between species or sub-populations of species. You can look at the DNA, for example and see that an Irishman is more closely related to an Italian than to a Japanese. You can see that a chimpanzee is more related to a human than to a monkey, that a dog is more closely related to a coyote than a fox, but more related to a fox than an elephant.

 

Taking this last example, we can also tell that they're more closely related because you can cross a dog with a coyote but not with a fox. You can then examine skeletons of dogs found in ancient sites and see that their skeletons are less gracilized compared to their modern counterparts, and that human skeletons have similarly become gracilized over tens of thousands of years as we've become more domesticated. Believe me, there is plenty of evidence for evolution that has nothing to do with 150 year old drawings.

I'm talking about showing that the various fetuses/feti (could someone please tell me the correct way to pluralize that?) are so similar.

[LND1218]

I look forward with anticipation to the day all the questions are answered. :D

[Tea Time]

Your implication was that to be legitimate a blessing had to come from God. Considering that you changed it to "God bless," I assume you mean the Christian god, no? Did you have some other god in mind when you said "God bless?"

 

How did you give her any benefit of the doubt? You said it had to be sarcastic or borrowed behavior. I didn't see any post from her where she claimed to be irreligious. Can you point me to it if there was?

 

No, that was not my implication. You are misunderstanding. Let's try again:

 

It is perfectly reasonable for a Pagan or a Christian or a Hindu or any religious person to bless, it is not rational coming for a materialist. It is borrowed behavior for a materialist. That was my point.

 

I am a Christian, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to bless with the Christian God, which is why I used it. If I was a Pagan, then I would bless in the traditional Pagan style and it would make sense. A materialist (true materialist) has no reason to bless because they cannot believe in wishes or hope a god will assist them. From a materialist it is silly to bless, yet it still is a strong tendency so sometimes they do. Most people are not pure materialists even if they claim to be. This repeats and simplifies, perhaps, the idea in my post.

 

The poster's intent is not clear to me. I left that open. She is either being sarcastic or she might be giving me "fond wishes." I also said that the fond wishes were good with me. Sarcastic would not be though. I did not assume it was, however. I did take it that she was not religious but that was based on her actual post and others she made, but again, that is not relevant. I was speaking about materialists in my post not passing judgement on her personally.

[Greta]

I felt betrayed by science.

 

I can imagine how you feel, though for me the story was the reverse. I was betrayed by the religion I was raised in. They taught me many lies, some of which were about this very topic (most of what they said about evolution was a straw-man), some of which were about the Bible, some of which they just made up out of thin air and claimed were absolute indisputable fact (and have since been forced to recant since their prophecies did not come true, without apology or humility!) For many, many years that betrayal turned me away from God and faith entirely. I thought it was all a sick joke. A lie that people tell themselves to make them feel better about their mortality. That's all that I thought belief in God was. I cannot tell you how grateful I am that I lived long enough to realize that I was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and just because some people calling themselves Christians were liars, that did not mean that all of Christianity was a lie.

 

Though it's far, far less important, I hope that you too will not dismiss all of science because of your bad experience with some scientists. Science has a lot to offer. Not on the same scale as what faith in Christ has to offer at all! But still. It's good. :001_smile:

 

:grouphug:

[Wheres Toto]

Okay, you have seen the charts that depict a variety of fetuses from different species at different rates of growth and showing them to be very similar, right?

 

That chart, was shown to be falsified very soon after it was published in the 1850s. It didn't need to be reproduced. It's supposed to be pictures of fetuses. The man that came up with it altered the pictures in order to prove a point he felt needed to made (truth be darned). Soon after it was made clear what had happened.

 

All the same, books published a hundred years later STILL carry those pictures and STILL use them to "prove" that humans, elephants, and a couple other species are closely related because it shows (FAKED) similarities between the fetuses.

 

This isn't something that's hard to disprove.

 

You can run some internet searches and find all the proof you need.

 

So WHY over a hundred years AFTER this is shown to be false is it still there?!? Because that point can't be proven without it.

 

ETA, it wasn't long held either. It came out, it was disproven soon after and then it was perpetuated by the scientific community.

 

Actually, I have a Biology degree which included classes in Genetics, Zoology, Microbiology, Macrobiology, among others. I have never seen these pictures in any of my textbooks or discussed as scientific fact. My classes ranged from 1987 to 2004.

 

A quick Google of this came up with mostly sites that were using this to disprove evolution. Most of the evidence regarding similarities between species is discussing comparisons of DNA.

[lionfamily1999]

I can imagine how you feel, though for me the story was the reverse. I was betrayed by the religion I was raised in. They taught me many lies, some of which were about this very topic (most of what they said about evolution was a straw-man), some of which were about the Bible, some of which they just made up out of thin air and claimed were absolute indisputable fact (and have since been forced to recant since their prophecies did not come true, without apology or humility!) For many, many years that betrayal turned me away from God and faith entirely. I thought it was all a sick joke. A lie that people tell themselves to make them feel better about their mortality. That's all that I thought belief in God was. I cannot tell you how grateful I am that I lived long enough to realize that I was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and just because some people calling themselves Christians were liars, that did not mean that all of Christianity was a lie.

 

Though it's far, far less important, I hope that you too will not dismiss all of science because of your bad experience with some scientists. Science has a lot to offer. Not on the same scale as what faith in Christ has to offer at all! But still. It's good. :001_smile:

 

:grouphug:

Not all, no. As far as evolution goes though, they've lost me ;)

[Greta]

Some scientists, who are very outspoken in their feelings about religion, do give the impression that they consider one of the major tasks of science to dispel the belief in God.

 

Richard Dawkins comes to mind. I enjoy his books, because I think he makes evolution understandable and fascinating. But he is definitely, unabashedly, unapologetically anti-faith.

 

(Is unapologetically a word? My spell check doesn't recognize it! :lol:)

[Tea Time]

I think at this point in the 21st century, a person's religious beliefs are considered very relevant to their holding a political position. Often their religious beliefs are the basis for their stance on a variety of political issues - especially the hot button ones - gay marriage and abortion.

 

I know, that is why I said that it was different. But you cannot assume that everyone that does not believe in evolution also does not believe in gay marriage. You cannot assume that someone who believes in evolution also thinks abortion is okay. See how that is a problem? Why not simply ask about gay marriage and abortion? Then ask them to defend their belief. This way it seems to me to be trying to pigeonhole people and shows a lot of prejudices.

 

The possibility that it could happen in jobs is still very real, I think.

[KingM]

The possibility that it could happen in jobs is still very real, I think.

 

If I were hiring a plumber or a cashier or a paper boy or a housekeeper, it wouldn't matter.

 

But if I were hiring for a scientific job and I had a candidate who didn't believe in evolution or believed the earth was 6,000 years old, I admit I would probably not hire them, even if this didn't have anything to do directly with the job. It would call into question the quality of their education and their critical thinking skills.

[Tea Time]

Richard Dawkins comes to mind. I enjoy his books, because I think he makes evolution understandable and fascinating. But he is definitely, unabashedly, unapologetically anti-faith.

 

(Is unapologetically a word? My spell check doesn't recognize it! :lol:)

 

Unapologetically is a word. My spell checker says so! :D

 

GretaLynne, I had him in mind, too. I recall a debate he did with someone and I swear that his goal was not only to disprove God but also to wipe all the religious people off the face of the earth. I dislike him very much and consider him scary, but I keep a little open mind in my brain just because YOU do! And when I get a breather and can stop defending myself, I plan to go back and read ALL your comments and soak up their pleasant tone and common sense! And hopefully it will make me a better person and better WTM poster! ;)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It is not a red herring. If it is, it is a perfectly defined red herring (different topic being discussed). I was talking about pure materialists and if that does not apply to a given scientist or a given post, then it does not apply to them. My whole post was about that. How does that get missed???? :confused:

 

I am confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that people who espouse evolution are materialists? This sounds like you are saying that those who believe in evolution are not religious or are of a false religion IMHO. There are many Christians who believe in creation and evolution and who do not take Genesis literally and I do not think they are lesser Christians. I think Jesus is more concerned with the golden rule than with whether we believe in Genesis literally or in evolution IMHO.

[lionfamily1999]

I am confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that people who espouse evolution are materialists? This sounds like you are saying that those who believe in evolution are not religious or are of a false religion IMHO. There are many Christians who believe in creation and evolution and who do not take Genesis literally and I do not think they are lesser Christians. I think Jesus is more concerned with the golden rule than with whether we believe in Genesis literally or in evolution IMHO.

No, she was actually talking about materialists versus religious people... she even said she wasn't talking about scientists as a whole.

[lionfamily1999]

Please read this with a gentle tone....T

.Link to her original post, for clarity.

[Greta]

As usual though, the bulk of my post goes ignored.

 

Not ignored. I just read it, and found it fascinating. As I often do with your posts. I've appreciated your presence in this discussion, because you always challenge me to think. I can't just whip out a quick response to you, as I so often do, because I have to think about it -- respond rather than just react, that kind of thing. And that's a good thing! :001_smile: I need to slow down and do that more often!!!!

Edited November 15, 2010 by GretaLynne

[Tea Time]

If I were hiring a plumber or a cashier or a paper boy or a housekeeper, it wouldn't matter.

 

But if I were hiring for a scientific job and I had a candidate who didn't believe in evolution or believed the earth was 6,000 years old, I admit I would probably not hire them, even if this didn't have anything to do directly with the job. It would call into question the quality of their education and their critical thinking skills.

 

Okay, but would you please at least give them a good, solid math test first, and do so with your other employees, please?

 

I know how scary those 6000 year old believers are. They might run around your lab tipping over beakers and screaming, "There is a God, there is a God!" ;)

 

But seriously, like I said in my post (the relevant parts don't seem to make it), I think that people will self select at levels in science where these concepts become critical. There is no need to ask politicians and employees what their religious beliefs are about evolution unless you have a specific need for a specific type of science to be done. And, even then, other questions will make that clear, won't they?

 

As Dottie noted, some of these questions, when they are being asked, are not about science at all but about gay marriage and abortion, and that is a different agenda.

[Tea Time]

.Link to her original post, for clarity.

 

Not ignored. I just read it, and found it fascinating. As I often do with your posts. I've appreciated your presence in this discussion, because you always challenge me to think. I can't just whip out a quick response to you, as I so often do, because I have to think about it -- respond rather than just react, that kind of thing. And that's a good thing! :001_smile: I need to slow down and do that more often!!!!

 

Awww, thank you guys! My socialization points just went up!

 

(Is this The Sims or real life? I forget!) :lol:

[LND1218]

And what put the bee in my bonnet...

 

If you want to study something interesting, study the evolution of the bee and the evolution of the flower. It's quite fascinating.

 

According to fossil records it seems that bees evolved around 140 million years ago and flowers came along around around 125 million years ago. It's pretty interesting stuff. I am curious what bees did for those millions of years before there were flowering plant. Maybe they flew around looking good. :lol:

[KingM]

Okay, but would you please at least give them a good, solid math test first, and do so with your other employees, please?

 

I know how scary those 6000 year old believers are. They might run around your lab tipping over beakers and screaming, "There is a God, there is a God!" ;)

 

 

Belief in God has nothing to do with it. Understanding of science, the scientific method, and the possession of critical thinking skills are very important. If they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, either they did not receive a good science education or it didn't take. Either of those things would disqualify them for a job in the sciences.

[KingM]

If you want to study something interesting, study the evolution of the bee and the evolution of the flower. It's quite fascinating.

 

According to fossil records it seems that bees evolved around 140 million years ago and flowers came along around around 125 million years ago. It's pretty interesting stuff. I am curious what bees did for those millions of years before there were flowering plant. Maybe they flew around looking good. :lol:

 

False. First, bees are specialized wasps. They evolved from predator insects. Second, bees date to about 100 mya and flowering plants 140 mya.

[susankenny]

Belief in God has nothing to do with it. Understanding of science, the scientific method, and the possession of critical thinking skills are very important. If they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, either they did not receive a good science education or it didn't take. Either of those things would disqualify them for a job in the sciences.

 

yes, but even scientists that are not YEC, but may entertain the notion of intelligent design are completely disregarded as well. there is a definite mindest of what is acceptable in the scientific community. when that is questioned or challenged, the result is not well for the person at hand.

[lionfamily1999]

Awww, thank you guys! My socialization points just went up!

 

(Is this The Sims or real life? I forget!) :lol:

:w00t: It's the hive, but I will send you virtual internet social points. Use them however you wish ;)

If you want to study something interesting, study the evolution of the bee and the evolution of the flower. It's quite fascinating.

 

According to fossil records it seems that bees evolved around 140 million years ago and flowers came along around around 125 million years ago. It's pretty interesting stuff. I am curious what bees did for those millions of years before there were flowering plant. Maybe they flew around looking good. :lol:

:lol: Gave people good ideas ;)