Originally Posted By Dabob2 I believe in God and that He created us all, including the species that lived millions of years ago. However, the hostility shown by those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old towards any new scientific discovery is indeed hilarious.
Originally Posted By woody I disagree. I think people are reacting to the headlines, which in itself is quite revealing about their agenda.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You disagree that God created us all and all the species, or you disagree that people insisting that the earth is only 6,000 years old is hilarious? If you don't disagree with either, I'm not sure how your comment follows.
Originally Posted By woody I disagree that people are showing hostility towards any new scientific discovery because of their religious beliefs. I think people are reacting to the headlines, which reveals the agenda of those who are hostile towards the religious fundamentalists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't see how the headlines - and all the headlines I saw said something like "Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals" - which is exactly what it seems to be - revealed hostility towards religion, unless you think all religion discounts the possibility of links between sea and land creatures. Maybe a couple of the quotes of a couple of scientists interviewed well past the headlines did show hostility towards fundamentalism to a degree (though not the scientists who made the discovery). But certainly nothing as hostile as, say, the link from #13 was.
Originally Posted By woody My comment on the headline is how the story is portrayed as you read the article. Benign at first, yet gets worse later on, which discounts the headlines. Why not talk about the discovery by itself? Does everything need to be a debate against religion? Certainly, the quotes within the article clearly shows hostility as if religion is incompatible with scientific inquiry. The headline in itself wouldn't seem so hostile without the quotes making a counter claim against religion or the alternative creationist theory.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I thought the article started off fine, as you say, reporting on the discovery itself. But you'd have to have your head in the sand not to know that both creationists and evolutionists would have something to say about this. So the article went on to get comments from both of them. They devoted more space to the evolutionists; I think that's about all you can note if you're looking for "bias." Then again, the discovery fits their theory a lot closer than the creationists, who were reduced at this point to saying basically "we'll have to look into this and get back to you later." And remember, a lot of us believe in both God as creator and evolution.
Originally Posted By woody What the article didn't do is say how the discovery jives with the species on this earth RIGHT NOW? I've seen Discovery Channel where they show a fish creature, who grows arms to crawl to get from one area to another. There are many species that live in different environments. I'm not sure what link they are trying to claim. What if the creatures never made a transition? There could always be land and sea animals. No link would be necessary. This could be all about nothing.
Originally Posted By woody >>But you'd have to have your head in the sand not to know that both creationists and evolutionists would have something to say about this. So the article went on to get comments from both of them.<< I happen to think the creationists are more scientifically critical of the work of the evolutionists. That shouldn't be the case, but the evolutionists have become rather lenient or the opposite (almost religious). >>Then again, the discovery fits their theory a lot closer than the creationists, who were reduced at this point to saying basically "we'll have to look into this and get back to you later."<< The evolution theory was never proved. In fact, the basis for the theory was backwards. The evolutionists have been backfilling for years. The creationists should take a look before leaping. You already criticized the religious for hostility. Which response is better?
Originally Posted By woody "For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're trying to say there." Neither do I know what you're refering to.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>At worse, they are premature and tinged with anti-religious bias.<< I don't see how. I could be that the literalist interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1 isn't meant to be a scientific text but something more...profound...something that a 20th century American wouldn't understand but a Hebrew of 2,000 BC would? The most important thing to understand is that God did it all. We don't know the exact process, we just know that He did it. God could have chosen to use a process of evoluation or He could have done it exactly as stated in Genesis 1 and 2. We don't know and ultimately, it doesn't matter except that God created everyone and gives every human person a soul.
Originally Posted By woody cmpaley: I have said (repeatedly) that the basic principles of evolution directly interferes with the tenets of Christianity. I do believe God created it all; however, the only thing missing is the scientific explanation. Evolution is not compatible with the Biblical explanation as I have learned about what evolution is all about. This article about the "missing link" is incompatible with the Biblical story. God has created all living things in it. If so, why would God require a creature to evolve from one to another? Genesis was explicit that God created land and sea creatures separately. God also created man. Why would God require man to evolve from apes if God created man? Other disputed principles is the random activity, cell mutation, and natural selection. If things are truly random, why would things come together to a perfect design? If cells mutate, it never seems to mutate for the creation of new species, only disease. Natural selection only preserves certain dominate traits so why would new species form? I would like to know the truth, but the scientific questions only seems to get bigger and bigger.
Originally Posted By Missing Link fossil Guys, why not just stop the arguin' and ask ME if you want answers?
Originally Posted By cmpaley woody, as a fundamentalist, you believe that the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 describe the literal step by step method by which God made everything. That's fine and I absolutely respect that. As a prospective Catholic (three more days and I drop the prospective! , I've learned that there is a lot more in the creation account than a mere description of the process God used to make the world. The answers as to WHY God did these things (the more important question) is answered in the text. Actually, did you know that there are TWO accounts of the creation of man, and not just one? That's right...and they don't agree with each other. How do you explain the contradiction? Could it be that one is wrong and the other right? Or could it be that BOTH are correct because they tell the same story in order to make different POINTS (the both/and of the Catholic perspective as opposed to the either/or of the Protestant/evangelical/fundamentalist perspective)? As a prospective Catholic, I am obliged to believe and DO believe that God created everything out of nothing and that He creates the living soul of every human person at conception. How He did this is an open question and I can accept that.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Post 20 DVC--College Chris or chemistry? What do you do for a living? I still haven't figured it out?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe DABOB--POST 21---My exact E.G. I use all the time for saying I do NOT concur with all the Bible stuff.
Originally Posted By woody cmpaley: I am completely open minded to scientific inquiry. If science does prove the theory of evolution, then I will have to reconsider my religious beliefs. On the other hand, I think the theory of evolution is just plain wrong and it needs revision based on the evidence we have thus far. The science community should stop trying to backfill on their theory. Theories must be based on what is known. If they care about the truth, they should distinguish between fact and fiction. >>I've learned that there is a lot more in the creation account than a mere description of the process God used to make the world. The answers as to WHY God did these things (the more important question) is answered in the text.<< The why question isn't disputed as much. The how question is perhaps even more important. Maybe there is a way to scientifically explain God's methods. We've only just started studying these issues. Many more years are required. I think Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationists are fine as a counter-balance, but there needs to be a third way. This third way, perhaps more objective, will look at the evidence alone and come up a theory consistent with the evidence.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>cmpaley: I am completely open minded to scientific inquiry. If science does prove the theory of evolution, then I will have to reconsider my religious beliefs.<< Why would you do something like that? Can't you accept something that is both/and (creation and evolutionary process) and not either/or (creation OR evolutionary process)? >>On the other hand, I think the theory of evolution is just plain wrong and it needs revision based on the evidence we have thus far.<< That may be. The theories have been adjusted as time goes on, you know. >>>>I've learned that there is a lot more in the creation account than a mere description of the process God used to make the world. The answers as to WHY God did these things (the more important question) is answered in the text.<< The why question isn't disputed as much. The how question is perhaps even more important.<< Why do you say so? I really don't think that our eternal destiny will rely on whether or not one believes that God literally took six days and on day one, He did thus and so. I would think that the more important thing is that God created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing), that He sustains creation through His goodness and mercy, and that He creates every human soul at the point of conception. By the way, may God bless you on this Holy (Maundy) Thursday! Today we remember the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Tomorrow, on Good Friday, we remember the sorrowful passion of our Lord and venerate His cross and Saturday evening, we remember His glorious Resurrection from the dead. This Saturday, I will receive Confirmation and my First Holy Communion. I'm so excited! Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the Feast!
