littlebillie Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 kwc57, what or who would be an impartial source for Biblical study? this is a serious question, because from my perspective, and in this context, impartiality would involve someone who neither accepts nor rejects the Bible, but considers 'possible' truth in a number of ways. Is it internally consistent, can we tie it to current external events, is any current English version faithful to the original text, translation- and context-wise, and so on. Then after such an analysis, makes a decision. the study guides I've seen really all have a pro-Bible stance - tho some seem more OT oriented and others more NT. Anyway - what would be your definition of impartial in this context? Thanks for any info and insight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutParent Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 "Why do you need to know what church I go to? If you need to know it, I will tell you." I really don't; it just happens to be the thread we've been responding to and since you're a proponent of evolution rather than creation, the question applies to you. Don't forget the biology test segment of the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstpusk Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Nice SNIP, ScoutParent, the whole quote should read: "Why do you need to know what church I go to? If you need to know it, I will tell you. First you need to provide the answer to my question. If you can't provide me with a viable scientific alternative to evolution, admit it. Then I'll even tell you the name of my dog and favorite brand canoe paddle." I assume you are admitting that you can't provide me with the viable scientific theory I have requested the first time back on September 24. The day before you said, "And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers." I am not asking for all of the answers, just one. You told me I may not be aware of these other theories. Do you know of any or were you just blowing smoke? The IQ, biology and theology test posts by you seem only to be an effort to cover up this inability to provide the answer or admit you were wrong. Just own up, you will feel better about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Scoutparent, If you will go back and read your responses to mine in this thread, you'll see that you suggested I read the Bible so I can understand the answers to the questions like you do. To me, that is an assumption that I do not read the Bible or have an understanding of what it says. As I pointed out, I have been a life long student of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Littlebillie, Perhaps the word impartial was the wrong one to use. As a college student and then a seminary student, I attended many classes on individual books of the Bible. Each verse was broken down one by one and studied and then considered in the whole context of the writing. The professors teaching these classes were Christians, so I suppose you could say they were not impartial. What I meant was that they were teaching the scripture all the way from one individual word in a verse all the way to the purpose and meaning of the whole book. They didn't start out with a subject like adultry, homosexuality, abortion, creation and then try to support their view with a hodge podge of scriptures strung together. Many of the popular books on bestseller lists today are by an author who has a certain view on a subject and they cobble together a defense of their position. Granted, they may have gone thru the same analysis of scripture as what I described, but their view is one man's opinion. As I have had many pastors and teachers tell me over the years......don't take my word for it, use my words as a springboard to to search for the answers for yourself. I have nothing against people reading these books. I just don't want them to blindly accept everything the book says without seeking God's enlightenment thru personal serious Bible study. There is no substitute. This may be my last post in this thread. I didn't follow my Dad's advice about not arguing religion or politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 I didn't follow my Dad's advice about not arguing religion or politics. I know many folks claim this motto for themselves. I'll never appreciate this sentiment, since these are two of the most important things we can discuss - Who or what should we worship? Who will we trust to govern our lives? These discussions may not always be fun, but I think they have value. Most other conversations are pretty shallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 I agree Rooster, politcs and religion are good healthy subjects of debate until somebody starts calling another a filthy infidel, or bloody heathen, or whacked out pagan or some other invective laced vituperative epithet (no, not the things on the uniform shoulders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungBlood Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Ok, I am just throwing out a question here. I have been curious as to how evolutionist explain the fact that evolution seems to go againist the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The theory of Evolution cleary proposes that creatures are gaining energy becoming more complex and organized in time. So how does the law of entropy fit in here? I am sure you guys have an answer, maybe even a valid answer. I am just curious as to how you guys handle that.(This message has been edited by YoungBlood) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Guys, I like a lively debate as well as anyone else. Just ask my wife, she'll tell you that I 'd argue with a fencepost. However, to have a good debate, both parties must have an open mind. Once a person decides they firmly have the answer, the only solution or the single way of approaching a subject....debating is fruitless and frustrating. And if there are two subjects that people are often personally convinced of, it's politics and religion. I watch the political talk shows almost nightly. The conservative commentators speak each night and write books telling how the liberals HATE America and want to destroy it. The liberals do the same by saying that the conservatives are fascist and draconian and want to take our civil liberties away from us. EVERY night this same old "debate" goes on and on because each side is totally convinced they are right and won't entertain anything the other has to say. Right now we have the Falwells and Robertsons blaming 911 on the homosexuals, lesbians, atheiests, etc. They are claiming that Islam is an evil religion, etc. Absolutism has no place in debates and people tend to be absolute in politics and religion. While I am always willing to debate the subjects, I won't with someone who shows that their mind is closed. I'm not accusing anyone here of being that way. I'm just saying that it is safer to pick and choose who you will debate these subjects with. Because I introduce a question about how long the "days" of creation are, I'm urged to read the Bible as if I have no clue what I'm talking about. As I pointed out before, it is because I read and "study" the Bible that I have the ideas I have. I don't discount the possibilty that the days were a literal 6 24 hour days. But my responders won't consider that it could not be. That ends the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Youngblood, I never thought I was an expert on evolution, and by what I have seen in these threads, I know I was right. But I will answer your quesiton based on my limited understanding. I dont see evolution as a means to always make things (whatever they are) more complex. Evolution comes about as life adapts to environmental changes. At times that may make things more complex, but other times it may be that simpler is better. And a question to the more astute on this topic, what is the difference between natural selection and evolution? Remember you are dealing with a novice here, so be kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorn Packte Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 I have been curious as to how evolutionist explain the fact that evolution seems to go againist the Second Law of Thermodynamics Sorry, thermodynamics really doesn't have much to do with evolution. However, if you want to stretch it, engergy is constanstly being added to the system by the sun. The sun's energy is absorbed by plants, animals eat the plants and gain energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungBlood Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 "Evolution comes about as life adapts to environmental changes" I am certainly no expert in this field either. However, I do believe what you are talking about here is adaptation or Micro Evolution. That is a species may evolve over time to better fit its environments. For instance I believe there were some snakes that were believed to have legs but after time they were no longer born with these legs. After having x-rays they see that they still have little deformed legs inside of them that never developed. It is believed that the snakes were better off with out them. However, the issue I wish to address is Macro Evolution. Single cell organisms become multiple cell organisms, which become creatures, which evolve out of their species and so on. Now, saying this, how does the second law of thermodynamics fit in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungBlood Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 "Sorry, thermodynamics really doesn't have much to do with evolution. However, if you want to stretch it, engergy is constanstly being added to the system by the sun. The sun's energy is absorbed by plants, animals eat the plants and gain energy." Ahhhh thanks....you really cleared that up for me! Ok, that was sarcasm for those who aren't too good at picking up the online tones of postings! ;-)(This message has been edited by YoungBlood) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorn Packte Posted October 18, 2002 Share Posted October 18, 2002 Ahhhh thanks....you really cleared that up for me! I don't know what sort of education you have but if I'd be shocked if is an Engineering or Physics degree. I don't have the time or energy to give you an education in thermodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red feather Posted October 18, 2002 Share Posted October 18, 2002 Youngblood, thermodynamics and evolution are different fields of study. To really stetch the attempt on an analogy, the more complex organism is able to utilize energy more effectively giving it an advantage the less complex organism does not have. Survival advantage. Kwc57, I also question the day (24 hour) idea. Not that it could not be the way it was, but was it? As an assignment years ago a class I was in was asked to develop a story that would explain why the world was the way it was. Not using any of the established ideas or beliefs and starting from 'day one' of the world. Try it sometime, gets interesting. Maybe,just a thought, what if the world that we percieve is a variation of the ideas put forth by the movie Matrix? YIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now