Victory for evolution in Texas

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

Saw this in SourCandy's sig, while reading other threads:

LOL thats pretty good.

[ElNono]

I think this is the key to the problem. I do not believe the entire Bible in any current English form. None stray too far away from the King James version, which in my view, was clearly written to control the people.

So you're telling me you don't really know that the 'true, original Bible' really said, but you do believe in it...

[DarrinS]

There are too many simpletons in this thread that think you fall into one of two buckets: the atheist evolutionist bucket or the bat- crazy Bible-thumping literalist bucket

If you believe in evolution, that doesn't make you an athiest. If you believe in some form of a "higher power", that doesn't mean you think the world is only a few thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, I can understand your desire to take the beauty and functionality of the universe and seek a more orderly explanation that science can provide right now. From a pure mathematics point of view the Universe is absolutely amazing in its functionality to me. Its hard not to see an order that must have been laid down to create that.

That being said, thats simply not scientific. That desire to make sense of things and the beauty behind them isn't wrong by any means, its just not scientific.

[MannyIsGod]

If you believe in evolution, that doesn't make you an athiest. If you believe in some form of a "higher power", that doesn't mean you think the world is only a few thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc.

Agree with this 100%.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, I can understand your desire to take the beauty and functionality of the universe and seek a more orderly explanation that science can provide right now. From a pure mathematics point of view the Universe is absolutely amazing in its functionality to me. Its hard not to see an order that must have been laid down to create that.

That being said, thats simply not scientific. That desire to make sense of things and the beauty behind them isn't wrong by any means, its just not scientific.

They are not even questions that science attempts to address, so I agree that they are not scientific.

[fyatuk]

I think this is the key to the problem. I do not believe the entire Bible in any current English form. None stray too far away from the King James version, which in my view, was clearly written to control the people.

The bigger issue to me is that there's probably not many Bible's in any form that aren't descended from the Constantine Bible, which stemmed from Constantine's need to perfect the Bible.

[spursncowboys]

seriously, you shouldn't have to get confirmation from your mother about whether or not you are a stupid .

This post definitely confirms that you are.

[spursncowboys]

As a liberal, I hope science teachers give F minuses to any kid brazen enough to identify himself as a christian within the walls of a public school. That violates my rights to be free from religion.

absolutely!

[ElNono]

I don't think it's a matter of science not trying to address them. Science has certain parameters that it abides by. Outside that realm you're looking at a different specialty, such as theology, philosophy, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

They are not even questions that science attempts to address, so I agree that they are not scientific.

I don't think that is true. Modern day physics is addressing many of these questions at their core. Biologists are definitely trying to find the origin of life but its a pretty difficult question to answer.

I'm not incredibly well versed at all, but the reason I find so much modern day physics interesting is because of its potential to unlock so many huge answers for humanity.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're telling me you don't really know that the 'true, original Bible' really said, but you do believe in it...

I've read some translations from the original scripts we know of. Many of the words mean different things, like my recount of Adam coming from two different words. One meaning mankind, the other a proper name. The earlier definition "mankind" indicates a race of humans on the planet, before the story of Cain and Abel.

Besides, who did Cain marry?

[Blake]

Good luck.

I'm betting I won't need much luck.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think it's a matter of science not trying to address them. Science has certain parameters that it abides by. Outside that realm you're looking at a different specialty, such as theology, philosophy, etc.

Not all philosophies can be solved by science by any means. I don't think physics can tell us much about morality (although I'm sure some neurologists and behavior psychologists would disagree - and probably rightfully so) but I do think that science can one day answer a lot of the origin of the universe. At least, I hope it can. And hopefully in my lifetime!

[Wild Cobra]

The bigger issue to me is that there's probably not many Bible's in any form that aren't descended from the Constantine Bible, which stemmed from Constantine's need to perfect the Bible.

You mean the Roman emperor after 300 AD?

Perhaps, but what was his understanding of it then, and how much did it reflect cultural belief and understanding of the time, or even his desire to control the populous?

Isn't that about the time the false Christmas holiday was started? Is he the reason Christmas started, or was that someone else using religion to conquer an enemy?

[Blake]

Except that's exactly how the Bible was created anyway. You have multiple authors all writing parts of the Bible in their own interpretation (even with the same divine inspiration, individual accounts would vary).

so the divine inspiration wasn't very divine in some instances.

doesn't inspire much confidence in the omnipotent.

Even if you view the whole as a literary prose, parts of the Bible can be thought of as accurate depictions.

historically? sure, why not.

magically? no. It's either all true magic or all BS.

It's like a movie "inspired by true events." Some things are very close to accurate, while others are very far apart and done to make the story work. You don't have to believe the entirety is literal to believe parts of it are.

Right. People pick and choose out of it what fits their belief system.

It's financially beautiful that way.

There's also the fact that the Bible most people read has gone through 2 major revisions, and parts have gone through up to 6 or 7 translations. Hard to keep the accuracy through all that.

Nothing is too hard for God.

It says so in the original Hebrew text.

Personally, I view the entire Bible as a series of parables, and therefore none of it is literal, but I also don't consider myself Christian, so my opinion doesn't realy matter.

Personally, I wish the Bible would stay away from the science classroom once and for all.

[ElNono]

I've read some translations from the original scripts we know of. Many of the words mean different things, like my recount of Adam coming from two different words. One meaning mankind, the other a proper name. The earlier definition "mankind" indicates a race of humans on the planet, before the story of Cain and Abel.

So you only believe in those translations?

Besides, who did Cain marry?

I really couldn't care less.

[Blake]

This post definitely confirms that you are.

no it doesn't.

but seriously, if you have to call mom and ask her if you are a stupid because you don't believe in evolution, chances are you are one.

[Blake]

Besides, who did Cain marry?

Adam lived for 930 years. That's a lot of sex.

My Biblical guess is that Cain married his sister.

[Wild Cobra]

So you only believe in those translations?

I believe what I read. There isn't any one single way it can be translated. Like our language, there are some words that have more than one meaning. If we believe both science and religion, there are some ways of translating it that cannot be, but there is the other meanings that can still apply. By eliminating the impossible, the Bible still has meaning. Your question is too general for a simple answer. There is still wide la ude in the way the original languages can be interpreted.

I really couldn't care less.

Why not? It shows the Creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old, are wrong.

[fyatuk]

so the divine inspiration wasn't very divine in some instances.

doesn't inspire much confidence in the omnipotent.

Just because you can control everything doesn't mean you do. Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.

historically? sure, why not.

magically? no. It's either all true magic or all BS.

Just shows how limited you view the world, there.

Nothing is too hard for God.

It says so in the original Hebrew text.

Hard for Man. See above. God gave his Word, and has left it to Man to figure out what to do with it.

Personally, I wish the Bible would stay away from the science classroom once and for all.

Not going to argue that. I agree the Bible should not be in any class except Philosphy, Religion, and maybe History.

[ElNono]

Not all philosophies can be solved by science by any means.

I don't think science strives to solve anything but scientific problems. What has happened in the past is that theology and philosophy have attributed themselves the explanation of certain testable phenomena that eventually science was able to explain with mere reproducible scientific facts.

[Blake]

Why not? It shows the Creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old, are wrong.

don't need Cain to prove that theory wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Adam lived for 930 years. That's a lot of sex.

My Biblical guess is that Cain married his sister.

Then you forget the story.

He found a wife in another land.

[Spurminator]

Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.

Gotta disagree with that. In my experience, most people believe "in His own image" means God is a dude.