Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted

Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative
scientist
that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame
on
me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are
well -
narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist
that
have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible
thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT


There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done
this
so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that

stop you?

Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements

like there are scientific "observations in the bible."

What I said was,

"I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible
is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict."

I did not say scientific observation, as you try to indite me of
saying. Five thousand years ago, when some of the Bible record was
first being written down, there were no evolutionary scientist making
any sort of enlightened observations. The so called scientist did not
show up until the last 4 or 5 hundred years. So any observations of the
solar cycle for example were not made by scientist but by various
religious types. Medical/Biology the same. Chemistry, Mathematics, you
name it. All these folks made observations and tried to come up with
some rational understanding of their observation. They did not have all
the tools available, like telescopes and microscopes, etc. but the
observations they made were often times astute and amazing. Granted
they were not involved in the theoretical science that we have today,
and tended to be of a more practicle subject matter for their time.

But then that brings me to my point about so called science today, is
often time of a theorical nature, and only recently in conflict with
the scriptures. Please note, that I did not say religion. Religion has
found many ways to get crosswise with truth of any vein, because it
could not allow for truth outside of its own scope of vision. The
scriptures are not presented as scientific document, and should not be
used as such. Faith as presented in the scriptures, was not intended
primarily as a support of science, nor science of faith, but as an
adjunct to each other. In other words, I do not believe that they are
in conflict with each other, nor dependent upon each other for
veracity. It is just our limited understanding of the scripture,
science, and the events that we are trying to observe, and interpret
that distorts their relationship to faith and science, and results in
apparent conflict.

So any label of narrowmindedness that is available, is yours to wear if
you choose. I still prefer to keep all my options open. I am glad that
you are so well read, "the bible and the Voyage," and so well taught. I
too was so taught, and not raised in a Christian home. I was not
exposed to the scriptures, growing up, but to evolution. My dad was a
geophysicist with Exxon, and he and I still have some rather strained
conversations. However, I think that you show your lack of
understanding, to say I don't know what I am talking about, you don't
hardly know me to judge me!


When challenged
to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist).
Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can
claim
to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was
taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion
years
ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black
smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first
lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans
and
adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is
where
life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This
is
how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish
hypotheses,
and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support
those
hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this.

There is a big difference between not knowing what I am talking about,
and choosing not to talk about it. There are plenty of books to be read
that go into great detail about science and the scripture. I am sure,
that as well read as you are, and a lover of knowledge that you claim,
that you would find these volumes enlightening. You may not agree with
them, but please don't limit yourself to the base of knowledge you have
acknowledged so far.

As far as myself, I opened the can of worms, knowing that it would
likely attract a feeding frenzy. That did not mean I intended to jump
into the water myself. If you notice, you will find that I have limited
my own participation in this thread since then. I figured I would learn
more by doing more listening. I realize that this is a subject that
some can not resist getting into a real bruhahhah over. Personally I
doubt that anything that any of us say in this forum, is the last word
on most any subject, and certainly not this subject, but it appears
that some think so of themselves. I just like to have a good time
getting to know folks a little better, sometimes at my expense,
sometimes at theirs. I don't think of it as trolling, because I am
still here, checking other subjects, and I love paddling to boot and a
good laugh now and then when folks get so serious.


So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged,"

for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to
yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps,
over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be
difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently
muster.

Rick

Okay, let's go back to the Bible, and I capitalize the name as an
acknowlegement of respect. The Bible is a great book that has been
around for a long time, and stood the test of that time. And since you
know at least the one scripture, "Judge not lest you be judged." Then
you certainly understand that judgement takes on at least two forms.
Condemnation and discernment. This scripture says don't condemn others,
or you will be condemned with the same condemnation. There are plenty
of other scriptures that tell us to be discerning, for example- "Be
wise as the serpent, harmless as doves." So in one case, we are told
not to judge, and in the other we are told to judge. Now this apparent
contradiction is based on the limits of our language, and often times
our unwillingness to honestly seek to resolve the conflict.

There is another troubling scripture. "The fool has said in his heart
that there is no God." We understand that the heart is not the center
of our thought process, scientifically speaking. However, the men of
faith understood that the issues of life originated in our heart, the
center of faith. In our culture we have emphasised science, and
forgotten the heart. Ironically the word fool has to do with the
inability to think at all, as in a vegetative state. So according to
the scriptures, the man who says there is no God in the depths of his
heart, ends up being unable to trully think at all, scientifically
speaking. True scientist would have to be men of faith by definition.
So do you believe there is no God? TnT

On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

What I said was,

[...]

Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable.
It represents what many mainstream religions practice
(See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support
of science vs faith).

Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the
spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot
prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments
in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists
of many persuasions can't deal with this.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

What I said was,

[...]

Most of what you say in this post is perfectly reasonable.
It represents what many mainstream religions practice
(See previous post by me to Weiser about the RC support
of science vs faith).

Science is about the physical universe; faith, about the
spiritual world. They are independent in that one cannot
prove anything about the spiritual world with experiments
in the physical world. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists
of many persuasions can't deal with this.

Mike

Fortunately, I am not of the "many persuasions", unfortunately for them
as some of them have found found out. If you think I have been a pain
in your rear, try being them when I have them in my signts! Hehehe! Now
that can be fun! TnT