Where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

Well, certainly not everyone does. I didn't for a long time...

My business partner and I started working together many moons ago, and at the time, I was not saved. To this day, he is not saved (much as I might try to splain it to him [kinda like good ol Chip here ] ).

Anyway, we were having a discussion about evolution one day and I brought up the point of a day is like a thousand to God, so who are we to say that He had to do everything in one of our days? He pointed out that if I could change even a single word in the Bible to fit my beliefs, I could change the whole thing. He went further and said that I was calling the whole Bible a liar.

I thought about this for a few months and studied the Bible and lots of commentary. I came to the conclusion that he was correct. I am not constraining other Christians (or anyone for that matter) to my beliefs, I am just stating my own.

Not scientific, but hey, what do you expect from a hillbilly?

How so? Because the axiom I apply is different? There is still scientific method and peer review on all things to do with science. Why on Earth would you discount someone for their beliefs if they follow the rules applied to everyone else? Makes no sense Jake.

Just as does creationist science.

You are incorrect. Creationist certainly may disagree with long-held beliefs in science. They are theories, and as such are fallible, correct? There have been many eyes opened by creationists as to carbon (and other half-life methods) dating to produce false results (on a regular basis).

Because science might be proved wrong through scientific method?

Not so. There are plenty of creation scientist in both fields. The fundamentals are not necessarily wrong (although I believe some are), but mostly the conclusions are in question.

No, they choose to reconcile our knowledge and observations based on their preconceived ideas of what X and Y mean. You might be astonished at what creationists have hypothesized in regard to the beginning of life. You also might be surprised at how many agnostics have swayed in favor of a creator.

This is just not true. Because a scientist believes in God in no way bars them from peer review. How long did it take to get DNA evidence as admissible to a court room? Is it still admissible in all cases? How long do you think it will take for science to recognize some of the more robust conclusions creationists have?

Not true at all. They already believe in ID. They do want to prove the Biblical correctness, but in a scientific manner. I am not talking about wacko 'scientists' out to make a name and a buck for themselves, I am talking about real scientists working in their field every day. The only difference is the way they hypothesize.

Maybe some Christians do. I do not. I see what I see, and I let people know what my belief is. I don't think you will find me in a single spot saying that some one else is wrong and they should follow me.

Sure glad scientists don't think like that, or you would not be typing on that computer.

No one ever said religion is advancing science (well not me anyway). I do however certainly believe that there are a lot of creationist that are advancing science everyday.

Well, I can not speak for organized religion. Many of the things I see in the media make me sick as well. I would hope Christians could open up their Bible and read what Christ had to say, and learn from Him. But, sadly, many will never do so, but stay as sheep behind a man claiming to be the voice of God (this is not about Catholics [well, some of them maybe], so please do not go there).

I get it... That does not mean I will change my beliefs because the world has told me to do so. Nor does it mean that they have to listen to me.

Chip, I don't say that about your non-god... Please be civil, I am extending you no less.

It would be extremely silly for you to anthropomorphize "nothing" wouldn't it?

Isn't that what you are doing since you don't believe in God?

Nope. I'm commenting on the character of your god as portrayed by your holy book.

But you do not believe He exists do you? And if you say. no but you do, are you saying that I am what gives you awareness

But thats just it, creationism does not submit to the scientific method, as it cannot be falsified. As I say over and over. Would you accept any conclusion that resulted in creationism being proven false? No. Because to prove creationism flase is to prove the bible false. To prove the bible false means that the plethora of biblical teachings falls short.

So unlike with science, creationism requires a fundamental principal that must be in place to for the model to work. Creationists don't follow the same rules as the rest of science. Ther eis no generally accepted wave of creationsist science articles in international scientific journals. I am sure the creationsists publish thier own journal and call it peer review.

Also I am not adressing the personal beleifs of scientists working in scietific fileds. I am addressing the foibles of so called "creation science."

I too read on all the myriad of sites put up by creationsists thaty they are punching huge holes in carbon dating methods. I have yet to see any writings on this work in a professional archeological or paleontoligcal journal. It may be out there, but I haven't seen it, and it sure isn't popping up in my searches for it.

If people had preserved the creationsist/funadmentalist view of science, we would still be living in the 15th Century, when men like compernicus and Gallileo lived in fear of church censure. Science has progressed in spite of religion and not because of it.

And inmy buddhist world, science and religion are simply two different things. Scince describes the mechanics of the universe we live in, religion, or philospohy guide us through the transitions of life. Each to me is essential. But Religion is no more a science than a rock is a pear.

Quite the stretch there, Kurgan. Can I not characterize a character in a book as a cruel bastard because I know the book is a work of fiction, or by doing so would I be somehow implying that I believe they actually exist?

Ok Jake, I think I see it... Let me splain...

No, let me sum up...

I am not advocating organized religion in science. I am advocation theists in science.

I have no problem with a Muslim scientist trying to prove that The Holy Quran is correct. Nor do I have a problem with a Christian trying to prove the Bible is correct. I have no problem with an atheist trying to prove whatever they may. But above all, the findings of all of them must be measured by a single standard.

I think that what Christians (and other theists) put forth are downplayed by science in general for the same basic fear you speak of when they seemingly prove a theistic belief. That does not make them any less valid, but it does keep the world from seeing them. Hence, the rise of creationism to the public since the internet.

Honestly, take a look at what creationists say about carbon dating (and other half-life methods). Can you not see the insincerity of it all? To get a dating, scientist must provide a specimen and an estimated age to the laboratory. Can you imagine what people would think if they gave you a board and asked you to measure it. Only to have you say that I can not give you an accurate measurement without your guess of what it is? To me that is just insane.

If you have a proof positive way to give something quantitative values, it better darn well work in all cases, whether you have a guesstimate or not.

Just having fun with you man. I still would ask that you respect my belief in God by not disrespecting Him (no matter how foolish it may seem to you).

Waves right back at you

Digs for a favorite quote....

John 1:1-5 (TLB)
1:1 Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. 3 He created everything there is-nothing exists that he didn't make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darkness-and the darkness can never extinguish it.

Yes, yes, I know, the Living Bible translation has some serious flaws, but I love the way it addresses John. Just thrusts it in your face. Course this is the first book of the Bible I read before I became a Christian, and it was real easy for this hillbilly to understand.

That's a bummer.

To me it makes no difference if the stories in the bible are literally true, since they hold the same meaning and teach the same lessons either way. Jesus liked to teach with parables since it made it easier for people to get at the deeper meaning of what he was saying. I suppose the slippery slope argument applies to this as well, though. But even in the extreme, if nothing in the bible is factually true, then I still think it teaches the same message.

In the end is who or what do you put your faith in.

I certainly agree with your last statement Zuzu.

But on the other, I'm pretty sure that is not the case. From what I see, God is protecting those who will fall away quickly. "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." Luke 12:48 (AMP)

Matthew 13:10-11 (AMP)
10 Then the disciples came to Him and said, Why do You speak to them in parables ?
11 And He replied to them, To you it has been given to know the secrets and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Mark 4:10-12 (AMP)
10 And as soon as He was alone, those who were around Him, with the Twelve [apostles], began to ask Him about the parables .
11 And He said to them, To you has been entrusted the mystery of the kingdom of God [that is, the secret counsels of God which are hidden from the ungodly]; but for those outside [of our circle] everything becomes a parable,
12 In order that they may [indeed] look and look but not see and perceive, and may hear and hear but not grasp and comprehend, lest haply they should turn again, and it [their willful rejection of the truth] should be forgiven them. [Isaiah 6:9,10; Matthew 13:13-15.]

Luke 8:9-10 (AMP)
9 And when His disciples asked Him the meaning of this parable,
10 He said to them, To you it has been given to [come progressively to] know (to recognize and understand more strongly and clearly) the mysteries and secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables , so that, [though] looking, they may not see; and hearing, they may not comprehend. [Isaiah 6:9,10; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2.]

John 16:25 (AMP)
25 I have told you these things in parables (veiled language, allegories, dark sayings); the hour is now coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures of speech, but I shall tell you about the Father in plain words and openly (without reserve).

Umm, and God, speaking through Moses in Genesis forgot about the other creations? Just skipped his mind when he was dictating? One creation can't be supported scientifically, two or more have even less evidence.

Ahh, finally some one in the thread is getting ignorant! I knew it would happen, just took a little longer than I figured. Firstly, dumb-ass, Catholics are Christians. They were Christians before there were Protestants. Secondly, Catholics are church goers too. Thirdly, ALL RELIGION IS MAN MADE.

Any proof of those beliefs? Any physical evidence whatsoever? Or just more mental masturbation? At least when an "evolutionist" scientist says he has a theory, he has some, a little, a smidgen, of physical evidence to back it up. That's the difference between religion and science and why they shouldn't be mixed.

Umm, yeah, sure. Catholics are Christians. The Pope leads the Catholic Church. Your argument is as stupid as saying that you aren't a Christian because your church is lead by a Minister! Catholics worship the same dead Jewish guy that all Christians claim is god.

Actually, I think he said, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES as WE FORGIVE THOSE who trespass against us."

Nothing about believing some dead guy is god or anything like that. The Bible never claims that everything in the Bible is true.

Really?

John 14:6 (AMP)
6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.

If you would, can you point to one thing in the Bible that has been proven incorrect?

What is the reference to the Lord's Prayer for? Your emphasis has to do with the way God judges us based on the way we judge others. Nothing to do with us getting into Heaven...

Actually your analogy is the bad one. God, supposedly, is all powerful. So God could just as easily send a non-believer to heaven as to hell. If we are the child in this analogy and God is the parent, then God could easily keep the traffic from killing us. It's not a natural result that not being a Christian causes one to go to hell, if it's true, it's a direct divine act that sends the non-believer to hell. And that's why I'm not a Christian. There are good people who are not Christian and the Christian God sends them to hell. For eternity. That's evil.

It is certainly a choice we all have to make. Jesus has given everyone a free way to go to Heaven. God gets to choose who goes to Heaven or hell, not us, no matter how many times we say so or how many times we say it is not fair.

That, of course, is my belief, and people are welcome to dismiss it if they like...

But, I would read through the rest of the thread because most of this has been hashed out already I believe (there's that belief thing again).

Chimps (are apes) did evolve too. Humans are no more descended from chimps than I am from my second cousin. Evolutionary Theory states that humans and apes had common ancestors, not that one descended from the other. Evolution does not require a species to improve, because, firstly evolution is the description of a process and not a person (and can't REQUIRE anything) and secondly, change in species comes about due to random genetic mutation in individuals. Mutations that give the individual an "edge" in a particular environment tend to be passed on to descendants, mutations that don't usually die out.

That is the essence of religious fascism. Respect my belief by doing or not doing X. I don't respect your belief. I respect your right to have those beliefs. There is a difference. If you believe the earth is flat do you get to tell others to respect your belief by not mentioning that the world is round? By not showing photos of the earth from space? All people have the equal right to believe what they will, but that doesn't make all beliefs equal.

God's judgement has nothing to do with getting into heaven? If God has forgiven us of our trespasses he could still send us to hell? That just doesn't seem fair.