Can't religion and evolution be merged as one?

[CyraEm]

No, actually. It isn't a sin to have faith/trust in something else. It's only when that faith is placed above God is it a problem. The way Danmac uses the word faith is more of a literary device than a proclamation of faith in the biblical sense.

Agreed, with the addition that a devout person would trust God to ensure the parachute's reliability.

 

[Autodidact]

Faith can mostly be tested during times of fear and crisis. The same way a person trusts that a parachute will open when they jump from a plane. That person would have to ignore the fear of death by trusting that the parachute would save his or her life. Now I know as parachutists become accustomed to jumping that the fear is replaced with fun, but the first time I jumped from a plane I was terrified. I had to place a great amount of faith in the parachute before i would jump.

So, for example, you could jump out of the plane with a prayer instead of a parachute and see how well that works for you?

 

[McBell]

So, for example, you could jump out of the plane with a prayer instead of a parachute and see how well that works for you?

Now that would be a test of faith.
One wonders if his faith is strong enough to try it...

 

[Danmac]

So, for example, you could jump out of the plane with a prayer instead of a parachute and see how well that works for you?

People have experienced complete parachute failure and lived to tell about it.

 

[McBell]

People have experienced complete parachute failure and lived to tell about it.

Seems to me that having the parachute is a fairly strong indication that they were NOT testing their faith in prayer.

Unless of course you are going to claim they were testing their faith that the chute would open....

or perhaps you are saying they were testing their faith in the prayer that the chute would open?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Evolution would only be at odds with a particular sub set of religions like there have never to the best of my knowledge any issues about evolution with Buddhism. They quite happily embrace its theories. Just as some ancient religions were unwilling to accept the spherical earth paradigm.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, no. The earth is a slightly obloid nearly spherical object. At least, that's what the scientific evidence seems to indicate.

Don't you think splitting hairs over the shape of the planet is abit much? The Earth may not be a 100% perfect sphere, but close enough that is it really worth zeroing it out as a flaw? Especially when an explanation of how the fossil record does support ToE, and that we have plenty of documented cases of it in the process in modern time would have been more productive than picking out a very minor error?

 

[sniper762]

does science and religion mix? it does for me because i believe:

Science does not agree that matter (the earth, stars, man or any other tangible thing) either be created (As stated in the beginning words of the Bible) or destroyed. In other words, you can’t make something from nothing. I believe, however that God “made” the earth as we know it from what was already present, thus ( In the beginning the earth was void and without form. Darkness covered the face of the deep. God moved upon the earth causing the dry land to appear and the waters to be separated). This sounds to me like the earth was already present, and God formed it into a place for us, (man) to live on. I believe that the cave man, the dinosaurs and all that science speaks of as existing millions of years ago is not related to man (Adam) and the formation of the earth and all its related subjects “created” by God as spoken of in the beginning as stated in the Bible.
I believe God made light in the beginning, through his manipulation of the sun and the elements of the earth so as the sun provided light during the day for the earth. The moon also, by its reflection of the sun’s light provided light to the earth by night. All this was arranged by God in the beginning of time as we know it (since the formation of man, (Adam). The sun, the moon, the earth and the universe already existed. The earth had no life until God used it and replenished it with life, provided it to be self sufficient, making man and woman, thus starting the process of procreation leading to the earth and life as it is today.
Who is to say that this was not the first time that this had been done? We , as man, the descendants of Adam, God’s first introduction of human life consisting of a body and a spirit (The spirit being put into the body by God, at birth, the body being made by man, thus, procreation) to this world as we know it is the beginning of this dispensation of life as we know it. He is “our” beginning and will be “our” end, regardless of what existed before our existence. Man could have been on this earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, as science teaches. It could have been evolved man or a previous design of God, but not one “in his image”. If science and theology correctly coincide, which I think that they do, then note how man, made in “god’s image” has technologically advanced over the last 6000 years since Adam as opposed to the prehistoric man that science speaks of. Prehistoric man and the descendants of Adam must be an entirely different species and unrelated. The Bible provides a history of this beginning as well as words for us to live by. As we live here and continue to learn and progress spiritually, we will eventually become “like God” and worthy of his kingdom.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Don't you think splitting hairs over the shape of the planet is abit much? The Earth may not be a 100% perfect sphere, but close enough that is it really worth zeroing it out as a flaw? Especially when an explanation of how the fossil record does support ToE, and that we have plenty of documented cases of it in the process in modern time would have been more productive than picking out a very minor error?

One could also split hairs over evolution such as punctuated equilibrium verses gradualism or the out of Africa theory verses the multiregional theory but that does not necessarily add one ounce of truth to the doctrine of creationism. Creationist often interpret scientists changing their minds on theories as a kind or weakness, but I think far from it because it demonstrates better flexibility of free thought.

 

[David M]

does science and religion mix? it does for me because i believe:

Science does not agree that matter (the earth, stars, man or any other tangible thing) either be created (As stated in the beginning words of the Bible) or destroyed.

Yes it does, and it has amply demonstrated that matter can be created and destroyed. Its a fact that it can be.

 

[sniper762]

can you provide an example of that creation?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Now that would be a test of faith.
One wonders if his faith is strong enough to try it...

I just had twenty eight minutes of the world trying to test my faith; living in the duality of posting here, eating in Phoenix. In the world, I was silent; the world backed the **** off. Manifestation of Will thread, if you're interested. Almost like documented evidence.

But no. I've met but one other in this life, got faith like this fool. So, if everybody agrees about testing faith; I guess I'm just a waste of space. How come they don't burn witches no more? I wouldn't mind.

 

[Autodidact]

People have experienced complete parachute failure and lived to tell about it.

So is that a good way to test your faith? Jump out of an airplane without a parachute? In your view?

 

[Autodidact]

Don't you think splitting hairs over the shape of the planet is abit much? The Earth may not be a 100% perfect sphere, but close enough that is it really worth zeroing it out as a flaw? Especially when an explanation of how the fossil record does support ToE, and that we have plenty of documented cases of it in the process in modern time would have been more productive than picking out a very minor error?

There's a point to it. Once we thought the earth was flat. We were wrong. It's almost flat. From our point of view, a tiny little curvature, but when continued over massive distances, makes a sphere. Then we though it was a sphere. We were wrong. It's not quite spherical; it's just a tiny bit bulged in the middle. But we were much, much less wrong than when we thought it was flat. Then we thought it bulged in the middle. We were wrong. It bulges just a tiny bit just a bit below the middle. So it's a tiny tiny bit pear-shaped. We're probably still a bit wrong. But we're so much less wrong than we used to be, we call it close enough--it's a fact. That's very basic to how science works.

Evolution is just the same. We were wrong when we thought God magically poofed a pair of lions into existence out of nothing 6000 years ago. Now we know a lot more about lion evolution, but we're still wrong. We're just so much less wrong than we used to be, that we call it close enough--a fact.

That's how scientific progress works. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.

*hat tip to Isaac Asimov.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes it does, and it has amply demonstrated that matter can be created and destroyed. Its a fact that it can be.[/font][/size]

What?:sarcastic

 

[Danmac]

So is that a good way to test your faith? Jump out of an airplane without a parachute? In your view?

So then you agree that faith can be tested?

 

[Danmac]

Seems to me that having the parachute is a fairly strong indication that they were NOT testing their faith in prayer.

Unless of course you are going to claim they were testing their faith that the chute would open....

or perhaps you are saying they were testing their faith in the prayer that the chute would open?

Prayer is only one of the avenues thru which faith travels, it is not what you put your faith in. In this case the faith would be placed in the parachute's ability to save ones life. Testing faith is a simple matter of not allowing one to be handcuffed by fear. Faith is going forward when fear and reason says not to.

 

[Father Heathen]

Faith is going forward when fear and reason says not to.

 

[McBell]

Prayer is only one of the avenues thru which faith travels, it is not what you put your faith in. In this case the faith would be placed in the parachute's ability to save ones life. Testing faith is a simple matter of not allowing one to be handcuffed by fear. Faith is going forward when fear and reason says not to.

So you freely admit that your example is a failed test of faith?
I mean, the parachute did not open...


Faith is believing something that your intellect rejects.
Otherwise there is no need for faith.

 

[Autodidact]

So then you agree that faith can be tested?

Whether a person has faith can be tested. Whether the thing the person has faith in is real cannot; that's why they call it faith.

Now would you be so kind as to answer my question? Thank you.