<p>innovative, i can only laugh. 
your last response literally beat down your own belief system to its entirety. heh heh</p>
<p>wait wat? my last post where I said jack that his post was right on the point? how is that ābeating down my own belief systemā?! can I get some elaboration here? And by the way, most ppl think that Iām a very conservative and āstubbornā Christian/Muslim/Jew out hereā¦but thatās not the case okay? </p>
<p>Iām not going to expose my sn of Richard Dawkins site hereā¦but I hope to encounter a lot of u there!</p>
<p>Jack4640- Wouldnāt it make sense that an omniscient and omnipotent God would be capable of protecting His word from errors?
As far as Mark not mentioning Christ walking on water, that doesnāt seem to be a major issue with the Bible.
-When Christ was born, only Mathew and Luke recorded it.
-When John the Baaptist was beheaded, John never mentioned it.
- When Christ fed 4000, Mathew and Mark talk about it- but not Luke and John.
-When Christ ascended into Heaven, only Mathew and Luke record it. </p>
<p>Simply because 1 or 2 gospels donāt mention a miracle or an event, as with the feeding of the 4000, doesnāt mean that it is āobviousā that it was a mistranslation. The Bible never contradicts itself.</p>
<p>yeah youāre all idiots</p>
<p>"I do believe that my religion is the one. "</p>
<p>Iāve been told that Christianity (and in particular, Catholicism) is the religion that makes the most sense (in the opinion of the teachers), not that it is the one. I donāt think that there can be a religion that is āthe oneā. If what Christians say is true, and we canāt fully understand God, then no religion can be the āoneā because no religion can fully understand God and what He wanted, or even know the full truth. </p>
<p>On the topic of evolution, Iām supposed to read something about the Catholic faith and evolution soon. I havenāt yet. All I know is that it has to do with looking at the gaps in the theory of evolution and relating it to religion. </p>
<p>On the topic of the Bible-If it was inspired divinely and itās infallible, it still doesnāt have to be literal. Someone can say something metaphorically because thatās the only way to explain it, and still be telling the truth. āThe world was created in 7 daysā could just be a metaphor for something that really happened, but not like that. The truth to that statement is that the world was created somehow-we all know that, or else we wouldnāt exist. However, ā7 daysā could mean a few million years each.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It contradicts itself all the time, because it was written by multiple authors over a centuries. </p>
<p>For example, how many animals went onto the Ark? In one verse of Genesis, itās 7 pairs of each clean animal and 2 of each unclean; in another, itās one pair of each animal. (Gen 7:2 and 7:8 respectively)</p>
<p>Or whatever happened to Judas? Does he return the silver and hang himself, as in Matthew? Or does he use the silver to buy a field, and then āburst asunderā spontaneously, as in Acts 1:18? How can both of these things have literally happened? </p>
<p>[Biblical</a> Literalism](<a href=āhttp://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm]Biblicalā>http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm)</p>
<p><a href=ā%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059786884-post165.html]#165[/url]ā>quote</a> Evolution is of course something that I canāt argue against. However, thought of a life being created randomly from molecules without intervention amuses me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neil deGrasse Tyson takes-on the ignorance (amusement) of even giants in science like Newton in this skillfully crafted essay: ā[The</a> Perimeter of Ignorance](<a href=āhttp://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php]Theā>http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php): A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledgeā:</p>
<p>
[quote]
ā¦Newtonās law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.</p>
<p>Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop-leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things rightā¦</p>
<p>ā¦A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de **Laplace confronted Newtonās dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, M</p>
<p><a href=ā%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059786884-post165.html]#165[/url]ā>quote</a> Evolution is of course something that I canāt argue against. However, thought of a life being created randomly from molecules without intervention amuses me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[Bacteria</a> make major evolutionary shift in the lab](<a href=āhttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html]Bacteriaā>Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab | New Scientist):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I am one for debates, please do not manufacture pretense that there is evenly spread intelligence on both sides of this talk. The debate was over centuries ago. Reality is single, and this is not up to interpretation. The arguments are perfected and the creationism is silly.</p>
<p>Furnish links on your own; but hereās a good one.</p>
<p>[15</a> Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American](<a href=āhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist]15ā>15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Scientific American)</p>
<p>Read Nietzsche on the genealogy of morals. he talks about how evil Christianity and religion is. :)</p>
<p>creationism :: rational argument</p>
<p>as </p>
<p>football player :: physicist</p>
<p>My religious beliefs: Oh GOD. I worship Sparty</p>
<p>Why canāt evolution be Godās hand shaping his creatures over the course of millions of years? Since time is a man-made concept, it is completely relative to a supreme power that has simply always been in existence. God may divide His ātimeā in billions or trillions of years instead of in seconds and minutes and days and years like we do.</p>
<p>I believe in evolution and I believe in God. Itās not impossible to believe in both. I donāt have to understand how they can both be possible, thatās what faith is for ;)</p>
<p><a href=ā%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060571634-post233.html]#233[/url]ā>quote</a> Why canāt evolution be Godās hand shaping his creatures over the course of millions of years?..</p>
<p>ā¦I believe in Godā¦
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many people formulate their philosophy based on evidence, not supposition. Evidence is all the more important when making public policy. Some (see [Kitzmiller</a> v. Dover Area School District](<a href=āhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District]Kitzmillerā>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia)) attempt to use supposition in science education. </p>
<p>As the [Judge</a> Jones on the Dover case noted](<a href=āhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_12.html]Judgeā>NOVA | Transcripts | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 12 | PBS), this (supposition vs. facts/evidence) has huge implications for our society:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>give it up guys, we all know that creationism is highly unlikely. Iām going to say this once and only once: PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME WROTE THE BIBLE!!!</p>
<p>What God gave us is a soul. It does not matter how we looked when we received the soul. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God gave no other animals a soul or creatures on another planet a soul.</p>
<p>I have a difficult time with people that think they know exactly how God did what when.</p>
<p>@jsmall</p>
<p>A Christian could easily look at the extreme complexity of the universe - from the vastness of galaxies down to the structure of matter and claim that it is unlikely that all of that simply manifested itself.</p>
<p>In my opinion, Creationism is a more plausible theory than the theory that the vast universe simply materialized out of nothingness.</p>
<p>I mean seriously. Picture the ābeginningā of the universe. An infinite sea of superheated gasses and particles flying all over the place. Now fast forward 20 billion years or so. I honestly can not grasp how ANYONE can believe that particles randomly colliding throughout the universe eventually became organized enough on their own to created our bodies, our complex brains, our industrialized world. It just doesnāt seem possible to me. I will continue to believe that a higher power guided the forming of the universe until science presents tangible evidence showing life can spontaneously form out of chemical compounds :)</p>
<p>Where did those superheated gasses and particles come from anyways?</p>
<p>Neither theories make any sense. If we were made by God, then who made God? If we were made from particles or another universe, then where did those come from?</p>
<p>Iād say I believe God created humans in their present form. As some posters said earlier, faith does not have to be logically substantiated. Now, Iām not for teaching creationism in science classes, and I think evolution should be taught in science classes. However, I think for me, evolution is a place where my academic life does not enter my personal life.</p>