Anybody Else Used To Be A Republican?

These people are in the minority (and I can't think of any prominent scientists that say that). IMO, strict atheism is wrongheaded. The atheists I've known haven't been science/math types, because as I was explaining before, the more you learn about math and science the more you go "hmmmmm".

 

Fixed.

 

Word. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that God's creation would inevitably follow natural laws, because the fixed natural laws, being a reflection of God's nature, would infuse the entire creation from the point of beginning.

 

so what are we arguing about?

 

Ah well. The whackjobs on both sides of the aisle seem to get all the press.

 

YES.

 

Oddly enough, notwithstanding my discussion with Ike about morality, I think we may have reached some level of agreement.

 

and thats a valid argument to make, but it lacks objectivity. Which is what I was arguing in the first place. Which means that the only rational way to arrive at a baseline moral structure is through social interaction and the formation of a consensus that most everybody agrees upon. which still could be 'wrong', but on some level, we content ourselves with believing we are right because everyone we know believes we are right, and because its something that as a society, we have agreed upon.

 

Oh man, let's not go there.

 

don't get me wrong

i just mean that changes to it aren't feared by the scientific community, they are expected

 

I still want to know why "day" means "billions of years".

 

back in my day...

i have no problem with "day" being roughly translated from "era" or something

 

I can run a mile in just under 10 seconds.

And when I say "seconds" I really mean "minutes".

 

So 12 pages gonna do it then?

 

many people believe this. scientists, christians, whatever. and its a fine belief to have. the only people I have seen that have a problem reconciling this with thier view are the some of the ones that believe that God is constantly active in our everyday lives, since such a thing supports, but does not insist upon, the notion of a creator that was only active at the beginning.

some literalists are frightened by that notion.

 

If "day" and "era" mean roughly the same thing, then maybe "resurrect from the dead" and "got well from a really bad cold" do too. And maybe "water into wine" really means "wine that tasted like water was made to taste better by adding something to it".

 

I knew what you meant, but "just a theory" is the battle cry of the other side. People need more science education, not just dumping stuff together in chemistry lab, but how real-world scientific reasearch is done. You don't make a name for yourself by confirming an existing theory but by proving it wrong. There are real incentives to challenge the establishment.

However, even science is not immune to politics. But that's the fault of the politicians and beauracrats who hand out the research money based on their own agendas, and not the scientists...not to say that there aren't petty political squabbles among scientists.

 

It doesn't necessarily, but try and follow me here:

"Day" - in Hebrew "yom" (as in, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement). Hebrew does not have a separate word for "24 hour day", and "yom" has multiple meanings. It is used to mean 24 hours at times, but in other places in the Bible it refers to indefinite time periods or events, such as "the Day of the Lord". Sentences and stories are often begun with phrases like "in that day" or "in the day that such-and-so was King of Syria" or the like.

We use the english word in the same idiomatic way at times. People talk about what they used to do "back in the day". When people say "the other day" they aren't referencing a specific time frame.

"Yom" can also mean "era", as in the Book of Judges where it says "in that day there was no King in Israel." The time frame of "yom" is not defined. If indeed Genesis 1-2 is intended to be a poetic metaphor as opposed to literal chronology, then this use of the word "yom" fits right in. Now, I'm not saying that that is the correct interpretation, but it is one possible and permissible reading. And if our science is correct regarding the age of the Earth, then we would have to look at the Genesis account from that point of view.

 

That notion is not taught in Scripture, in fact quite the opposite. God cannot be inactive. The whole creation only runs because He wills it. The "laws of nature" are a part of that. He's outside of time and space anyway...the concepts don't apply to Him, so to think of it in terms of God's being "active" at a moment in time and "inactive" at another is not correct.

 

You need to quit thinking of everything in your modern 21st century American English way.

Thousands of years ago, people thought quite differently than we do now, and language was used quite differently. You can't pigeonhole modern conceptions of usage into ancient documents.