You Atheists! You are obsessed with nothing! You are always ramming nothing down someone’s throat!

proselytize

intransitive verb

1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause transitive verb

Jeanniebean, are there any particular questions you have so that I can clarify? (Still figuring out this posting system.)

The science vs. religion debate is not my area of particular interest, but I teach a little on the area of religion and so have a working knowledge of the topic. And, of course, I have my own opinions.

Yes. I have another topic going on in the general religion forum addressing the logic of the creation story of Adam being created by God or a supreme being from mud.

It was said that evolution was not logical and did not make any sense. I don't know a lot about evolution but I regard and respect it as scientific theory. It does not have all the answers.

But my thread assumes the premise that the creation story of Adam being made out of mud is true.

My question is posed... how would you explain that logically? How did God (a supreme being) do that? What logical or reasonable explanation can you come up with?

I am asking people to use their imagination as if they were writing a believable science fiction account of the event and the method used to accomplish this feat.

Please visit my thread there if you have any ideas: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/203367

You know, JB, that is one thing I have never really understood. How you can have people, get so offended at the thought that that we "Came from"(to use their words) chimps, or apes, but be perfectly fine believing we came from dirt.

Hi, new to the community, saw this topic, thought I'd add my two cents as a church worker, Christian and scholar.

Evolution and the Bible are compatible in that they were never meant to be compatible. They deal with two entirely different things: evolution with science, the Bible with faith and the revelation of God. The truths present in the Bible are of a different nature than scientific truths. The Bible present spiritual truths revealed through story and science offers "hard facts" that only further reveal (if you are a person of faith) the beauty and complexity of the world God has gifted us.

Then again, my understanding is based upon my belief that the Bible is the inspired (not inerrant) Word of God and that the humanness of its various authors and communities is very much interwoven in its texts.

Perhaps this has already been said. I haven't read all the posts. Apologies if I'm simply repeating another point.

Voile;

I've heard contrary information to that "fact".

There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different.

It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure.

At least this is what my research has shown.

As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable.

We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it.
For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view.

I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism.

So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories.
Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith....

Is it not?

Krim at Beach

You do realize I am a degree holder myself from a 4 year institution? Bachelor of Science. And you?

What does proselytizing mean? I might be guilty of it too. I have gotten in heated discussion trying to convert Christians into born-again atheists and humanists!

OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend.

Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone.

Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing.

And that is the point I am trying to make with you here:
... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!!

'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest.

Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.)

And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count.

The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine.

If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!!

But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma.

Watch the video, and tell me what you think.

There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested.

I have a degree in Directing/Design (B.A.)
and a Dual Degree in Mathematics (emphasis on Logic)

I also have a degree in Computer Programming.

At this point, since it's the OP that has stated such, it's time to just let this thread die. No point in keeping it going when the OP isn't open to debate.(of course, one might even ask, Why even start the thread, if you aren't open to debate?)