I want to hear a good arguement on your beliefs!?

Question

There are no right or wrong answers. Best Answer- To who can give me their best analysis on the following questions, you pick which one according to your own beliefs.
1- Bible believers- Explain what is so wrong with humans evolving from lower mammals. Why can't it be possible that God allowed humans to evolve into his image? 2- Science people who regard the entire Bible as false- Why don't you believe in any of the Bible's aspects? Can science really explain every aspect? Why can't God use science to make miracles seem like miracles?
Example- History Channel Special- 10 plagues of Egypt were scientifically explained but still left listeners with the thought that maybe God made these things happen, just through science, not out of thin air.
(Note- I am Agnostic. I believe in human evolution and science but I give a lot of aspects of the Bible the benefit of the doubt. I listen to both arguements and make my own unique conclusions/beliefs)
(Feel free to write as much as you want)

Answer 1

Your question was interesting because as I was reading it I was thinking of the chapters in the catechism that deal with exactly what you're talking about.

The Catechism teaches that faith and science are not opposed. This is because science is a methodical discipline that shows us how the world works on a physical level. Since God is the Creator of all things, science would eventually lead us to more fully discovering and learning about Him. I think the catechism does state that evolution cannot be ruled out as the means God used to create us, given the large amount of evidence supporting it. I could be wrong but you can double check me.

Yes, God does use the natural world to accomplish His will. I saw that same show in the History Channel explaining the miracles that helped free the Isrealites. In my opinion, what makes them miracles is the timing. Everything that needed to happen to free the Isrealites happened at just the right time in just the right order. Coincidence? I think not.

God bless.

Answer 2

I'm not an agnostic but I draw my own conclusions and have an open mind to information. I have six credits in Anthropology in College. After the classes, I am very much in favor of the evolution conclusions. The book of Genesis says that God said to Humans, " be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
If we are to except this book as the truth, then we therefore should except that there were humans before Adam and Eve or there would be no need to replenish it. The new genetic blood that Adam and Eve brought with them would replenis the earth with a higher intelligence. Not all is available to science to explain or support biblical writings. There may come a time when visitors will appear and we won't need to hide from the truth with disproving or proving anything. Nothing will matter when all will be revealed. It could be soon.
Let us hope and pray that it will unite us all to one reality of Love and brotherhood of man. Genetic mutation is the cause of division of species. Survival of the fit. The environment played a big part in the evolvement of life forms. IT does not matter how we got here. More important is what will we do with the now to evolve into more than animals. Doesn't seem like it was that long ago when we killed man for territory and survival. Have we really evolved ? or have we just gotten more cleaver in the way we kill and take.
Rev. TomCat

Answer 3

Many of your questions are flawed. No "science believer," as you put it, regards the entire bible as false. Even educated atheists acknowledge that Jesus and his contemporaries probably existed. You should be asking about specific events.

Another problem with your questions is that every one of them assumes the existence of God. It's like asking, "why do unicorns have horns?" To continue the dialogue, both the person asking and the person answering would have to believe in unicorns. So you're asking atheists why God can't use science to make miracles seem like miracles. For them to answer, they would have to believe in God, which they don't.

The real question is: do you believe that the events described in the bible that are deemed miraculous actually happened, and if so, do you believe that God was the instigator?

The answer is no. There was no parting of any large body of water, no transmutation of liquids, no virgins giving birth. So the second question becomes irrelevant. Since none of these things actually happened, then there is no need for their explanation.

Your next question is probably, how do I know that these things didn't happen? The answer is that I don't. I just *believe* that they didn't happen. I have come to that conclusion based on my belief that magic does not exist.

What today's religious people believe, is the word of people who had a hard time explaining things due to a lack of knowledge. These were the same people who thought that the earth was the fixed center of the universe. Their observations dictated their beliefs and since some events have no observable causes, they made stuff up (e.g. the theory of phlogiston).

The bible is a combination of fact, fiction, and morality. The fact and fiction are irrelevant. The morality is the important part.

Answer 4

Well,my answer would be that if we didn't have the Bible, then maybe we COULD say to ourselves that we all just evolved from chance. Also if you just pretended that there were no people, just the earth, with all the awesome elements, like the sun, and the stars, and the oceans and the mountains and different species of flowers and animals and all of the wonderful fruits and vegetables, and etc...Its hard to imagine all of those wondrous things without a Creator. And then when God did create mankind, He didn't just leave them hanging without ANY knowledge of HIM, HE saw to it that the Bible was written as a guide and an explanation as to what HIS purpose WAS, IS, and WILL BE. (2nd Tim 3:16) The Bible has a past, a present, and a future quality that no other book compares to. Because He is a spirit, we must worship Him in spirit. You know how we are warned to not look directly into the sun?? The Bible tells us that humans could not possibly look at God with their physical eyes because HE is so powerful! (Ex 33:20) The Bible is so informative, that it even explains that there would be men who try to disprove the very existence of GOD! I think science is a wonderful tool, and can be very useful, but why can't they seem to give the credit where it is due? Not to themselves, but to the ONE who gave them the ability to even have a brain to use in the first place. That's my take on it, thanks for asking in a nice and fair way.

Answer 5

The teachings of Theistic Evolution are theoretical at best. There is no historical evidence that God allowed man to evolved from mammals(a lower species). This is an impossibility. All animals were created by God and were reproduced after their own kind. Have you ever seen two dogs produce a cat? or two cats produce a dog? Impossible! Have you ever seen two whales produce shrimp or two shrimp produce a whale? Impossible! How then can two apes ever in a billion years produce an intelligent human being? Impossible! It can never happen in a zillion years.

What would happen if I took off my watch and disembled all the parts and place each part in a single bag and shake up all the loose parts of the watch in that single bag. How long would I have to shake that bag before all the parts came together perfectly to produce a perfect assembled watch? What is the probability of all the parts joining together without any assistance on my part? absolutely impossible!

In order for their to be a creation there must first come a CREATOR. Therefore, there must be a GOD somewhere.

Answer 6

Being a “Bible believer” I will make a 10 point attempt to answer question #1.

But first I would like to note for the record that there a Bible believers who are scientists and scientist that are Bible believers. There are no atheists that are Bible believers but there are scientists who are atheists. Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive, atheism and religion are. Therefore your division of questions is illogical.

First, what is wrong with believing that humans evolved from some lower animal form is that the Bible tells me that God created man.

Secondly, Darwin’s theory of evolution holds up pretty well within a given species, fossil records and such show that there is evolutionary path there.

Thirdly, Darwin’s theory of evolution fails when it comes to cross species evolution. There is no such fossil record.

Answer 7

When you say the History Channel left listeners with the thought that maybe God had a hand in all this after all, they were just being politically correct.

To insist that science has debunked religion would get all the bibble thumpers (bibble: my word) very upset (if they even bothered to watch the show.) That, of course, would lead to negative ratings. They don't want that.

So they make a good, very good, case for science, but so as to avoid a deluge of emails and calls insisting that they didn't let fundamentalist have their say, the channel adds that little bit of doubt at the end.

Those that think the bibble is the word of god can now settle down, forgive them, as they are supposedly taught, and go about proselytizing and converting.

Read your bibble and then read about political correctness. It's all there.

Answer 8

I don't think you mean that God might have done things "through science". Do you instead mean that God might do things through the laws of physics? Or put it another way, are you asking if God doesn't need to do anything supernatural?

Hopefully you see where I am heading with these questions. One key aspect of my beliefs as an atheist is that there is no objective evidence of anything supernatural -- all claims of supernatural events are superstitious interpretations of natural events. One key axiom for anyone who believes in God must be that God is supernatural, and can if he chooses violate the laws of physics. I claim that if God exists, then he hasn't chosen to violate the laws of physics even once since at least the Renaissance and the recording of modern history. Theists can argue that he does this to "test our faith", but I say the evidence is overwhelming that belief in anything supernatural is just superstition, and I won't let someone else's faith trump my reason and logic.

Answer 9

Im agnostic too. i fall somewhere between the bible thumpers and atheist scientists. i hate to believe that there is "one true religion" as so many of so many different faiths believe. at the same time i cannot accept the belief that science holds all of the answers. I dont like organized religion. I love science. i take everything that ive learned about science and everything ive learned about religions (i was a christian but never felt comfortable in one religion and studied other religions) and ive come to the conclusion that i just dont know. and i feel better now about my place in this universe than i ever have.

Answer 10

I guess I'm in both of your categories to some extent. I believe in God, and I believe in science as well. I've never felt that one excluded the other - simply that they were two different ways of telling the same story, for two different audiences. I don't see anything wrong with God setting up the universe and letting it tick - it did have to come from SOMEWHERE, but I'm not remotely qualified to say that I can comprehend the span of time that it has been in existence. I simply have to say that I believe there is a higher power than myself, and that there are things that I don't yet understand, and let it go at that.