The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
But so far as a personal belief, or shared belief dispelling research and all the evidence... I have a problem with that. What parts of the Bible are true? Do people take what they want from it and leave the rest? Where can we chop and change the scriptures and where not?
Scientists approach are an attempt to set things in stone, theories based on inference based on axioms.. but where is foundation for Christians' beliefs?
Sod it, we'll never figure this out.
> Can't evolution be God's intelligent design?
Anything can be anything, if you say it is. Doesn't mean it's true.
Why did a being
> apparently far greater than ourselves try and build a world for
> creatures to live in, in a week, with no known materials?
And how do you define a week when there's no Sun and no Earth rotating around it to produce days and nights...?
The Garden of Eden however I think was used to show humans that the should follow the path of God otherwise bad things would happen which is in my opinion Hell.God ,in my opinion,didn't create Adam from his 'ribs' because of the belief that God has no phsical form as that would limit his omnipotence and omnipresence.It is just used to show how God created humans with some of the same qualities to a lesser extent.
So I am basically saying that the Bible should not be taken literally in some cases.I believe that you should take the miracle stories literally because Jesus was one of the most holy prophets(I'm a Muslim).
On the topic of Creationism I believe that it's place in the RS classroom and not the scientific one.
'Tis all.
> Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough
> detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the
> question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught
> about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly
> unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from
> single cells is possible.
Heh, that made me smile.
You really can't try to scientifically reason out everything in the Bible like that, because it simply won't work. God is supposedly all-powerful, outside of the retraints of time and space - if he wants to do something, he does it, even if it is physically impossible.
'Slightly unbelievable' doesn't come into Christianity ... you either believe it, because you believe God can do anything, or you try to explain it out in human terms and work yourself into an impossible knot.
Which is why science and religion don't mix ... all these people who try to try to reason out how all the animals would have fitted in the ark etc etc are really wasting their time, because they'll always have the backup "God did it" card, which instantly explains everything. And with the "God did it" card, you don't need to try and explain anything in the first place, unless you're trying to convert to sceptics to Christianity through scientific calculations, which is completly rediculous.
Before I say this,I am religious and I have a lot of respect for all religious texts.The story of Noah's ark and others are meant to teach people like the story of the boy who cried wolf.You shouldn't be bad is what some of the stories in the Bible say like you shouldn't lie as people will stop believing you is taught by the boy who cried wolf.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being, exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from a scientific view-point.