ShockV1.89 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Hey, look... the religious types refuse to acknowledge any evidence the science types put forth... and the science types refuse to respect the beliefs of the religious types. What a surprise... :bored: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Then tell me, why should I believe in him? Because it feels good? My faith is based on Jesus living, dying and coming back from the dead. The Gospels were written according to what the Apostles had preached within the lifetime of people who lived at the same time as Jesus and may have even seen him walk the streets. They would have heard about the things he was doing, and none of these people would have converted if the Apostles had been completely making this stuff up. Jesus is also mentioned outside of the Gospels in the account of a historian contemporary with Jesus named Josephus (that's probably misspelled). So Jesus lived. Josephus, I believe also confirmed that Jesus was crucified. And so that leaves the question of whether he rose from the dead. Well, the Gospels say that Jesus appeared to the 11 remaining Apostles, as well as his mother Mary, among others. It could have been a hoax... the Apostles could have snuck into the tomb in the 3 days and stolen the body. But then, most of those Apostles were executed or exiled for their beliefs, and yet none of them renounced their faith in the risen Christ to spare themselves, which indicates to me that they did see the resurrected and ascended Jesus. From there, we have an unbroken line of Christian authors, up to the present day. And that is why I believe; my faith isn't based on Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Hey, look... the religious types refuse to acknowledge any evidence the science types put forth... and the science types refuse to respect the beliefs of the religious types. That's not true at all. Most people find this hard to believe, but Creationism is one of the scientifically accepted theories on how the earth was formed (the universe as well) and how life was created. There are many scientists that study this field exclusively - science is the pursuit of the truth, and to disregard a theory just because it doesn't hold with certain other principles/aspects of science is something that would never happen. Individual scientists may have their own views on things, but science as a whole does not disregard any theory (even the ones that have been proven)... just look how many theories or scientific ideas have changed over the years and you'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Hey, look... the religious types refuse to acknowledge any evidence the science types put forth... and the science types refuse to respect the beliefs of the religious types. What a surprise... :bored: I believe what the science types are saying, at least the majority of it. I believe in the big bang, a molten earth being formed, and that life evolved gradually and was not created instantly. I'm just saying, something had to start the universe and the big bang in the first place. I see the scientific evidence for the creation of life but I see no scientific explaination for how the universe first came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by NeoDios I'm just saying, something had to start the universe and the big bang in the first place. I see the scientific evidence for the creation of life but I see no scientific explaination for how the universe first came to be. Actually, I agree with you here. I tend to lean more towards the science type, but on this I (and everyone else) have nothing but theories that, at this point in time, canot be proven. I think we have solid theories of up to a few seconds after the Big Bang. Before then, modern physics simply didnt exist, and so it's impossible for us to even theroize what might have been... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I think that the earth was formed by lots of rocks and soils coming together, and everything else happened after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carth Onassi Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar I think that the earth was formed by lots of rocks and soils coming together, and everything else happened after that. If I were an evolutionist i would agree with you. But since i'm not, I just have one question for you. Where did all the rock and soil come from in the first place? If you believe that it has been there all along, how is it hard to believe that an all-knowing god has been there all along? I also believe this thread is pointless. My reason, Both views are just theorems nobody knows if either one of them is fact, and there is no way to prove either of them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.