striktlymi:

Good evening ooman,

What exactly are these conflicting views?

6 days of life creation - 3.8 billion years of life evolution.

6000 years universe - approximately 15 billion years universe.

man created in God's image - man evolved from previous ancestors.

etc.

ooman:

6 days of life creation - 3.8 billion years of life evolution.

There is a need to understand the message sacred scriptures is trying to pass across here. Some of the words used in sacred scriptures holds a deeper meaning than what meets the eyes.

Firstly, we should note that God is not bound by time and we are made to understand that when God decides to reveal some things to man based on our knowledge of time, its still not same as the way we are prone to interpret or understand it. St Peter made us understand this point when he wrote:

2 Peter 3:8
New International Version (NIV)

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


So when God talks about a day, it need not be exactly as we understand it because to God a day is not just 24 Earth hours. With this knowledge, it is very probable that when God says a day, this might mean a period of time. This is one explanation!

Another probable explanation is that in all it took 6 days but at different times i.e creating something every few million Earthly years...

The point I am trying to make is that the creation story shouldn't be taken at face value, there is more to it. However, the underlying message is that God is the author of life.

ooman:
6000 years universe - approximately 15 billion years universe.

Though the above explanation can still apply but I need to know where you got the 6,000 years universe from.

ooman:
man created in God's image - man evolved from previous ancestors.

etc.

We have had this discussion before and I believe I have provided answers.


# Now you are making me sound like an apologist. I am not!!!

striktlymi:

There is a need to understand the message sacred scriptures is trying to pass across here. Some of the words used in sacred scriptures holds a deeper meaning than what meets the eyes.

Firstly, we should note that God is not bound by time and we are made to understand that when God decides to reveal some things to man based on our knowledge of time, its still not same as the way we are prone to interpret or understand it. St Peter made us understand this point when he wrote:

2 Peter 3:8
New International Version (NIV)

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


So when God talks about a day, it need not be exactly as we understand it because to God a day is not just 24 Earth hours. With this knowledge, it is very probable that when God says a day, this might mean a period of time. This is one explanation!

Another probable explanation is that in all it took 6 days but at different times i.e creating something every few million Earthly years...

The point I am trying to make is that the creation story shouldn't be taken at face value, there is more to it. However, the underlying message is that God is the author of life.



Though the above explanation can still apply but I need to know where you got the 6,000 years universe from.



We have had this discussion before and I believe I have provided answers.


# Now you are making me sound like an apologist. I am not!!!

You follow Dr. Ross in denying 6 days creation, your God will not forgive you for that.

Sorry but if you want to merge and form a evo-crea theory, then you are an apologist!!

ooman:

You follow Dr. Ross in denying 6 days creation, your God will not forgive you for that.

May be not 6 days as we know it but creation all the same. Who is Dr. Ross?

ooman:
Sorry but if you want to merge and form a evo-crea theory, then you are an apologist!!

Nah, I am not!

striktlymi:

May be not 6 days as we know it but creation all the same. Who is Dr. Ross?



Nah, I am not!

Dr. Ross, a physicist is the first to claim 6days does not necessarilly mean 6 week days.

If we begin to teach God in schools. Then God will be open for study not worship. Let me ask you, should we study God? is that what you want with this merger?

ooman:

Dr. Ross, a physicist is the first to claim 6days does not necessarilly mean 6 week days.

Okay! May be I will go through his views at my free time.

ooman:
If we begin to teach God in schools. Then God will be open for study not worship. Let me ask you, should we study God? is that what you want with this merger?

If by 'schools' you mean 'public schools' then I am of the opinion that God should not be part of the Curriculum but this does not mean that private schools cannot bring him in.

striktlymi:

Okay! May be I will go through his views at my free time.



If by 'schools' you mean 'public schools' then I am of the opinion that God should not be part of the Curriculum but this does not mean that private schools cannot bring him in.

Public or private doesn't matter. what matters is that God will only be studied as part of causes of nature, never worshipped in science classes. Science only study we dont worship. that is the danger of bringing God into science or merging creation and evolution. God will be studied not worshipped. now do you still want God to be taught in all schools and Lab classes?

ooman:

Public or private doesn't matter. what matters is that God will only be studied as part of causes of nature, never worshipped in science classes. Science only study we dont worship. that is the danger of bringing God into science or merging creation and evolution. God will be studied not worshipped. now do you still want God to be taught in all schools and Lab classes?

I don't think God should be studied as part of the physical sciences but no one says he can't be studied as part of Art and the Humanities.

striktlymi:


I don't think God should be studied as part of the physical sciences but no one says he can't be studied as part of Art and the Humanities.

BLASPHEMY OF THE CENTURY: GOD CAN BE STUDIED!

Do you realize you just blasphemed. Total heresy is what you just wrote.

God(s) dont get studied, they get worshipped, respected, obeyed and feared. These are things we dont do in schools but in religious houses.

You see why God can't get into schools, or why that merger can't be possible? Most of the exponents for evo-crea merger dont even realize this.

My advice? Say 1000 Hail Maths! Perhaps then, your God can forgive you!

Good morning ooman,

ooman:

BLASPHEMY OF THE CENTURY: GOD CAN BE STUDIED!

Do you realize you just blasphemed. Total heresy is what you just wrote.

Quite hilarious!!! I can see you haven't lost your touch!

Anyways, it is my belief that God created man for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is for man to get to know him. We cannot claim to know God without studying him. When we study God, we need not look at him through a microscope or a test tube...far from it. Our study of God has to do with the study of what he has revealed about himself through sacred scriptures and sacred tradition.

ooman:
God(s) dont get studied, they get worshipped, respected, obeyed and feared. These are things we dont do in schools but in religious houses.

Another reason God created us is for us to love and worship him. It will be very silly for an individual to love someone or something he has no clue about. I agree that public worship of God should be done somewhere else apart from the schools but this does not mean that a student cannot worship God privately even in school without disturbing anyone else.

ooman:
You see why God can't get into schools, or why that merger can't be possible? Most of the exponents for evo-crea merger dont even realize this.

People go to study theology in the University and I see nothing wrong there.

ooman:
My advice? Say 1000 Hail Maths! Perhaps then, your God can forgive you!

Funny!!!

striktlymi:
Good morning ooman,

Quite hilarious!!! I can see you haven't lost your touch!

Anyways, it is my belief that God created man for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is for man to get to know him. We cannot claim to know God without studying him. When we study God, we need not look at him through a microscope or a test tube...far from it. Our study of God has to do with the study of what he has revealed about himself through sacred scriptures and sacred tradition.

Perhaps another thing you need to understand about science class is that it is not dogmatic. We dont just teach something because a book says its correct. In field science there is watchword "Repeatability is the key to observation" and that means that all miracles will be repeated both in controlled and uncontrolled environment and these include - creation, resurrection, walking on water etc. So in science classes, God will be put under scientific scrutiny. He would be looked through a microscope, his matter compositions tested in test tubes, his omnipresence test through mechanical means among other things. God will not be taught as powerful, Heaven Father, Love, Sovereign etc, rather, he would be taught as a complex complicated lump of matter, the very first evolved consciousness. Test will be performed to confirm all hypothesis about him.

If all these is not possible or if they will not be allowed, then there is no way God is getting into science classes. He should stay in the churches where he can be taught without questions!

striktlymi: Another reason God created us is for us to love and worship him. It will be very silly for an individual to love someone or something he has no clue about. I agree that public worship of God should be done somewhere else apart from the schools but this does not mean that a student cannot worship God privately even in school without disturbing anyone else.

People go to study theology in the University and I see nothing wrong there.

In theology, they study the word of God, they dont study God himself. That is the difference. Science do not care about what God claim he is, we care about what he really is, and studying his matter composition is what that means!

So i conclude that for the sake of respect for God. It is better he stays off our science classes.

.

ooman2:

Perhaps another thing you need to understand about science class is that it is not dogmatic. We dont just teach something because a book says its correct. In field science there is watchword "Repeatability is the key to observation" and that means that all miracles will be repeated both in controlled and uncontrolled environment and these include - creation, resurrection, walking on water etc. So in science classes, God will be put under scientific scrutiny. He would be looked through a microscope, his matter compositions tested in test tubes, his omnipresence test through mechanical means among other things. God will not be taught has powerful, Heaven Father, Love, Sovereign etc, rather, he would be taught as a complex complicated lump of matter, the very first evolved consciousness. Test will be performed to confirm all hypothesis about him.

I don't think I said God would be studied as part of Physical sciences. You have described what would be done in exact sciences...this is not the kind of study I refered to.

ooman2:
If all these is not possible or if they will not be allowed, then there is no way God is getting into science classes. He should stay in the churches where he can be taught without questions!

Not science!

ooman2:
In theology, they study the word of God, they dont study God himself.

Nah, you got it all wrong! There are various ways in studying and knowing an individual that you are yet to come in contact with. What he says about himself, what people say about him and what probably is written about the person from the authors point of view. Studying Theology gives one an indepth knowledge about God and this is same as studying God.

ooman2:
That is the difference. Science do not care about what God claim he is, we care about what he really is, and studying his matter composition is what that means!

There are different ways of studying something or someone. Not every method must be scientific. One can get an insight into the life of another by studying the persons biography...this is same as studying the life of the person. I never met Hitler but it does not mean that I have not studied his life. Theology is just like studying someone's auto-biography.

ooman2:
So i conclude that for the sake of respect for God. It is better he stays off our science classes.

God is not supposed to be studie as part of the sciences. The only link God would have with Science is when we study about the various theories and hypothesis of life and its origin. Theories and hypothesis need not be backed by proofs.

striktlymi:

God is not supposed to be studied as part of the sciences. The only link God would have with Science is when we study about the various theories and hypothesis of life and its origin. Theories and hypothesis need not be backed by proofs.

The only thing i have problem with is your last post.

God is always mentioned when the hypothesis about the origin of life is taught in all REGULATED science textbook. In case you dont know the theory of BIBLICAL creation is called SPECIAL CREATION THEORY in science. The only problem is that MOST scientists do not accept it as true, this is why it is not popular. So do some more research. Creation is already taught.

What i contend is merging creation and evolution together. Dont get it twisted. That will make us study God scientifically so drop that opinion.

ooman:

The only thing i have problem with is your last post.

God is always mentioned when the hypothesis about the origin of life is taught in all REGULATED science textbook. In case you dont know the theory of BIBLICAL creation is called SPECIAL CREATION THEORY in science. The only problem is that MOST scientists do not accept it as true, this is why it is not popular. So do some more research. Creation is already taught.

What i contend is merging creation and evolution together. Dont get it twisted. That will make us study God scientifically so drop that opinion.

I know about the above! I guess in your haste, you didn't notice that I excluded the phrase "in my opinion"...anyways, I was just responding to your previous post.

striktlymi:

I know about the above! I guess in your haste, you didn't notice that I excluded the phrase "in my opinion"...anyways, I was just respomding to your previous post.

anyway, wake up from the idea that creation and evolution can be merged

ooman:

anyway, wake up from the idea that creation and evolution can be merged

Now you are not thinking like a scientist...I guess the non-theist has taken over.

Science neither discards nor accepts what it cannot prove

striktlymi:

Now you are not thinking like a scientist...I guess the non-theist has taken over.

Science neither discards nor accepts what it cannot prove

well I just gave you religious reasons why those two cannot be merged. It will be a disrespect to your God.

ooman:

well I just gave you religious reasons why those two cannot be merged. It will be a disrespect to your God.

You don't know my God!

striktlymi:

You don't know my God!

well in knowing him, I have to analyze him and see him. if not, he ain't getting into science classes.

ooman:

well in knowing him, I have to analyze him and see him. if not, he ain't getting into science classes.

He is already there!

striktlymi:

He is already there!

Oh poor thing. You are only deluding yourself. Sorry!!!

ooman:

Oh poor thing. You are only deluding yourself. Sorry!!!

Delusion is not my thing!

striktlymi:

Delusion is not my thing!

Then stop deceiving yourself. we all know there is no room for faith in science.

ooman:

Then stop deceiving yourself. we all know there is no room for faith in science.

There is actually! Some of the hypothesis scientists came up with started out as simple beliefs.

striktlymi:

There is actually! Some of the hypothesis scientists came up with started out as simple beliefs.

Dont tell me you also think hypothesis are guesses or beliefs.

an hypothesis is an unproved deductive reasoning based on observation. it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.

there is nothing like simple beliefs in science. all hypothesis are backed up by observation and when proven becomes a theory, like the theory of evolution!!

ooman:

Dont tell me you also think hypothesis are guesses or beliefs.

an hypothesis is an unproved deductive reasoning based on observation. it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.

there is nothing like simple beliefs in science. all hypothesis are backed up by observation and when proven becomes a theory, like the theory of evolution!!

I said started out! Why develop an hypothesis if you do not believe in it?

striktlymi:

I said started out! Why develop an hypothesis if you do not believe in it?

perhaps the usage of words is the prob here.

still, an hypothesis must be supported before it can be credible and when proven, it becomes a theory.

dont try to bring faith into science.

striktlymi:

He is already there!

Oh, am directed here again.

Still searching for him by the way, striktlymi!

ooman:


Oh, am directed here again.

Still searching for him by the way, striktlymi!

Hmmm....

I guess you want him not to exist so bad that you don't want to search for him sincerely.

ooman: striky, who do you always run away from debates?

The guy knows that he cant defend his position.....

Logicboy03:


The guy knows that he cant defend his position.....

You wish!