Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (83681)	7/12/2000 7:44:56 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<According to the bible, the world was created, as is, in seven days. This is not consistent with the fossil record.>> I said the same thing back in 19 and 64 in a Lutheran Church. Said if the Bible was to be taken literally the Bible was wrong. Lucky to get out alive. My take, the Bible was written for people who couldn't comprehend the science of evolution. OTOH, could be God directed evolution. Some Navaho teachings are pretty close to what was going on in the Holy Land way back. I look for a blending of religions.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (83681)	7/12/2000 8:08:54 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Language issue. Before there was a sun or earth, what was a day? I don't know the Hebrew (or Aramic or whatever language Genesis was originally written in) word which is translated as day, but if it is taken basically to mean "a period of time," there can be consistency with the fossil record. I'm not even going to get into the argument that God could perfectly well have created the world 4,000 years ago and put fossils into it which looked much older. But nor can you prove that it didn't happen this way. If you accept this theory--and there is no way to prove it wrong--creationism is fully consistent with the fossil record. Please note I'm not saying I believe the English Bible version as a scientific description of how the world came about. What concerns me is that those who pooh-pooh creationism are standing on ground which is, IMO, just as shaky as the ground creationists stand on. The problem is that evolutionists tend to be even more arrogant and supercilious in defense of their theories than creationists are. My personal view is that we don't know and are probably a long way from knowing, if were ever will, how the human race came about. I understand the evidence for evolution, but I also have a great deal of difficulty believing that all this "jest happened." I think the divide between science and religion is a created divide, and that both sides ought to understand that the other may have part of the truth. I don't see any basic inconsistency between science and religion -- I see them as different but complimentary ways of approaching truth. We should be trying to bridge the distrust between the two, not exacerbating it.