stemelbow wrote:This is all such an unfortunate side-effect of religion. It really is. Dogmatic thoughts and feelings are driving a lack of exploration and thought.
Unfortunately, it is the very dogmatism you decry that gave scientific exploration to begin with. And, if you are restraining yourself to modern science, tell me where is this roving band of Christians fire bombing universities, suppressing scientific discoveries, or ... well, you name it?
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Wow, it's a tree growing in a chunk from another planet used to build the earth with!
pep pep...as a teenager I had a good friend who didn't believe. His reasoning, mainly, stemmed from earth couldn't be that young, as beleivers often assume. I responded with something very close to what you just said. That defense is pretty close to my heart because of that, but ultimately I don't buy it anymore. Just fond memories.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Hoops wrote:Unfortunately, it is the very dogmatism you decry that gave scientific exploration to begin with.
I don't necessarily decry dogmatism, even though I see it came off that way in the words I chose. But I do maintain that dogmatism can be stifling--not that it always is.
And, if you are restraining yourself to modern science, tell me where is this roving band of Christians fire bombing universities, suppressing scientific discoveries, or ... well, you name it?
huh? I admit, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Plus, I'm a believer (granted I'm an LDS believer but I still believe and rely on faith). I'm hardly restrained to science--ask anyone here in fact.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Well it makes your official sounding, dogmatic assertion appear, well, less than useful.
I thought we were talking about Genesis? For which there is little room.
I disagree. I do mean there are many who see plenty of room in the Genesis text to go with a non-literal reading. It just so happens that the non-literal readings extend to many parts in the Old Testament.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Truthfully, I am not sure why carbon dating is a problem for someone who believes that parts of other worlds were used to create this one.
Stem, I have to agree with you that a lot of compartmentalizing (sp?) goes on. I certainly did it. I never was a young earther, but there were plenty of other things on my shelf or that I just looked at seperately.
The Doctrine & Covenants makes it hard for a Mormon to believe that humans have been around for more than 6000ish years. I did find an article on LDS.org that allows for the earth to be much older. It says that we don't know how long the creative periods (days) lasted. That is what I always believed. http://LDS.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-be ... erspective
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Well it makes your official sounding, dogmatic assertion appear, well, less than useful.
I suppose it does. But those who fight for a metaphorical Genesis have to reconcile that with the rest of the Bible. Which, in my opinion, is extremely difficult to do.
I disagree. I do mean there are many who see plenty of room in the Genesis text to go with a non-literal reading. It just so happens that the non-literal readings extend to many parts in the Old Testament.
It seems that a logical practice would be to take the Bible literally whenever possible, when reconciling it with what else the Bible tells us. Genesis is particularly difficult to take metaphorically. For example: Gen 1:3. The first day.
maybe the game changer was when they figured out the speed of light and figured out that light left some stars in our universe before the earth was formed - from stardust.