Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[evmori 11]

If critical thinking makes me like Merlyn, then critical thinking is not good. And by Watson stating the theory of evolution is fact & the Bible isn't right in the face of science is just more proof atheists are making it up as they go so it fits their position & beliefs. Evolution is a theory. There is no proof to make it a fact. And there is proof the Bible does stand up to science.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tortdog 10]

>So, that would make the definition of "morally straight" kind of a subjective thing, right?

 

Depends on who's doing the defining and asking the question. If God defines "morally straight", then it's objective because God is perfect and there is only one truth. It doesn't matter if someone disagrees.

 

Since God didn't author the BSA (though I think it's an inspired program), there is no moral absolute with the BSA. However, once the BSA sets its standard (that's subjective by the BSA), the standard becomes an objective standard by which we can measure the definition, just as the uniform standards are objective (as subjectively set up by the BSA).

 

That's my view.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Evolution is a theory. There is no proof to make it a fact. And there

is proof the Bible does stand up to science.

 

Hmm, who should I believe, a Nobel prizewinning scientist who discovered the structure of DNA and has been active in science for over half a century...

 

Or Ed.

 

Ed, evolution (a change in allele frequencies over time) has been observed. It's a fact just like other observed facts.

And, just like 'gravity' can refer to the fact of gravitational attraction OR the theory of how gravity works, the term 'evolution' can be used to refer to observed facts OR the theory of how it works.

You have to judge by context.

[Trevorum 24]

So Ed, I take it that you think the Archeology MB is heresy?

 

[Hunt 11]

I tend to agree that it's odd for BSA to name an activity after an outspoken atheist (I'm accepting that this really is the case for Watson), but I suspect the reason is more likely inattention than hypocrasy.

 

Although I will say that I can recognize the Dalai Lama as an important religious leader, while agreeing with restrictions that would prevent him from joining my church without changing his views.

[evmori 11]

Believe who you want. Evolution has never been proved as fact and is still considered a theory. Once scientists opinion doesn't make it a fact.

 

I no very little about the Archeology MB so I can't comment.

 

Gravity is a fact. It has been proved. Evolution hasn't and is still a theory. Bad comparison.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No Ed, comparing evolution and gravity is quite apt, since both terms are used to indicate fact and theory.

 

Gravity is a fact, but it is also a theory. Same with evolution.

A change in allele frequencies has been observed.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Ed,

 

I agree that evolution is a theory. It is believed by scientists to be correct within the context of what we know. That is, of course, subject to change as our knowledgebase increases, and this increased knowledge will either cause us to update the theory or further confirm its validity.

 

I'm unclear what you meant when you said that "the Bible does stand up to science". Could you expand on that a bit? Thanks.

[Trevorum 24]

Biological evolution is a proven fact. Abundant evidence exists in many diverse field of science to prove beyond doubt that biological species change over time. Religious beliefs notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority of scientists who are knowledgeable in these fields agree that evolution is as reliable a fact as gravity.

 

What is a theory is the mechanism by which evolution proceeds. There are several competing ideas that explain how and why evolution occurs. The idea that explains the most of the evidence with the least amount of difficulty is the theory of natural selection. This is the 'theory' part of evolution. When people refer to evolution as a 'theory' they should properly refer to the 'theory of evolution by means of natural selection'.

 

(sigh)

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Trevorum,

I stand corrected. In my thinking, I was referring to the mechanisms of evolution as being theory, which they are. I think that most people, looking at the evidence, would consider evolution to be a "fact" as much as anything can. Creationists will probably think otherwise, of course. Even when defined as "fact" there is some margin for error of course. Being a "fact" doesn't make something inherently "true", only "true" to the extent that most reasonable persons would consider it so based on available knowledge. That is, something that is so unlikely to be proven to be "untrue" that the possibility is far beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean it might not be proven "untrue" at some point. Even things considered to be "fact" are only considered so within the context of our current level of understanding.

 

Let's take as a further example the creation of the world. The vast majority of scientists believe that the earth was created several billion years ago, and this is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Is it possible that the Bible is actually correct that the world was created in a few days? Yes, it's possible, but all available evidence says otherwise. So, as a matter of available knowledge, most would agree that the world was created several billion years ago. Could that be wrong? Sure, but based on our current level of understanding, it seems unlikely.

[evmori 11]

Is it possible that the Bible is actually correct that the world was created in a few days? Yes, it's possible, but all available evidence says otherwise. So, as a matter of available knowledge, most would agree that the world was created several billion years ago. Could that be wrong? Sure, but based on our current level of understanding, it seems unlikely.

 

According to the Bible, the world was created in 6 days. There is no definition as to what time frame a day consisted of when the world was created. The Julian calendar came long after the world was created. One day then might equal 1 year now or 1 day then might equal 1 million years now.

 

So the evidence available & the Bible are very likely in sync.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I agree with you, Ed. That's entirely possible.

 

Those I know who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible don't make that distinction, however. They usually tell me that the world was created in 6 days, and the geological evidence that indicates a time span of billions of years is either wrong or being misinterpreted. I've taken that to mean that they consider the "day" to be an "earth day". I don't know if that's a prevailing view of those who believe in a literal interpretation, or just those I happen to know.

 

 

 

[tortdog 10]

I don't subscribe to this theory, but found it entertaining. I've seen some Christians (never a Jew or Muslim, though) argue that it was 6 24-hour periods in which the Earth was formed, and that the evidence showing billions of years in between layers of earth resulted when the Creator put a 2-billion old layer here, then a 1-billion layer on top, etc up the chain...doing the layering in a few hours or so. They even theorized that the Creator did it in this manner to test the faith of man in the written word.

 

Well, I found it an interesting proposition, at the least, but not much more.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

>>They even theorized that the Creator did it in this manner to test the faith of man in the written word.

 

Maybe God just is just a really great practical joker?

 

(OK, now, before you start saying, "How DARE Prairie say that?", c'mon, you gotta believe God has a sense of humor. After all, he/she gave us the platypus, right? Have you ever SEEN one of those things? It's like a "spare parts" animal....).

 

[tortdog 10]

>Maybe God just is just a really great practical joker?

 

Obviously so. He made vegetarians and also made animals out of meat.