Dear Johan (OUG),

Many people don't accept the theory of evolution
because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Judaism, Christianity, and a number of other
religions teach that God is the sole guiding force
in the universe. According to the Bible, God is the
Creator, Sustainer, and Ultimate End of all things.
The wide variety of forms of life is interpreted
as a reflection of His love and inspiration. The
Bible also states that human beings were created in the
image of God and thus were elevated above all other
forms of life.

Some people find it difficult to reconcile these
views with the concept that life on earth has
evolved through natural processes.
Some people also feel that evolutionary theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings regarding the reality of sin
and of redemption from sin. They believe that sin tends
to become mere imperfection if humans are seen to be
in the process of evolving from a lower state, and thus
the Gospel of redemption from the guilt of sin tends to
lose meaning.

However, as I've stated in the past, many people accept
the basic principles of evolution within the framework of
their religious beliefs. For example, Biblical scholars
interpret the story of Creation as a symbolic, rather
than a literal account of the origin of human beings and
other living things. They do not find this symbolic
interpretation incompatible with the findings of
evolutionary biologists. And I'll state once again, that
for many people, the idea that human beings evolved from
lower forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness
of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilisations.

lexie/quote..""Some people find it difficult to reconcile these
views with the concept that life on earth has
evolved through natural processes.""

nature must belong to god[as opposed to mans claim 'to' science]
we know science never 'evolved' ANY change of genus[thus its theory]

i feel bias is biasing..the science
some need a god free excuse so think sacience dun it all[it didnt do nuthing]..ok gmo..it did that[yet used gods natural genes]..ok it made antibiotic resistance..but god made the bacteria resisting sciences best shot

recall that professing teacher of docters
mutating vbacteria into bacteria[thats evolution
[WITHIN ITS PARENTAL GENUS*..like making like just like itself..[dog from dog..pea from pea

the lie is new genus
so many brag about their theoiry
but so many dont got no clue of science method
[comprehend what the theory promises..but will never deliver

""Some people also feel that evolutionary theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings"""[till they explain..HOW GOD DUN IT..they too have only faith..in a theory

""regarding the reality of sin
and of redemption from sin.""

isnt relitive to evolution's theory
science is much like a true xtian..in that
they claim nothing..as truelly vile..

[no vile they
ok SOME..wouldnt do]

""Biblical scholars..interpret
the story of Creation as a symbolic, rather
than a literal account of the origin of human beings and
other living things.""

its a kids version of how/what god is said to have done
we then go out into life..and see it first hand
yes some of gods creations look like they are related..-phenotype]..but yet not by dna proof genotype[only by the same hand of their creator]

think of it like science saying men can fly
yet leave out in an airoplane..[science has a concept..but not the science proof..nor the means to evolve itself beyond hopw it looks[taxonomic clasiofication is revealed science fraud

""They do not find this symbolic
interpretation incompatible with the findings of
evolutionary biologists.>>""

of course not
it egsists..

how it came to egsist..science theorises
yet cant name first life from non life...etc
nor suply the genes/dna.. to prove its their evolving

OUG I have danced the dance before where I say X and it is rejected and someone says Y and I reject that, however I have just finished my masters in medical biotechnology and all I will say is that I will not misrepresent religion by misrepresenting the knowledge I have of the subject.

Dear Johan (OUG),

I don't want to argue with you on this issue.
I don't see the point. As we all know people
in different walks of life may interpret the
same phenomenon - whether it is a PM's policies,
a religious doctrine, or a political scandal - in
very different ways. In other words, people tend
to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and
experiences.

Inevitably all of us will be guilty of some
measure of bias - the tendency, often unconscious,
to interpret facts according to our own values.

I've expressed my views on the topic - from my
subjective point of view. You have expressed yours.
Both of our views have been presented as a matter of
personal opinion. It's been interesting - however
for me now this subject has run its course and I have
nothing more to add. See you on another thread.

I think FP72E, at the top of page 7, summed things up very accurately. Great post FP, well done. Religious belief is - - - belief.

nojh..yes belief
that people have in lue of fact

so you have 'fact'?
how did the first cell form by accident

what is the first 'living' genus
what is it that genus first evolution..[into what NEW 'evolved' genus]

present dna proof

think ol mate
if you dont got fact..you got theory
and thats what those WITH FAITH in science 'theo-ry'..have

if you dont know the science
AT BEST you only got just..another faith..in another theory

the theory is the theory of evolution of SPECIES
not evoplution into new genus..that is implied and accepted BY FAITH..by those who 'like the idea' of a godless creation theory

but the facts dont back it up
eg show this half coldblood/have warmblood evolution
[that un-namable thing][not cold..not warm..ie faith]

till your able to present faulsifyable fact
[which if disproved..invalidates the theory]

heck just present one faulsifyable fact
or were the waters of the deep salty or fresh water
or how about plants/animals symbiology..[who without the other die]

how life began..science dont know
hasnt replicated...and not one evolution ..into a new genus
has ever been observed or reported

[natural selection alone..proves it wernt science what dun it]

natural/nurture..belongs to nature[god]..
its not science method]..ignorants have faith it is
and are too ignorant to look for any other solution..let alone study[or supply relivant facts]