There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[Cardinal Carminative]

According to the Bible, God's creation took 7 days not millions of years. However, those 7 days were not 7 days as we now count our days. God did not create the sun and moon and place it in relation with the earth until the 4th day of creation. So we know that the timing of the creation story was not according to the days we now have that are in relation to the earth rotating on its axis in relation to the sun. The Apostle Peter taught:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

According to Peter, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. So the 7 days of creation is probably 7000 years. It is definitely not millions of years. However, the creation of Adam and Even occurred in one of those days or within 1000 years. Not millions of years. On that 6th day of creation God describes Adam's creation as follows:

Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here we read that God created man after his own image. Are we to believe that his image was a small sea creature and then changed into a million other images before it was what we now see as a man today? You can believe that but not me. God never said he created any other of his creatures to be in his image except mankind.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Does this sound like man evolved from other species? God actually formed man from the dust of ground. He did not cause man to be evolved from other creatures. Upon forming man of the dust of ground, he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and MAN became a living soul. No evolution about it.

What makes you think that evolution is a better watch than God creating man from the dust of the ground? God isn't constantly moving our hands but has given us free will to choose as we will. Your example is meaningless to me.

All of this presupposes that the Bible is literal and without flaw. Neither of which I believe is the case. But if the world looked even remotely like that described in Genesis it would be RADICALLY different from what we actually see.

The reason I think evolution is better than "special creation" is because:

1. There appears to be literally millions of "special creations" throughout geologic time, but they all bear relationships to earlier "special creations" (of course that isn't even CLOSE to what Genesis describes)

2. I'm not beholden to a literal Genesis. That is for a small sect of Christianity mainly originating within the last couple centuries. That way I can consider ALL the evidence, not just what some anonymous people wrote thousands of years ago.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

He might even make that watch to be much like himself and not like the other beasts of the field.

If humans are made "in God's image" and you look closely at humans you will see they are little more than "beasts of the field" who can talk.

 

[Meriweather]

If humans are made "in God's image" and you look closely at humans you will see they are little more than "beasts of the field" who can talk.

Look more closely. Humans are often quite lovely.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Look more closely. Humans are often quite lovely.

They are just animals. Sorry to break the news to you

 

[Meriweather]

They are just animals. Sorry to break the news to you

Why be sorry? When I got up after typing that post I said to my chinchillas, "You two are lovely, too."

What difference does it make that we fall into the category of animals? animal people (or is that people animals) are often lovely.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why be sorry? When I got up after typing that post I said to my chinchillas, "You two are lovely, too."

What difference does it make that we fall into the category of animals? animal people (or is that people animals) are often lovely.

Because evolution works on animals. And someone posted a complaint that we were made in God's image...not animals image. I was merely pointing out that we are really just animals. We can talk, that's cool. But there is literally nothing different between me and my dog here in terms of basic ontology.

 

[Meriweather]

Because evolution works on animals. And someone posted a complaint that we were made in God's image...not animals image. I was merely pointing out that we are really just animals. We can talk, that's cool. But there is literally nothing different between me and my dog here in terms of basic ontology.

Is your sense of smell equal to that of your dog's? What about your hearing? When it comes to the five senses, it appears dogs are superior. Most dogs can also outrun most humans. In fact, many animals are superior to people in this regard.

How are we made in the image and likeness of God? What makes us different? Unlike other animals who have a body part(s) that distinguish their power and abilities, It was not a body part that gives us dominion over other animals, rather our intellect, our ability to freely choose between different actions.

God creates--and so do we, another difference between us and other animals.

'Image' tells us to whom we belong and by whom we shall be ruled. Meanwhile, like God, we rule. Our dominion is what is on our planet. 'Image' tells us of our relation to any other human. We are made in the image of God--and so is everyone else. Recognize this and treat one another well.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is your sense of smell equal to that of your dog's?

I sense you are about to completely miss my point. I wish it were otherwise but it appears to be that...

What about your hearing? When it comes to the five senses, it appears dogs are superior. Most dogs can also outrun most humans. In fact, many animals are superior to people in this regard.

Yup...I was right. You blew right past my point. I don't know why I wasted time writing out my thoughts if they were going to be ignored.

How are we made in the image and likeness of God? What makes us different?

Nothing.

God creates--and so do we, another difference between us and other animals.

Animals create as well. Perhaps you have missed the tool usage and creation by various apes and even crows. But, again, that's not even close to my point.

Let me try again:

My point is humans are simply animals. Yes we are special to other humans because we are humans. But we are not fundamentally different from other animals. We share a common chemistry and largely just variations on a consistent set of biochemical processes. We are made up of literally the same stuff and vast amounts of our genetic code are shared by other animals.

THAT was my point.

And it was in response to someone noting that we are not just "beasts of the field". When, in fact, we are.

'Image' tells us to whom we belong and by whom we shall be ruled. Meanwhile, like God, we rule. Our dominion is what is on our planet. 'Image' tells us of our relation to any other human. We are made in the image of God--and so is everyone else. Recognize this and treat one another well.

I couldn't agree more with you in respect to how we should treat each other.

But, again, that isn't really related to my point in any way whatsoever.

 

[Meriweather]

THAT was my point.

Yes, I got your point. It was not hard. We both know people are animals and are therefore much the same.

Having established we are much the same, I moved on to the next logical point--differences. I started with how other animals are different from man; how man differs from other animals. I apologize for moving forward when you wanted to dwell longer on the first point that we are much the same. So to return to how we are much the same (using dogs as an example)....

Dogs breathe with lungs and have hearts that circulate blood the same as humans do. They have most of the same organs as humans: A brain, liver, stomach, intestines, and prostrates.

 

[onefour1]

The big difference between mankind and the animals is that we are the children of God the Father in the spirit, the animals are not.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

We call on him as our Father in Heaven. Why? Because he is the literal Father of our spirits. We are his offspring. The spirits of animals are not the offspring of God the Father. We did not evolve from them either. God breathed into Adam the breath of life and MAN became a living soul.

 

[onefour1]

I might agree with the title of this thread, "There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been." If we look at true science. There are some who do not believe that evolution is even a true science.

Is Evolution a Science​

Reasons Why Evolution Is False​

How Does Evolution Work​

The Contradiction of Evolution and Death​

Like the Cardinal said, today many believe that the Bible is not literal and is flawed. So they cast it aside for fables.

 

[zaangalewa]

not in the liest -

zann sugarcoats what was a yellow streak that ran down galileo's back to save his own skin from the vicious, reactionary crucifiers who enjoy nothing less than the persecution and victimization of the innocent that is present in the desert religions to this day.

no comment

 

[BreezeWood]

The big difference between mankind and the animals is that we are the children of God the Father in the spirit, the animals are not.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

We call on him as our Father in Heaven. Why? Because he is the literal Father of our spirits. We are his offspring. The spirits of animals are not the offspring of God the Father. We did not evolve from them either. God breathed into Adam the breath of life and MAN became a living soul.

not true or even remotely a relevant consideration. physiology itself is a metaphysical substance not native to planet earth and to function has a unique spiritual content, homogenized metaphysical forces that science most likely will never reproduce and are the same for all living beings.

and where the c bible, desert religions turn into their fundamental structure of forgeries and fallacies for persuasion rather than the true religion of antiquity. as prescribed - the great flood.

 

[flan327]

u can't even believe all you hear about Galileo anyway

he was put under house arrest for speaking against doctrines of hte Church, which he had no expertise in, to speak of...

it was far from as bad as you hear... not surprisingly

nothing more L ied about in the world thna the Catholic Church...

(now I will read the rest of your post)

Except for the Democratic Party

 

[zaangalewa]

Pilate asked Jesus, What is truth?

Doctrine and Covenants 93:24-25
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

So, did mankind evolve from something that crawled out of sea and eventually turned into mankind over millions of years of evolution or was mankind created after the image of God and by God from the dust of the earth and mankind's spirit?

These two explanations contradict each other and both cannot be true.

Truth and truth are not the same. The use of every word depends in the context. If you take a big heavy stone and you will smash it on your foot then you will feel a lot of pain and your foot will be destroyed. True or not true? And when a doctor likes to repair your foot who believes in truth and right or wrong including anatomic structures and operations and another one likes to repair it who believes to go to a graveyard and to burn three hairs at midnight is the best way ... which doctor do you think knows the truth in this context? Exactly: You will believe in the second one - otherwise you had not smashed on your own a stone at your foot.

The problem of Pilate was how to interpret what people said to him. He did rhethorically ask "What is truth?" in sense of how to make "truth" to a criterion for a judge who is always far from the things which happen but has to make a true decision. In the end he believed in Jesus - but this had no consequence. He washed his hands in innocence and followed ... hmmm ... let me call it "the shit storm" - a form of mass-manipulation. In case we don't know the truth we often replace this with "common sense" or "public opinion". The philosophical problem: Whether something is inter-subjective truth or something is objective truth is often the same for us. For objective truth we need a criterion which is out of us - like for example an experiment in natural science. But often we are not able to make experiments. History for example not knows experiments. Do it or let it be - and hope. That's all.

 

[FA_Q2]

According to the Bible, God's creation took 7 days not millions of years. However, those 7 days were not 7 days as we now count our days. God did not create the sun and moon and place it in relation with the earth until the 4th day of creation. So we know that the timing of the creation story was not according to the days we now have that are in relation to the earth rotating on its axis in relation to the sun. The Apostle Peter taught:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

According to Peter, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. So the 7 days of creation is probably 7000 years. It is definitely not millions of years. However, the creation of Adam and Even occurred in one of those days or within 1000 years. Not millions of years. On that 6th day of creation God describes Adam's creation as follows:

Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here we read that God created man after his own image. Are we to believe that his image was a small sea creature and then changed into a million other images before it was what we now see as a man today? You can believe that but not me. God never said he created any other of his creatures to be in his image except mankind.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Does this sound like man evolved from other species? God actually formed man from the dust of ground. He did not cause man to be evolved from other creatures. Upon forming man of the dust of ground, he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and MAN became a living soul. No evolution about it.

What makes you think that evolution is a better watch than God creating man from the dust of the ground? God isn't constantly moving our hands but has given us free will to choose as we will. Your example is meaningless to me.

And here is the post that shows the OP is incorrect.

It is not science that has an issue with religion. Indeed, science does not bother to comment on the subject at all. However, many religious people make scientific claims, like the origin of the diversity of life on this planet, and then demand they are correct based off religious tenants when science clearly shows us otherwise.

Clearly there are conflicts between the two for many people.

 

[zaangalewa]

Actually there's a "middle path" there. Maybe God decided to "make humans" using the amazing technology He invented called "Evolution".

Think of a man who makes watches for a living. If he is required to constantly move the hands to make sure it is telling the right time it isn't a very good watch. But if he winds it up and it runs on its own it's a REALLY GOOD WATCH.

Which kind of watch would God make?

Whatever watch you take - god is there and looks at you.

 

[zaangalewa]

Only one comment:

...
Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Does this sound like man evolved ...

Yes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And here is the post that shows the OP is incorrect.

It is not science that has an issue with religion. Indeed, science does not bother to comment on the subject at all. However, many religious people make scientific claims, like the origin of the diversity of life on this planet, and then demand they are correct based off religious tenants when science clearly shows us otherwise.

Yes, many religious people disagree with many of the things that they scientific community says about the origins of the diversity of life on this planet. Disagreement and conflict are two different things.

For example, suppose two twins at a zoo see a Giraffe. One twin says, "Another sign of the glory of God! In His wisdom, He blessed the giraffe with that long neck for eating leaves." The other twin says, "This giraffe evolved from a giraffe-like animal with a short neck. As proto-giraffes were born, the ones with slightly longer necks survived better and passed on their slightly longer neck gene. This continued until we have the long-necked wonder we see before us." They pause, and then say simultaneously, as twins will, "Agree to disagree!"

That's not a conflict. It is only when one tries to force the other to accept an unacceptable belief that the conflict begins.

Clearly there are conflicts between the two for many people.

Those perceived conflicts most often arise when the person who perceives the conflict is upset that they other person will not agree to change their opinion at the perceiver's demand.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, many religious people disagree with many of the things that they scientific community says about the origins of the diversity of life on this planet. Disagreement and conflict are two different things.

For example, suppose two twins at a zoo see a Giraffe. One twin says, "Another sign of the glory of God! In His wisdom, He blessed the giraffe with that long neck for eating leaves." The other twin says, "This giraffe evolved from a giraffe-like animal with a short neck. As proto-giraffes were born, the ones with slightly longer necks survived better and passed on their slightly longer neck gene. This continued until we have the long-necked wonder we see before us." They pause, and then say simultaneously, as twins will, "Agree to disagree!"

That's not a conflict. It is only when one tries to force the other to accept an unacceptable belief that the conflict begins.

Those perceived conflicts most often arise when the person who perceives the conflict is upset that they other person will not agree to change their opinion at the perceiver's demand.

That's really an awful attempt at analogy.

Ultimately, it is appeals to magic and supernaturalism that separates religion from the reason and rationality that defines science