Creation/Evolution.

[nbcrusader]

Interesting side topic, but it is a easy stumbling block. We are created in God's image, but we often try to create God in our image.

 

[ouizy]

this is al a bunch of baloney.

we came from an explosion that happened a long long time ago...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Re: Re: Creation/Evolution.

Thanks for all the replies everyone, it's been interesting to hear what everyone thinks.

FizzingWhizzbees,

What do you think?

To answer my first question: I'd never really thought about this carefully before. In biology classes at school we were briefly taught about evolution and it was presented as fact, without taking into consideration any questions or difficulties which might be relevant to evolution. I'd always accepted evolution as fact (at least as much as any science can be described as fact) but I actually find it quite interesting to see how many somewhat unanswered questions there are about it. I certainly wouldn't say I reject the idea of evolution because of those questions, but I'll certainly make an effort to learn some more about this. (So if anyone has any resources to recommend, I'd be very grateful.)

With regard to my second question: I don't believe schools should be allowed to teach any particular religion's theory of the creation of the world simply because there will be students from a variety of faiths in any school and so it would be wrong to impose another religion's beliefs on those students. (An obvious exception is a school which parents send their children to because they want them to be educated in the beliefs of a particular religion.) I do think schools should teach about evolution in the context of a biology or other science class as whether a person believes evolution is correct or not, it's clearly an influential and important theory and one which it's clearly worthwhile students learning about.

 

[speedracer]

So, are you telling me that:

1)God didn't create man in His own image, as the Bible says?

or

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

Genesis also tells us that man was formed from the dust of the ground. I don't particularly think that the image of God is that of a large aggregate of cells and molecules working in biological and chemical concert. Our "humanity" is clearly something more than just our physical bodies.

 

[Diemen]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook, and quite honestly it frightens me when people use it as such. The men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God, and yes, God's message clearly gets through, but if we are to believe that simply because the Bible states "and God created man from the dust of the earth" that God literally created man from the literal dust of the earth, then that's where I step off.

Those who wrote the Bible needed a way to convey the message without having the scientific/specific knowledge to explain in detail how God did it/and or how life is conceived and created, etc... Which is where we get passages such as the "dust of the earth" and God creating the world in seven regular days, and that the earth is only 10,000 years old, etc...

Sorry for veering off topic, but it honestly boggles me that someone can disagree with evolution and all the scientific theory and evidence behind it simply because "the Bible says..."

 

[80sU2isBest]

Why would the Bible say "from the dust of the earth" instead of saying "God created this which over a period of some odd years, evolved into a man"? Would that have been so hard? You must admit that "dust of the earth" is not a good metaphor for the process of evolution. It doesn't fit at all, so metaphor theory doesn't work. No, the Bible clearly states man was made from the dust of the earth (not the sea, as evolutionists like to say that all life began) and goes on in fact to say that woman was created from man's rib. The Bible can never be used to support the theory of man's evolution. It just will not work. Now for people who don't believe in the Bible anyway, that's no problem. But people who believe that the Bible is 100% true just can't do it, whether you take into account the use of metaphors or not.

 

[BVS]

Why would the Bible say "from the dust of the earth" instead of saying "God created this which over a period of some odd years, evolved into a man"? Would that have been so hard? You must admit that "dust of the earth" is not a good metaphor for the process of evolution. It doesn't fit at all, so metaphor theory doesn't work. No, the Bible clearly states man was made from the dust of the earth (not the sea, as evolutionists like to say that all life began) and goes on in fact to say that woman was created from man's rib. The Bible can never be used to support the theory of man's evolution. It just will not work. Now for people who don't believe in the Bible anyway, that's no problem. But people who believe that the Bible is 100% true just can't do it, whether you take into account the use of metaphors or not.

Much of the Old Testament, I can't take literally. Especially Genesis. There was no one there to record this history! The Bible was written by men. Even if you want to take every word of the Bible literally how did they know what happened at the dawn of time? Humans didn't exist for the first "6 days". How are we to know what happened by reading the Bible.

This logic doesn't make sence to me. And 80's I'll ask again of you that in future discussions please refrain from speaking in absolutes, you're interpretation of the Bible is not the only one.

 

[nbcrusader]

Either the Bible is God's True Word (given to human writers at whatever time God chose) or it is written by people in support of their belief in God.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

What is with all these false "either/or" statements? It's bad logic, folks.

Perhaps these possibilities could be considered. The Bible could have been written by humans with inspiration by God but in language and literary forms that were unique to particular cultures at particular moments. That might include epic stories, poetry, history, and law. It could have been dropped out of the sky. It could have been made up. It could be a collection of a variety of important documents that are useful for religious instruction but are always going to be re-evalued and re-interpreted as new generations with new worldviews approach it. I know that in conservative evangelicalism, there is a distinct resistance to any idea of "changing God's unchangeable word" but I think most of that stems from a misunderstanding of what hermenuetics and interpretation is all about.

In any case, I think it would do all of us well to not resort to debating tactics that are intended to paint one's "opponents" into a corner by presenting a false set of alternatives. We can do better than that, can't we? We can discuss ideas and their relative merits can we not?

 

[80sU2isBest]

This logic doesn't make sence to me. And 80's I'll ask again of you that in future discussions please refrain from speaking in absolutes, you're interpretation of the Bible is not the only one.

Well, I believe in absolutes, so it's going to be very difficult for me not to speak in absolutes. But I will give it my best shot. Here's an edited version of my last post, in "relativist" terms:

Why would the Bible say "from the dust of the earth" instead of saying "God created this which over a period of some odd years, evolved into a man"? Would that have been so hard? It might have been very difficult, but maybe very easy. I believe that you must admit that "dust of the earth" is not a good metaphor for the process of evolution, or maybe you don't have to admit that. I believe (but it may not be the case) that it doesn't fit at all, so metaphor theory may or may not work. No, I believe (but let me reiterate; I have been known to be wrong) that the Bible clearly or not so clearly (depending on your state of belief or state of disbelief) states that man was made from the dust of the earth (not the sea, as evolutionists like to say that all life began, but in actuality, the sea may indeed be the source of life, who knows) and goes on in fact (or maybe it's just a rumor) to say that woman was created from man's rib. The Bible can never be used to support the theory of man's evolution, but then again, maybe it can. It just will not work, or will it? Now for people who don't believe in the Bible anyway, that's no problem - but it may be aproblem if they choose to let it be a problem. But people who believe that the Bible is 100% true just can't do it, whether you take into account the use of metaphors or not, but then again, I could be 100% wrong about all of this.

There, how's that.

I did that this one time, just to be nice. But don't expect it from me every time. It's hard to be a relativist...especially since everyone who reads these posts knows that we're all presenting our opinions, which kinda makes repetitive use of "I believe" a little bit unnecessary.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What is with all these false "either/or" statements? It's bad logic, folks.

It's only bad logic for people who are relativists. For absolutists, it's not bad logic at all. In fact, it's the very basis of absolutism.

 

[BVS]

Well, I believe in absolutes, so it's going to be very difficult for me not to speak in absolutes. But I will give it my best shot. Here's an edited version of my last post, in "relativist" terms:

Why would the Bible say "from the dust of the earth" instead of saying "God created this which over a period of some odd years, evolved into a man"? Would that have been so hard? It might have been very difficult, but maybe very easy. I believe that you must admit that "dust of the earth" is not a good metaphor for the process of evolution, or maybe you don't have to admit that. I believe (but it may not be the case) that it doesn't fit at all, so metaphor theory may or may not work. No, I believe (but let me reiterate; I have been known to be wrong) that the Bible clearly or not so clearly (depending on your state of belief or state of disbelief) states that man was made from the dust of the earth (not the sea, as evolutionists like to say that all life began, but in actuality, the sea may indeed be the source of life, who knows) and goes on in fact (or maybe it's just a rumor) to say that woman was created from man's rib. The Bible can never be used to support the theory of man's evolution, but then again, maybe it can. It just will not work, or will it? Now for people who don't believe in the Bible anyway, that's no problem - but it may be aproblem if they choose to let it be a problem. But people who believe that the Bible is 100% true just can't do it, whether you take into account the use of metaphors or not, but then again, I could be 100% wrong about all of this.

There, how's that.

I did that this one time, just to be nice. But don't expect it from me every time. It's hard to be a relativist...especially since everyone who reads these posts knows that we're all presenting our opinions, which kinda makes repetitive use of "I believe" a little bit unnecessary.

Oh very clever. Thanks for the laugh. But can you answer my questions?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Even if you want to take every word of the Bible literally how did they know what happened at the dawn of time? Humans didn't exist for the first "6 days". How are we to know what happened by reading the Bible.

here, I'm answering your questions.

It's a matter of faith - faith that God gave the truth of what happened to man; he told man what to write.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

It's only bad logic for people who are relativists. For absolutists, it's not bad logic at all. In fact, it's the very basis of absolutism.

Actually, 80s, it has nothing to do with being what you call a "relativist". It's just a basic rule of rhetoric and debate. It's called a logical fallacy

Of course, if you are under the impression that you are in sole possession of the truth, then I wonder why you would even bother to engage in discussion.

 

[RavenStar]

Because of my universe circle theory thingy I believe that the universe has no beginning or end. I'm pretty sold on the whole evolution thing though.

In school we never really touched either theories until middle school and high school. We leaned the big bang theory and evolution in grade 8 schience. In grade nine english we had a unit on mythology. We learned the creation story from different parts of the world. This included the Adam and Eve story. Some people in the class kept complaining about how most of the stories didnt make any sense. Our teacher asked them if they thought the Adam and Eve story made sense and they said of course it made sense. I got to point out to them that it was just as 'out there' as a lot of the other stories.

But see, I believe in subjective reality (if thats what you call it). Where if I believe in one thing it is true for me but not for someone else who believe something different.

I think most things in science class should be taught as theories. I don't think I can just trust some random people who call themselves scientists about what a cell looks like. They could be fooling us all you know. Ever seen the Truman Show? People just accept the environment around them as reality. That movie really made me think.

But getting back on topic. I think schools should teach creationism and evolutionism. But I think they should both be taught as theories along with other stories of creation.

 

[BVS]

here, I'm answering your questions.

It's a matter of faith - faith that God gave the truth of what happened to man; he told man what to write.

So then what about the holes? If you were to take the Bible word for word the literal historical truth how do you explain dinosaurs? How do you explain how Noah not only repopulated the earth with every single animal but also the human population? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. I don't believe it has to do with faith. I mean does faith overcome physical evidence?

Ok, so now I ask, do you believe there are no "man-made laws" that made it into the Bible? Slave laws, grooming laws, etc. these were God's laws?

I'm just asking questions, I would like for someone to try and explain, I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs.

 

[nbcrusader]

Either the Bible is God's True Word (given to human writers at whatever time God chose) or it is written by people in support of their belief in God.

Maybe this works:

Either the Bible is God's True Word (given to human writers at whatever time God chose) or it is not.

"Not" can have as many other definitions as you want.

 

[kobayashi]

kaboom

we came from an explosion that happened a long long time ago...

 

[Diemen]

here, I'm answering your questions.

It's a matter of faith - faith that God gave the truth of what happened to man; he told man what to write.

I don't understand why we have to believe that everything in the Bible is God's direct word in order to have good faith. Who stated that everything in the Bible is the literal truth anyway? Who started this? How do you explain skeletal remains and fossils of neandertals, cro-magnon and earlier human-like creatures? How do you explain the age of the earth using scientific data if through the Bible you come up with an age that flies directly in the face of cold hard scientific fact? Simply because of "faith?" How do you explain some of the old testament in which men's laws are put forth as what God intends? (slavery, extreme punishment - cutting off hands, etc)

In matters of morality and how to live your life in a good, loving and Christian way, then yes, by all means listen to the Bible, but if you're using the Bible to explain how the Earth and man came to be and are actually taking Genesis literally, then you just don't have a legitimate argument in my view.

In this day and age I would hope that reason, science and just plain facts could outweigh religious fervor in the search for truth.

 

[kobayashi]

hes such a kidder that God

How do you explain skeletal remains and fossils of neandertals, cro-magnon and earlier human-like creatures? How do you explain the age of the earth using scientific data if through the Bible you come up with an age that flies directly in the face of cold hard scientific fact?

Godpranks?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Of course, if you are under the impression that you are in sole possession of the truth, then I wonder why you would even bother to engage in discussion.

This coming from the person who replies to posts she doesn't agree with by saying things to the effect of "keep living in your dream world"?

I never said I am in sole possession of the truth. I never even implied that. I believe in what I believe and I'm not gonna back down from it. When you state your beliefs, I don't see you always prefacuing them with "I believe". No one does that. Of course, you'd probably have no problem with me not backing down if I held the same opinions as you.

 

[Diemen]

Re: hes such a kidder that God

Godpranks?

Nice.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't understand why we have to believe that everything in the Bible is God's direct word in order to have good faith.

The question then becomes, on what basis do you accept/reject Scripture?


Remember, there are two levels here. One, is the Bible God's true Word? Two, how do you apply it?



"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't understand why we have to believe that everything in the Bible is God's direct word in order to have good faith. Who stated that everything in the Bible is the literal truth anyway? (1)Who started this? (2)How do you explain skeletal remains and fossils of neandertals, cro-magnon and earlier human-like creatures? (3)How do you explain the age of the earth using scientific data if through the Bible you come up with an age that flies directly in the face of cold hard scientific fact? Simply because of "faith?" (4)How do you explain some of the old testament in which men's laws are put forth as what God intends? (slavery, extreme punishment - cutting off hands, etc)

In matters of morality and how to live your life in a good, loving and Christian way, then yes, by all means listen to the Bible, but if you're using the Bible to explain how the Earth and man came to be and are actually taking Genesis literally, then you just don't have a legitimate argument in my view.

(5)In this day and age I would hope that reason, science and just plain facts could outweigh religious fervor in the search for truth.

Hi Diemen, I hope you don't mind that I have numbered your questions. That makes it easier for me to address each.

1)I believe in the Bible because of a combination of faith and experience. The reason I believe the entire Bible rather than just part of it is because I know that if God is the Big God I think he is, he's big enough to keep his entire word together in an accurate and truthful representation, which I know as the Bible.

2)How do I explain these? I don't really need to try to explain that they aren't humans because there is no conclusive proof that they are. I think that if one is arguing for evolution, the burden rests on that person to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

3)Many scientists (who adhere to Creation science) do consider the world to be about 6 to 8,000 years old. They say that the rings in the earth and the trees are being misinterpreted by using the wrong aging standards.

4)Many laws in the Old Testament were from God and many were from man. I don't reallty understand what this has to do with anything, though.

5) That is your opinion, to which you are certainly allowed.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So then what about the holes? If you were to take the Bible word for word the literal historical truth how do you explain dinosaurs? How do you explain how Noah not only repopulated the earth with every single animal but also the human population? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. I don't believe it has to do with faith. I mean does faith overcome physical evidence?

Ok, so now I ask, do you believe there are no "man-made laws" that made it into the Bible? Slave laws, grooming laws, etc. these were God's laws?

I'm just asking questions, I would like for someone to try and explain, I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs.

I don't need to explain away dinosaurs. Nothing in the Bible excludes the exsitence of dinosaurs. In fact, there is a reference to a great sea monster (leviathan) in the Bible that many scholars think refers to a dinosaur.

The only way I explain Noah is to say that men and women lived much longer lives back then and were able to procreate at older ages.

 

[speedracer]

3)Many scientists (who adhere to Creation science) do consider the world to be about 6 to 8,000 years old. They say that the rings in the earth and the trees are being misinterpreted by using the wrong aging standards.

But this would imply that estimates of the age of certain fossils are off by a factor of around 10,000...

 

[anitram]

3)Many scientists (who adhere to Creation science) do consider the world to be about 6 to 8,000 years old. They say that the rings in the earth and the trees are being misinterpreted by using the wrong aging standards.

Rocks in the Namib desert are the oldest in the world, they are dated at 1.5 million years. I plan on standing on top of them next summer when I go to Africa.

It is not a matter of looking at rings in the earth, but at precise dating methods.

It is a virtual impossibility that scientists around the world are off by basically the entire 1.5 million years. That sort of error is simply not made by misinterpretations.

Furthermore, if you look at rates of HGT (horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer) among bacteria, you can determine the point in time where different species/genera split off. This uses things like evolutionary clocks and the study of 16S rRNA. I believe Salmonella and Escherichia branched off from one another 100 million years ago. Again, it is completely against everything that these creationists stand for and against EVERYTHING that we know about the rates of genetic mutation.

I don't believe this age thing at all, it actually sounds pretty silly to me in light of all the evidence and I provided only two examples, thousands of others exist.

 

[melon]

Remember, there are two levels here. One, is the Bible God's true Word? Two, how do you apply it?

I bring out this passage a lot...

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10.

Who really *cares* about anything else? The rest of the Bible could go up in flames, and I wouldn't need it outside of this passage.

First, I should also mention that the "dust of the Earth" would probably have microscopic, single-celled organisms, if put under a microscope. Secondly, if fetuses / embryos are also made "in God's image," then you should also know that a human embryo, at a certain stage, looks identical to several species of animal, including frogs and monkeys.

I don't see the point of this thread, except for creationists to look down on evolution-believers as "non-Christian" and for evolutionists to point and laugh at creationists. How many threads have we had on this subject over the last three years?

Having grown up in a religion with no conflict between science and creation, this entire thread has been a non-issue for me. I comfortably believe in evolution and in God.

Melon

 

[melon]

1)I believe in the Bible because of a combination of faith and experience. The reason I believe the entire Bible rather than just part of it is because I know that if God is the Big God I think he is, he's big enough to keep his entire word together in an accurate and truthful representation, which I know as the Bible.

That certainly doesn't mean that God chose to exercise that right, and I believe it is limiting of God to assign a limiting interpretation of the Bible. The Pharisees thought they had it all correct, but when Jesus came around, it proved how wrong they really were.

2)How do I explain these? I don't really need to try to explain that they aren't humans because there is no conclusive proof that they are. I think that if one is arguing for evolution, the burden rests on that person to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

Well, if we started talking about "conclusive proof," creationism should have been thrown out the window decades ago. I'm sorry, but a 10,000 year-old world is not possible.

3)Many scientists (who adhere to Creation science) do consider the world to be about 6 to 8,000 years old. They say that the rings in the earth and the trees are being misinterpreted by using the wrong aging standards.

That's because they are grasping for straws, in the same vein that numerology has, for a millennium, *conveniently* constructed these elaborate formulas that *always* point to the end of the world being in the near future. Rather than looking at the evidence and constructing a conclusion, "creation science" (what an oxymoron if I've ever read one) has a preset conclusion that they will construct evidence for, no matter how fantastical it is.

Regardless, no one has ever been able to explain to me how Cain was able to marry and procreate with someone who shouldn't exist after being cast out of the Garden of Eden, assuming that the present interpretation of Adam and Eve being the first family. It is my view that the "creation myths" were polytheistic in origin, and that "Adam and Eve" were the first of the "Chosen People," while "pagans" were viewed to have been created by their own respective gods.

It is also interesting how similar Judeo-Christianity is to Zoroastrianism, the Persian religion that the exilic-period Jews were exposed to under the Persian Empire. If there is one trend that seems to be pretty constant, no matter what time period or place it is, it is that religion is constantly molded by the environment it originates from. I wish we could say that religion is "consistent," but then there would be plenty of evidence to the contrary...

...so, I guess it brings me back to Romans 13. "Love is the fulfillment of the law." Does it really matter at all how we are created? Why do we concern ourselves with such triviality? The fact is that we exist *now.*

Melon

 

[BVS]

The question then becomes, on what basis do you accept/reject Scripture?

I accept some scripture to be recorded history as it happened. I accept some scripture to be stories passed on from person to person for purposes of getting an idea across, similar to the parables Jesus told. Some is poetic metaphors. But all is acompassing of God. But not directly from God's mouth, hand, etc. for then I wouldn't believe it to be written by man.

I believe the humans who wrote Genesis were not capable of understanding the true complexities of the begining of life. Heck they thought the world was flat. Heck we don't even truly understand it now. Therefore I believe God used metaphors to explain it, like in so many other times in the Bible.

I could point by point go through the Bible and show how it doesn't conflict with science but it would take entirely too long. I believe the two to coincide and honestly don't understand those who can't, but this is just my view.