Creation/Evolution. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2003, 02:04 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:10 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 02:04 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 01:10 PM
this is al a bunch of baloney.

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

__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 03:16 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:10 PM
Re: Re: Creation/Evolution.

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

Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


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.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 03:51 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

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.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 04:06 AM   #35
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:10 PM
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..."
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 11:19 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:10 PM
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 11:33 AM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-16-2003, 11:54 AM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:10 AM
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:08 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 01:10 PM
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?
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:09 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:13 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:14 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:17 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:27 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 01:09 PM   #45
Refugee
 
RavenStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 01:10 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
RavenStar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com