Evolution OR Creation?

by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult

Brummie

*high fives Panda* I gotcha and I agree.
Abaddon

AlanF: Seems we were both writing at the same time!
LIttleToe:
Some of us believe the facts and still retain a belief in a deity
Which is wonderful, and proof postive that the common Creationist belief in Evolution is disbelief in godis a false belief.
I'm not quite sure WHY you believe in god, but as you are not trying to fill my head with foolishness about how every dating method known to man APART from the Bible is WRONG, or how there WAS a Flood, it's not an offensive backward belief designed to trap the credulous, but a personal one that fills a need you have.
I'm curious as to whether you think any other Holy Books are of worth, or is the Bible your only source of moral guidance?
Frankiespeakin
My proposal:
Atheists who argue about the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible, and fail to take into account the purpose of Scripture. Since they think God is suppose to be giving scientific account in Genesis about how he made the universe and populated the earth with life..
I would like to propose that the critics of Genesis (the first three chapters), explain what is the purpose of Genesis accurately? First.
And after explaining purpose of Genesis, to produce a model, that would be an improvement over Genesis the first three chapters, and all the while keeping in mind,, the cultural setting, and the concept prevalent at the time. Any takers????
I wrote this following bit on a thread a week ago and have trimmed and added a bit to meet your request. I believe that this would be understanable as the account in Genesis to the Bronze Age culture the Bible was originally for, but would also to modern science be a clear indication of divine authorship;
In the begining God was alone and was all.
Then God clapped his hands, and called into being creatures of the spirit to act as his servants and messengers.
And God wove a basket without walls, and filled the basket with a void. All was silent and dark within the void, as neither sound nor light were know. And God sang a song of power, and his servants sang with him, and a seed came to be in the centre of the void, smaller than a mustard grain but heavier than all the mountains. And at the end of God's first song, the seed burst forth as a volcano bursts forth, and all that we see and are was as dust scattered through the void.
But all was chaos at the end of God's first song, so God sang a second song of power, and his servants sang with him, and from the dust of the void stars formed and gathered together as people gather together, tribes of stars that we can still see in the sky as they were in that day.
And God saw it was good.
And then God sang again, a third song of power, and his servants sang with him, and the dust that was left in the void was gathered to the stars as their children, and formed into the smaller lights of the night sky that move in the sky, falling ever inwards to their star but never reaching it, which we can still see in the skies to this day, dancing to God's song.
And God looked upon our star, and saw the light of the star reach the third of the star's children, our home, and he watched and sang, and his servants sang with him, sang a fourth song of power that made the light of the star falling on the third planet blossom into life. And god continued to sing, and the life that sprang forth at first was tiny and simple, as the things made by a child. But as God sang, the fruit of the Earth grew intricate in design and multitudinous, just as the works of a man grow over time as he developes into his maturity.
Finally god sang the song of men, and his servants sang with him, and some animals looked to the skies for the first time with eyes not of beasts, but of men, and they saw the beauty that god had wrought and praised him, as he revealed himself to them.
And God spoke to his children, man, and bade them live in peace and harvest the Earth's bounty, and to render to him due praise.
But one of god's servants, a creature of the spirit, grew jealous of the praise rendered to God, and he went down to the Earth and spoke cunning words in the ears of our forefathers so that they no longer praised God. And our forefathers were foolish, for they harkend unto this wicked servant tales, and did not go to God for council but sought their own council.
So God spoke to man and said unto him "Rule yourselves if that be your will, and we shall see if you have chosen rightly, and I shall give Earth, my creation, over to man for a time.
But God did not abandon his children to the wiles of the evil servant, for the evil servant was thrown from God's courtyard with all those that had stood with him in his deciets. Knowing aforetime his doom the evil servant blamed man for his downfall and determined to plauge him all his days. SO God chose a people to set above all as an example so that when man again turned to God he might once again bring them to his bosom.
This is the book of the history of God's people.
not_tellin:
The gist of a lot of arguments I'm seeing (and forgive me if I oversimplify) is that because the Bible's account of creation is clearly false in light of scientific knowledge, then there must be no God.
...
But personally, when I think about the all physical laws that govern the universe, and all the things that had to go exactly right in order for anything (let alone everything) to work, the idea that it all worked out perfectly with no intervention or guidance seems a lot more complex than the idea that it was designed by someone
Again, something I wrote to a similar question last week;
Welcome to the Anthropic Principle!
Here's a starting point;
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html
Essentially, the fact things allow us to be here to go 'wow' is not in itself proof of anything, as we could only say 'wow' if things allowed us to exist to say 'wow', and that could just be a random process.
No matter how low the chance of that random process occuring YOU ONLY 'KNOW' ABOUT IT WHEN IT DOES. Thus all the events when it doesn't happen are unknown.
Many people can look at them meeting their love as an unlikely event, perhaps only made possible by a sequence of unlikely events ('normally I went there but the night I went there was the only night she'd ever been in my town and blah blah blah'). Even though they are right (sometimes), that doesn't mean that them meeting their love had any hidden meaning by benefit of it happening. It's only unlikely 'cause it's observed in that way by the participants. To be observed by the participants it has to happen. Therefore it can only be viewed as unlikely if it happens; fun eh?
frenchbabyface:
Sorry, but what is this Knowledge about ? … The bible was dedicated (if it was really God’s will) to be understood !!!. Why should we need a master degree in theology and history to be able to verify what it says to us cause it is a commandment, we have to ? THIS IS AN INCOHERENCE.
Absolutely! If humans get confused because there is not enough evidence to satisfy our supposedly god-given intellects, then whose fault is it? If his 'Word' is so convoluted (when it could demonstrably have been encoded with modern scientific detail (as in my example) to such an extent it was obviously inspired), then whose fault is it? If we don't believe in God, God only has himself to blame.
Frankiespeakin
They are incoherent only because your expectations are preconcieved and you have made no allowance for the purpose of Scripture. In fact your rapid response suggest to me you have not given any thoughtful consideration to what I wrote.
Frankie, I was going to say I thought you were being a little rude, and that you had quite enough presuppositions to be getting along with without finger pointing, but from her reply fbf needs no help!
Jimmer
I'm not an expert but, hmmm... One of the physical laws of the universe ( if I recall corrrectly) states, in layman's terms, everything is degrading, slowing down, breaking down, dying, etc. Everything but evolution? I wonder how many more exceptions one has to make to accept evolution as fact.
You are talking about entropy. There are people who will tell you that evolution violates such-and-such a law of physics. Make a note of who they are, as they don't understand science well, and any 'scientific' statements they make should be considered suspect until verified from other sources.
Essentially speaking the Second Law of Themodynamics applies to a CLOSED system. The Universe IS a closed system (we think). Unless it contracts at some point, if no new matter or energy is being created, it will suffer from heat-death. Rather than having hot stars and cold space you will have the same temperature everywhere.
That law does not apply to the Earth. If the sun is shining, walk out the door, or open the window and feel the heat on your face. The Earth is an open system, with a constant supply of fresh energy from the sun. Thus evolution is no exception to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and anyone applying that law to it needs to read some books.
LittleToe

Abaddon:I agree - the idea that one cannot believe in evolution and a deity is a false dichotomy.
It probably isn't helped when atheistic evolutionists muddy the waters by using evolution as part of their arguments in trying to disprove God. It was always bound to bring the Creationist apologists out in a rash.
I believe in God because of a series of ongoing "supernatural" experiences, that I've had. Maybe they'll be explained one day, but my mind likes reasons now and the apparent intelligence, order and timing of such subjective experiences brings me down in the favour of an intelligent invisible buddy
I have received benefit from reading all sorts of writings. I love the "Epic of Gilgamesh", the "Odyssey", apocryphal and psuedopigraphal writings. I've read a little of the Eastern stuff, too, and find it to be very "harmonious".
As with all things, though, we are at the mercy of the translators. At least with the bible I have half a chance of re-reading it in the Greek (which I continue to study). I've had many "blessings" from the bible, but am quite familiar with a number of ways in which it's message has been distorted.
As for moral guidance, I would tend to read Rom.14:14, and let the "Spirit" lead.
Abaddon

LittleToe:
I agree - the idea that one cannot believe in evolution and a deity is a false dichotomy.
It probably isn't helped when atheistic evolutionists muddy the waters by using evolution as part of their arguments in trying to disprove God.
If there is an adequate naturalistic explanation (note adequate, not complete) for existence, then pointing this out is to me a perfectly sound point, given the lack of any objective evidence for god. Occam's Razor, again.
Ask yourself, if you were raised without the concept of god ever being imprinted, and with an adequate (and improving) explanation for existence, would you deduce god? Explain WHY you would if you believe you would, but obviously we're talking objective whys.
I believe in God because of a series of ongoing "supernatural" experiences, that I've had. Maybe they'll be explained one day, but my mind likes reasons now and the apparent intelligence, order and timing of such subjective experiences brings me down in the favour of an intelligent invisible buddy
As such I can't disprove your belief in god as you are honest enough to admit its subjective proof in your experienece. I can't tell you things that happened to you didn;t happen to you.
I have received benefit from reading all sorts of writings. I love the "Epic of Gilgamesh", the "Odyssey", apocryphal and psuedopigraphal writings. I've read a little of the Eastern stuff, too, and find it to be very "harmonious".
As with all things, though, we are at the mercy of the translators. At least with the bible I have half a chance of re-reading it in the Greek (which I continue to study). I've had many "blessings" from the bible, but am quite familiar with a number of ways in which it's message has been distorted.
Interesting; if the message has been distorted, how can you be sure you can remove the distortion to get at the original message?
Perhaps more importantly, if God went to special trouble to give us this book, how come it's so rooted in it's times and distorted from what it was like in it's time? How is this logical?
frenchbabyface

oh Little toe I didn't recognise you ...
LittleToe

Abaddon:
The nature of my experiences are not explained by science. To me they indicate an unseen intelligence.
Now if you want to go for the Quantum Theory framework, I can refer to it in terms of an underlying intelligent energy, but I prefer to use a framework that is still in currency, which is Holy Spirit.
Honest is one of my stronger suits. If I don't know, what's the point in BS'ing?
I'll happily present my opinions, and defend them (as is my right) but I'm happy for others to hold conflicting opinions (as is their right).
As for the message - it's simple - it's love.
Any distortions of the period are probably due to misunderstandings, as the concepts were alien.
I suspect that it would be just as distorted in our age, for all our "enlightenment".
Frenchie:
I needed a change - so that's a current pic, albeit a little overexposed. The beard is currently off, though I'll probably grow it back for the cold Scottish Winter
Abaddon

Littletoe:
As for the message - it's simple - it's love
Hell, I didn't know you had to believe in god to know that!
frankiespeakin

Baby,Alan,Abbadon,
I'm in work right now(have own business) and am leaving in about1/2 hour to hike with a retired college professor, who got his doctorate on his studies of mind control, thru sensory deprivation(conducted on inmates), very interesting fellow, he may only be living here, where I am, for a few more days, so I want to pick his brains.
I've partially read everyones post, and I'm impressed, I promise to give them a more thourough reading perhaps this afternoon when I get back and will comment on them. To do so now would be inappropriate, for it would be too superficial, and not worthy of you efforts.
rem

Jimmer,
I'm not an expert but, hmmm... One of the physical laws of the universe ( if I recall corrrectly) states, in layman's terms, everything is degrading, slowing down, breaking down, dying, etc. Everything but evolution? I wonder how many more exceptions one has to make to accept evolution as fact.
It sounds like you are talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is a common creationist argument, but it really shows that creationists don't understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about. Yes, over time entropy will win out in the universe, but until then the entropy level is not uniform in all parts of the universe.
There are pockets of reduced entropy in the universe, such as our Solar system, which allow chemical reactions and increased complexity to occur. Our Sun is the energy source that makes this work on Earth (the Earth is not a closed system). If your statement were true, it would be impossible for a fetus to develop into a human, or to build a house, or to even draw a straight line.
Here is some more information on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
rem
Abaddon

frankie; hell, I just made up my Genesis by fusing Genesis with the Simarilion (the book of the history of Middle Earth, as in Lord of the Rings. But thanks for having the courtesy to let us know you'll be back, I appreciate it.
All the best

Evolution OR Creation?

Share this