• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Evolution or Creation?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Best Buckeye;2141395; said:
So just where did that first tiny little speck that everything evolved from come from?
Click to expand...

Beats me, but until the proponents of biblical creation can cite evidence to support its claims "God did it!" isn't an acceptable answer.

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe. But I do challenge the religious folks who claim they do know to provide evidence to support such claims, and quoting the bible doesn't count as evidence until they can prove the book's validity as the "word of God".
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio;2147065; said:
Re: Evolution or Creation?

I know a person that doesn't discount a 3rd theory; Alien Insertion, i. e. (for whatever reason) aliens from another planet placed humans on earth, etc.

:slappy:
Click to expand...

I thought that was just a dream. Shit.


meanwhile, we still can't figure out how the creamy filling gets in the twinkie... maybe we should just start with that.

"They're just born there!"
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;2141408; said:
Not so. Physicist Gerald Schroeder breaks it down rather well in the following book:

Amazon.com: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (9780553354133): Gerald Schroeder: Books

51nIssZRnWL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


And maybe I'm jumping the gun, because I presume that your use of the "completely illogical" statement is based on a YEC/literalist view of the Genesis story. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

If by "literalist" view of the bible you mean "the word of God is what it says in the book, not what people want to read into it", then yes, the literalist view.

This reminds me of something else I find remarkable - the literalist view of which version of the bible? Why does the "word of God" come in so many variations? Was God confused? If he exists as he is described, that would be impossible. Is he incapable of explaining things in a way that his creation can comprehend? Seems to me he would know how to explain things to us in distinct terms, absent ambiguity. After all, who would know how our minds work better than he who, as the story goes, created us? So when talking about "the bible" one first has to be clear which "bible" is being discussed. That, in itself, will draw skepticism from those without faith.

As for this particular book, I've heard/read attempts to rationalize the contents of "the bible" with known science, so while I'm sure the book is fascinating I'm not interested in reading 200 pages of it. If there is a specific position you wish to cite I'll comment on it.

Of course, beyond creation itself how does a person of faith - or this author - expain how life survived the flood on Noah's ark? The story seems extremely implausible to me, or is that also a literalist view? Which begs one more question, at what point does deviating from a "literalist" view of the bible become "making the bible say what you want it to say, in order for it to make sense"? Again, it seems like God would've made himself perfectly clear.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;2147074; said:
This reminds me of something else I find remarkable - the literalist view of which version of the bible? Why does the "word of God" come in so many variations? Was God confused? If he exists as he is described, that would be impossible. Is he incapable of explaining things in a way that his creation can comprehend? Seems to me he would know how to explain things to us in distinct terms, absent ambiguity. After all, who would know how our minds work better than he who, as the story goes, created us? So when talking about "the bible" one first has to be clear which "bible" is being discussed. That, in itself, will draw skepticism from those without faith.
Click to expand...

All I'll say is that when I attempted to find out more about Genesis through a Judaic perspective of the original Hebrew, there were a number of "issues" that went away. Furthermore, the Schroeder book was additionally beneficial in this regard.

As for this particular book, I've heard/read attempts to rationalize the contents of "the bible" with known science, so while I'm sure the book is fascinating I'm not interested in reading 200 pages of it. If there is a specific position you wish to cite I'll comment on it.
Click to expand...

Well... Dr. Schroeder is quite learned academically as well as rabbinically. That being said, the nuances of the original Hebrew lend themselves more towards a non-literal view of the creation story. The book delves into the theory of relativity from a divine perspective and rather coincides with the manner in which the universe went together over time. Basically, the perspective is that there can be harmony between science and the account without having to debate the minutiae.

Of course, beyond creation itself how does a person of faith - or this author - expain how life survived the flood on Noah's ark? The story seems extremely implausible to me, or is that also a literalist view? Which begs one more question, at what point does deviating from a "literalist" view of the bible become "making the bible say what you want it to say, in order for it to make sense"? Again, it seems like God would've made himself perfectly clear.
Click to expand...

Regarding the flood, those that I have dialogued with who are Jewish and strong in their understanding of the original Hebrew have stated that the "global" proportions of the flood needn't be taken as worldwide, but instead, a localized consideration. Take it FWIW. I am not learned in Hebrew nor the nuances of the language. I have to take others at their word on it.

Needless to say, English doesn't do the Hebrew language a whole lot of justice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top