Evolution or Creation?

[AKAK]

Im a fleabit peanut monkey
All my friends are junkies
Thats not really true

Im a cold italian pizza
I could use a lemon squeezer
What you do?

But Ive been bit and Ive been tossed around
By every she-rat in this town
Have you, babe?

Well, I am just a monkey man
Im glad you are a monkey woman too

-Jagger/Richards.

That ought to settle things I think.

On to Brown Sugar?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That actually sounds like the beginning of an evolutionary process set into motion by a fairly capable God...

It could, I concede. But the difference, I think is, that people tend to look at G-d in an anthropomorphic way.... I'm not sure if I'll be able to convey what I mean by that. What I'm driving at is what I was saying with the "one tracked mind" comment. Thus, to the extent that the creation describes a "sequence of events" I am perfectly willing to accept it seems to gel with evolutionary processes as we currently know them -and in fact, I have argued the same before... that the creation can and should be understood metaphorically (probably the wrong word) and not literally. My objection is to the strict construction of that description, I guess, and the alleged consequences of so doing.

So God is only worthy of worship if he lays everything out there for everyone to understand without any difficulty or mystery or nuance? That kind of god (capitalization/semantics aside), who wouldn't dare to offend the arrogance of human intellect, sounds more like a weakling and simpleton from my perspective.

I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that as a possible objection, and I didn't get in to it because it runs further afield from the topic of this thread. It gets in to the "nature" of G-d's... character... You've - as I would have done - phrased it in a way that it makes it sound as if I suggest G-d must bow to man's intellect. But, that is not the intention of what I was trying to convey. What I am saying is, considering the belief that G-d is LOVING (if we accept that), there is a serious disconnect that reality, as observed by the sciences, is so vastly different than the one alleged to be the "real" reality as per G-d. As G-d would be the superior in the G-d - Man relationship, he would be culpable for the deception, especially where that same G-d was responsible for our own ability to understand Him at all.

In this regard, I think it's fair to put the onus on "believers" to establish why any man of reason should forgo that reason.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I'm sorry you don't want to go through it again... I certainly can appreciate your position that we've been through it ad nauseum. I just enjoy the discussion, and am always looking for a new thing to consider... which I cannot get with a response of silence.

Eh, I agree about discussion, but I don't believe either of us has provided anything new to consider.

I'd have to think about that, but I have serious doubts that would be true for me. The age of the earth has very little bearing, to me, about what G-d is or is not. I suppose it would be some evidence that the Bible should be taken more seriously..... but, alas, the Biblical failings of reason are greater than the age of the earth (Again, in my opinion. I want to be careful that I don't come across as judgmental or derogatory... it's hard to have these conversations and be solid in one's own views without so sounding.)

The only thing I pretty much have left to say is that I have witnessed nothing in the Bible that conflicts with the reality I experience. Or with the reason and logic He gave me.

For me, I've been pondering the inconsistency of your worldview and how you view people ( or at least what I can ascertain you think of those things from your posts here). At some point we could delve into that ( not now, no time). I'm interested. I don't understand. While I don't understand, and I certainly don't agree, its not like I don't believe you have reasons or logic. Somewhere we all put weight on something that spring boards our reason.

 

[Gatorubet]

If the earth were young that would have large implications that the Judeo Christian God is God.

And, that all of the hard sciences, as taught at the Ohio State University and the University of Florida, are apparently based upon complete and utter bullshit.

I decline to go there, philosophically.

 

[Apache]

Either/Or

Does it matter?

The answer is yes!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The only thing I pretty much have left to say is that I have witnessed nothing in the Bible that conflicts with the reality I experience. Or with the reason and logic He gave me.

As I wrote one of my posts above, it did strike me as a bit of a revelation that someone like you would say what you just said. That is, my entire argument is based on a certain set of assumptions which I have incorrectly required be accepted as true before proceeding. It is only sensible that you would only believe what you believe if it made sense to you and thus it comes as no shock that you believe the Bible to be congruent with the reality that surrounds you.

As you say, we don't need to talk about it now... but I confess a complete loss to understand how anyone can reconcile, for example, the Flood story with reason. The only answer I can recall being given to that has been "It's my faith" (and I'm not saying that was your response) and to me, that's no answer as it concerns the issue of "reason." But, some other time on that, I guess.

For me, I've been pondering the inconsistency of your worldview and how you view people ( or at least what I can ascertain you think of those things from your posts here). At some point we could delve into that ( not now, no time). I'm interested. I don't understand. While I don't understand, and I certainly don't agree, its not like I don't believe you have reasons or logic. Somewhere we all put weight on something that spring boards our reason.

I find it more than a little coincidental that I just sent you a PM which you may have now read which I wrote before reading this paragraph.... My Mother would take great meaning from the "coincidence" and... perhaps I should as well..

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

As I wrote one of my posts above, it did strike me as a bit of a revelation that someone like you would say what you just said. That is, my entire argument is based on a certain set of assumptions which I have incorrectly required be accepted as true before proceeding. It is only sensible that you would only believe what you believe if it made sense to you and thus it comes as no shock that you believe the Bible to be congruent with the reality that surrounds you.

As you say, we don't need to talk about it now... but I confess a complete loss to understand how anyone can reconcile, for example, the Flood story with reason. The only answer I can recall being given to that has been "It's my faith" (and I'm not saying that was your response) and to me, that's no answer as it concerns the issue of "reason." But, some other time on that, I guess.


I find it more than a little coincidental that I just sent you a PM which you may have now read which I wrote before reading this paragraph.... My Mother would take great meaning from the "coincidence" and... perhaps I should as well..

Talk about your coincidence.
I honestly would love walk down the road with you on some of these discussions, but they would likely take more time than today allows. Tomorrow, I will be on vacation, finally. Get to visit the home state. So I won't be on the computer much (which really is a vacation because I'm a software developer). So the deeper stuff will have to wait.

And, that all of the hard sciences, as taught at the Ohio State University and the University of Florida, are apparently based upon complete and utter bullshit.

I decline to go there, philosophically.

I believe there's plenty of hard sciences that go unaffected by origins talk. It's not like there aren't scientists with doctorates from these universities who proclaim a belief in a younger earth. I think that the most and the best sciences strive to answer the how something works as opposed to where it came from. If the universe were created in 6 days does that invalidate genetics? Gravity? Physics ( at least most of it)?

 

[Brewtus]

If the universe were created in 6 days does that invalidate genetics? Gravity? Physics ( at least most of it)?

If the universe took several hundred million years to expand, is 14 billion old and humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, would that invalidate God?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

If the universe took several hundred million years to expand, is 14 billion old and humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, would that invalidate God?

Not at all, maybe my idea. Remember I believe that God could have created it to take 14 billion years, for various reasons I believe He didn't.

 

[Brewtus]

Not at all, maybe my idea. Remember I believe that God could have created it to take 14 billion years, for various reasons I believe He didn't.

And if there were consistent evidence between various fields in science supporting a universe that appeared in 6 days, I would also accept that. But no such evidence exists so I don't.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

And if there were consistent evidence between various fields in science supporting a universe that appeared in 6 days, I would also accept that. But no such evidence exists so I don't.

I realize you believe all this Brewtus. My response was specifically to Gator and how science would change if a young earth were true. I guess I don't see your point.

 

[muffler dragon]

the elite military of the Sacred Band of Thebes

Stop making shit up!

It doesn't seem like it would take a whole lot of creativity to make the biblical creation story mesh with the theory of evolution. For instance, I have seen people say that each 'day' in the seven day creation story actually represents billions of years. And you could say that when God created the animals and the earth and sea (and whatever else) you could interpret that as God putting into motion the evolutionary and geological processes that began shaping the life and land on earth.

My own personal thought that I like to share, in particular to people who's argument consists of "I didn't come from no monkey!" is to point out that the bible says that God created man in his image, but what if God looks like a monkey? or to take that even further, what if God looked like the single celled whatever that he set in motion to evolve into modern day humans? I think it's something interesting to think about.

I don't necessarily believe these ideas, but like I said, it doesn't take much to mesh the two things together, and even if it has holes in it, it is better than undermining thought and curiosity in children who wonder why things are the way they are.

1) Gerald Schroeder wrote a book I recommend, "God & The Big Bang". It's a cool presentation regarding the commonality of Rabbinic Theology about Creation and scientific theories.

2) FWIW, "image" in Genesis 1 is not about a particular "appearance". Has to do with intellect, reason, etc.

Does it matter?

The answer is yes!

Nuh-uh.

the Flood story with reason. The only answer I can recall being given to that has been "It's my faith" (and I'm not saying that was your response) and to me, that's no answer as it concerns the issue of "reason." But, some other time on that, I guess.

What about the possibility of it NOT being on a global scale?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What about the possibility of it NOT being on a global scale?

Beyond the scope of this thread, really, but.. I would be willing to accept that the Flood story in the Bible does address a real flood. Here's what I think on Flood stories (Biblical and otherwise)
1 - Flood stories are embellishments about what the world looked like to man living on coastlines during the end of the ice age. As the ice melted, the water level arose.... Man in North Africa notices the Med is "higher" talks about it... says some god must be responsible.. since no other story makes sense to him.
2 - The Biblical Flood discusses the flooding of the plain that now lies beneath the Persian Gulf. Link

In my view my theory explains why so many cultures have flood myths and it also explains something a little more specific regarding the Biblical story (assuming the data on the link I linked is indeed correct)

 

[Best Buckeye]

When you bury your face between two large boobs do you feeel flooded? I know I do.

 

[Buckeye86]

2) FWIW, "image" in Genesis 1 is not about a particular "appearance". Has to do with intellect, reason, etc.

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

so was the Bible just being redundant when it used both "image" and "likeness"? I can definitely give you that one may have been referring to intellectual similarities, but why throw the other one in there as well?

also, both words definitely have overwhelmingly visual connotations, is this a case of a bad translation?

I actually like the idea of not taking God's image literally, since it doesn't really make sense to do so, but I have two problems with that:

#1 picking and choosing what is meant literally and what is meant figuratively in the Bible throws a major wrench into the idea that the Bible is the absolute truth when there is so much room for interpretation, why not just say that Noah's ark was just a metaphor, or any number of other things in the Bible were just figures of speech ect.

#2 if this is the case, then it seems like even less of reason for people to be so vehemently apposed to the theory of evolution, I mean, the absolute largest factor that separated modern day humans from everything else on the evolutionary timeline was their intelligence, that seems to gel pretty well with both the Bible and evolution if "image" wasn't meant to be a visual thing

while your interpretation may be true, and may make more sense, I think that there are a lot of people out there, and maybe even most people out there, who take the passage literally and think that God looks exactly like modern day humans and that is one of the main foundations in their opposition to evolution