Further up in this thread, Fluffy (iThink), wrote that he had seen science and evolution erode faith like no other theory.
From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science?
I think it has more to do with the kind of 'faith' you practice, than with the honest endeavors of science. It seems to me that that kind of 'faith' (that would be so upset by this) is not really faith at all.
This is very poor theology when it is infinitely more concerned with quelling man's fears of the unknown, than with contemplating God. Apathetic and poor. It wants to read everything as literally true, so that it can appropriate the power of 'the word' into a politics that NEVER makes an effort to understand 'its' poetry or work for the depth of 'its' truth. Which you are free to do, but should you do it, as you have done, then you forfeit any just complaints. You never believed, you just hoped you didn't have to die. You and your ilk are killing Christianity, not the scientists.
As I said earlier, these discussions have a way of degenerating into name-calling and shrieking very quickly. Matsu, xenu, get your fangs back inside your lips. As the old saying goes, you'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. You're certainly not going to change Fluffy's mind by hurling insults. If your position really is the rationally, intellectually, and theologically superior one, let your arguments stand on their own merit. Another old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have emotion on your side, argue the emotions. If you have neither, pound the table and yell a lot." I'm hearing a lot of yelling and table-pounding from you.
You know how you react when a creationist gets in your face and starts yelling. Fluffy's going to react the same way. Remember: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not just a pithy bromide. I would certainly appreciate it if you would keep your emotions under control. I've been enjoying this thread thus far - I would hate to have to abandon it.
<strong>NoahJ, if you want to substitute ignorance for knowledge, go ahead. No one is going to stop you.
Fluffy, I know where you are comoing from, but I couldn't let ignorance be substituted for knowledge. Sorry.
Anyway, back to your imaginary gods and devils ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever dude. Don't read my posts and then call me ignorant. If this is going to devolve into you name calling I will feel free to back out. I am not interested in a shouting match.
so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?
Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.
You all are not testing my faith, you are testing my debating skills which are arguably rusty. I have considered that I was wrong before, but decided that it was not a correct consideration. I have plenty of respect for scientific process, and for science in general. But in this instance I am going to have to say they have no way of knowing any better than me. That far back I don't care what process you use, you cannot put God in a box and tell me what he can and cannot do. If I am wrong what has it hurt? So I don't believe I evolved from a squirrel, does that make me a bad person? Some of those on the boards are seeming to think so.
Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?
I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.
Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.
So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.
[quote]The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.<hr></blockquote>
I don't adhere to any specific spiritual doctrine as such but I have read the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and others.
The literal, or "sundayschool" interpretation of the phrase "God made man in his own image" doesn't cut it for me one atom. It just comes over as anthropocentric and almost childlike.
Scriptures from India state that God is beyond comprehension by mind and intellect, and powerful as they are, their scope is insufficient to contain the concept of God. God is immeasurable and omnipresent right to the distant stars in the farthest reaches of space.
"Made in his(!?!) image" has little to do with the the physical appearance of humankind and far more to do with that invisible and unquantifiable spark of self-realization, awareness, power of intent, consciousness, attunement the the Universe, i.e. those aspects of God that reside in each and every one of us. blah, blah, etc etc...(language is the wrong tool for this so I stop before I get into the inevitable tangle of conceptual spaghetti)
I'm no theologian, but I don't think one really has to be; as stated God is beyond intellect. To reach that state of God-awareness requires divorcing the mind from intellectual thought and analysis, such as the state reached during deep meditation. Jesus was undoubtedly a practitioner of such, and may easily have studied yoga and related disciplines in his apparent travels before his ministry, and there are many passages in the Gospels which suggest this.
I don't even know where I stand with the "God" concept as portrayed by religions... I guess I am agnostic rather than atheist.
I found this the other day by Nadine Goldsworthy, a nice little passage:
[quote]Twilight on the beach. And ebb tide. The afternoon crowd has melted away . . . swimmers, strollers, picnicking families, and running children . . . all departed. Solitude and the vastness of ocean and sky envelop the world in a unit of harmony.
The tide enacts its daily drama. Always I ponder this mystery. What is the voice that each day bids the sea sponge the land free of its litter of broken boards, odd shoes, and dingy paper
drifts? The moon's attraction moves the tides, we know. But what direction moves the moon? And all the heavenly bodies that extend, universe beyond universe, into the farness? What is
the Prescience, indeed, that controls the cosmos? How often we have asked ourselves the imponderable question -- the awesome origin of creation.
The stillness is immense. Nothing stirs. Then upon the heart fall the words: "In the beginning God . . ."
It is a stark statement, this opening phrase of Genesis, declaring God the First Cause. Yet a growing number of philosophers and scientists are coming to its acceptance (the unscriptural
ones among them perhaps preferring such terms as Intelligence, the Absolute, or other abstract designation).
For the truth is we are confronted with the fact that, although laboratories have produced almost magic formulas to improve the conditions of human existence from its dawning until death,
the secret of life itself continues to evade the most intensive research. It would seem that the cosmic essence pulsating through all that has being is not translatable into terms of scientific
precision. Again a Biblical text asserts itself: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
Scientists agree today that the universe is one in basic substance, that every form of matter occupying space is but a varying arrangement of elements energized by the originating impulse.
Again we ask, what is this force? It is obvious that all existence is related by reason of its origin. Individuality obtains in myriad aspects in every kingdom, in mineral, flora, and fauna. Yet
underneath this diversity lies the deeper reality of one chain throughout the range of creation. Individual identity is as a drop of water in the ocean of the Whole.
"All earth's creatures are of one parentage," writes I. M. Oderberg. "The same Life-force that erupted through the early volcanoes and condensed into the material world produced us all."
(1) We know, then, we are kin to the amoeba and the skylark, the weed and the giant sequoia, to clod, lion, rainbow, and star. We are one, truly, with all being.
In the deepening evening light, I reflect on this unity of the cosmos, a majestic universe created of one substance, by one mysterious Life-force, and governed by one unerring Directive.
Sea and sky are blending into dim obscurity. Space evaporates in immensity, and time becomes one with the Infinite. . . . I realize newly the single identity of eternity and the present
moment. There is no separable Now. It is part of endless duration as a half hour is part of a day. Those who feel life to be ever-enduring know themselves to be always in eternity, whether
in incarnation or out of it. We exist in eternity. Our course lies through it in deathless continuity.
There are seeming breaks when we step off its never-ending highway to enter into spans of life, for life is the period of training necessary to our further progress in evolution. But these
interruptions are only temporary stations along our pilgrimage upon the Way. The pauses are many, for there are many lives to be lived, numberless successions of them possibly, with their
disciplines and refining experiences, before we attain the qualities to initiate us into the ultimate realization of the whole.
The nature of the lives we shall be called to enter, or those from which we have come, is not revealed. As we look about us on our planet, we note the multitude of diverse realms, separate,
except for the interdependence that links all creation. The ocean is such an order, much larger than ours. The birds' medium is removed from that of others, as is the dominion of things that
burrow the soil. Untold numbers of these domains exist within our immediate knowledge. What legions of them the universe must be housing in its immensity! And in this profusion and
complexity, which ones among them will become our worlds?
Man possesses a reasoning consciousness beyond that of his lesser creature brethren. Accordingly, we do not expect to find ourselves reduced in evolutionary stature in any future estate. If
we have failed to take advantage of opportunities afforded in one life, or have offended against its natural laws, we shall inevitably encounter less favorable conditions in the following
existence. Our return may be to similar or to varying circumstances, again in human life. But however placed, we shall not be in an inferior milieu. For the great plan of evolution is not
backwards, but forwards.
As the cycles proceed, we shall undoubtedly find worlds so differing from the one we now occupy, that it is impossible to conceive their appearance, structure, or composition, or even the
likeness we ourselves shall assume in them. Perhaps on planets and stars, identities invisible to our astronauts may be maintaining systems under conditions our human eyes and senses fail
to perceive. And could it be that even in the atmosphere, here, at this moment, tenuous presences are following in their own orbit a program peculiar to their kind, although we remain as
unaware of them as they are of us and our region?
This is not too fantastic a supposition, is it? I cannot defend it from a scholarly advantage, for I am only an amateur student of the universe. But, if true, we must believe that all these
manifestations, whatsoever their form or aspect, and in whatsoever area, are units of the Creator's family, and are therefore vitally of the Creator's concern, as are we in our familiar world.
No dismay attaches to the thought of past lives. Why, then, should we fear the ones to come? As we observe the colossal plan of the cosmos, and the guidance of the beneficent Mind that
controls the luminaries on high, yet bends to accord the smallest insect its place in the balance of the universe (as scientists tell us), should we not be persuaded that the same Mind attends us
in every phase of our sojourn on the eternal Way?
The stars have risen, for I have tarried long. They move in ordered procession across the heavens, chanting the celestial music of the spheres to creation's unfathomed farnesses. In the
beatific light that shines upon earth, I turn homeward, confident, serene.<hr></blockquote>
Science and religion should not be opposed, science deals with the real and religions (should) deal with metaphysics.
The big bang theory was created by a belgium catholic priest Lemaitre, nobel prize of physics. Lemaitre make the fundamental statement that science and religion should never been mixed. For him, it was two differents matters. One of his favorite phrase was the one of Laplace "god is not an hypothesis" and he added "i have to respect for him."
religion for men like Einstein, Lemaitre are interpretations of the reality. For Einstein the laws of physics are one aspect of god.
Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate ). So we can consider that the gift of conscienthousness bring us the sin, because without conscienthousness there is no sin (the notion of sin is not applicable).
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.
So let's separate Science from Religion and life will becoming better. Science can feed religion but religion cannot replace science. Do we remember the history of Gallileo, with the stupid process of the catholic church, is there is anybody here to say that the sun turn around the earth by this time where we travel in space ? In the contrary i will be oblige to call him an ignorant
<strong>Further up in this thread, Fluffy (iThink), wrote that he had seen science and evolution erode faith like no other theory.
From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.
To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.
I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.
If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.
Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.
Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.
Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.
Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.
NoahJ wrote :
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.
He also wrote
... unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.
When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.
Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.
Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...
BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.
--
Edit
Adding so you won't be offended.
BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.
Well let me jump out and call you ignorant and attack your views and see how you feel after the fact. By your response you so far seem to be quite satisfied that your barb stung me a bit.
[quote]Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.
Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.<hr></blockquote>
And I take offense that you would think that this applies to me. i am not ignorant of any of the theories being put forth here, I just choose to believe that they are not entirely correct. Stubborn maybe, ignorant, no.
[quote]When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.<hr></blockquote>
No, it is saying that you do not agree with the theory as put forth and then pressing on with your own beliefs.
[quote]Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.<hr></blockquote>
Since when are you the one to determine what is right for everyone? The only person i have given a hard time even slightly for on this board has been The Blue Meanie when he spoke on believing in reincarnation. Even then I kept it tongue in cheek (or meant to) and tried to make it clear that I was. You ont the other hand have made no such effort. You seem to take offense that someone would even consider that evolution is not everything you believe it to be. Why is that? i am ignoring nothing, I am disagreeing and therefore not accepting the current theory as it stands.
[quote]Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...<hr></blockquote>
Anyhow, back to your man made theories and interpretations.
[quote]BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.<hr></blockquote>
Flamebait, not worth a response.
--
[quote]Edit
Adding so you won't be offended.
BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.<hr></blockquote>
You think that makes the rest of your post ok? Did you even read your post when you were typing it? Get real man.
Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?
I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.
Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.
So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.
Your thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.
I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts. )
The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....
But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?
Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The creationist theory is just a litteral read of the Bible , by consequence there is nothing said in that subject. Anyway i am sure that the creationist keeper will try to invent something to explain this ...
And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?
Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.
I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts. )
The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....</strong><hr></blockquote>
My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.
With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.
One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.
In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.
This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.
Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.
To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.
I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.
If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.
Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.
Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.
You leave me absolutely baffled with this. Evolution is not Atheistic, in the sense that it negates the existence of God. As with any other scientific theory (and science in general), saying "God did it" is unacceptable. I cannot (scientifically) explain a chemical reaction mechanism by simply saying "God did it." He may have, but it utterly useless as a means of advancing knowledge. If I write and publish a paper with "God did it" as the sole theory to explain my results, I have praised God but not really told anybody anything. I must elucidate each step of the reaction mechanism in exact detail so that others can read my paper and use the information in their own research.
In its essence, science is really a game. Its basic premise is, "Let's see how much of the behavior of the world we can explain without invoking any miraculous divine intervention." We may someday hit a point where there is an irreducible phenomenon that genuinely has no other explanation than "God did it." In 400+ years of scientific investigation, we have yet to hit that point. There is no "belief in science" as though it were a religion. There is belief in "the process of science produces useful knowledge", but that is quite different. Science is a verb, not a noun. It is not a "thing", it is a process for acquiring knowledge.
So, as I said in an earlier post, science does not deny the existence of God. Neither does evolution. The fact that Atheists try to use evolution that way does not change it. They are Affirming the Consequent, a fundamental logical error. Let me try and show you:
IF (there is no God) THEN (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) is a true statement. However, if we turn it around and "Affirm the Consequent" the statement is not necessarily true:
IF (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) THEN (there is no God) is NOT a true statement. The correct conclusion would be that (there may or may not be God).
Anyway, it appears that ad hominem attacks on you in the past have driven you into a corner with very high defensive walls around it. I am sorry for that. However, I do science for a living - chemistry, specifically. I understand thoroughly what it is all about. Science itself is not responsible for how its theories are represented to the public. Ernest Rutherford is not responsible for blowing up Hiroshima because he discovered the atomic nucleus. If others misrepresent evolution to promote some social agenda, it is not evolution's fault. It appears you're "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" - rejecting evolution because of what others have used it for, not based on its validitiy.
If you are a young-earth creationist, then there are a whole host of problems you have to contend with. It is not a neat theory in any way shape or form. For example, according to YEC chronology, the Egyptians were building pyramids while living at the bottom of an ocean 5 miles deep. There are so many places where it directly contradicts what is obvious to the eye. All these are explained away with more hand-waving and "God did it" theories. If you want to declare Creationism as a statement of faith, you're more than welcome. As a statement of science, however, it is rather sorely lacking. Based on the evidence at hand, if evolution is ever overthrown from its position in Biology, its replacement will certainly look nothing at all like the current ideas of creationism. Scientifically, it is just plain wrong.
My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.
With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.
One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.
In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.
This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your conception is very near than mine :
Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate ). So we can consider that the gift of conscienthousness bring us the sin, because without conscienthousness there is no sin (the notion of sin is not applicable).
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.
However i create for me this interpretation of the bible even if i am not beleving in god. But i have respect for this book who his the base statement of the monotheist culture, and i refuse to read it in a litteral way. In fact even if i do not believe in god ( a personal choice that have nothing to do with reason, but to faith : you believe or you don't believe) i respect church (the catholic one, because i have more knowledge on it, and i ignore the others : don't have any clues about the mormons for example) and i believe that we can find intelligent interpretation of the bible that is not in contradiction with science.
[QB]And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?<hr></blockquote>
DNA is one constant that we find in all living things. Truthfully, I cannot explain why 99% of our DNA is the same as a chimp. I am not God. Looking at a chimp there are many feature similarities and other things that may account for why teh DNA is so similar. By feature similarities I am speaking of Arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, etc. What is all that DNA used for? Makes us look how we do, directs growth of body parts and such. So if a monkey looks just like your uncle Guido with the one eyebrow and knuckles dragging maybe that is why.
I don't pretend to understand all the science behind DNA. And I certainly don't pretend to know the mind of God. If TJM is right and God "implanted a soul" into an animal then that explanation would fit just fine. (I don't think so but it is the first time someone has put forth an evolution argument that I have thought could be a possibility.) If not then maybe God saw that he had it mostly right for a man and only needed to change a little bit of it to make him just right. After all, Gold and Lead are only a few molecules off on the Periodic Table, and yet one is near worthless and the other is a Priceless metal. Go figure.
Comments
Fluffy, I know where you are comoing from, but I couldn't let ignorance be substituted for knowledge. Sorry.
Anyway, back to your imaginary gods and devils ...
From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science?
I think it has more to do with the kind of 'faith' you practice, than with the honest endeavors of science. It seems to me that that kind of 'faith' (that would be so upset by this) is not really faith at all.
This is very poor theology when it is infinitely more concerned with quelling man's fears of the unknown, than with contemplating God. Apathetic and poor. It wants to read everything as literally true, so that it can appropriate the power of 'the word' into a politics that NEVER makes an effort to understand 'its' poetry or work for the depth of 'its' truth. Which you are free to do, but should you do it, as you have done, then you forfeit any just complaints. You never believed, you just hoped you didn't have to die. You and your ilk are killing Christianity, not the scientists.
As I said earlier, these discussions have a way of degenerating into name-calling and shrieking very quickly. Matsu, xenu, get your fangs back inside your lips. As the old saying goes, you'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. You're certainly not going to change Fluffy's mind by hurling insults. If your position really is the rationally, intellectually, and theologically superior one, let your arguments stand on their own merit. Another old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have emotion on your side, argue the emotions. If you have neither, pound the table and yell a lot." I'm hearing a lot of yelling and table-pounding from you.
You know how you react when a creationist gets in your face and starts yelling. Fluffy's going to react the same way. Remember: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not just a pithy bromide. I would certainly appreciate it if you would keep your emotions under control. I've been enjoying this thread thus far - I would hate to have to abandon it.
<strong>NoahJ, if you want to substitute ignorance for knowledge, go ahead. No one is going to stop you.
Fluffy, I know where you are comoing from, but I couldn't let ignorance be substituted for knowledge. Sorry.
Anyway, back to your imaginary gods and devils ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever dude. Don't read my posts and then call me ignorant. If this is going to devolve into you name calling I will feel free to back out. I am not interested in a shouting match.
<strong>
so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?
I am genuinely interested.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.
You all are not testing my faith, you are testing my debating skills which are arguably rusty. I have considered that I was wrong before, but decided that it was not a correct consideration. I have plenty of respect for scientific process, and for science in general. But in this instance I am going to have to say they have no way of knowing any better than me. That far back I don't care what process you use, you cannot put God in a box and tell me what he can and cannot do. If I am wrong what has it hurt? So I don't believe I evolved from a squirrel, does that make me a bad person? Some of those on the boards are seeming to think so.
<strong>
Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?
I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.
Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.
So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.
Your thoughts?
I don't adhere to any specific spiritual doctrine as such but I have read the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and others.
The literal, or "sundayschool" interpretation of the phrase "God made man in his own image" doesn't cut it for me one atom. It just comes over as anthropocentric and almost childlike.
Scriptures from India state that God is beyond comprehension by mind and intellect, and powerful as they are, their scope is insufficient to contain the concept of God. God is immeasurable and omnipresent right to the distant stars in the farthest reaches of space.
"Made in his(!?!) image" has little to do with the the physical appearance of humankind and far more to do with that invisible and unquantifiable spark of self-realization, awareness, power of intent, consciousness, attunement the the Universe, i.e. those aspects of God that reside in each and every one of us. blah, blah, etc etc...(language is the wrong tool for this so I stop before I get into the inevitable tangle of conceptual spaghetti)
I'm no theologian, but I don't think one really has to be; as stated God is beyond intellect. To reach that state of God-awareness requires divorcing the mind from intellectual thought and analysis, such as the state reached during deep meditation. Jesus was undoubtedly a practitioner of such, and may easily have studied yoga and related disciplines in his apparent travels before his ministry, and there are many passages in the Gospels which suggest this.
I don't even know where I stand with the "God" concept as portrayed by religions... I guess I am agnostic rather than atheist.
I found this the other day by Nadine Goldsworthy, a nice little passage:
[quote]Twilight on the beach. And ebb tide. The afternoon crowd has melted away . . . swimmers, strollers, picnicking families, and running children . . . all departed. Solitude and the vastness of ocean and sky envelop the world in a unit of harmony.
The tide enacts its daily drama. Always I ponder this mystery. What is the voice that each day bids the sea sponge the land free of its litter of broken boards, odd shoes, and dingy paper
drifts? The moon's attraction moves the tides, we know. But what direction moves the moon? And all the heavenly bodies that extend, universe beyond universe, into the farness? What is
the Prescience, indeed, that controls the cosmos? How often we have asked ourselves the imponderable question -- the awesome origin of creation.
The stillness is immense. Nothing stirs. Then upon the heart fall the words: "In the beginning God . . ."
It is a stark statement, this opening phrase of Genesis, declaring God the First Cause. Yet a growing number of philosophers and scientists are coming to its acceptance (the unscriptural
ones among them perhaps preferring such terms as Intelligence, the Absolute, or other abstract designation).
For the truth is we are confronted with the fact that, although laboratories have produced almost magic formulas to improve the conditions of human existence from its dawning until death,
the secret of life itself continues to evade the most intensive research. It would seem that the cosmic essence pulsating through all that has being is not translatable into terms of scientific
precision. Again a Biblical text asserts itself: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
Scientists agree today that the universe is one in basic substance, that every form of matter occupying space is but a varying arrangement of elements energized by the originating impulse.
Again we ask, what is this force? It is obvious that all existence is related by reason of its origin. Individuality obtains in myriad aspects in every kingdom, in mineral, flora, and fauna. Yet
underneath this diversity lies the deeper reality of one chain throughout the range of creation. Individual identity is as a drop of water in the ocean of the Whole.
"All earth's creatures are of one parentage," writes I. M. Oderberg. "The same Life-force that erupted through the early volcanoes and condensed into the material world produced us all."
(1) We know, then, we are kin to the amoeba and the skylark, the weed and the giant sequoia, to clod, lion, rainbow, and star. We are one, truly, with all being.
In the deepening evening light, I reflect on this unity of the cosmos, a majestic universe created of one substance, by one mysterious Life-force, and governed by one unerring Directive.
Sea and sky are blending into dim obscurity. Space evaporates in immensity, and time becomes one with the Infinite. . . . I realize newly the single identity of eternity and the present
moment. There is no separable Now. It is part of endless duration as a half hour is part of a day. Those who feel life to be ever-enduring know themselves to be always in eternity, whether
in incarnation or out of it. We exist in eternity. Our course lies through it in deathless continuity.
There are seeming breaks when we step off its never-ending highway to enter into spans of life, for life is the period of training necessary to our further progress in evolution. But these
interruptions are only temporary stations along our pilgrimage upon the Way. The pauses are many, for there are many lives to be lived, numberless successions of them possibly, with their
disciplines and refining experiences, before we attain the qualities to initiate us into the ultimate realization of the whole.
The nature of the lives we shall be called to enter, or those from which we have come, is not revealed. As we look about us on our planet, we note the multitude of diverse realms, separate,
except for the interdependence that links all creation. The ocean is such an order, much larger than ours. The birds' medium is removed from that of others, as is the dominion of things that
burrow the soil. Untold numbers of these domains exist within our immediate knowledge. What legions of them the universe must be housing in its immensity! And in this profusion and
complexity, which ones among them will become our worlds?
Man possesses a reasoning consciousness beyond that of his lesser creature brethren. Accordingly, we do not expect to find ourselves reduced in evolutionary stature in any future estate. If
we have failed to take advantage of opportunities afforded in one life, or have offended against its natural laws, we shall inevitably encounter less favorable conditions in the following
existence. Our return may be to similar or to varying circumstances, again in human life. But however placed, we shall not be in an inferior milieu. For the great plan of evolution is not
backwards, but forwards.
As the cycles proceed, we shall undoubtedly find worlds so differing from the one we now occupy, that it is impossible to conceive their appearance, structure, or composition, or even the
likeness we ourselves shall assume in them. Perhaps on planets and stars, identities invisible to our astronauts may be maintaining systems under conditions our human eyes and senses fail
to perceive. And could it be that even in the atmosphere, here, at this moment, tenuous presences are following in their own orbit a program peculiar to their kind, although we remain as
unaware of them as they are of us and our region?
This is not too fantastic a supposition, is it? I cannot defend it from a scholarly advantage, for I am only an amateur student of the universe. But, if true, we must believe that all these
manifestations, whatsoever their form or aspect, and in whatsoever area, are units of the Creator's family, and are therefore vitally of the Creator's concern, as are we in our familiar world.
No dismay attaches to the thought of past lives. Why, then, should we fear the ones to come? As we observe the colossal plan of the cosmos, and the guidance of the beneficent Mind that
controls the luminaries on high, yet bends to accord the smallest insect its place in the balance of the universe (as scientists tell us), should we not be persuaded that the same Mind attends us
in every phase of our sojourn on the eternal Way?
The stars have risen, for I have tarried long. They move in ordered procession across the heavens, chanting the celestial music of the spheres to creation's unfathomed farnesses. In the
beatific light that shines upon earth, I turn homeward, confident, serene.<hr></blockquote>
The big bang theory was created by a belgium catholic priest Lemaitre, nobel prize of physics. Lemaitre make the fundamental statement that science and religion should never been mixed. For him, it was two differents matters. One of his favorite phrase was the one of Laplace "god is not an hypothesis" and he added "i have to respect for him."
religion for men like Einstein, Lemaitre are interpretations of the reality. For Einstein the laws of physics are one aspect of god.
Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.
So let's separate Science from Religion and life will becoming better. Science can feed religion but religion cannot replace science. Do we remember the history of Gallileo, with the stupid process of the catholic church, is there is anybody here to say that the sun turn around the earth by this time where we travel in space ? In the contrary i will be oblige to call him an ignorant
<strong>Further up in this thread, Fluffy (iThink), wrote that he had seen science and evolution erode faith like no other theory.
From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.
To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.
I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.
If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.
Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.
Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.
Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.
NoahJ wrote :
I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.
He also wrote
... unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.
When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.
Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.
Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...
BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.
--
Edit
Adding
BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: xenu ]</p>
Hmm, bit touchy, aren't we.<hr></blockquote>
Well let me jump out and call you ignorant and attack your views and see how you feel after the fact. By your response you so far seem to be quite satisfied that your barb stung me a bit.
[quote]Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.
Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.<hr></blockquote>
And I take offense that you would think that this applies to me. i am not ignorant of any of the theories being put forth here, I just choose to believe that they are not entirely correct. Stubborn maybe, ignorant, no.
[quote]When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.<hr></blockquote>
No, it is saying that you do not agree with the theory as put forth and then pressing on with your own beliefs.
[quote]Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.<hr></blockquote>
Since when are you the one to determine what is right for everyone? The only person i have given a hard time even slightly for on this board has been The Blue Meanie when he spoke on believing in reincarnation. Even then I kept it tongue in cheek (or meant to) and tried to make it clear that I was. You ont the other hand have made no such effort. You seem to take offense that someone would even consider that evolution is not everything you believe it to be. Why is that? i am ignoring nothing, I am disagreeing and therefore not accepting the current theory as it stands.
[quote]Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...<hr></blockquote>
Anyhow, back to your man made theories and interpretations.
[quote]BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.<hr></blockquote>
Flamebait, not worth a response.
--
[quote]Edit
Adding
BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.<hr></blockquote>
You think that makes the rest of your post ok? Did you even read your post when you were typing it? Get real man.
<strong>
Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?
I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.
Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.
So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.
Your thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.
I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts.
The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....
<strong>
But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?
<strong>
Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The creationist theory is just a litteral read of the Bible , by consequence there is nothing said in that subject. Anyway i am sure that the creationist keeper will try to invent something to explain this ...
And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gods laziness perhaps?
<strong>
Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.
I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts.
The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....</strong><hr></blockquote>
My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.
With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.
One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.
In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.
This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.
<strong>
Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.
To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.
I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.
If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.
Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.
Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You leave me absolutely baffled with this. Evolution is not Atheistic, in the sense that it negates the existence of God. As with any other scientific theory (and science in general), saying "God did it" is unacceptable. I cannot (scientifically) explain a chemical reaction mechanism by simply saying "God did it." He may have, but it utterly useless as a means of advancing knowledge. If I write and publish a paper with "God did it" as the sole theory to explain my results, I have praised God but not really told anybody anything. I must elucidate each step of the reaction mechanism in exact detail so that others can read my paper and use the information in their own research.
In its essence, science is really a game. Its basic premise is, "Let's see how much of the behavior of the world we can explain without invoking any miraculous divine intervention." We may someday hit a point where there is an irreducible phenomenon that genuinely has no other explanation than "God did it." In 400+ years of scientific investigation, we have yet to hit that point. There is no "belief in science" as though it were a religion. There is belief in "the process of science produces useful knowledge", but that is quite different. Science is a verb, not a noun. It is not a "thing", it is a process for acquiring knowledge.
So, as I said in an earlier post, science does not deny the existence of God. Neither does evolution. The fact that Atheists try to use evolution that way does not change it. They are Affirming the Consequent, a fundamental logical error. Let me try and show you:
IF (there is no God) THEN (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) is a true statement. However, if we turn it around and "Affirm the Consequent" the statement is not necessarily true:
IF (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) THEN (there is no God) is NOT a true statement. The correct conclusion would be that (there may or may not be God).
Anyway, it appears that ad hominem attacks on you in the past have driven you into a corner with very high defensive walls around it. I am sorry for that. However, I do science for a living - chemistry, specifically. I understand thoroughly what it is all about. Science itself is not responsible for how its theories are represented to the public. Ernest Rutherford is not responsible for blowing up Hiroshima because he discovered the atomic nucleus. If others misrepresent evolution to promote some social agenda, it is not evolution's fault. It appears you're "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" - rejecting evolution because of what others have used it for, not based on its validitiy.
If you are a young-earth creationist, then there are a whole host of problems you have to contend with. It is not a neat theory in any way shape or form. For example, according to YEC chronology, the Egyptians were building pyramids while living at the bottom of an ocean 5 miles deep. There are so many places where it directly contradicts what is obvious to the eye. All these are explained away with more hand-waving and "God did it" theories. If you want to declare Creationism as a statement of faith, you're more than welcome. As a statement of science, however, it is rather sorely lacking. Based on the evidence at hand, if evolution is ever overthrown from its position in Biology, its replacement will certainly look nothing at all like the current ideas of creationism. Scientifically, it is just plain wrong.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
Gods laziness perhaps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.
With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.
One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.
In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.
This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your conception is very near than mine :
Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate ). So we can consider that the gift of conscienthousness bring us the sin, because without conscienthousness there is no sin (the notion of sin is not applicable).
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.
However i create for me this interpretation of the bible even if i am not beleving in god. But i have respect for this book who his the base statement of the monotheist culture, and i refuse to read it in a litteral way. In fact even if i do not believe in god ( a personal choice that have nothing to do with reason, but to faith : you believe or you don't believe) i respect church (the catholic one, because i have more knowledge on it, and i ignore the others : don't have any clues about the mormons for example) and i believe that we can find intelligent interpretation of the bible that is not in contradiction with science.
[QB]And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?<hr></blockquote>
DNA is one constant that we find in all living things. Truthfully, I cannot explain why 99% of our DNA is the same as a chimp. I am not God. Looking at a chimp there are many feature similarities and other things that may account for why teh DNA is so similar. By feature similarities I am speaking of Arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, etc. What is all that DNA used for? Makes us look how we do, directs growth of body parts and such. So if a monkey looks just like your uncle Guido with the one eyebrow and knuckles dragging maybe that is why.
I don't pretend to understand all the science behind DNA. And I certainly don't pretend to know the mind of God. If TJM is right and God "implanted a soul" into an animal then that explanation would fit just fine. (I don't think so but it is the first time someone has put forth an evolution argument that I have thought could be a possibility.) If not then maybe God saw that he had it mostly right for a man and only needed to change a little bit of it to make him just right. After all, Gold and Lead are only a few molecules off on the Periodic Table, and yet one is near worthless and the other is a Priceless metal. Go figure.