Evolution or Creation

Terry wrote:

Lucifer, how do you "know" that God is not a group of organisms rather than a single entity? Otherwise, I second everything you said.

If he were the organisms he created, then why would he destroy them? He destroyed the Egyptians in the Old Testament. We also refer to God as "he". If god is to be termed "he", then god should be a living organism. You can't really call a group of organisms, "he", can you?

0 Replies

Lucifer, Genesis refers to plural gods in the Garden of Eden story, and the Israelites believed that there were many gods (they were barred from worshipping foreign gods since their own God was subject to fits of jealousy).

God's gender is a meaningless concept if there are not multiple gods who can reproduce sexually.

Most religions have goddesses as well as gods, and the reference to the Judeo-Christian god as "he" is a reflection of the male-dominated culture that created him.

0 Replies

One extra terresteral hypothesis that is growing in piopularity is that ET made humans (and possibly some of the other creatures) by genetic manipolation. While some ET are more advanced than humans they are not gods = all powerful, infalable, all knowing etc. ET use evolution as a tool between occasional active meddling. Neil

0 Replies

Then why is Christianity termed monotheism (if it is, which I'm sure it is), meaning that there is one god?

0 Replies

Lucifer wrote:

Then why is Christianity termed monotheism (if it is, which I'm sure it is), meaning that there is one god?

JM: The term used, "Elohim" is the plural form. "Eloha" IIRC is the singular term for God.

Cheers

Joe Meert

0 Replies

JMeert wrote:

Lucifer wrote:
Then why is Christianity termed monotheism (if it is, which I'm sure it is), meaning that there is one god?

JM: The term used, "Elohim" is the plural form. "Eloha" IIRC is the singular term for God.

Cheers

Joe Meert

"Mono" is the Greek prefix for "one". I don't know where "Elohim" comes in, though I do know of the "im" plural ending in Hebrew.

0 Replies

Quote:

Then why is Christianity termed monotheism

Its the old 3 in 1 1 in 3 hat trick.

If you ask me (and I confess you didnt) monotheism is the worst idea mankind ever came up with.

0 Replies

I've also heard that god consists of a trinity--the father, son and holy ghost. So is he a trinity or is he a group of organisms? I don't see how he could be both.

0 Replies

E VS C
The problem here is that science cannot prove the existence of a creator God but it cannot disprove the existence of God either.

Feliz

0 Replies

simply put... i know have a headache after reading this thread... as a christian and a "scientist" myself... i have a hard time with both of these topics. i believe with my whole heart that there is a god and that that god is God. But where I find myself faultering is did He create one set of things... be it animals, organisms or humans and then let them evolve on their own or did He create one thing and like an artist improve upon his creation, making something bigger and better and letting the lesser die out and the new take the path. Oh the questions that are asked do not always have the same answer in mind when we ask them, eh?

0 Replies

Re: E VS C

mathman wrote:

The problem here is that science cannot prove the existence of a creator God but it cannot disprove the existence of God either.

Science does not even attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science simply reveals nature. Science leaves us free to decide for ourselves how the natural processes came to be. However, we are not free to deny the fact of those processes (without questioning our own grip on reality).

0 Replies

Science also cannot disprove that there is an invisible giant white rabbit with little bows on its ears flying in orbit around Mars. Science does not try to prove a negative.

0 Replies

For me, as a Christian with a good deal of scientific interest, there is no conflict between creation (as in God created it all) and evolution. It seems that there are three prevailing theories:

1. The Big Boss theory. God thought it all up and
caused it to happen.

2. The Big Bang Theory.

3. The vacuum cleaner theory. (This is the one in which all matter has always existed and, given an infinite amount of time, will at times come together in various ways. Its like putting all the parts of a vacuum cleaner in a sack and shaking it. Given unlimited time, it is conceivable at some point those parts could come together as a fully functional vacuum cleaner.

(Another theory is given unlimited time, a Chimpanzee randomly punching keys on a keyboard could eventually type out a Shakespearean play.)

The Bible literalist of course has to go with theory one and reject the others; however s/he must also pretty well shut down his/her brain to avoid acknowledging how the Bible, taken literally, contradicts itself even in the first two chapters of Genesis. The literalists comprise a tiny fraction of all Christians however.

Most of the rest of us can see that Theory One is not in the least negated if God chose evolution to get things done.

God could also have used the Big Bang process. He's just the one who lit the fuse.

Or if we go with the vacuum cleaner theory, God could shake the sack.

What is, is whether or not we all agree on how it happened or even what has happened so far I think.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Most of the rest of us can see that Theory One is not in the least negated if God chose evolution to get things done.

God could also have used the Big Bang process. He's just the one who lit the fuse.

Exactly.

Also, people have been saying for years that "God is everything", so maybe it's literally true; God didn't sit outside of everyting and start it all, but rather, this elegant Universe of which we are a part could BE God.

The knowledge science has revealed isn't in conflict with these possibilities, it's only in conflict with the literalist interpretations of the processes which are described in some holy books.

0 Replies

Some things to consider (don't mind if I butt in)

I've been told that "Theory one" (Big boss), as well as creationism are not theories (at least scientifically speaking). The mechanisms part of creationism are not really explained. We don't know how or why god exists, and apparently, there is no known way to observe this. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a good way to form a hypothesis and predictions around this: If god exists, then what? What proofs or results are we to expect if god exists? Even if god exists, as in deism, he's not observable so creationism and "theory one" are not really theories.

If god were to improve upon his creations like an artist, why would he need to improve upon us when he's already perfect? I can understand an artist wanting to improve and make better art, but that's because we're imperfect. It doesn't matter how good an artist you are, face it, you're still imperfect because you're only human.

0 Replies

Lucifer writes

Quote:

Some things to consider (don't mind if I butt in)

I've been told that "Theory one" (Big boss), as well as creationism are not theories (at least scientifically speaking). The mechanisms part of creationism are not really explained. We don't know how or why god exists, and apparently, there is no known way to observe this. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a good way to form a hypothesis and predictions around this: If god exists, then what? What proofs or results are we to expect if god exists? Even if god exists, as in deism, he's not observable so creationism and "theory one" are not really theories.

If god were to improve upon his creations like an artist, why would he need to improve upon us when he's already perfect? I can understand an artist wanting to improve and make better art, but that's because we're imperfect. It doesn't matter how good an artist you are, face it, you're still imperfect because you're only human.

All good questions Lucifer. I think Creationism becomes 'theory", in a sicentific sense, to those Christians or other people of faith who have experienced God. This is unprovable to anyone who has not experienced God, or at least has not recognized that s/he has experienced God. For those who have experienced God, that experience invariably has shown God to be composed of love as variably defined. It is expected that love is the most desirable of all human conditions and the one critical element for personal satisfaction and happiness.

Logically, love cannot exist unless there exists the possibility of not loving. In order for there to be an ability to love, therefore, there much be choice or free will. From this point logic/reason takes over to arrive at certain conclusions within 'the theory' of Creationism.

The theological base of Biblical Creationism is that God created everything perfect in the beginning and provided a blueprint for his creation to keep it that way. We creatures, however, given free will, have not always chosen God's blueprint and have attempted to forge our own. In doing so we have spoiled His creation and generally screwed things up.

The premise that God is 'improving' us is therefore theologically unsound. The premise, according to Biblical theology, should be that God is ever prodding us to return to our perfect state. It has taken us so many thousands of years to screw it all up, it will require some time of doing it right to get it back the way it is supposed to be of course.

Anyhow that's how I see it. Other Christians will no doubt have a different point of view.

0 Replies

You can not have a theory of creation that begins with the statement "assume a miracle", and call it science. Science is positivistic, it stick to what can be demonstrated. All else is theology.

0 Replies

I can see what you mean when you say experience, but it is not necessarily proof of god's existence. Can god's existence be tested? If we wanted to "experience" god, can we test it and see that it does work? Creationism is not, scientifically speaking, a theory, but it is an idea. People just want to stick the word "theory" to the end of "Creation" just to make it sound better. They want scientists and others to think of creationism on equal grounds with evolution theory, but they don't see that one can be tested scientifically and the other cannot, which is why creationism fails as a theory.

And also, if nobody minds me asking, if those bible thumpers don't comprise of very much of the Christian population, why are they so significant in society today? I've heard they've been trying to get schools to teach the Christian religion (ie, shoving their beliefs down other people's throats) by getting support from politicians? I don't know how those few people could get so much support.

0 Replies

If one were able to test God, He wouldn't be much of a God would he? Yet most Christians do believe in evidence of His existence. Many Christians do pray for and expect miracles.

Lucifer asks:

Quote:

And also, if nobody minds me asking, if those bible thumpers don't comprise of very much of the Christian population, why are they so significant in society today? I've heard they've been trying to get schools to teach the Christian religion (ie, shoving their beliefs down other people's throats) by getting support from politicians?

I suppose there are Christians somewhere who have demanded Creationism be taught in lieu of Evolution but I've never met one and I know lots and lots of Christians. I think a huge majority of Christians would not want, much less insist that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution in the public schools. In the rare case where that happens, for whatever reason it becomes a huge deal and the media magnifies it to ridiculous proportions and then the anti-religious are too often eager to believe it is some kind of insidious major movement. (The mainstream Christians who oppose that get little or no press.)

Most Christians I think would be happy for the teachers to teach what my teachers taught: that it is fine to believe God created the universe and everything in it, but that won't be accepted on your science test because it cannot be supported scientifically. You'll have to use the answers out of your science book that can be supported scientifcally.

Most of us I think would be happy enough if the teachers did not attempt to destroy the children's faith by telling them God had nothing to do with it

When it comes right down to it, the wisest scientist cannot prove God to be a myth or wishful fabrication any more than the religious can prove that God exists.

0 Replies

Lucifer wrote:

And also, if nobody minds me asking, if those bible thumpers don't comprise of very much of the Christian population, why are they so significant in society today? I've heard they've been trying to get schools to teach the Christian religion (ie, shoving their beliefs down other people's throats) by getting support from politicians? I don't know how those few people could get so much support.

Consider your question from the perspective of politics and look at a bit of history.

About thirty years ago a small group of evagelical Christians decided they didn't like the way things were going. Roe V Wade had just struck down the anti-abortion laws and there were several other things which they objected to which occured during the previous twenty years.

This small group figured out what it takes to get things done in this country. A large, focused, politically astute organization. They used the NRA as a working model to get started, mostly because the NRA was very successful then and had been in business for many decades.

This group went to work organizing the other churches and basing their arguments on the Bible. They appealled to one aspect of many folks' beliefs and sensitivities, then told them what they objected to and got them organized to write lots of letters, vote regularly, and make a point of telling candidates what they stood for and what they wanted the candidates to do.

That is where they came from and how they have so much clout. They are organized and have a very narrow focus for their agenda.

Kelly

0 Replies

Evolution or Creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know