Evolution or Creation

Did I say it did?




At some point, a huge majority of 19th century American southerners "believed" slavery was an acceptable institution.

Should we have allowed that majority's will to prevail?

You do understand that a significant part of a democratic society's obligation is to protect the minority from the unrestrained imposition of will by the majority.

The pledge of allegience is exactly that...an instrument which allows an individual to pledge loyalty to his/her country. The fact that 90% of Americans "believe" there is a god in no way means that they should be able to incorporate parts of that "belief" into something as secular as the pledge.

Our money...same argument.





I agree with them.




Well it isn't...and I wish you people would finally recognize that it is arbitrary, unnecessary, and insulting to people who are not "believers."




see my remarks above.




No problem.

To Walter and Acquiunk:
The radical creationists who thinks science is bunk will likely be offended if good science is taught, but such opinion should not prevail. So Walter, yes, information on blood transfusions should be taught not as a refutation of a Jehovah Witness child's faith but as a fact. The teacher should not tell the Jehovah Witness child she her faith is wrong but simply tell him/her what transfusions are and how and why they work and s/he will be required to know that information. If the Jehovah Witness parents object to such teaching, they should make different schooling arrangements for their child.

If a child feels his/her faith is challenged because science is taught, that is not the problem of the school. Those parents that do not wish their children to be taught science should make other arrangements for their children's schooling.

There is no constitutional right to not be offended so long as the school board and the law agrees that proper science, history, etc. is being taught. There is a world of difference between the teacher telling the class what information they are required to learn and that teacher telling the class there is no God, etc.

Saudi Arabia has the luxury of being a one-religion state and they can thus do it however they wish. Our multi-cultural, multi-religion state and our constitution prohibiting establishment of religion does not.

It comes down to awareness vs. belief.

One is aware of Paleontology if one studies it. One believes in Creationism and doesn't study but rather chooses an unsubtle form of censorship.

Hudson's theory of uniformity holds true because it can be shown on all the distinct continents. Whether one is aware of this fact or not is of little consequence. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

To suggest that one cannot have a sense of the divine without sacrificing an awareness of modern science is like being a dissenting member of the Papal Council that nearly excommunicated Teilhard de Chardin.

They didn't as a whole; and there is a reason that Jesuits are regarded as the most educated among Catholics.

In a word: evolution.

Hudson's theory is actually knowns as the Theory of Uniformitarianism. And as some have pointed out the fossil record is in some of those layers.

Many don't know the Precambrian from the Recent Era, and I think that's where the problem arises.

padmasambava writes:


Exactly. My faith requires me to give up or question no accepted science. Probably it has not always been so but the Church and understanding of the universe and the world has evolved for most believers right along with the rest of humanity. In my belief, God can do anything. Even science.

My Bible in Genesis does not say God created man and woman in seven days... It says God formed man from the dust of the ground... THAT IS EVOLUTION! Darwin got his theory from the Bible.
If people would open their eyes and just read the Bible they would realize that it teaches both evolution and creation. The debating over this issue would finally resolve if people could realize this.

Break it down.. the Bible teaches both evolution and creation. Yes both! First verse: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In that verse there is nothing about seven days...

Second verse: And the earth BECAME without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep... How did it "become" this way? Would God create a dark and formless/void heaven and earth? Of course not! Well later in the Bible it explains that Lucifer the angel of "light" from the first creation fell. He shut out his light (we have the evidence on this earth to prove the fall)... i.e. Asteroid impact... the ice age... Life was already created when Lucifer fell... remember, in the first verse... The heavens and the earth BECAME that way, dark and void.

So God says let there be light. God did not have to "create" light at this point, he already had created it and life in the first verse billions of years earlier... he just had to speak it back into being. The Bible does not say God created Adam and Eve... it says Adam's body was "formed from the dust of the ground" (Evolution) and Eve was taken from his rib meaning she evolved beside him.

In the entire seven days the only thing the Bible says God "created" was the SPIRIT in Adam and Eve. This was what was significant in the garden of Eden that it marked the period where man was no longer a wild animal but became human and civilized. This is the "image/spirit" of God that was "created" in us.

So the Bible explains how the first force of "energy/matter" was created billions of years ago that "evolved" and what God "created" in humans to set us apart from all other creatures/animals. The Bible does not say anywhere that "humans' or the world were "created" in seven days. God "revamped" the world in ways but did not "create" it in seven days. Christians and scientists should learn how to read first. This would make less debate and considerably much more accord.

Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are perhaps millions if not billions of years. So the next time you accuse the Bible of not teaching evolution... think about it again.

I don't know how much you do understand evolution, but evolution does not simply mean creating man out of dust. Man (homo sapiens sapiens) was descended from homo erectus and other earlier species--man came about through generations and generations and generations of men and apes before us. Evolution means there is change--not simply going from dust to man. I don't know if there is any evidence, but how do you know if man was created before woman? Early species did not have genders (bacterium, protist, etc.). This seems to indicate that whoever or whatever wrote the bible was not aware of this. Which version of the bible are you reading from? There are many versions of the bible, some which have been modified (ie, King James version) to misrepresent the original meaning. I don't know if anyone knows which version is most accurate to the original bible. How do you know light had to be created? It could have been there the whole time, just like when I ask how god was created, no one can tell me. All I get is that god was always there. (In other words, why is god the only exception? Why couldn't I just believe in a monster with six eyes, three pairs of wings, five tentacles, eight legs and three heads?) I don't like to consider the bible as a way of teaching evolution, as it does not describe the necessary mechanisms involved in evolution. It only describes briefly what happens, but not how it works. It's like saying evolution is JUST a theory (which is a bad way of looking at it). Besides, it's like asking a math teacher to teach English. Many people who look at the bible classify it as religious, not scientific, so they would not think of evolution. There is a distinction between the two--one is subjective, the other is objective. Evolution cannot be both; only the people researching it could be subjective, even though they're not supposed to. You can use the bible as a metaphor, but it has no place in science because science is objective--it's results are based on observations, not metaphors and other poetic devices. You speak of this as if the bible implies deism, in which case, god does not interfere with the natural universe, but that's not true. If you look at the old testament, you will see that god does interfere.

Well, actually, you have rather no choice here (in Germany), since we have compulsory education - a couple of weeks ago, parents tried for this reason to get their children out of school, but it was denied by a State's Constitutional Court (education is state's affair here).

That is unfortunate Walter. We have compulsory education here in the U.S. too, but the government allows parents to send their children to public school or secular private school or parochial school or even homeschool them subject to periodic testing by the state. With so many options, nobody has to subject their children to truly bad education or that which conflcts with their values and ethics. I strongly support increasing those options for all people; however I also support the state being able to enforce a core curriculum that all students must demonstrate they have mastered.

Well, here, no one really has an idea, why evolution could be questioned for teaching - looking at the exams of my ancestors: they hadn't had different ideas in 1894, 1901 or 1912 (two from private colleges [one strongly conservative/catholic], the oldest from a small rural school]).

Well you guys have been working at it longer than we have Walter. I doubt the great theologians of the Reformation would not have questioned Darwin at that time, but by the time the Nineteenth Century rolled around, you had evolved beyond that point. We were still in our infancy. Nevertheless, it is only a tiny minority who oppose teaching evolution now. It is unfortunate that they get so much press and leave the impression that such notions are pervasive in the Christian community.

The Catholics* are the conservatives here [like me :wink: ] - that's my reformation started and was so successful.

* I know from several sources that 'evolution' was still be taught in schools .... in (catholic) religion classes ... until the beginning of the 20th century. (But not in those, my grandparents went to.)

Lucifer

I was not infering that God molded dust into a man I was making the supposition that formed from the dust of the ground was over millions of years of evilution. The word created is only used when something has never been before. But God did not use the word created he used the word formed to form something from the dust of the ground implies that something has been before. Like lesser forms... If you really study what I have said it will suddenly click. Have any more questions feel free to ask them. Your last ones were very good. Again teh Bible implies that man and woman evolved together.

No it doesn't. It said that woman was made from a man's ribs. If that's true, then man had to be created before woman. Evolution is not form, it is change--there is a difference. "Form" makes it sound like an organism is slowly changing into another over a long period of time. In this case, using form to describe evolution is a bad word choice. And since it is a bad word choice, I don't think that would have been the intended meaning. Try not to force meanings out of things that are not related. You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you know your version of the bible is correct.

Grinning at Lucifer and thinking how ironic it is that the agnostics/athiests are far more likely to insist that the Bible be taken literally than are the Christians and Jews

If it's to be considered true. That's what science is--you have to consider things objectively and logically, even if it means literally. I don't have a problem with calling the bible a piece of fiction, but if that's the case, don't compare it with evolution. Evolution is supported by physical evidence which is more likely true than just a piece of fiction.

Can't speak for the atheists...(nor even the agnostics)...but as for this particular agnostic...

...hey...if you are not going to take it literally...and take it as metaphore...

...you've got the same problems as if you took it literally.

In any case, it has been my experience that theists...particularly Christians...want to take the Bible VERY LITERALLY when it suits their purposes...but laugh (or grin) at taking it literally when it is stepping on their toes.

Not a cool move.

Lucifer

I am sure even Darwin in his books used the word "form" to describe the change from species to species.... lets not get too fussy on the choice of an English word used in translation of a Hebrew word anyway..

As for which version of the Bible is the best, it is wise to take all versions/copies and give them careful consideration. I prefer the King James Version by far because it is the most beautiful when read. It has more source books written around it also with which to reference the words back to their original language. i.e. concordance, lexicon, interlinear, dictionaries, atlas. The parallel Bible is also a great tool for biblical research.

The Bible indicates that man and women evolved together. As for who received spirit first they both did. They both lost the spirit on the same day too. It was Christ who brought it fully back for all to partake. This is why we saw so many old testament wars and laws to try and "civilize" people. Had the spirit been within and not upon then the virtues of life may have been more of a nature rather than an external stipulation. The new testament talks of a new nature and the redemption of the spirit. This was due to the works of Jesus Christ both before and after death.

Modern science does say that woman came before man but they do not know when this occurred. It may have been long before we even resembled human beings. The earliest humans ever found were heterosexual. Yes, the mitochondria suggests that women are older but there is only speculation as when the x chromosome was "formed". It could have been when we were still a puddle of muck on a rock. Considering we share ninety percent of our genes with rodents and monkeys etc. and they are heterosexual too... lets says it was a long time before we were "human" and leave it at that.

The Bible is history, theological statement, metaphor, illustration, allegory, myth, poetry, prophecy, and wisdom literature and is rather clumsily edited together. The Genesis creation accounts were some of the latest of Old Testament manuscripts written even though they appear first in the Christian Bible. They were not written by scientists and were not intended to be science or history--they were intended as a theological statement that whatever exists exists by the command and will of God and also were arranged to explain the 'divinely ordered' heirarchy of who is boss of who.

I can't speak for how all theists view whatever documents they consider scripture. I do believe most Christians understand the Bible is a rich and diverse combination of ancient religious thought and teaching and very very few take it absolutely literally. As I have posted elsewhere, to understand the Bible one must read it through the eyes of those who wrote it and do not attempt to assign 21st Century understanding and interpretation to it.

This is why for most Christians, there is no conflict between religion and science and, in fact, they compliment each other.

Foxfrye

The Bible says of itself... that it was written by God's inspiration. It says the word of God is "God breathed". In other words, God breathed and there it was. This is why it is called the "Holy" Bible. So are you saying God does not understand science?

This is what "some" people do... they consider the Bible is only myth so they treat it that way... rather than to try and understand it's true divine meaning and message.

The Mormons did the same... they said the Bible was outdated and needed to be amended... so they wrote the BOM which just added racism and polygamy which is contrary to the message of Jesus Christ.