Bible-Creation-Evolution

[mzungu]

Ya -- His voice.

Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.

Anyone care to answer

 

[TheReasoner]

no offense to anyone but evolution is crap

GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

None taken, but that verse does not discount evolution. No matter how you read it. Unless you start making substitutions and additions.

No, evolution is not "crap". It's an excellent theory. And by theory I do not mean "a neat idea". I mean a thoroughly tested description of observances of the reality around us. Like the theory of gravity or (exceeding) orbital theory from chemistry.

I am no biologist, and I have not had many courses and done much study of evolution. But I have studied cells and the inner functions of them in a technological capacity. Work which does not make sense without evolution. Evolution is more than just man evolving from an ancestor. Much more. And we see evidence of it even in the composition of the cells. There is no doubt evolution has taken place. That today's complex life comes from something much less complex before us. And what's more, evolution is a tool we actively use in biotechnological work. Chances are you're using several products based on lifeforms or proteins which are the result of forced evolution.

 

[TheReasoner]

Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.

Anyone care to answer

lol

My ex said the same thing. I looked at her and said "Noooo... Jesus spoke Arameic. Not English". Result: She cried her eyes out, thinking God couldn't hear her prayers.

The relationship didn't last.

I normally say (a little tongue in cheek, but not much) that God speaks mathematics. As for communication with human beings on a personal and not universal level I consider it a matter of course that language is no barrier. It makes no sense to me to say God speaks English, German or any other language - but rather that He can communicate with us on our terms. Whether he flaps his tongue and vocal chords and sounds come out in Elisabethan English - I doubt it.

 

[1611AV]

None taken, but that verse does not discount evolution. No matter how you read it. Unless you start making substitutions and additions.

No, evolution is not "crap". It's an excellent theory. And by theory I do not mean "a neat idea". I mean a thoroughly tested description of observances of the reality around us. Like the theory of gravity or (exceeding) orbital theory from chemistry.

I am no biologist, and I have not had many courses and done much study of evolution. But I have studied cells and the inner functions of them in a technological capacity. Work which does not make sense without evolution. Evolution is more than just man evolving from an ancestor. Much more. And we see evidence of it even in the composition of the cells. There is no doubt evolution has taken place. That today's complex life comes from something much less complex before us. And what's more, evolution is a tool we actively use in biotechnological work. Chances are you're using several products based on lifeforms or proteins which are the result of forced evolution.

So let me get this right, Do you believe God created Adam directly, formed from dust to Human within one day? Or do you believe Adam evolved from a simpler life form? Also, if you believe Adam was a evolved creature, did Adams ancestors die before Adam became a living soul?

 

[Research1]

no offense to anyone but evolution is crap

GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

I couldn't agree more.

Even if evolution is true (which it isn't) - it has no purpose or meaning.

 

[TheReasoner]

So let me get this right, Do you believe God created Adam directly, formed from dust to Human within one day? Or do you believe Adam evolved from a simpler life form? Also, if you believe Adam was a evolved creature, did Adams ancestors die before Adam became a living soul?

Ohright. You're one of those people who thinks physical death did not exist before the fall?
Well, if physical death was what sin brought with it into this world why:
a: does the bible speak of the tree of eternal life as one of the reasons why A&E were kicked out of the garden
b: do we still die even though Jesus supposedly defeated death and cleansed our sins upon His death and resurrection? By that logic we should all live eternally here on earth. We don't. So by that approach to the bible the whole story is just one huge hoax.

I think the story is mostly a parable. Adam and Eve were possibly real people, but the sole origin of all mankind? No. Of Israel? Quite possibly. But we can genetically trace homo sapiens for thousands upon thousands of years before this supposed creation took place. I do not know how He did it. Just that He did not do it the way you say.

Did God create us? Yes I think so. The way you say He did? I find no evidence to support it. And the scriptural evidence is tenuous at the very best. Especially as your interpretation conflicts with the physical evidence which reveals civilizations older than you say the universe is.

 

[TheReasoner]

I couldn't agree more.

Even if evolution is true (which it isn't) - it has no purpose or meaning.

If it isn't true, why do we (successfully) use it as a tool in commercial applications and research? If it was false, this should not be possible.

I do not think you have thought this through, research. If God used evolution to create us and keeps on using it, which all evidence points to, why is this problematic? He acts in our lives through personal evolution after all. His relationship with mankind has evolved as well. Everything in this world is dynamic and because of that it is all the more wonderful. So why do you not think God could reveal even more beauty through creating everything by dynamic means, especially given that we both use it commercially and scientifically with great success AND when everything in creation from the biggest to the smallest parts of it tells a wonderful and dynamic story of constant change?
Even if you yourself are not a scientist I can assure you the dynamic nature of the universe is astonishingly beautiful and to many it shouts of a divine presence. The thing is, because of creationists many people think christianity must be false because creationism is about as obviously wrong as obvious comes. Tragic.

 

[1611AV]

Ohright. You're one of those people who thinks physical death did not exist before the fall?
Well, if physical death was what sin brought with it into this world why:
a: does the bible speak of the tree of eternal life as one of the reasons why A&E were kicked out of the garden
b: do we still die even though Jesus supposedly defeated death and cleansed our sins upon His death and resurrection? By that logic we should all live eternally here on earth. We don't. So by that approach to the bible the whole story is just one huge hoax.

I think the story is mostly a parable. Adam and Eve were possibly real people, but the sole origin of all mankind? No. Of Israel? Quite possibly. But we can genetically trace homo sapiens for thousands upon thousands of years before this supposed creation took place. I do not know how He did it. Just that He did not do it the way you say.

Did God create us? Yes I think so. The way you say He did? I find no evidence to support it. And the scriptural evidence is tenuous at the very best. Especially as your interpretation conflicts with the physical evidence which reveals civilizations older than you say the universe is.

Thats what I thought you would say. Lets search the scriptures and see if this holds up. Are you willing?

 

[TheReasoner]

Thats what I thought you would say. Lets search the scriptures and see if this holds up. Are you willing?

Sure. But I have gone through the before 1611. I've scrutinized them and creation for years. I know your interpretation. I used to think the same way. But I have concluded that my views then, and your views now, are flawed. They are human opinions and they are falsified by studying God's creation. What's more, they are only congruent with the bible if the bible is read a certain way. A way many - possibly even most - Christians do NOT read it.

Sure we can go through it if you really want to. But you won't introduce me to something I haven't read and thought about - possibly extensively - before. Your main problem, and this is a mistake I've made too - is that while you do seek God and seek to know and understand Him you don't look at His creation and you do not - apparently - try to analyze what you read from more than one perspective. This is problematic for many reasons, and I am afraid it presupposes something which must never be assumed: Infallibility.

It's a wonderful parable showing God's love and His compassion. His creativity and His role. But it is not an accurate story in that it's contents reveal a scientific truth. But it's a parable, not an exact eyewitness account detailing everything in as much detail and accuracy as a video camera could.

We DO have such an account though. At least for the major lines creation has taken. Grab a hold of a telescope and look up. You'll be looking back in time, and you'll see how creation has progressed. A story far grander than can ever be encompassed within one book, let alone a few verses.
God is great. Don't try to assume He can be contained within human assumptions.He can't. And whenever mankind has tried to do so before He has astounded us by revealing Himself to be much greater. Why do you then think He is so small as to fit within your tiny definition and suppositions?

Is it possible you can convince me? Sure. Anything is possible. If you DO convince me that your interpretation is correct though you'll at the same time convince me Christianity is a hoax. It must be in that case. After all, if you're right God is actively lying to us through His creation. What I do every day would not be possible if your interpretation was correct AND it was true. 1611, you're wrong. If God is real you must be wrong. If you're right the Christian God or at least the Christian religion must be false. It is exactly the same as the old norse religion which taught a great wyrm encircled the earth, keeping the oceans in. They taught it was flat. We KNOW it is not. They also taught Thor rode his chariot and threw his hammer at ettins, causing thunder and lightning. Which we also by simple observation now know to be false. So by extension we also KNOW it as a religion is false. No doubt.
Your claims of a young earth are equally falsified. Just as we KNOW Thor does not ride his chariot above the clouds and just as we KNOW the earth isn't flat we KNOW the earth isn't 6-10 000 years old.

 

[Greg1234]

I do not think you have thought this through, research. If God used evolution to create us and keeps on using it, which all evidence points to, why is this problematic?

Metaphysical laws. Physical experimentation. This isn't the first time in time Darwinian evolution has been hypothesized, although under a different name being promulgated by a different people in a different epoch yet thoroughly questioned, denounced and refuted. The only thing is today, we are supposed to accept it because it has "theory" attached to it, and when there is theory, unlike in the past, today you are supposed to accept it lest you be labeled as "stupid". It is recognized for what it is, no matter where or when it emerges.

The thing is, because of creationists many people think christianity must be false because creationism is about as obviously wrong as obvious comes. Tragic.

Yet the evidence shows intelligent design.

 

[TheReasoner]

Metaphysical laws. Physical experimentation. This isn't the first time in time Darwinian evolution has been hypothesized, although under a different name being promulgated by a different people in a different epoch yet thoroughly questioned, denounced and refuted. The only thing is today, we are supposed to accept it because it has "theory" attached to it, and when there is theory, unlike in the past, today you are supposed to accept it lest you be labeled as "stupid". It is recognized for what it is, no matter where or when it emerges.

It's not that simple Greg. It's a very thoroughly tested theory.
Are you stupid for not accepting it? No. I don't think so. Ignorant, perhaps. But ignorant is not stupid. It is a condition which can be remedied. If you don't know 5+5=10 that does not mean you're stupid. It means you don't know it. You're ignorant of the underlying mechanics/principles. Which is not wrong.

The main problem creationists have is that they seldom know what they are criticizing. Claims like "Humans did NOT evolve from chimps!" are common. And the answer is that no, we didn't. We evolved from a common ancestor.
Other claims like "The second law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible!" is another common claim, which is even worse.

For this reason - and others - I often remind people that it is crucial they do not criticize that about which they know little or nothing, lest they make a mockery of themselves and the cause they wish to support.

And that, criticizing stuff about which one knows nothing or very little as if one knows a lot about said subject is both arrogant and stupid. Note that I am not saying the person who does it is stupid. But he is making a mistake.


No, I am not saying creationists are stupid. Just wrong. Demonstrably so.

Yet the evidence shows intelligent design.

No. It does not. Show me ONE example of what creationists consider properly intelligent design.
By our own engineering standards and lines of thought it's anything BUT intelligent.

I also wonder at why God would utilize designs we recognize as intelligent by human standards. Us claiming that is like an amoeba claiming to understand the intelligence behind the LHC. It can't be done. God is infinitely more intelligent than us, so it seems somewhat problematic to say we can identify and understand his methods of creation offhand. And it also seems somewhat problematic to claim God did "A" when everything He ever made points to something completely different, let's say the entire chinese alphabet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.

Anyone care to answer

English sounds good to me -- but for the record, it doesn't matter, does it?

As long as nature understood it.

 

[Research1]

We evolved from a common ancestor.

Yet this supposed transition cannot be observed, tested or replicated.

The theory of evolution is not a science, its pseudo-science.

 

[1611AV]

Sure. But I have gone through the before 1611. I've scrutinized them and creation for years. I know your interpretation. I used to think the same way. But I have concluded that my views then, and your views now, are flawed. They are human opinions and they are falsified by studying God's creation. What's more, they are only congruent with the bible if the bible is read a certain way. A way many - possibly even most - Christians do NOT read it.

Sure we can go through it if you really want to. But you won't introduce me to something I haven't read and thought about - possibly extensively - before. Your main problem, and this is a mistake I've made too - is that while you do seek God and seek to know and understand Him you don't look at His creation and you do not - apparently - try to analyze what you read from more than one perspective. This is problematic for many reasons, and I am afraid it presupposes something which must never be assumed: Infallibility.

It's a wonderful parable showing God's love and His compassion. His creativity and His role. But it is not an accurate story in that it's contents reveal a scientific truth. But it's a parable, not an exact eyewitness account detailing everything in as much detail and accuracy as a video camera could.

We DO have such an account though. At least for the major lines creation has taken. Grab a hold of a telescope and look up. You'll be looking back in time, and you'll see how creation has progressed. A story far grander than can ever be encompassed within one book, let alone a few verses.
God is great. Don't try to assume He can be contained within human assumptions.He can't. And whenever mankind has tried to do so before He has astounded us by revealing Himself to be much greater. Why do you then think He is so small as to fit within your tiny definition and suppositions?

Is it possible you can convince me? Sure. Anything is possible. If you DO convince me that your interpretation is correct though you'll at the same time convince me Christianity is a hoax. It must be in that case. After all, if you're right God is actively lying to us through His creation. What I do every day would not be possible if your interpretation was correct AND it was true. 1611, you're wrong. If God is real you must be wrong. If you're right the Christian God or at least the Christian religion must be false. It is exactly the same as the old norse religion which taught a great wyrm encircled the earth, keeping the oceans in. They taught it was flat. We KNOW it is not. They also taught Thor rode his chariot and threw his hammer at ettins, causing thunder and lightning. Which we also by simple observation now know to be false. So by extension we also KNOW it as a religion is false. No doubt.
Your claims of a young earth are equally falsified. Just as we KNOW Thor does not ride his chariot above the clouds and just as we KNOW the earth isn't flat we KNOW the earth isn't 6-10 000 years old.

Sounds like Christianity is hanging on your conclusion.

Since you have chosen which Scripture is real and which is Parable, you are able to create what ever kind of reality you choose.

By that definition you can not even be sure if Jesus is who He says he is in the Scripture.

The fact comes to this, everything in the Bible speaks of Creation and nothing in the Bible speaks of evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

It's not that simple Greg. It's a very thoroughly tested theory.

Which is why the tests are cited

Are you stupid for not accepting it? No. I don't think so. Ignorant, perhaps. But ignorant is not stupid.

I feel so much better now. Thanks.

It is a condition which can be remedied. If you don't know 5+5=10 that does not mean you're stupid. It means you don't know it. You're ignorant of the underlying mechanics/principles. Which is not wrong.

We are aware of the underlying principles.

The main problem creationists have is that they seldom know what they are criticizing. Claims like "Humans did NOT evolve from chimps!"

Then pick another beast.

Other claims like "The second law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible!" is another common claim, which is even worse.

Actually degradation over time is relevant.

No, I am not saying creationists are stupid. Just wrong. Demonstrably so.

Except that the evidence points to intelligent design.

No. It does not. Show me ONE example of what creationists consider properly intelligent design.

The bacterial flagellum. Irreducibly complex.

I also wonder at why God would utilize designs we recognize as intelligent by human standards.

Design is identifiable via physical means.

so it seems somewhat problematic to say we can identify and understand his methods of creation offhand.

Metaphysics is not understandable via physical science. Doesn't mean that Darwinism is the explanation for the metaphysical creation of man.

And it also seems somewhat problematic to claim God did "A" when everything He ever made points to something completely different, let's say the entire chinese alphabet.

Let's say man

 

[Lillen]

You can know a lie... For instance during a liedetector experiment a patient was asked if he was napoleon... he answered "no" and the liedetector showed that he lied.

You can know alot of things... For instance long time ago you knew that photones were particles, later you knew that it was waves, now you know that it is both waves and particles...

 

[Exial]

You can know a lie... For instance during a liedetector experiment a patient was asked if he was napoleon... he answered "no" and the liedetector showed that he lied.

You can know alot of things... For instance long time ago you knew that photones were particles, later you knew that it was waves, now you know that it is both waves and particles...

Lie detectors (polygraph) aren't a reliable method of detecting a lie. They can be fooled, quite easily too.

 

[TheReasoner]

Which is why the tests are cited

I feel so much better now. Thanks.

Don't feel bad. It was not intended as an insult at all. I myself am quite ignorant of many things. I am for example very ignorant of psychology or pediatrics. Or any number of other things. There is nothing wrong in not knowing. Wrong is only in claiming to know when one does not. Beware of people who do not acknowledge ignorance.

We are aware of the underlying principles.

If so, why do you make so many rookie mistakes at the top echelons of your "society"?

Then pick another beast.

Perhaps it is better that you who do the critiquing should learn what you're criticizing? Is that really too much to ask?

Actually degradation over time is relevant.

Weeeeell..... In a way. But not the way you seem to think. What IS entropy precisely? Is it really degradation over time? No. It isn't. Again, please learn what you're criticizing before you criticize it. Which in this case will require a lot of work. You can study it in a book such as phsyics for scientists and engineers by Tipler and Mosca coupled with a book such as Zumdahl's chemical principles for an introduction and then go over to more specific books on quantum physics and thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics and more before you really understand it. One such book I can recommend is Dill and Bromberg's molecular driving forces which is not specifically about entropy alone, but it will teach you much about it. Just be sure you get your calculus down before you start on it.

Except that the evidence points to intelligent design.

No it doesn't. Look at whatever point you want. Whatever claim you creationists boast. The best you can come up with is that we don't know every detail about certain things. But one cannot from that conclude that the thing about which our knowledge is lacking was made by an engineer, human, divine or otherwise.

The bacterial flagellum. Irreducibly complex.

Bacterial flagellum? Sorry, but that's a logically fallacious statement. Just because it is complex does neither mean it is irreducably so, and even things which are irreducably complex can evolve naturally. Which isn't to say evolution itself isn't a design tool. It is in many areas of engineering and science today.
Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cillium are very similar to each other or other proteins in the respective cell or other cells. Their evolution is not all that difficult to explain, all you need do is search a bit. The process is well documented. As is the structure. In fact, this level of biology is where my expertise starts coming into play. The size is within my realm. Their functions and compositions as well. Although I am not yet an expert, I should add.

Design is identifiable via physical means.

You say design is identifiable via physical means. I say this presupposes a comparable level of intelligence and an understandable level of complexity. Give an intergrated circuit or other device with complex enough mechanics to someone from the deep amazon and they might not recognize it as designed. You probably wouldn't if I showed you some of the stuff we work on. Heck, I wouldn't on first glance. I'd need an AFM.
Thing is, if we humans cannot recognize our own designs as such what makes you think we can recognize God's designs as such? It seems highly fallacious.
It also seems highly problematic to assume He would design things the way we did in the industrial era. As it is today we use evolution as a design tool in many areas of engineering and science. Both biological and abiological. Why do you think God is incapable of using that which we use?

Metaphysics is not understandable via physical science. Doesn't mean that Darwinism is the explanation for the metaphysical creation of man.

Metaphysical?

Let's say man

Whatever. We weren't made from something inanimate and then into what we are now without any transition. We evolved. Everything points to that. Nothing points to us being created as we are now from no other living creature before our current "form".

 

[Mr Dave]

Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.

Anyone care to answer

Oh dear, no not English.

There is a NT Apocryphal book (Can't remember which one sorry, my book with them in isn't to hand either, but I think possibly the Apocalypse of Paul) which claims that the heavenly language is Hebrew.

I'm not necessarily advocating this view, just trying to give a vaguely interesting response.

 

[Mr Dave]

Oh dear, no not English.

There is a NT Apocryphal book (Can't remember which one sorry, my book with them in isn't to hand either, but I think possibly the Apocalypse of Paul) which claims that the heavenly language is Hebrew.

I'm not necessarily advocating this view, just trying to give a vaguely interesting response.

Edit....

For interest's sake, I found a note on my computer that I wrote 2 years ago saying;

Apocalypse of Paul v.30 says Hebrew is the language of heaven and of angels.