Evolution of the human eye

[renniks]

Easy. One can believe in a creator God w/o believing in a literal reading of genesis.

But one would still be a creationist. One would have to believe that God was still working on and through creation regardless.

 

[Frank Robert]

But one would still be a creationist. One would have to believe that God was still working on and through creation regardless.

Why? By definition God is outside of time and space, there is no such thing as past or future for God. Therefore there is nothing to correct in the past or future from God's perspective. Well anyway that is what I learned in Catholic school.

 

[Estrid]

Deleted

 

[renniks]

Why? By definition God is outside of time and space, there is no such thing as past or future for God. Therefore there is nothing to correct in the past or future from God's perspective. Well anyway that is what I learned in Catholic school.

Because it's scripture. And because the Bible pictures a version of God who is involved with us, not a distant being who sets it into motion then goes on vacation. I don't know if time has any meaning to God or not. The Bible never really says God is outside time. And Christians don't agree on this. Open theists even believe God can only know almost infinite possible futures because the future is unknowable. But that's another discussion.

…16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 

[Frank Robert]

Because it's scripture. And because the Bible pictures a version of God who is involved with us, not a distant being who sets it into motion then goes on vacation. I don't know if time has any meaning to God or not. The Bible never really says God is outside time. And Christians don't agree on this. Open theists even believe God can only know almost infinite possible futures because the future is unknowable. But that's another discussion.

…16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

I learned that God was outside of time in Catholic middle school. The creator of the time space continuum would need to be outside of time to create it. I do understand that there are many biblical interpretations and it has been a long time since my school days.

It may be that God evolved. In the OT He was intricately involved in everyday life. In the NT not much except for Christ's miracles during his last three years. After the resurrection, only an occasional miracle. However, there is a strong belief that God answers prayer.

 

[AV1611VET]

It may be that God evolved.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't see how you can believe that and not be a creationist in some sense.

In some sense, but the way the term is (somewhat casually) used in this forum implies biblical creationism. I think the divide is, whether an individual accepts the findings of science as to what is happening on the material plane or not. It certainly is the usual divide in this forum, where you generally find biblical creationists on one side and Christians, other theists and atheists on the other.

 

[Frank Robert]

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

To evolve means to change over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

To evolve means to change over time.

Are the sons of Jacob consumed?

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

If the Jews disappear, then you'll have a point that God changes.

But until they do ...

 

[renniks]

It may be that God evolved. In the OT He was intricately involved in everyday life. In the NT not much except for Christ's miracles during his last three years

Um, how could he be more involved then by becoming human? He is still portrayed as being intimately involved. Christ was inviting people to be part of God's kingdom. He kingdom isn't of this world but it's on this world. What Jesus also made apparent is that God was interested in the internal world of humanity, not just the rules, but our heart beliefs.
And Jesus confirmed a literal world-wide flood, BTW.

 

[renniks]

To evolve means to change over time.

God is unchanging. They surely taught you that in Catholic school! He can change his mind, but not who he is.

 

[Gene2memE]

People were using fireworks about a million years
before doing much ith pottery.
The slow start seems real enough, and while
some aspects of whyseem obvious, it still is
a bit of a puzzle.

It's really not. It's just something that requires a lot of reading to understand.

Think of technology like a pyramid. You can only build one level once the level below it is largely complete. You need certain prerequisites- social, cultural, organisational, demographic and technological - to be reached before humans can progress. Certain keystones technologies are needed as well before progress can be made in particular directions.

Also consider the fact that prior to the onset of the early modern period, there was no inexorable upward path to civilisation and technology. Even then, parts of the world still underwent serious local reversion, mostly due to European imperialism (think China and the Americas).

Technological progress really only accelerated in the past ~600 to 700 years, once there was a proper global trade network in place to share progress and build on it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Interestingly while agriculture is an absolute necessity for more advanced civilisation... in the early stages it's efficient for larger populations, but it's really not very pleasant compared the comparatively chilled life of a nomadic hunter gatherer or herder.

 

[Estrid]

Interestingly while agriculture is an absolute necessity for more advanced civilisation... in the early stages it's efficient for larger populations, but it's really not very pleasant compared the comparatively chilled life of a nomadic hunter gatherer or herder.

See if Massai want to quit their herds and take to growing kale.

 

[Estrid]

It's really not. It's just something that requires a lot of reading to understand.

Think of technology like a pyramid. You can only build one level once the level below it is largely complete. You need certain prerequisites- social, cultural, organisational, demographic and technological - to be reached before humans can progress. Certain keystones technologies are needed as well before progress can be made in particular directions.

Also consider the fact that prior to the onset of the early modern period, there was no inexorable upward path to civilisation and technology. Even then, parts of the world still underwent serious local reversion, mostly due to European imperialism (think China and the Americas).

Technological progress really only accelerated in the past ~600 to 700 years, once there was a proper global trade network in place to share progress and build on it.

And all that but how I gotta wonder did it take a million years
to get from paleo to neo lithic

 

[Frank Robert]

Are the sons of Jacob consumed?

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

If the Jews disappear, then you'll have a point that God changes.

But until they do ...

God is unchanging. They surely taught you that in Catholic school! He can change his mind, but not who he is.

There are different ways of stating things. I think a fair reading of the OT is that God was intricately involved with glorifying the Jewish nation as well as with several individuals. When we get to the NT Jesus glorifies God the Father. Instead of saying God changed we could say God's emphasis changed from the OT to the NT.

 

[AV1611VET]

Instead of saying God changed we could say God's emphasis changed from the OT to the NT.

We call that "ontological subordination."

Fancy term, but all it means is that, at any given time, one Member of the Godhead is in the forefront, while the other Two are in the background.

In the Old Testament, we see God the Father doing this and that, with the other Two making appearances from time to time.

In the first century, God the Son is active, with the other Two making appearances from time to time.

Starting at Pentecost, and until the Rapture, God the Holy Spirit is the active One in the forefront.

 

[Frank Robert]

We call that "ontological subordination."

Fancy term, but all it means is that, at any given time, one Member of the Godhead is in the forefront, while the other Two are in the background.

In the Old Testament, we see God the Father doing this and that, with the other Two making appearances from time to time.

In the first century, God the Son is active, with the other Two making appearances from time to time.

Starting at Pentecost, and until the Rapture, God the Holy Spirit is the active One in the forefront.

As I said in my previous comment there are different ways of stating things.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said in my previous comment there are different ways of stating things.

But in Post 105, you use ontological subordination as an excuse to say, 'It may be that God evolved.'

No, God did not "evolve."

 

[Frank Robert]

But in Post 105, you use ontological subordination as an excuse to say, 'It may be that God evolved.'

No, God did not "evolve."

Please go back to what I said in my previous comment, "there are different ways of stating things."