Evolution

[bhsmte]

How can I deny what the earth itself is showing us? Even the universe has evolved. It's the way of things.

.

IMO, a very sound and realistic way of looking at it.

 

[dlamberth]

It's the same with evolution. There is no need for God in the theory, so why add an unnecessary factor that contributes nothing to the theory's effectiveness?

I'll take a poke at an answer. I don't know if I can fully explain such that others can understand, but I'll try. Your right, when looked at evolution through the lens of "logic", there is no "need" to put God into the equation. For myself though, I add an other layer to the picture. It's called "consciousness". Through consciousness I see and "experience" a creating energy with in the fabric of life itself. It's something you can't put a formula to. It's like love, you can't put Love into a formula either, yet it exists. This creative energy is so real for me and is such an intricate part of my reality that there is no way I'm able to deny it's existence. I don't really like to use the word "God" to label it. So I tend to use terms like "Divine Presence". I admit that I've borrowed that term from Tielhard, who had been a major influence on how I see the evolutionary process as touched by the Divine. The creating energy that I speak of I do not see as separate from this creation. Rather I see it and feel it within the very foundation of all that is. In my own spiritual evolution it's my becoming aware of the creative energy with in ALL of Creation that has awakened me and moved me from an atheist to a Lover of God. I hope that helps you understand why I add what you see is an unnecessary factor into the evolutionary process of life on earth and all of the universe.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

O.k., thanks for clarifying. Probably you're aware of ring species if you have debated these things, but here is a quote anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Indeed I am. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[AV1611VET]

Through consciousness I see and "experience" a creating energy with in the fabric of life itself.

Serious question:

Can you call on others to pool this "creative energy" and use their collective consciences to stop a thunderstorm in progress?

 

[dlamberth]

Serious question:

Can you call on others to pool this "creative energy" and use their collective consciences to stop a thunderstorm in progress?

I can't. But I've talked to others who have watched shamans do as you describe.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't. But I've talked to others who have watched shamans do as you describe.

What about calling objects into existence?

(Just curious.)

 

[dlamberth]

What about calling objects into existence?

(Just curious.)

Nope, I haven't heard anything like that. But to me, that's not where the mystery lies or even what's important in being aware of the Divine presence in this Creation, which is what I was originally responding to in post# 242. I guess I just don't understand your line of questioning.


Edited to add, I do remember reading about the Hindu teacher for Ram Dass calling objects into existence. I don't know why it couldn't be done.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

1. The assumption that the Bible is nothing more then "iron age mythology" works best on non-Christian website discussion boards. A careful reading of Daniel 2, 7 and 8... and a history book ... puts that assumption into question.

You seem to have a faulty understanding of the term "myth". The Bible contains many different types of myth, from the completely ahistorical (a global flood, a literal 6-day-creation 6000 years ago, hundreds of thousands of Israelites leaving Egypt and drowning a Pharaoh in a magically parted sea, etc.) over mythological explanations for place names or odd natural formations (salt pillars near the dead sea, abandoned bronze age cities like Jericho) to real history written through the lens of religious beliefs (most of the later books of the Bible).

2. The fact that the text is written as historical account, historic narrative is beyond dispute even for the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - as far as I know. They do not agree with the account give - but they do not deny that this is in fact the "kind of literature that it is".

Your grasp of religious studies and archaeology does not seem to be much better than your grasp of biology. Unsurprisingly.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The idea that Rembrant and Michael Angelo were not intelligent would come as a surprise to most scientists. Nor would they assume that they were produced by the action of water on rocks plus some gas. Nor would they claim that about one of the paintings from these masters.

Even a child learns to differentiate between a painting and, say, a natural rock formation or a crystal. Apparently, you are incapable of making that distinction - to you, everything must have come about by deliberate planning, projecting human-like agency upon every aspect of the natural world.

I've stated it before, but it bears repeating: the human method of purposefully re-arranging matter is the great *exception* on the cosmic scale, not the rule. You don't need ice elves or other "intelligent designers" to explain the existence of snow flakes.
I have heard people proclaim that the very unfalsifiability of their bizarre beliefs was to be regarded as proof of their truthfulness - yet the opposite is correct. Unfalsifiable claims can never give you any kind of insight into the nature of reality - in fact, they stand in the way of any such progress.

 

[BobRyan]

Even a child learns to differentiate between a painting and, say, a natural rock formation or a crystal.

Indeed. Intelligent design is not the illusive thing some people have proposed. Children do pick up on some of the basics of it - even at an early stage. Though they do not have infinite knowledge about it - as a child.

Apparently, you are incapable of making that distinction - to you, everything must have come about by deliberate planning, projecting human-like agency upon every aspect of the natural world.

The atheist scientists themselves make my case on that point
They explained that for us - in the video "What we still don't know"

Monday at 2:08 PM #50

As for examples "closer to home" with design far "beyond our technology -
Monday at 6:13 PM #68
Monday at 5:58 PM #67

As for the fact that computers do not simply arise out of sand in a self-bootstrapping hopeful-monster process - well I think we would all agree to that point.

So then one may ask "if that is the case - wouldn't atheist evolutionist scientists themselves begin to express a certain frustration about the man-storied property of evolutionism as compared to actual science observation and confirmed fact?" --

And that was addressed here -- at least in part.
Monday at 4:17 PM #60

Well if the Bible was preaching darwinism... blind faith evolutionism in Genesis 1:2-2:3 wouldn't these same facts noted above be a problem for that sort of Bible? As it turns out the Bible never endorsed evolutionism in Gen 1-11.

As we saw here - an objective fact regarding the 'kind of literature that it is' that even the atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities seem to understand - as we saw here.

Thursday at 8:14 PM #191


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

When science can build a machine that can do this:[VERSE=2 Kings 6:17,KJV]And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.[/VERSE]... then I'll reconsider.

Hey, AV, about that vision of the servant. I am of the opinion that what God showed the servant was perceived by the servant as horses and chariots of fire . . . . but the reality that God was using to protect Elisha was not really horses and chariots of fire; rather, the vision of God was an accommodation to the servant in terms the servant could understand.
Isn't that the case?

Doesn't that shed light on the way the Bible talks about creation to people in the days of Moses?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV, about that vision of the servant. I am of the opinion that what God showed the servant was perceived by the servant as horses and chariots of fire . . . . but the reality that God was using to protect Elisha was not really horses and chariots of fire; rather, the vision of God was an accommodation to the servant in terms the servant could understand.
Isn't that the case?

Doesn't that shed light on the way the Bible talks about creation to people in the days of Moses?

I don't believe it was just a vision.

It was a peek into the fifth (or sixth) dimension of space, where angels were literally standing by to do God's will.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't believe it was just a vision.

It was a peek into the fifth (or sixth) dimension of space, where angels were literally standing by to do God's will.

But do you think the literal angels were in the literal form of horses and chariots of fire? I am of the opinion that the horse aspect and the chariot aspect were an accommodation to the servant's ability to understand. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? Do you think I'm wrong about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

But do you think the literal angels were in the literal form of horses and chariots of fire?

Ahem ... um ... I would venture to say that, if anyone knew what a horse looked like, Elisha did.

And if anyone knew what a chariot looked like, Elisha did.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ahem ... um ... I would venture to say that, if anyone knew what a horse looked like, Elisha did.

And if anyone knew what a chariot looked like, Elisha did.

Oh go check the bible again. The bible reports it was the servant who got to see them. I consider that Elisha had faith in his protection without having to see them. Today, the vision would show tanks, missiles, and jets.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible reports it was the servant who got to see them.

See what, in your opinion?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'll take a poke at an answer. I don't know if I can fully explain such that others can understand, but I'll try. Your right, when looked at evolution through the lens of "logic", there is no "need" to put God into the equation. For myself though, I add an other layer to the picture. It's called "consciousness". Through consciousness I see and "experience" a creating energy with in the fabric of life itself. It's something you can't put a formula to. It's like love, you can't put Love into a formula either, yet it exists. This creative energy is so real for me and is such an intricate part of my reality that there is no way I'm able to deny it's existence. I don't really like to use the word "God" to label it. So I tend to use terms like "Divine Presence". I admit that I've borrowed that term from Tielhard, who had been a major influence on how I see the evolutionary process as touched by the Divine. The creating energy that I speak of I do not see as separate from this creation. Rather I see it and feel it within the very foundation of all that is. In my own spiritual evolution it's my becoming aware of the creative energy with in ALL of Creation that has awakened me and moved me from an atheist to a Lover of God. I hope that helps you understand why I add what you see is an unnecessary factor into the evolutionary process of life on earth and all of the universe.

.

Good post. Our consciousness is direct evidence that we are more than mere mechanical or mere chemical responses to our environment and our genetics. There is something more, which we try to define by labeling it as spiritual, or as aware, or other similar words. They call this the "mind/body problem". We can describe the necessary physiology behind this consciousness, this awareness, but we cannot successfully limit the reality of this consciousness, this awareness to physiology. It is something more.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

See what, in your opinion?

Something that we are likely not prepared to understand in its inherent, natural reality. Something that is well described to Elisha's servant as fiery horses and chariots. You know what actually happened; the opposing solders were blinded and confused at the prayer of Elisha. You know that's not a horse action or a chariot action, nor even a fire action.

 

[AV1611VET]

See what, in your opinion?

Something that we are likely not prepared to understand in its inherent, natural reality.

So I take it you want me to agree with you and say I don't know what it is he actually saw?

Ain't gonna happen.

I will agree with you that you don't know -- but I do.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So I take it you want me to agree with you and say I don't know what it is he actually saw?

Ain't gonna happen.

I will agree with you that you don't know -- but I do.

So there we will let it stand.