questions about evolution?

[ThatRobGuy]

in recent years, scientists have found bones from a prehistoric mammal that humans AND primates are linked to through DNA evidence, this seems to discredit the Bible and what it teaches as far as creation. I'm beginning to lean toward the theory that maybe the Bible wasn't intended to be the answer to all of life's questions, but maybe just maybe a book that has made-up stories that give people good advice on how to handle some situations in life. Am I wrong for thinking along these lines.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Not at all, though I'm sure that the fundamentalists on this board will tell you otherwise. The creation story of Genesis was simply a recorded tale which had been passed down for centuries in order to establish four truths which were not common (in fact they were mostly unheard of) beliefs at the time:

1.) There is only one God. (The only other monotheistic religion at the time was Zorastrianism, and nearly all other cultures were polytheistic in their religious beliefs)
2.) God created all things, planned creation and creation did not come about by chance. (Many polytheistic cultures held the belief that the gods were simply powerful co-existing beings which did not create life, rather were created by chance as all life was)
3.) All creation is good. (Creatures and poisonous plants which caused harm, etc. were all considered inherently evil by many cultures)
4.) The sabbath day is holy.

I think that this is simply what the 'authors' of the creation story were trying to get across. I believe that many of these stories are symbolic and with hidden morals, rather than historical or scientific accounts of actual events.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that's the most logical response I've gotten all day.

No offense to anyone else that responded to any of my posts.
All replies are appreciated.

 

[woobadooba]

Not at all, though I'm sure that the fundamentalists on this board will tell you otherwise. The creation story of Genesis was simply a recorded tale which had been passed down for centuries in order to establish four truths which were not common (in fact they were mostly unheard of) beliefs at the time:

1.) There is only one God. (The only other monotheistic religion at the time was Zorastrianism, and nearly all other cultures were polytheistic in their religious beliefs)
2.) God created all things, planned creation and creation did not come about by chance. (Many polytheistic cultures held the belief that the gods were simply powerful co-existing beings which did not create life, rather were created by chance as all life was)
3.) All creation is good. (Creatures and poisonous plants which caused harm, etc. were all considered inherently evil by many cultures)
4.) The sabbath day is holy.

I think that this is simply what the 'authors' of the creation story were trying to get across. I believe that many of these stories are symbolic and with hidden morals, rather than historical or scientific accounts of actual events.

Ok, now prove it!

 

[Stinker]

in recent years, scientists have found bones from a prehistoric mammal that humans AND primates are linked to through DNA evidence, this seems to discredit the Bible and what it teaches as far as creation. I'm beginning to lean toward the theory that maybe the Bible wasn't intended to be the answer to all of life's questions, but maybe just maybe a book that has made-up stories that give people good advice on how to handle some situations in life. Am I wrong for thinking along these lines.

There is some of the same DNA in a lot of species.

In my opinion, this is the same thing that is said over and over, just using a different species to compare human's DNA with. But if a person is not aware of this, they could get duped.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Ok, now prove it!

Disprove it. (insert eye-roll smilie here)

All that matters- anything that is of any consequence which comes from the genesis creation story was included in my post (namely the four truths I spoke of). Man molded from clay, the Sun being created on the fourth 'day,' all of that is incosequential and irrelevant to my (our) faith.

 

[Rafael]

Read Lee Strobel's book, "A Case For Faith". Evolution looks good at first glance, but at closer examination it falls apart. In his book, he speaks with many scientists about the subjects ahteism most frequently brings up as argument, as he himself set out to disprove faith in Jesus as an atheist but wound up converted to a deep faith. Evidence of intelligent design far exceeds any speculation of accidental occurances of the complex organisms of life, and the book quotes and examines far more evidence than I care to typre out here as a post. Check it out if sincerely interested. A used copy of the book can be bought for five bucks.

 

[seebs]

Evolution looks good on careful examination by people competent in the field; it does not "fall apart".

But to answer the original poster's question: New_Found_Faith gave an excellent response. The key claims of Genesis about theosophy are actually bolstered by our understanding that they are the purpose of the story.

 

[LegendaryU2K]

Darwin was trick by the devil and there are false teachers in this world, there you go. Evolution is a joke and most importantly, it brings no hope to this world. There is no proof of evolution, what we bare witness to is foolishness, whereas, in the bible, proof is in us and it shows by the world condition and all of its foundation.

 

[seebs]

That's pretty strong language. Bring it up in Origins Theology if you want to debate it.

 

[LegendaryU2K]

Who me?

If so, what strong language? I said foolineshness, thats not strong language lol.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Darwin was trick by the devil and there are false teachers in this world, there you go. Evolution is a joke and most importantly, it brings no hope to this world. There is no proof of evolution, what we bare witness to is foolishness, whereas, in the bible, proof is in us and it shows by the world condition and all of its foundation.

What you would be talking of is YECism.

No evidece? Check.
A joke? To any person with a scientific education, check.
Brings no hope? Well, maybe a false hope. So check.

I don't necessarily think it's a trick of the devil though. I personally don't like to think that way. However, it does more harm than good for this world.

As for the OP: Just because some people take Genesis too literally, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

 

[Rafael]

Evolution looks good on careful examination by people competent in the field; it does not "fall apart".

But to answer the original poster's question: New_Found_Faith gave an excellent response. The key claims of Genesis about theosophy are actually bolstered by our understanding that they are the purpose of the story.

That depends upon whether you look at macro or micro evolution. Macro evolution has no evidence that supports it. Micro evolution, such as the immune system in humans, has adaptive qualities built into it, but DNA looks more complicated and perfectly designed the deeper we are able to look into it. Some scientists are saying that it looks like a program that begs for a "Programmer".
Debate? I have no such need. Each person satisfies themselves who has the powr over such things and what limitations they would put on God.

 

[seebs]

That depends upon whether you look at macro or micro evolution. Macro evolution has no evidence that supports it.

This is simply false. This is not just a little questionable; it is entirely, categorically, and laughably false. There is so much evidence for speciation and common descent that you could spend a month looking at fossil chains, DNA sequencing, and other forms of evidence and not have come close to exploring the field.

Debate? I have no such need. Each person satisfies themselves who has the powr over such things and what limitations they would put on God.

True dat.

In my case, I choose to believe that whatever world was created, it was possible for God to create it, and it is not required that God do so in a way suitable for a magic show at a child's birthday party.

 

[Rafael]

You may be smarter than the PHDs I'm reading in Strobel's book then, to make your statements, and of course that is your right. The scientists say that it is not longer a case of religion vs science anymore, but a case of science vs science. Of course the same debates arise, and it boils down to faith - whether God can control and do what He says from His dimension of timelessness or not. Personally, I have no evidence that He cannot do as He says, and on the contrary that it is all possible "scientifically", especially with the properties of time and eternity making a thousand years from one point of reference the same as a day in another. As I said, the book is very interesting and readable.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Darwin was trick by the devil and there are false teachers in this world, there you go.

You mean like Saint Augustine? He was around long before Darwin, yet purposed a more symbolic view to the Genesis creation story. Even suggesting the possibility of evolution before the hypothesis had been tested.

Evolution is a joke and most importantly, it brings no hope to this world.

You really have to start backing up your arguments. From my point of view, creationism may bring about an end to modernism. I can't just say that and leave the conversation, however.

There is no proof of evolution, what we bare witness to is foolishness, whereas, in the bible, proof is in us and it shows by the world condition and all of its foundation.

Because evolution is (currently) a theory does not mean there is no evidence. On the contrary for something to constitute a scientific theory, each time the hypothesis has been tested it has been supported. Had it been disproven or any (serious) evidence been presented against it, it wouldn't be a theory.

The bible tells us a simple story which was meant (IMO) to convey specific truths. Not to give a historical and scientific account of creation; there would be no point in teaching this. It's inconsequential to one's spiritual well being.

Either way- It doesn't matter if you take the story literally or in context. As long as you understand the main ideas which the author was trying to convey.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Darwin was trick by the devil and there are false teachers in this world, there you go. Evolution is a joke and most importantly, it brings no hope to this world.

There's the clincher....no hope, that's why people have a hard time accepting it. If you look at every religeon, they're all focused on one thing...."What's going to happen to me when I die?". The thought of just not existing at all scares people, and they'd like to think that when they die, they're not really dead but just begin an entirely new existence.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

There's the clincher....no hope, that's why people have a hard time accepting it. If you look at every religeon, they're all focused on one thing...."What's going to happen to me when I die?". The thought of just not existing at all scares people, and they'd like to think that when they die, they're not really dead but just begin an entirely new existence.

I wonder how many religions you've studied. Do you have any idea how many religions suscribe to the idea of reincarnation- not as a source of hope, but one of suffering? The goal of a Buddhist is to reach enlightenment inorder to escape the endless cycle of samsara (rebirth) and finally cease to exist. Many religions believe that all life is suffering. In ancient times the Sumerians saw the afterlife as being much like their earthly lives. To them, the afterlife was a gloomy place of labor and struggle. The after life was not a source of hope. And these are just two examples.

I admit that modernized Christianity has (in general) become too focused on the self, and scewed the actual goal. We've got many people converting to Christianity because they want to go to "heaven" rather than wanting to be saved from themselves and take up their own crosses. Christianity in itself and at it's core is self-less. There is no concern about "am I going to go to heaven or hell" or "am I going to get this" or "is this going to happen to me," the concern is about establishing your relationship with God and living in his service. It is not a religion that man created because it appeals to him, it is actually quite the contrary.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

maybe the Bible wasn't intended to be the answer to all of life's questions, but maybe just maybe a book that has made-up stories that give people good advice on how to handle some situations in life. Am I wrong for thinking along these lines.

My apologies for only skimming the OP. I agree to the extent that I am not a literalist/fundamentalist interpreter, though I disagree with this statement. I would change my vote to disagree if I could.

A Catholic Priest once accurately said (taken from the sig of one of our members here) "The bible is all true, and some of it happened." The bible is the word of God, and is infalliable as far as matters of faith and pertaining to salvation (scientific and historical information aside). It was intended to provide truth and help the reader grow closer to God- not to provide advice in some specific situations. A Christian uses the bible to strengthen his or her faith and to learn about God, and asks God to be present in their lives as to help them make correct decisions and serve him to the best of their ability. The bible is not a guideline on how to live your life or resolve conflict in certain situations, it calls for one's life to be cast aside so that they may be born again.

How much of the bible have you read?

 

[seebs]

You may be smarter than the PHDs I'm reading in Strobel's book then, to make your statements, and of course that is your right.

Or I could just have looked at better sources.

The scientists say that it is not longer a case of religion vs science anymore, but a case of science vs science.

I can't think of a single actual biologist who has any doubts about the basic theory of evolution at this point. There may have been some in the past. Once, a long time ago, I could have named you a creationist geologist, Glenn Morton. He presented lectures and papers on the key questions creationist geologists had to look into, and found that no one had the slightest interest in trying to develop a workable scientific theory; eventually, he admitted that the world was as old as it looked, and that he needed to rethink his approach to the Bible.

Note that last part; he has not rejected the Bible. He has taken this experience as guidance, as natural theology and general revelation, which allow better understanding of the Bible.

Of course the same debates arise, and it boils down to faith - whether God can control and do what He says from His dimension of timelessness or not.

God can do anything. God can give us all an ice cream cone every day. Do you deny that God can give us an ice cream cone every day? The Bible says ask, and it shall be given. I am sure that at least one child has earnestly asked that everyone get an ice cream cone every day. So, are you denying that God can do what God says?

Or are you, perhaps, going to argue that God could do that, but that it was not actually what God said would happen, and I should accept the plain evidence before me?

Personally, I have no evidence that He cannot do as He says, and on the contrary that it is all possible "scientifically", especially with the properties of time and eternity making a thousand years from one point of reference the same as a day in another. As I said, the book is very interesting and readable.

I have seen a lot of creationist apologetics, and they have generally left me sickened and repulsed. I would rather my faith be a search for truth than a search for pretending I was right all along.