Evolution vs Creationism

[Roland]

As a Christian I consider theistic evolution entirely possible. I would say the Genesis creation account was written in a way the ancient Israelites would understand, not literally. That is, a mythological account which conveys God's relationship with the world, and mankind. Telling them about the literal process of Big Bang-->Matter-->Stars-->Solar Systems-->Primordial soup-->Life would have been basically meaningless to just about every generation until the scientific revolution. Point being, I don't think there's any conflict between Genesis and evolution, or really any other scientific theory. The Bible wasn't initially written for a scientifically savvy audience, is all.

I think the rule of thumb in theology when deciding between two equally valid theories is to ask which one is more glorifying to God. It's like Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation of something will tend to be true. So the question to me is just whether it is more glorifying that God would make the Universe in six days and make it look far older than it is, or is it more glorifying to God that he would create the Universe by natural, slow progression of events. In my opinion the latter is more more glorifying to God tan the former, and is therefore most probably true.

If that didn't make sense, I'm a theistic evolutionist because I don't think it conflicts with the Bible, and I think it is more appropriate to God's nature, and therefore more glorifying to him than Young Earth creationism is.

[DemolitionSquid]

The only debate is how the universe was created. Even ignoring the recent creation by scientists of synthetic DNA and a synthetic cell, evolution is a proven fact, and we've been abusing it for over 3000 years to breed wolves into domestic dogs, and make prize winning petunias. It has also been proven that basic organic compounds and molecules necessary for life as we know it can be created by high velocity impact, like from an asteroid 4 billion years ago, and from a primordial environment as proven in 1952 by the Miller-Urey experiment. Both of which are tenants to abiogenesis. Hell, I bet 90% of you don't even know what that word means cause you've been lied to by the church for so long. Do some damn research next time.

This thread is stupid. It should be locked immediately.

[Eligor]

Eligor - I simply believe what the Bible says. If I can't interpret the Bible literally, I can't believe any of it.

Because Belief is an important feature of faith or because otherwise you really would've found the spiritual principles of Christianity untenable? Belief that something has something important to say and belief that something tells something that really happened are not mutually dependant (Nancy telling that she overheard Terence and Laura snogging in the bushes last evening is certainly the case of the latter, but not necessarily the former and is in itself void of any major Spiritual Truth (at least the kind you base religions on)).

Suppose you suddenly had absolute proof of any single one episode from the Bible not really happening? Does it mean that you couldn't believe in God anymore? Or such principles as mercy, grace and holiness?

If the Bible is really "The Word of God" it doesn't yet mean that God meant us to take it literally. Divine matters if anything are prone to be subtle, paradoxical and complex (otherwise they wouldn't be divine). And it seems to me rather errant to apply to them the same principles of Truth as we apply to gossip (as in the case of Nancy).

And it is (at the very least) my own conviction that a literal approach to the Bible is more detrimental than helpful to our understanding of it. It is, if anything, above all Scientific rather than Spiritual in its nature since it chooses to view everything solely in terms of solid facts, it leaves no room for metaphor, poetic meaning or more than one level of lecture, in short: it denies complexity and strives to have everything simple, spelled out and set in stone, which (though it maybe a comforting notion from a certain point of view) goes against the principles of the most divine thing with which we are faced, life itself; which is complex, uncertain and multifaceted.

[EvilGenius]

The only debate is how the universe was created. Even ignoring the recent creation by scientists of synthetic DNA and a synthetic cell, evolution is a proven fact, and we've been abusing it for over 3000 years to breed wolves into domestic dogs, and make prize winning petunias. It has also been proven that basic organic compounds and molecules necessary for life as we know it can be created by high velocity impact, like from an asteroid 4 billion years ago, and from a primordial environment as proven in 1952 by the Miller-Urey experiment. Both of which are tenants to abiogenesis. Hell, I bet 90% of you don't even know what that word means cause you've been lied to by the church for so long. Do some damn research next time.

This thread is stupid. It should be locked immediately.

MUWAHAHAHA! I was waiting for you demo - scientists didn't "create" anything - they've synthesized a genome BASED ON AN EXISTING GENOME. then they used an EXISTING CELL as the recipient. Isn't it ironic how much DESIGN, and INTELLIGENCE went in to making a synthetic genome? they screwed up ONE PAIR, and it died.

Dog breeding isn't an example of evolution. Evolution is a mindless process - breeding dogs isn't mindless in any respect - it's people breeding dogs with the traits they like (either traits from negative mutation, or traits that already had blue-prints in their EXISTING DNA).

It's also interesting that information is often confused with mediums. DNA, and it's parts are a medium for the information they carry. Every cell has "programming" stored in it's DNA - when was the last time you saw spontaneous banging on a keyboard produce a working program? (especially when messing up a single.. line/"word" can kill the organism)

Eligor - I interpret sections as the Bible interprets itself. For example - Jesus preaching in the New Testament. Since I believe that He is God, His interpretation is correct. It doesn't mean that there isn't a meaning beyond what is said, but that there is a literal meaning that must take priority over those. If there WAS absolute evidence that one part of the Bible was a lie, then I wouldn't believe any of it. But I honestly can't find a part of the Bible that isn't true, or couldn't be in some capacity.

[DemolitionSquid]

MUWAHAHAHA! I was waiting for you demo - scientists didn't "create" anything - they've synthesized a genome BASED ON AN EXISTING GENOME. then they used an EXISTING CELL as the recipient.

Yeah, I heard about that as well. Too bad its not the experiment I was talking about. With the cell, I was referring to an actual synthetic cell membrane that has never been combined with synthetic DNA to date, but will be in the future.

Dog breeding isn't an example of evolution. Evolution is a mindless process - breeding dogs isn't mindless in any respect - it's people breeding dogs with the traits they like (either traits from negative mutation, or traits that already had blue-prints in their EXISTING DNA).

Evolution is the changes life goes through to adapt to a changing environment and circumstances, along with random mutation. 3000 years of humans selectively breeding dogs for desired traits only makes HUMANS the changing environment and circumstances placed upon the dogs. Its still evolution. There's nothing to say that dog wouldn't have naturally evolved without direct human intervention on which bitch breeds with which mutt, simply being in proximity to neanderthals and learning to live and hunt together caused wild wolves to turn into domestic dogs. Those 3000 years of direct breeding only caused tough domestic dogs to turn into Shar-Peis.

It's also interesting that information is often confused with mediums. DNA, and it's parts are a medium for the information they carry. Every cell has "programming" stored in it's DNA - when was the last time you saw spontaneous banging on a keyboard produce a working program? (especially when messing up a single.. line/"word" can kill the organism)

Random mutations that aren't good die. Those that are good survive to pass on the genes. That's natural selection, as outlined with evolution. I have no idea what your paragraph was trying to prove or disprove.

As for the discussion of the bible, its been translated and re-printed multiple times over the 1500 years since it was written. And it was written by men, not God. It even says so. There are even multiple versions of the bible in the same language. Add to the hyperbole the church creates in teaching the bible, and quite frankly its credibility is nigh null. Never has the bible described Hell as a pit of fire, its just a dark void. Never have angels been men with bird wings, they are described as glowing masses of eyes in non-euclidean form that drove men insane upon seeing them. Its all bullshit.

[EvilGenius]

As for the discussion of the bible, its been translated and re-printed multiple times over the 1500 years since it was written. And it was written by men, not God. It even says so. There are even multiple versions of the bible in the same language. Add to the hyperbole the church creates in teaching the bible, and quite frankly its credibility is nigh null. Never has the bible described Hell as a pit of fire, its just a dark void. Never have angels been men with bird wings, they are described as glowing masses of eyes in non-euclidean form that drove men insane upon seeing them. Its all bullshit.

I can't speak against ALL of your argument, I'd like to actually know the whole story before I do that.

As far as your Bible argument goes, I believe that God preserved the Bible through it's translation. And yes it does speak about angels and hell:

Isaiah 6:2
Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

they have feet and a face... sounds pretty much like a man with wings to me

Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

sounds like a pit of fire to me...

[DemolitionSquid]

I can't speak against ALL of your argument, I'd like to actually know the whole story before I do that.

As far as your Bible argument goes, I believe that God preserved the Bible through it's translation. And yes it does speak about angels and hell:

they have feet and a face... sounds pretty much like a man with wings to me

sounds like a pit of fire to me...

Point one, as I said, many versions of the bible, I read one where both those quotes were, as far as I can recall, exempt. Id like to know what print and sect yours is. Most sects have completely discarded the Old Testament altogether because of the revelations science has offered about DNA and evolution.

I know I read about multiple types of angels, and one was a mass of eyes that would drive a man insane. I also read that cherubs were not baby angels, but in fact more like chimera. And hell was just a dark void, there was no fire.

I think some background is needed. I was raised as well in a strongly catholic school, and was frequently sent out to the hall for disrupting the class with questions neither my teacher nor pastor could answer. I also have to say that the thought of seeing God as a father offends me, because of my own estranged relationship with my own father. From my point of view, God is cruel and immature. Adam and Eve were ignorant of good and evil, by all reason they had the minds of children before eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. For the simple act of a curious, naive child being conned by a traitorous snake into eating an apple, God banished Adam and Eve from paradise. And I had much the same experience with my own father.

Regardless of that, God gave up on us. We failed him many times, and he washed us away with floods and plagues. Every time we rebuilt and failed him again. Even if he created us, be it 4 thousand or 4 billion years ago, he is gone. And we are on our own. We must exist for ourselves, not for him.

[GentleBen]

I'll just leave this here.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[DemolitionSquid]

I'll just leave this here.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

As funny as that is, and as much as I do not believe in him, I have to refer back to the part where God abandoned us because we failed. From a religious view, we were imperfect. He does not heal us because we are not worthy.

[The_Blade]

Read through this interesting story (my own opinion about interesting):

The Egg

Edit: Not mine