|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God's Place In Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined:
|
It has been shown that if a modern human is not taught human language, and has void or very limited human contact/interaction (except for feeding) he will fail to speak, mature, and act more or less barbaric. Nurture has a lot to do with behavior considered civilized or "human". "Evolved", "higher" brains have little to do with what makes us human. Whatever natural "human" inclinations or potential we may be born with fail to develop if not nurtured. Ifevolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction? Where did he receive his language, and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values? If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals? Why aren't we all like Tarzan? Monkey see, monkey do, right?
Thereis a chief difference between animals and humans. Animals are more or less sure of things (instinct). Humans, on the other hand, tend to approach the world with wonder and curiosity. We seek to learn and know things. We have a need for knowledge and instruction. This is evident from the time we learn to speak. If evolution were true, why would the inquiring minds of early humans, (whose brains had developed logic enough to write and create tools) create an imaginary God to teach and guide them? An imaginary God could not be seen or heard, nor could it help man at all to be anything more than animal-like. A mere figment could never fulfill humans' pursuit of and need for knowledge. A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it. This is silly. Little children don't even do this. Children leave their endless stream of questions to real humans, not their imaginary friends.Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him. Early humans spoke about God because they knew of God first hand. They did not invent Him. Really if evolution and materialistic forces truly created man from beast, then should there even be any mention of God ever in history? What is the real reason for God being connected to human society? The need for societal control is not enough since there was obviously a more important and basic need for knowledge and instruction to begin with. The idea of God has no business in a truly evolutionary genesis, yet we find He exists. Why? Because humanity did not create God. God created humanity. Ideas of God have been handed down from fact, not fiction, and records or Him have been preserved down till our day via writing. God is fundamental to humanity's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Jon, if you want to judge my stating a point or position, and then not bothering with arguing my point further as a "duck and run" move then that's your call. Honestly, once I make a point, I don't feel the need to argue it to death or make a rebuttal to every challenge thrown out, (especially when these challenges go off on tangents all around my point). I post what I think and I basically allow others to do the same.
What do I have to offer? Probably nothing to the people who are already committed to the idea that a creator does not/cannot exist (or is foolish or wrong). But for all others, it is myhope that I will be able to share some points that will get them to step back and think about the real reasons they are for or against a creator. It is not my goal to present perfect arguments that convince everyone, but to present ideas that raise questions in the way we view things. Will I sound like an idiot from time to time? Yes, lol. But I feel we all say silly things sometimes, which brings me back to my point. I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
[qs=frako]
Animals are more or less sure of things (instinct). not true releasing a captive animal that had no contact with its own species in the wild is fatal to the animal because it does not know how to survive there what happened to the instinct ????? You have a point here. But something similar is also true for isolated big- brained humans, as I pointed out in the outset. We are endowed with certain capacities, but the way we are nurtured (our environment, our training) has much to do with what we become and are capable of.
Really if evolution and materialistic forces truly created man from beast, then should there even be any mention of God ever in history? You keep talking about your one god what abbout the other 100 000 gods out there those where imagined right ??? I did not elaborate in my original post, but my reference to one God comes from the fact that a comparison of various religions reveals striking similarities in their specific themes, "fables" and "legends". It's basically the same story different characters (and sometimes additional ones). Many religions feature accounts about a golden age/age of perfection, a fall from perfection, and an interesting one is the account of the ancient flood "legend" found in various forms in cultures all over the world. The fact that many cultures all over the world contain an ancient flood legend supports the fact that humanity started in one place, with one God, and one religion, and spread. When people spread, details became added and embellished.
God is fundamental to humanity's existence. Well i dont believe in god and most of my friends dont and we still havent died been struck by lightning ....... so my guess is THEY are not so fundamental I was actually referring to the beginning of the human existence. I was not intending to go anywhere further than that in my original post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
It seems to me, that your reasoning is that knowlege and language goes from simple to complex, but this is not necessarily true. The Hebrew language is older and more specific and complex than English. So according to your theory, English should have come before Hebrew, but this is not the case.
Also, who is the common ancestor between man and apes? If he is only a theory, what is the evidence for him? All creatures differ a little from their parents, but what hard evidence do we have that one species or kind became another? What evidence do we have that over time mutations create new species altogether? Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
No, I'm simply asking the person claiming speciation to explain it and present evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
[qs=Dr Adequate][qs]
Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him. Aren't you a Christian? Only the Bible presents a very different picture --- God brings the animals before Adam, who names them (Genesis 2:20). God didn't need to tell Adam what they were called, because Adam had the capacity to make up names for them, just as we have the capacity to invent the word "television", and deaf-and-dumb people had the capacity to invent sign language. Even the author of Genesis, then, doesn't seem to have swallowed your thesis. No, mythesis actually does not dispute the Genesis account. Evidently, according to the account, God spoke to Adam before having him name the animals. He gave him commands. Hence language came from God to begin with. So Adam's naming the animals was an extension of the language he received from God from the time he was created by God. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Explain to me please how I disputed anything by merely asking a question. If evidence is as abundant as you say, surely you shouldn't have a problem presenting at least one piece.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
When many people say they don't believe in God b/c He is "unnecessary" due to science, it takes me back to the account in Eden. Adam, in effect, shared the very same sentiment. He thought he could be alright (even better) without God as sovereign over him. But the question is, was Adam correct? What have the millennia of recorded human history proven? Let's reexamine the concept of accurate knowledge for a moment. Science is revered by many atheists and agnostics as the true and acceptable way to attain accurate knowledge. Of course the Christian claims that God's Word contains accurate knowledge of the truth. What really is the correct view of matters? To determine that you have to examine the evidence from both sides. Through science, we have been able to discover many things about the earth, our bodies, and our health. How does the Bible compare? Though not a science textbook, Biblical references to all 3 harmonize with modern scientific discovery. It does not embrace the mistaken views held by the majority during the time of its writing, as we would expect. Consider the following examples:
Mistaken ancient Earth view #1: The earth is supported over massive animals. Ancient Biblical record: Job 26:7- God stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth upon nothing. So over 3,000 years ago, the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support. Mistaken ancient Earth view #2: The earth is a flat platform. Ancient Biblical record: Isaiah 40:22- God dwells above the "circle" of the earth. The Hebrew word "chugh" translated "circle" can also mean "sphere" which is why some translations also render it to say "globe", or "round", etc. This of course, is in agreement with the recent discovery of the earth's general round shape.This is long before Christopher Columbus or anyone in the Renaissance period made discoveries to make this view widespread. This shows that the Bible was not influenced by the erroneous, flat-earth view prevalent when it was written. Mistaken Ancient Earth view #3: the flow of rivers to oceans (water cycle) did not create overflow because an equal amount of water was falling off of the ends of the (flat) earth. Ancient Biblical record: Eccl. 1:7- "Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again". With the aid of science, we finally figured out the water cycle. The sun pumps up water in the form of vapor, which produces clouds that carry precipitation back to the rivers that flow again into the oceans. Another interesting harmonization of ancient Biblical account with modern discoveries of health and the human body is also evident upon examination. Mistaken Ancient Health View #1: according to the Egyptians Papyrus Ebers (ancient medical document) excrement is a safe, effective healing treatment for many ailments. Ancient Biblical record: At Deut. 23:13 the Israelites were directed: "When you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with [a digging instrument] and turn and cover your excrement." Though the Egyptians were using (infectious) excrement for medical treatment, the Bible directed safe disposal of sewage. Up until the 20th century, the danger of leaving excrement exposed to flies was generally not known. This resulted in the spread of serious fly-borne diseases and the death of many people. Mistaken Health View #2: It's ok not to wash your hands after handling dead bodies. Ancient Biblical record: God's law to the Israelites degrees that anyone touching a dead person became unclean and must wash himself and his garments (Numbers 19:11-22). In the 19th century, medical personnel would go directly from handling the dead to conducting examinations in the maternity ward without washing their hands. Infection was thus transferred from the dead, and many others died. Likely unknown to these fairly recent doctors, they were rejecting the ancient wisdom in the Bible. In addition to rejecting erroneous views of health, the Bible is also ahead of science in insight into the workings of the human body. Recent Health Discovery #1: Medical research has discovered that the blood-coating element vitamin K rises to an adequate level only by the 8th day of a child's life. Also, another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the 8th day than at any other time during a child's life. Ancient Biblical Record: As a sign if a covenant with Abraham, God said: "Every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised." Later this requirement was repeated to the nation of Israel (Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:2,3). No explanation was given why the "eighth" day was specified, but now we can explain. Is this a mere coincidence? It is clear that this law was given by a God who knew his creation. Recent Medical Discovery #2: There is a close alliance between mental attitude and emotions and physical health. The way we think and feel can effect the way our organs and organsystems function. Science has come to realize that lack of love is a major factor in many mental ills and other physical health problems. For example, the British medical journal "Lancet" once noted: By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and to restore the mind." In addition, a noted stress specialist, Dr. Hans Selye said: "It is not the hated person or the frustrating boss who will get ulcers, hypertensions, and heart disease. It is the one who hates or the one who permits himself to be frustrated. 'Love thy neighbor' is one of the safest bits of medical advice ever given." Ancient Biblical Record: The close connection between mental attitude and physical health was long ago referred to in the Bible. For example it says: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealously is rottenness to the bones" (Proverbs 14:30; 17:22). The Bible also kindly and wisely directs people away from damaging emotions and attitudes. "Let us walk decently," it admonishes, "not in strife or jealousy". It also counsels: "Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from you along with all badness. But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate". (Romans 13:13; Ephesians 4:31, 32) The Bible especially recommends love. Colossians 3-12:15 admonishes us to "clothe ourselves with love". Think too about the 2 greatest commandments, also referred to as the Golden Rule (Matthew 22:37-40). Also remember the Sermon on the Mount. There we are told to continue to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). So we see from all this that ancient people, no matter how ignorant of science, were in good shape as long as they were obedient to God's commands. God's commands, regardless if we understand them are not are for our benefit, even today. It is quite possible that if man had not chosen to disobey and rebel, rejecting God's sovereignty, humanity would be far more advanced than we are today. Look at how late we are in our discoveries compared to the Bible. All of this well underscores the fact God, not man or his methods, are the rightful sovereign. It also beautifully demonstrates Jesus' statement at Matthew 4:4 which is: "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth". Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Taq writes: I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Perhaps you could explain this? Sorry for being so vague. I will try to clarify and explain things a little better. I feel that the heart of our decision to accept or reject the idea of a creator is based in our core values, the light in which we have personally come to view of ourselves, of others, our summation of world conditions, and the we feel about them.comments before
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
jar writes: I'm sorry but absolutely none of those examples of quote mining and taking stuff out of context shows that the authors knew anything about science or were even talking about the natural world. That is all nothing but misrepresentation, confirmation bias and word salad. Is this the best you can come up with? So predictable...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Taq writes: When many people say they don't believe in God b/c He is "unnecessary" due to science, it takes me back to the account in Eden. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God. Also, citing mythology in support of the existence of God really isn't helping your case. How, I have just demonstrated that the Bible does not affirm myths common during its time of writing.
So we see from all this that ancient people, no matter how ignorant of science, were in good shape as long as they were obedient to God's commands. I guess it all depends on how you define "good shape". It wasn't until the last century that infant mortality dipped below 30%. I could go on and on about the diseases that modern medicine has cured through science, not the bible. However, I think it will fall on deaf ears. The point of my post was not to show that the Bible is a medical/scientific textbook. By the way, if Adam had not rejected Gid's sovereignty over him to begin with, we wouldn't be sitting here with the burden of trying to eradicate disease. We have not cured all disease, BTW, so we shouldn't be so proud of ourselves. The root of sickness and death is sin, the sin that occurred in Eden. The sin that alienated mankind from his Source and Creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
[qs=Jon][qs]
I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Excellent! But shouldn't this concession go in the other topic, where you claimed the intellectual path to the Creator to be purely logical and rational: 'The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational.'? Jon Good catch Jon. But the idea behind that original post was to show how people could use rationality alone to come to the creator conclusion. This was not to say that all or most people arrive at it the conclusion purely this way, as I don't believe this happens very often, (as I revealed in this later topic). As you have said, a poster's entire view if things is not contained in one comment alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Through science, we have been able to discover many things about the earth, our bodies, and our health. How does the Bible compare? It's a laughing-stock. However, this seems to have little to do with the subjects raised in the OP, which you seem averse to pursuing. This later post was kinda my original idea behind the original post, kinda as an introduction. In hindsight though, I admit my original post wasn't a really great idea. And yeah I do feel adverse to persuing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Is this the best you can come up with? So predictable... Well of course it's predictable. That's because it's true. If you went around claiming that two plus two was five, it's highly predictable that you'd hear the word "four" quite a lot. I know this is how you see it, but I must respectfully disagree. I also apologize for responding to you the way I did. I really could have been much more mature and tactful about it. I'm sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Taq writes: This later post was kinda my original idea behind the original post, kinda as an introduction. In hindsight though, I admit my original post wasn't a really great idea. And yeah I do feel adverse to persuing it. Just as a friendly piece of advice, you need to learn the difference between a well reasoned and logical argument and an assertion. It is not enough to say that an argument is logical and based on reason. You need to actually show the logic and reasoning. For an argument to work people have to agree with the premises. If the premises are under dispute then the argument stops there. Also, the premises have to lead to theconclusion, not be an exact copy of the conclusion. For example, if one of your premises is If we assume there is a creator . . ." and you are trying to conclude "Therefore, there is a creator" your argument is obviously circular. For this thread in particular, one of the premises seems to be that humans can not invent language without someone first teaching them a language. This premise is under dispute. You must show that humans can not invent a language of their own, otherwise yourargument has failed. {Content hidden - It duplicates part of the following message} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide duplicate posting. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Had to fix quote box error to get "hide" code to work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024