Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Place In Evolution
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 190 (604674)
02-14-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


Speaking as one Christian to another.
First, you need to learn what evolution actually says and then you need to explain how YOU are using the term.
Evolution as in Biological Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge or inspiration. In addition, humans are animals, members of the Primates. Second, humans do not get knowledge from gods, we get it just like all the other animals do, by observing the world we live in and questioning.
It's also pretty clear that all of the Gods we talk about, including the gods found in Christian Bibles, were created by man, were created to explain parts of what we see in this world but do not yet understand.
You can see examples of this as well as the evolution of god in the early books of the Bible. The story found in Genesis 1 is actually a much younger story than the one found in Genesis 2&3, and you can see how man changed his descriptions and understanding, how the "God" evolved in those two caricatures.
The older story was meant as a "Just So" story to explain some of the differences the people of that period saw. Why does man have to work for a living instead of just browsing like the goats, cattle and antelope? Why do we farm and have to weed? Why do we fear snakes? Why does childbirth seem harder for humans than for horses or cattle or goats or sheep? Why do we live in "moral societies" (even though by today's standards even Jesus would be seen as immoral)? Why should the man be over the woman?
These were all valid questions and the fable in Genesis 2&3 created the explanation.
The God in that fable was very human, fumbling, unsure, fearful, learning on the job, a hands on modeler and tinkerer, but also very personal, directly involved with what was created.
The God found in the much younger Genesis 1 story is quite different, more mature, aloof and apart, creating by an act of will alone without hesitation or error, but not interacting with what was created, not personable. The purpose of the stories though was not creation, but rather to explain facts about the world they lived in and justify specific points, in the older Just So Story what was described above, in the younger Genesis 1 story, the seven day week and a Sabbath set aside and that God is apart and that the Priests were the path for communication.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 3:07 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 190 (604729)
02-14-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
02-14-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
slevesque writes:
You can see examples of this as well as the evolution of god in the early books of the Bible. The story found in Genesis 1 is actually a much younger story than the one found in Genesis 2&3
First time I ever hear this, any evidence for it ?
If you are talking about the Genesis 1 tale being younger and from a different tradition, then sure. Look up the "Priestly texts".
Also, from Bishop Sims 1981 Pastoral letter on Evolution and Genesis:
quote:
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:17 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 190 (604754)
02-14-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
02-14-2011 5:17 PM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
slevesque writes:
Okok, well I not too well versed in that subject, but I have to say that this all seems to be more of an hypothesis then an established fact., which seems to be intricately connected to the documentary hypothesis.
Which, in my humble opinion, seems to be an outdated hypothesis for the authorship of the Pentateuch. But that's probably another subject
Well, you can always just look at the gods in the two fables themselves to see the evolution of the god description. The two different gods are completely unlike, one competent and sure but aloof and apart, the other fumbling, unsure, fearful but personal, intimate.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:17 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:31 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 190 (604759)
02-14-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
02-14-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
slevesque writes:
Well, you can always just look at the gods in the two fables themselves to see the evolution of the god description. The two different gods are completely unlike, one competent and sure but aloof and apart, the other fumbling, unsure, fearful but personal, intimate.
I think you are seeing way more into this then what the texts indicate.
If I remember correctly supposedly the creation account is made in a known jewish litterary style, where it at first looks at the general aspect of creation, then 'zooms in' on the creation of man. (yes, I know this is an unfounded assertion)
Totally unfounded and not supported at all by the text.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:49 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 190 (604865)
02-15-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:24 PM


No Science there
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:24 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:42 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 190 (604869)
02-15-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:42 PM


Re: No Science there
goldrush writes:
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...
And so accurate. If you would like we can step through each of your examples as we have in the past when folk claimed fulfilled prophecy and examine each individually in context.
If you cannot post stuff that even makes sense to a fellow Christian, how do you ever expect to convince anyone who is not already a Christian?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:42 PM goldrush has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 190 (604872)
02-15-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by goldrush
02-15-2011 4:51 PM


goldrush writes:
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.
Again, that is simply misrepresenting what is actually written. There is nothing in the Bible Adam & Eve fabele that says disease is the result of sin or that man is alienated from God.
If you like please start a thread on that and yet again we can examine what is actually written.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 4:51 PM goldrush has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 190 (604910)
02-15-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by goldrush
02-15-2011 10:21 PM


The Biblical Flood is just a fable, it never happened.
What does this show? The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental. The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible's ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind.
The Biblical Flood simply never happened, it does not matter what you or anyone else thinks or believes, it is totally absolutely refuted.
Period.
No question.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by goldrush, posted 02-15-2011 10:21 PM goldrush has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 190 (604931)
02-16-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 8:08 AM


Re: Animal & Human Knowledge Gap
Buzsaw writes:
onifre writes:
As Jehovah commanded Adam in the garden to have Dominion over all of the animal kingdom, so it has been throughout history.
But we didn't have dominion over dinosaurs. Hominids didn't have dominion. Homo-erectus didn't have dominion. Even early homo-sapiens didn't have dominion, to the point of almost going extinct just due to environmental reasons, while other animlas flourished. Back then in fact, for hominds and early bi-pedal apes, the brain capacity was not at all greater than that of other apes.
So what happened to all that dominion stuf back then?
Also, what does the scientific evidence point to being the reason for the larger brain capacity and higher brain functions that lead to greater intelligence? This is a science thread so evidence is needed, friend.
- Oni
OK, science guy. Fair enough. So produce your evidence that humans didn't have dominion over dinos.
Humans and Dinos were separated by millions of years Buz. Unless of course you mean birds.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 8:08 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 190 (604941)
02-16-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Humans And Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:
frako writes:
OK, science guy. Fair enough. So produce your evidence that humans didn't have dominion over dinos.
Ok how about the fact that there are no human fossils in the period where dinosaurs roamed the earth and that there are no dinosaur fossils from the period that humans started to walk on the earth?
There is the on/long-going debate regarding co-existent dino human footprints.
Nonsense. That is totally false. I have wandered all over that area and there are NO examples of Dino and Human footprints except for the fakes that were created.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 10:57 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 190 (604949)
02-16-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by goldrush
02-16-2011 11:26 AM


The Biblical Flood never happened.
goldrush writes:
Ok, but my point was the ones that share the many widespread flood legends with common features that are obviously linked. Of course there are going to be other unrelated stories. I was never contesting that.
To claim that there was a world wide flood as described in the Bible at best makes Christians look ignorant, at worst dishonest. As has been pointed out to you in this thread the Biblical story has been totally and completely refuted. It simply never happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by goldrush, posted 02-16-2011 11:26 AM goldrush has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 190 (604967)
02-16-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by goldrush
02-16-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
goldrush writes:
Really the testimony of this common legend should behoove one to reconsider the falsifying "physical" evidence. The common connection though is clear, and does not lie. It speaks for itself.
This is pretty short and pretty simple so I will repeat it here for you.
Have you ever read the Bible?
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.
If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.
Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).
Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.
We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.
BUT...
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
Talk about a big RED flag.
That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.
So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.
If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.
If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
That genetic marker is NOT there.
The Biblical Flood has been refuted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by goldrush, posted 02-16-2011 12:23 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 117 of 190 (605142)
02-17-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
02-16-2011 11:10 PM


Lo And Behold The Facts
Buzsaw writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
LoL, Taq. You've learned nothing from the misgivings of the 19th skeptics who, one by one, have had to eat crow.
I think you'll find that the nineteenth century skeptics are dead. What we have now are twenty-first century skeptics who are still laughing at you for believing something as unhistorical as the flood. Do you suppose that their numbers have decreased since the nineteenth century?
Meanwhile you have apparently learned nothing from the rise of local-floodism and old-earthism amongst Christians defeated by the weight of the evidence.
LoL. The skeptics who laughed at Noah for predicting the flood as the first rain & building the monster ark are all dead. The skeptics who laugh today, alleging Noah didn't do it and that what's soon predicted ahead for our times is mythical, will see end time predictions continuing to escalate, emerging to fruition, as the wrath cup of Jehovah spills out upon planet earth.
What skeptics?
The Biblical Flood has been refuted, it simply never happened and that has been pointed out to you many, many times. Perhaps you forgot though so I will refresh your memory.
quote:
Buz writes:
Lol, Jar. Your alleged genetic silver bullet (quote below from flood thread) doesn't shoot down the flood.
Of course it does Buz. Have you ever read the Bible?
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.
If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.
Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).
Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.
We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.
BUT...
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
Talk about a big RED flag.
That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.
So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.
If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.
If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
That genetic marker is NOT there.
The Biblical Flood has been refuted.
Buz writes:
You are assuming a relative uniformity which necessarily assumes the impossibility of a global flood.
That of course is simply untrue. Nothing in my Genetic Marker test assumes uniformity. The only assumptions are that the Bible accurately describes what the Biblical flood would have been like.
And the evidence shows that the Biblical Flood never happened.
Fact.
from Message 28.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2011 11:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:49 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 121 of 190 (605149)
02-17-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 9:49 AM


Re: The Flood Debate Another Topic
Buzsaw writes:
Jar, your message delves into a new topic so as to derail this thread. I don't have the time to debate the flood in debth. My time on line is too limited to go into in depth debate in multiple directions.
Then stop claiming the Biblical Flood ever happened or start a thread and quit running away and failing to address the evidence

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 123 of 190 (605157)
02-17-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 9:22 AM


Re: Lo And Behold The Legends and other nonsense
Buzsaw writes:
bluescat48 writes:
Sea fossils are everywhere in the US that I've been, from Ca To the heights of the Wind River Mountain Range in Wy to SC, to NY They're pretty much global.
Sure they are do to plate tectonics. Places that were under the sea millions of years ago now on mountain tops so what. If they were put thewir by your mythological flood there would be humans, trilobites, sharks, ammonites, and placoderm fishes all mixed together. There aren't.
How do plate tectonics explain all of the inland sea fossils in non-mountainous regions?
Do you even read what you write.
Inland seas account for inland sea fossils.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 9:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 12:42 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024