No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … cat01.html)
no....it infact makes us understand man made religions like christianity ,more easily....we can differentiate between myths and message more easily and rather than taking bible or quran or torah as literally ,one can understand our ancestors attempt to questions...evolution just makes religion become attempt rather than truth...good for the world...
You're absolutely right. However, I am reminded of two quotes. One is from Pierre-Simon LaPlace, Napolean's astronomer. He presented a copy of his astronomical work to Napolean, who said "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator," to which LaPlace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis." It is probably apocryphal, but illustrative nonetheless.
The other is more modern, and come from physicist Steven Weinberg: "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but science makes it possible to NOT believer in God."
Evolution and other scientific discoveries seem to be making the idea of a god superfluous.
The idea of god is superfluous only if there is in fact no god.
Otherwise the idea of god is a reflection of the truth.
Evolution has nothing to say about how it started, only about how it works now that it is going.
Just exactly what need is there of a god? It is superfluous already. The idea of a god is just that - an idea. No truth to reflect.
Isn't 'it just happened' also an idea? In the absence of any way to test the theory? I realize it is simpler than 'god did it' and therefore more appealing to a rationalist, but still. . .
The best I've seen out of a theory like the big bang for example is the 'suddenly, something happened' proposal, and that everything before that is irrelevant. Completely unrevealing as to why and how, yet I submit that what caused this sudden transition from the irrelevant before to the relevant after would be at least interesting to know if it were possible.
In the absence of knowledge, we opine. We've done this as a species as far back as we know. I suspect we've always been wrong and that we're still missing it now. We have one planet and a few thousand years of incomplete observations against billions of years and a vast reality much of which we can't even detect if the theories are correct.
If no god, true that god is just an idea, and something else is the truth
If god, not just an idea, god is the truth.
There is no need for a god, unless there was one.
I doubt any religion has anything testable to verify that. But I haven't seen ANY testable notion about how the universe came into its current reality.
On that score, what we believe is just what we believe. The truth doesn't care.
Religion has no lock on the truth just because it was written down, particularly as so much that is simply observed easily refutes all of them.
But we don't know how we came to be. We've seen the mechanisms at work and we've built some good theories. Testing them is problematic. So we guess.
Somone might stumble on to it some day.
But, evolution does indeed show that after the universe was created, one way or the other, humans did not appear on earth in the form they are today. Did not God create humans in their current form?
Perhaps, but when science comes along to reveal how things work and those things contradict scriptural beliefs, we can begin to see the existence of God is tenuous, at best.
Scripture simply says God created humans last, just as evolution supports. It does not say by what method.
The things science has revealed does indeed contradict traditional beliefs formed around scripture, but does not contradict scripture itself.
Sorry, but science does have something to say. Science is unable to detect anything that exists outside of reality. Therefore Science says this "spiritual" existence is not there.
Do you not see the problem with that statement?
"Unable to detect.." <> "... is not there"
By this same logic, the mind doesn't exist either. Obviously, that's not the case.
That is false, science can detect the mind because it does exist.
No, it can't. Science can detect physical happenings in the brain, but not the mind itself. These are related, but are not one and the same.
Well, what is "the mind?" We know the mind exists because we can see evidence of it. How else could you know empirically that anything exists?
We only know the mind exists because we each have one. What evidence do we see that doesn't also require the subjective relation of our own minds to even begin to grasp? The only evidence beyond the physical firing of neurons or routing of oxygenated blood flow is the output (words/actions) of an individual. If we didn't have our own minds to associate, what evidence we do have would in no way convey a sense of how dynamic the mind truly is.
That is why the majority of studies involving the mind fall outside of the umbrella of the physical sciences and are instead covered by the behavioral sciences, like psychology.
If we didn't each have our own minds there would be no way of knowing it exists. If something as dynamic as the mind exists, yet there is no empirical evidence that objectively proves it, who's to say it's the only thing in existence just as dynamic and creative that cannot be detected? Chances are, it's not.
So, you're saying the mind is not a physical thing, it is non-physical? The brain is made of matter and energy, but the mind is not?
How can something not made of matter or energy cause something made of matter and energy to do anything?
You just basically stated an age-old philosophical conundrum known simply as the 'mind-body problem'.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem
Perhaps, but it is a 'conundrum" that you are unable to answer.
Thanks for pointing that out. Considering others who have also wrestled with this with no definitive answer, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Hobbs, etc., I'd say I'm in good company and am fine with that.
But we're getting away from the main point. Our further delving into the physical brain only further confirms what's been debated for over 2000 years. There's no empirical evidence of a physical cause for the human mind. We know the physical brain plays a significant role, but we've yet to see anything that proves with certainty that the brain is the only thing involved. To this day there is still no way of proving the existence of the mind without subjective association.
Again, we only really know about the mind because we each experience it. So, what makes you think it's the only thing in existence so dynamic and creative? What are the chances of that really?
LOL! They actually had arguments.
See, you have no argument whatsoever.
Exactly. Of course, my opinion is based on your lack of an argument and the fact those other philosophers put forth interesting arguments, however their flaws were shown, just as yours are being shown.
The only flaw I see thus far is your inability to grasp the concepts we're discussing. At this point the discussion is pointless. We're no longer talking about anything relevant or useful. If you just want to argue that's fine with me, but you'll have to find someone else.
I've seen a reasonable article on brain studies that defined the 'mind' as the activity performed by brain, rather than as an object.
If that's true, science wouldn't be troubled with detecting an object called mind. It can easily detect the activity called mind though. (Easier on some more than others, I suspect.
Detecting activity doesn't solve the 'mind-body problem'. Assigning specific components that make up the mind to physical happenings in the brain, the question still remains... Are these physical happenings the cause of the mind, or is the mind the cause of these physical happenings?
Again, the latest I've read about studies of the brain (hardly definitive, I know, but these are just opinions here) points to 'mind' not being an object.
The mind under this supposition is not a thing. It is the collective actions performed by brain, much like 'sight' is the collective actions performed by eyes and the connected neurological tissue. Your sight is not a thing. Your sight is the eyes/brain interpretation of light.
Under this supposition, mind is a product or action performed by brain. It is not an artifact. It is an activity. The mind-body problem is, under this supposition, solved. Brain is the initiator of all activity known as mind.
My brain is not a scientist. I can't speak to the scientific validity of such a theory, but I find that an interesting concept. Is it right? Dunno.
Thank you, AntonOfTheNorth, for a discussion-worthy response. In the view of Monism, most often credited to Thomas Hobbes, it's just as you said, that the mind is basically just the collective product of brain activity. And in the case of sight, like you pointed out, that certainly seems to be the case.
Sight is the physical processing of physical light. Same goes for sound being the physical processing of physical sound waves. Or the physical processing of particles in the air in the case of smell. We can build computers that do all of that today.
But where the mind isn't so clearly boiled down to being nothing more than the product of physical brain activity is in the cases of those things that make us decidedly human. Like the drive and passion that brings people like us here to debate these things at great lengths. What makes you care about what you care about. What part of the brain feels pride in a job well done, or feels slighted or embarrassed. These things that are just as much part of the mind, that are large part of who each of us are, yet are way more abstract than images and sounds, and hard to quantify or boil down to nothing more than physical brain activity made of matter and energy. That's where the chasm lies between the two that further spurs the 'mind-body problem'.
That would be incorrect. When science uses methods that are known to detect something in particular circumstances and cannot find that something then it is reasonable to declare it isn't there.
But science does not know how to detect God (or any part of the supernatural) . By most definitions God is inherently undetectable by humanity unless He chooses to reveal Himself. Science doesn't know what God is, what He is made of, or where to look (another universe, probably, but doesn't know in any case). Given that, no honest scientist can declare that He is not there. All it can say in the matter is what every honest believer also says: "I don't know, although I have suspicions."
What is this "Supernatural," of which you speak? Science has looked and looked, but nothing appears to be there. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude it does not exist.
Your answer is in the term 'supernatural'...
supernatural - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
Anything of a supernatural nature falls outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences.
Which could include things that don't, actually, exist at all. Just because something is said to be outside the jurisdiction of the natural science, doesn't mean that it actually exists.
Can't agree with that, either. If and when science DOES find what people will agree is supernatural, it will then be natural and something science will study.
The problem, of course, is that anything found, anything at all, is then considered natural rather than supernatural by definition.
I understand what you're saying. But in the context of God, being the creator of existence and therefore existing before/outside of it, He is something that will never be within the reach of science. Natural is only what is 'of existence'. Science is incapable of observing anything that exists outside our universe. But based strictly on the definition of the word, I agree.
To a large degree you are certainly correct, but I would disagree that science will never observe anything in a different universe. We simply don't know enough to make that statement.
I've seen speculation that our universe is butting up against another one; stars seem to be "clumping" in one area near one edge and that could indicate a second universe with it's gravity pulling on "our" stars. If it should turn out that that speculation is correct, and that gravity is crossing the boundary between two universes, other forces or energies may be capable of it too. If THAT is correct we should be able to peer into that other universe.
As I say, though, if it turns out that we can then that universe will suddenly become "natural" rather than "supernatural" and everything in it (including God?) as well. It's the way we're built and think, maybe - things we don't understand are supernatural, things we see, feel and work with are quite natural. Definition most definitely plays a part here.
That is merely your opinion and is not supported by religious scripture.
Not supported by religious scripture? Did you just really say that? Not that there's anything wrong with your statement, I'm just surprised to see this statement coming from you. Please tell me where in scripture this idea is not supported.
Besides, science's inability to see beyond the big bang is not my opinion. I actually borrowed that from Neil LeGasse Tyson. He wasn't talking about God, of course, but when you consider scripture describes God as the creator of existence, He therefore exists before and outside of this existence, then He too is beyond the sights of science. It's not just my willy-nilly opinion.
It's your claim... "He is something that will never be within the reach of science" ... so, show us where it states that in scriptures?
I'm not sure what exactly you're after. I didn't say anything about scripture specifically stating that God will always be beyond the reach of science. What I said is that scripture describes God as being the creator of existence who existed before, and therefore outside of, our universe. Through science we can only observe matter and energy within this universe, or everything from the big bang forward. So, if God existed before/outside of that, then science will never be able to detect Him. We can only detect the actions He takes within this existence, which by all appearances are 'natural' as far as science is concerned.
Odd - you are making stuff up again Von Noggin. Nothing in the Babble states that this god-thingy exists outside of existence.
How funny that things now exist before existence.
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this is so difficult for you and others to grasp. How can the creator of existence also be a part of existence? How can God be part of, and subject to the laws of, his own creation?
Simple - it is gibberish. That is why no one grasps it. Is your Majikal Super Being not in everything?
More to the point - how can your Invisible Super Being be separate from? Majik?
There is no reason to believe one way or the other, especially considering there is no reference to it in scriptures, it is all your personal opinion.
And again another potentially enlightening discussion is ended by forum bullies who resort to ridicule when they can't argue a point intelligently.
If you posit ridiculous notions - people will ridicule you. Haven't you learned that yet? But - if you think some one adding a funny cartoon is "ending thr discussion," all I can say is WAAAAAAAH!
Little wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Scripture states God created the heavens and the earth T/F? So, clearly, in that context He already existed. Therefore He is not part of creation. How can He be if He created it?
So name some other phenomena that's outside of creation, so that we may have a reference for this theory that you are proposing. Thanks
Are you kidding? Even if there were something, it too would be outside of the scope of science and therefore not testable in any way. So how would that reference help? Please explain to me how you would then use that reference in some sort of meaningful manner.
Yet here you are asserting that something outside of the scope of science...and UNTESTABLE exists.
It would add validity to your theory that something can exist outside of creation, therefore your God, existing outside of creation, becomes more plausible. So far your assertions are mere whims, as there is no evidence, whatsoever, to support such nonsense.
It's not me asserting it, it's the bible. The bible does exist. I didn't just pull it out of my butt.
The evidence is creation. God's acts of creation, as described, would result in exactly what we see now. You cannot detect God Himself, but we can prove whether or not the document that describes Him is accurate and that the actions it says were taken actually happened. Right now there are gaps in our scientific understanding. Gaps that are covered by an ancient document written long before we knew any of this. If God exists as described, then just like any other hypothesis you review the data in that context.
Yes, the bible exists...that doesn't give any more weight to your assertion.
There is no evidence for creation! Creation is a myth!
That's like saying that the gold at Fort Knox was spun by Rumpelstiltskin, because it results in exactly what we see now.
How desperately dishonest.
Sorry, I should have said "The evidence is 'existence'.
As for your Rumpelstiltskin spun gold analogy, that doesn't exactly apply. We're talking about a document here written at least 2500+ years ago. Yet what it describes still holds up to all we've learned over the centuries. In fact, the more we learn the more credible it is. For example, when Georges Lemaître, an astronomer/professor of physics/catholic priest, first proposed the Big Bang theory, known then as the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', he was criticized for trying to inject his theological beliefs into the scientific landscape by suggesting the universe had a beginning.
Genesis describes God speaking and existence becoming, so in that context, creation should appear to have formed itself. Genesis describes God commanding life to come forth from the sea and become this or that, so in that context, we should see what appears to be life coming forth from the sea and becoming this or that, again seemingly on its own.
Everything we know thus far supports what's described.
You can call me delusional if you like, but please don't accuse me of being dishonest.
OK. Existence is not evidence that there is a god outside of creation.
The Grimm Brothers published Rumpelstiltskin in 1812. We're talking about a document written at least 200 years ago.
No it doesn't
Giving your god credit for something that you know nothing about is incredibly illogical.
Can we talk within the context of REALITY. In reality you and I don't know the answer to this puzzle. If I were to suggest that I do, then I would be dishonest.
Whether one is deliberately dishonest or dishonest via brainwashing, he is still dishonest. By thinking that you have worked out a scheme by which science and the ignorant, unscientific writings of ancient goat herders is compatible is not only delusional, but lacks any real truth.
How do you know it lacks truth? You just said you don't know the answer, so then how can you not know the answer yet still hold the key to what is truth and what isn't? Isn't that dishonest by the very same standards you just stated?
Nobody knows who wrote Genesis, but we're pretty certain it was not written by goat herders. Let me put it this way, if it did in fact turn out that a document written over 2500 years ago, any document, actually showed signs of knowledge beyond what people in that age should have known, would that not be something worth looking into? Especially if what we've only recently learned ourselves proves it to be the case?
And yes, what is described in Genesis still holds up. Your inability to see that was clearly illustrated by your willingness to completely ignore the first 5 verses talking about light/day/night so you could continue to argue that the wording in that one verse was enough to throw the whole document out. So I understand you saying with absolute certainty that it doesn't hold up, but that doesn't make you right. That just means you're unwilling to even consider the possibility. Your mind is closed to it. Nothing I can do about that.
Just because I don't know the answer, doesn't mean that I'M GOING TO JUST ACCEPT ALL PROPOSALS AS PROBABLE. Some things are immediately dismissed. In other words, any scheme designed to reconcile science with a book of childish myths, that have actually been debunked by science, is dishonest.
Were you there? If not, what makes you so sure? Sounds very similar to wishful thinking.
Certainly, but no such document has been found. Books of magic are only tricks, designed to fool gullible fearful weak minds.
But it doesn't.
Eisegesis = The approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine.
In the case of creation, if someone is already convinced that the bible has proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, such person will not approach Bible study on this issue with an open mind and let it speak for itself. Instead, they will engage in highly creative Bible interpretation to make all the irreconcilable conflicts between creation and evolution somehow fit with each other.
Absolutely none of the holy books show any knowledge that was not know at the time. No descriptions of the shape or size of the earth that is remotely accurate exists and no accurate description of the solar system, galaxy or universe exists in any of the holy books. Any God would not have put inaccurate information in his letters to us.
None? the very first chapter describes creation in this order ...
The heavens, earth, oceans, light, atmosphere/water cycle, land, plant life, position of sun/moon/stars, life from the sea, birds, mammals, and humans.
If you were able to stand on the surface throughout the earth's history, this is what you would see. The oceans were first. We only recently figured that out. The first atmosphere was opaque (no light). By the time the atmosphere began to form there was already oceans and light as they were both required ingredients. It also required both to establish the water cycle, which happened after the oceans and before land. Then land, then plant life, then the atmosphere became transparent (because of plant life on land), then vertebrates (including birds), then mammals, then humans.
Even the distinction between sauropsids (reptiles/birds) and synapsids (mammals) is covered. Oceans first, humans last. And everything in between. What more do you want? Because there is more. Plenty.
Or, maybe we could go the other way and you can show me something inaccurate.
Ha aha aha ha. That's not the right order at all.
The heavens (is this referring to the universe or heaven?), earth, oceans, light (what? light came before the earth and way before oceans. There is no accurate description of the Sun, moon or stars. If there were we wouldn't have wasted a few thousand years thinking the earth is the centre of the universe.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Heaven and earth before light? On 12 you have vegetation, but we don't get the sun and moon (not a light at all and not for night) until 16 when he made the stars.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
Livestock before man? Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess God didn't know where livestock came from. Do you think there were livestock wandering around with dinosaurs?
Not an accurate description at all. Just people making stuff up thinking nobody will ever no any better anyway.
For some reason, no matter how many times I point out the perspective is FROM THE SURFACE, it gets ignored. Over and over again. I say it until I'm blue in the face, or type until I'm blue in the fingers, It's from the surface... from the surface!
2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Now, imagine the surface of the earth is so hot that all the earth's oceans evaporated into the atmosphere. Would you be able to see the sun? Would there even be light? There was no light on the surface for millions of years. The outgassing that spewed from the earth as gravity compressed it stayed trapped in the atmosphere once the earth was large enough to retain an atmosphere. There was no light on the surface.... on the surface. The point of view is specifically given as from the surface. Notice it doesn't say God MADE light. He said "Let there be light". And did I say this is talking about ON THE SURFACE?
The age between plant life on land (day 3) and vertebrates on land (day 5) the atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent. So, there was plenty of light, like a perpetually overcast day, but the sun/moon/stars were not visible. It's in the age between plant life and vertebrates on land that they became visible. Again, from the surface. The continents also moved from the south pole up to where they are today between the poles in that same age. From the surface, the position of the sun/moon/stars changed.
And you do understand the original Hebrew didn't say 'livestock', right?
Where does it say from the earths perspective? It matter not that from the earth one could not see the sun because
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
he didn't make the sun until 16.
It seems to be sometimes translated by much smarter people then you and I that way. Just saying.
You just keep making up more stuff as you go along in order to defend your beliefs. How very dishonest.
Make whatever accusations you like. Doesn't change anything. There's only one truth and the facts continually point back to this. Sooner or later everyone will see. A lot of this information is still very new. As this stuff more and more becomes common knowledge this will really begin to catch on. It's just a matter of time. I assure you, I'm not lying.
I think saying you know an absolute and obvious truth is rampantly egotistical. Many very wise people have had very diverse opinions.
I can't really argue. I don't mean to be. I've been discussing this with people of all different mindsets for a long time now. I know how well this hypothesis stands up to scrutiny because it's been tested from every conceivable angle. So I can certainly understand how I could maybe come off as egotistical, especially when replying to yet another accusation that I'm just lying.
Once again, you're making up stuff in order to defend your beliefs. Try being honest for a change.
Right - now what is a more logical conclusion?
That's what this whole discussion is about, Mark. That's what all of these discussions are about. Like your comments earlier about the natural sciences being employed to determine whether or not something super-natural exists. We discussed and reached a conclusion. Illogical.
So, what is your more logical conclusion for me to compare? I'm still a little unclear. If I remember right you don't buy into the Big Bang theory either. So help me understand your stance, then maybe we can discuss the merits as far as which is more logical.
Either there is majik (god existing outside of reality) or - there is not. Logically - your Majikal Super Being does not exist. Then you do away with all these impossible scenarios.
Vanished in a puff of logic.
Please stop lying at me also - it is insulting. Thanks.
Logically, He does exist. Believing existence as we know it came about without Him as described is a less logical view than believing He does exist. For example, reaching the conclusion that God's existence is illogical when we've yet to even grasp what life/death is, is illogical. Reaching that conclusion without first grasping what the propulsive nature of living beings to live and procreate is, is illogical. Assuming there's nothing else non-physical in existence as dynamic and creative as the mind, is illogical.
You step outside of logic when you make the premature call to go ahead and rule out a possibility that hasn't been ruled out with any sort of certainty.
This is not logic - sorry.
Little wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
You've clearly shown an unclear understanding of what logic is, so your proclamation has no weight.
And more proof that your religion causes nothing but conflicts.
The conflict here so far has been your desire to argue rather than actually discuss. Your assertion here that my statement is 'proof' of religion causing conflicts is just another example of an actual cause of conflict. Proof, if you will. Fortunately, whether or not you understand or accept anything has no baring on the truth.
I hope you don't mind me asserting myself here, but I have to say one of you is having some trouble with logic.
Reaching a conclusion based on no evidence and without all the evidence is completely illogical. The only thing we can do is ask what is the most likely case. Is it more likely that an all powerful something outside our physical world decided to create everything in the universe for us, but we just can't see him he this something was alway there and always will exist forever which we have no example of in our known universe. Or, the universe has an abundance of the particles that make life and they somehow came together here a few billion years ago. The most likely scenario is the winner.
Sorry for the interruption, now please get back to you bickering.
I don't mind at all, Rad Man. Obviously, I see the first option as the more likely, especially when you consider the mind. The mere existence of something non-physical and undetectable like the mind strongly suggests it's not the only thing just as undetectable and non-physical, yet just as dynamic and creative. It's just the only one we know about because we experience it for ourselves.
Besides, we don't even know enough about life to know if it even has anything to do with the particles or not. We know what it takes for a physical form to retain life, but not what life itself is.
But if looking for the most likely scenario between the two, then the existence of the mind, and humanity having a meaningful existence that we actually care about, coming about randomly through the interplay between unrelated gradually evolved mechanisms seems to be reaching at best. Even without the bible I think I'd at least consider the possibility of something else like the mind in existence that somehow played a role in deliberately bringing about existence as we know it over the happy coincidence theory. With the bible, when considered along with the accuracy of the bible describing how the earth formed, how life came about, and how the stage of civilized human history was first set, it's an even more likely scenario.
But that's just my take.
I'm not sure why you insist the mind is not understood and undetectable. Perhaps it helps you to make the leap to believing a God created us, not really sure. But I can tell you the mind is understood and detectable. The mere fact that drugs or injury alters the mind is proof that the mind is not something separate from us, but simply a product of the brain. Just because you claim it's not understood doesn't make it so. I'm willing to bet neurologists have a very good understanding of the anatomy of the brain.
You said something interesting regarding the meaning of life without a God. You said humanity would not have a meaningful existence without God so therefor there must be a God. You can't invent a God to give life meaning, that's just wanting. Just because you want a God to exist doesn't make God exist. I seem to have meaning in my life without God. The truth is I love the idea of a loving God and an afterlife, but there is that reality. I also want more hair and I'd like to be a few inches taller, but here we are anyway.
The accuracy of the bible is just another of your justifications. There is nothing accurate about the bible, we've gone that road a few times.
There is not one thing or entity in the universe that gives us any indication that there may be a God. There is no indications that anything can exist outside out physical world and no indication that anything can become immortal. The is no indication that anything has any hidden power that we don't understand. So the most likely scenario would not be God, there is evidence however that indicate that even meteorites contain the building blocks for life.
I want more hair and to be taller and an after life. The reality is I don't get any of those things.
To be clear, I did not say humanity would not have a meaningful existence without God. I said the fact that humanity has a meaningful existence we care about suggests to me the existence of God is more likely than that coming about through random chance.
We've discussed this about the mind/brain before. Yes, the ability for the mind to properly affect physical behavior is definitely dependent on the physical functionality of the brain. Therefore it can be affected by drugs or by injury. But we are far from understanding the mind, and the mind itself is still to this point undetectable. In other words, I can't see what you're thinking, no matter what technology I have at my disposal. If the mind were detectable then court cases over intellectual property would be moot.
Assigning functions that make up portions of the mind to physical parts of the brain does not mean we can detect the mind. The only reason we even know this function uses that part of the brain, or that the function in question exists at all, is because we experience it ourselves. Without subjective comparison physical brain functionality would be nothing more than firing neurons, changing flow of oxygenated blood, and chemical happenings.
This is not just me trying to justify the existence of God. The 'mind-body problem' is "... widely considered to be one of the most important problems in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind." It's not just me.
Just because you can't read someone else's mind does not mean the mind can not be detected. During brain surgery the doctors can cause certain thoughts for feeling by touching certain area's. For instance causing the patient to feel they are smelling burnt toast when of course there is no toast. That's is not only detectable, but intentionally putting a thought in one's mind. There is nothing spiritual about the mind, what's not understood know will be understood in the future.
Thoughts are attributes of the brain. The concept of the mind is archaic and unecessary.
Nothing about that says their mind was detectable. Let me ask you this, how did the doctor then confirm whether or not the patient was smelling burnt toast? They had to take the patient's word for it because there's no way of telling one way or the other beyond what the patient says. You're confusing physical manipulation of the brain with detecting the mind. These are two different things.
You're not understanding. When they open up the skull looking for tumours they wake the patient to make sure they don't remove a part of the brain that is essential. One such patient kept smelling burnt toast before a seizer. Touching different parts cause the brain to experience different things or feel physical sensations. When the the patient said he smells burnt toast they knew they had the right spot. This is in fact detecting thought and putting thoughts and sensations in the mind. Just because you don't understand the functions of the brain doesn't mean nobody understands.
I understand just fine. Anything physically happening in the body or picked up by the body's senses is happening in the brain. Smelling toast is an example of that. And the physical brain can be manipulated to make you think you smell it when you don't. I get that. But that's not the mind. Could a doctor open your brain, push on the right spot, and make you a theist? The brain is responsible for translating the very much non-physical happenings of the mind into something the physical body can do something with, so it's going to be involved.
This is still a highly debated philosophical conundrum. And there are plenty much smarter and much more highly educated than I that still ponder this even knowing a doctor can push on your brain and make you smell toast. There's a reason for that.
Yes, there is a reason for that. They are trying to hold onto their belief in God.
Could a Doctor open your head and turn me into a theist? Possibly. He could certainly change my personality, by injuring the brain, as do drugs. Some people are nice when sober and ugly when drinking.
I'm not talking about theists... I'm talking about Monism vs. Dualism. These are not theological arguments. These are philosophical. This argument has nothing to do with believing in God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%2 … of_mind%29
In this context you subscribe to Monism, I subscribe to Dualism.
You say that now but, you clearly stated "Could a doctor open your brain, push on the right spot, and make you a theist?" And for that matter it's not relevant, personality change is personality change. When someone show a personality change because of drugs, brain surgery or injury it's absolute proof that thought is a product of the brain and nothing spiritual.
That was just an example. I could have used any example that defines you on a more fundamental level. That's why I didn't just pick something personality specific. Your personality forms throughout life as a result of interaction. It's still you, but it's a molded version of you that's altered by your surroundings. But before that, from birth, you're you. It takes you a while to figure you out, but you're you. Like a baby that's all id and no ego. All wants and needs, but with discernible traits and specific particularities. And those particularities stay with you, steer how your molded. Like becoming atheist. Something deep within, call it your gut, didn't feel right about what you were trying to be. It shaped you.
And that part doesn't get changed by drugs. I've been around people on every drug you can imagine, medicinal and not medicinal, casual and habitual levels of use. I've done them myself. Some of them, anyway. Their "personality" can change, but they're still who they are. That person isn't gone. They may be physically altered, unable to communicate, or their mood may be way up or down, anxious or melancholy, but it's still them.
Yes, thoughts happen in the brain. Often chained associations. Memories are stored in the brain. All your life experiences are stored in the brain in images, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, etc. But then there's that part that considers, ponders, wonders, seeks truth, feels slighted, feels pride, tries to convey something beyond words through art, musters gumption to face the day, or feels compelled to call out nonsense or challenge ideas just to see how people will react in forums.
How exactly do you boil all of those unquantifiable qualities down to the chemistry of a physical brain made of matter and energy?
Then, it would certainly be dishonest to jump to conclusions about magical super beings, wouldn't it?
Yet, that is exactly what you do.
LOL. Logical fallacy. The understanding of life-death has nothing to do with belief in gods or their existence.
But, you are making claims that are obviously of your own personal opinion, yet you assume we are to take them as something based in scriptures, which they aren't.
Not only that, but your claims ignore what the concepts are based. For example, it is entirely pointless to state that something is outside of our existence. A completely meaningless statement.
"He therefore exists before and outside of this existence"
It's not a meaningless statement because that is how God is described by scripture. If we're discussing the possibility of the God described in the bible actually existing, then it is not a meaningless or pointless statement. It is relevant information accurately portraying God as He is described.
Again, that is your opinion and is not supported by scriptures... "therefore outside of, our universe."
Again, your opinions, not supported by scriptures.
You can make up whatever nonsense you want based on your religious beliefs.
That's kind of the point, Mark. I don't know what the "supernatural" is - no one does. Various descriptions of it's effects on the known universe vary and contradict themselves, so we don't know that, either.
You can't look for something when you have zero knowledge of what you're looking for. Doesn't mean it isn't there, though, and science should never make such a claim as it has no evidence outside of it can't find what it isn't looking for.
Sorry - what is this "Supernatural" of which you speak? You can't speak of something of which you have no knowledge of - surely?
Science deals with reality. When "Hiuyfoljhgkhg2vkljhf;dwedf" becomes reality we will speak of it. If you speak of it and have no evidence or testable theories - Science rejects it.
Can you pick and choose the parts for your religion, surely if you believe in god, you believe the theory of creation in which every animal was created?
I think it's interesting that the reason people don't believe in the existence of God is because there is, so they say, no physical evidence. However, there is no physical evidence for the theory of evolution. Oh sure, finches can develop beaks that help them better obtain food, but that doesn't mean they aren't finches. There has never been any documented, scientifically-proven evidence supporting the theory that one species (man) evolved from another (apes). It simply doesn't exist. The entire theory itself is anti-scientific. There is no way to perform experiments (because the process supposedly takes millions of years), there is no physical evidence to support it, and on top of that the entire radio-carbon dating system is flawed. Which leaves us right where we began.
Most people I know who don't believe in a god do so because the idea is ludicrous. The fact that you are ignorant of proven scientific facts does not make your Majikal Super Being any less ludicrous.
enlighten us mark on the scientific facts please
Dude - if you are incapable of finding scientific facts about evolution - I suspect you will not accept them on an Internet forum discussion. But - if you really are that uneducated - here is a thread that might help:
Oh, there is evidence, all right. The paper it is written on will weigh tons if all put together.
That you choose to ignore it doesn't make it nonexistent. That you choose to demand absolute proof (as opposed to evidence), available to anyone without study or work, doesn't make the known evidence nonexistent.
It's there for anyone that can read, but it does take some work and effort to dig out (no pun intended ).
It would seem that the HONEST thing to do is to suspend belief in something until evidence is found.
That's just downright dishonest. Do you know anything about fossil records?
You are GROSSLY misinformed of what evolution is. Man DID NOT evolve form apes. Man IS an ape. We, and the other great apes share a common ancestor.
That's completely absurd.
Do you mean back to a flat earth, and earth centered solar system? And since all these scientist are wrong that means ancient ignorant goat herders' knowledge is just as valid as modern scientific fact finding. Right?
Pretty much everything you said is wrong. There is oodles of physical evidence, including DNA. There is plenty of data that shows the relationship between humans and chimps, and several experiments have been performed that have shown evolution. To whit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo … experiment
You might want to try reading something that wasn't written by evolution deniers. To do that, you'd have to remove your head from your nethers, first.
Yep, the sun being created on the fourth day, does not contradict modern scientific facts at all.
Right. I agree. If you'll notice, Mark was talking about using science to confirm whether or not something supernatural exists. I was pointing out the flaw in that logic.
Actually, as specified in verse 2, the creation account is told from a surface perspective. During the fourth day portion, between plant life on land (day 3) and vertebrates on land (day 5), there were two things that happened that make what's described accurate.
1. Plant life being in direct contact meant the atmosphere much more quickly changed from translucent to transparent. Where before the sun lit up the dome of the sky, the sun, the moon, and the stars were not visible until the atmosphere became transparent.
2. The entirety of the planet's continental land mass moved from beneath the planet where daylight lasts 6 months and the night sky just pivots, to between the poles.
The sun/moon/stars are what people in that age referred to when they said 'the heavens', which were created 'in the beginning'. While there was plenty of light, and even day and night, for millions of years, they were not yet visible. This is the same timeframe when they became visible. Once they were, they were then addressed specifically.
I don't know what denomination you are, but I am Pentecostal...and we were taught to take the bible literally. We don't tamper with the word of God by making up our own interpretations.
16 And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Right, and I didn't. Verse 1 says he created the 'heavens' in the beginning. This portion simply says he MADE the sun, moon, and stars, which is true. This also happens to be the age when they became visible from the surface, which is the perspective specified in verse 2. It also says he set them in the firmament in a particular way to serve a particular purpose, which lines up with, and was actually accomplished by, the moving of the continents. I'm simply interpreting it based on actual facts. I didn't change anything.
So when did He MAKE the SUN? Was it on the fourth day, or did He make it at some earlier time, and was just waiting to make it visible to humans at a later date? If so, why wasn't it just written to clearly state so?? To me, the word MADE, in this context, means that God created the sun...ON THE FOURTH DAY. Why does anything else need to be added? To me that is pure conjecture.
Well then what exactly do you think verse 1 meant by the 'heavens'? Or where would the light in verse 3 come from? Or what constituted light as day and dark as night in verse 4 and 5? Even people of the early Bronze Age and before knew full well the light of day came from the sun. What else would they be talking about? It's not conjecture if you're taking the whole text in context. When you just pull that one line out of context of the rest of it, then you're right, it doesn't make much sense.
The universe...with Earth being the central focus, of course.
I guess Goddunnit...but God done everything.
Well it says right there that God called night and day by their respective names. But then waits until three days later to MAKE the sun. Or are you saying He made the sun when He created day and night???????????????????????????????
But while writing their fairytale, they forgot. OOPS!
Like everything else in the bible, that's open to a myriad of interpretations...Just like the irrational one you are asserting here.
It's more like desperately pleading to make logical that which is illogical
Even starting from verse 1, and reading all the way through to when the sun was created, it still does not make sense, unless one tries to trick his own mind.
Alright getitrite, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to ignore the first 1/6th of the chapter and instead focus in on the wording of that one line, then by all means have at it. If you want to ignore that in just 31 verses it lists 13 specific creations and 6 major eras in the correct order feel free. But your assertion that the light was simply 'Goddunit' and that calling the light day and dark night had nothing to do with the sun, again based on nothing more than the wording of that one verse, is more of a stretch than anything I stated. This clearly has more to do with your utter lack of respect for the material. There's nothing I can do about that.
Personally I think that it proves there is a GOD, that thought of all things for everyone....
Again Faith you have....It does not have to be proven....But when you think how grand everything comes together, don't you just pause in awe and wonder how it all came together so completely and abundantly? Why not had been created by GOD..the alpha and the omega of all things...maybe of other life even on other planets...HOW AWESOME GOD could be....!
So I guess you agree the existence of evolution does not disprove God.
Assuming you meant your comments to be somewhat on topic.
Question? How was my comments off topic in any way? My opinion may differ...but it is on topic...Does evolution prove there is no God?
Correct~~~I believe there is a GOD that thought of all things...evolution just being one of them...
Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It certainly does not prove there is no God. However, some have argued that evolution does undermine or destroy Christianity.
Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus is the savior who cancels out the original sin in humanity. This original sin, in turn, comes from Adam, from whom all humans are descended. But if humans are not descendants of this person, as evolution would imply, then original sin disappears, and thus the need for a savior disappears.
Good point. Unless Adam was the creation of free will. Because it is only through free will, in this case being a will apart from God's, that sin is even possible. The whole theme behind the Adam/Eve story has to do with Adam behaving outside of God's will. The humans created in Genesis 1 carried out commands that took generations to accomplish. They did exactly as He said. And history shows homo sapiens did exactly as He said. Adam/Eve/Cain were different. They were capable of behaving outside of God's will, or according to their own. That's the difference. Thus, in that context, it all still applies.
I was speaking of the literal basis of Christianity. You are speaking metaphorically. So if it's all a metaphorical story about free will and whatnot, then the concept of Jesus as a savior, and salvation, Heaven, Hell and the rest of it is necessarily metaphorical too.
Oh no, I'm speaking literally. I estimate it happened roughly 5500 BC. The Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia (5300 - 4000 BC) built the first cities and had the first social stratification. This is the same length of time that Adam/Cain and their family existed before the flood.
The Uruk period came directly after and lines up with post Babel Genesis. I'm talking literally.
The Bible says that humans (i.e. Adam) were created in one fell swoop, with no connection to any prior living thing. Evolution conflicts with this account. Therefore it cannot literally be true, therefore the basis of Christianity is undermined.
Also, Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) claims Adam was the first person, so if you think Adam existed in the 5,000s BC, he clearly could not have been the first person because there were people before that time. (And that's not evolution, by the way, that's just history and archaeology.)
The bible says humans were created on the sixth day after life from the sea/birds (day 5) and mammals (earlier portion of day 6). And this mirrors evolution. First came sauropsids (everything but mammals), then synapsids (mammals) branched off, then humans from there.
Then comes day 7, then Adam. It's only assumption that both of these are talking about the same event, even though the sequence of events don't even match each other. Not to mention the Genesis 1 humans were much better at obeying God's commands than Adam. But it's clear there were other humans during Adam's time. In Genesis 4 Cain fears being harmed by others when banished from where his family lives despite the fact that traditional interpretations say he was only the third human at this point. Then it says he built a city. And in Genesis 6, right before the flood, it says the 'sons of God' began having children with the 'daughters of humans' who it says are 'mortal' and only live 120 years right after showing life spans of Adam and his offspring living for centuries. Do a little research and you'll find that these two bits are some of those most wildly exaggerated and speculated upon verses in all the bible because they're ambiguous and confusing in the traditional context. Genesis 6 in particular is the basis of most of those stories involving renegade angels, for instance.
The archaeological record shows a fundamental change in humans in this time and place. Those first Sumerian cities built during the Ubaid period, starting with Eridu (5300 BC) of southern Mesopotamia mark the first appearance of social inequality with a ruling class and a working class. Then around 4000 BC the Ubaid culture came to an abrupt, not yet totally understood, end. Genesis says Cain built a city and according to the Sumerians five cities existed before the great flood, again starting with Eridu. The span in Genesis between Cain's banishment and the flood is roughly 1500 years, the same length of time that the Ubaid culture existed.
Then began the Uruk period that began after 4000 BC named after the Sumerian city built during the beginning of that era. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list say Uruk was built not long after the flood. Genesis attributes it to Nimrod, the Sumerians say it was Enmerkar. Both are described as 'great hunters'. The actual city of Uruk was built around 3800 BC. Not only was there continued social inequality, but this marks the beginning of human settlements with clear signs of male dominance as well as signs of organized war. Plus, unlike the humans that lived for tens of thousands of years, and unlike other rather large settled human communities that had existed long before, starting in the Ubaid culture and continuing into Uruk, these people prized possessions and wealth.
This comes right after a dramatic shift in climate around 3900 BC (5.9 kiloyear event) that transformed the Sahara into a desert and actually caused mass human migrations out of that region, much like what's described in the story of Babel. And while the general assumption is that those traits that appeared in humans in this time and region came from living in settled communities with higher social interaction, the archaeological evidence actually shows these traits appearing not gradually in the people already in that region, but appearing at the same time as the arrival of nomadic newcomers from the Sahara. From that Uruk period of southern Mesopotamia on the first full blown human civilizations first began to appear. First in Sumer (3500 BC), then to the west in Egypt (3400 BC), then to the east in the Indus Valley (3300 BC), then at some point before 3000 BC in Akkad to the north. And in each of these places we see significant and sudden advances in craftsmanship and newly invented technologies, including writing in three different languages.
There are some, like James DeMeo (Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World) and Steve Taylor (The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era) who see this as evidence of the emergence of the modern human ego. It's the changes first seen here in Mesopotamia and spread from there that differentiates the humans of 'civilized' societies from those of the tribal/indigenous populations of the world. They're physically the same. Same physical brains. But there's a distinct sense of self that's much more pronounced. The ego as DeMeo and Taylor suggest. It should be pointed out that neither of these guys are theists, as Taylor in particular views religion as a result of what he calls the 'ego explosion' as well.
This mirrors Genesis exactly. The people dispersed at Babel were descendants of Noah/Adam. Like Adam and Eve realizing they were naked right after "the eyes of both of them were opened", they were much more aware of themselves then they were before. And they were capable of behaving outside of God's will, much like the humans of 'civilized' societies more and more behaved outside of the whim of nature through invention and innovation. Cain built a city. Cain's descendants 'fathered' all those who raised livestock/played stringed instruments, and another who made tools out of metal. All inventions that first appeared during the Ubaid/Uruk periods in Mesopotamia.
This is why I believe Adam was the introduction of free will into the world. Because homo sapiens did exactly what humans were told to do in Genesis 1 between roughly 195000 years ago up to roughly 10000 BC. By this point they had populated the planet and had established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom and only remaining species of the homo genus, unlike any other species of animal. Then, in the 'cradle of civilization', humans fundamentally changed. And human history from that point forward illustrates the spread of 'civilized' empires, overtaking the 'locals' or 'savages', and constant wars, sparking in Mesopotamia first, then not long after in China, and from there across the world, taking much longer to reach Africa south of the Sahara, Australia, and North/South America. Some say it's the modern human ego. I think it was the spread of humans with their own individual wills. The birth of human selfishness.
The issue is not about the rise of cities or stratified social hierarchies in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. The issue is that Christianity claims Adam was the first human being, and this contradicts evolution. Genesis is quite clear that Adam was the first human created directly and instantaneously by God, not by a long process of development.
If you are speaking about Adam metaphorically representing the birth of human selfishness and the ego, etc, again, that is metaphor.
I know the difference between literal and metaphorical and I get what you're saying. According to the traditional Christian interpretation, Adam was the first human, which contradicts evolution. I understand.
You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying I have good reason to believe that Adam's creation was literal. He was created in an already populated world and Genesis supports this. And I'm showing how you can actually see the affects of Adam's creation in the archaeological record. This has everything to do with the rise of cities and the appearance of stratified social hierarchies because those are tell-tale signs of free will. 'Civilized' humans now make up over 95% of the world's population. They, or we, are of both bloodlines. We are both of naturally evolved humans and of Adam/Eve.
And therefore, we are all capable of sin because we all have free will. Thus both evolution happened AND Christianity is legitimate.
Prove it. Everything you have posted so far is your opinion based on the need to defend your religion.
Show us the proof Von Noggin.
History proves it. I'm simply pointing it out.
History proves no such thing. Show us the proof of god intervening and - the only change he got involved in after 3.6 billion years was this.
That skull to the left has been scientifically analyzed, and it has been found that almost 70% of its genetic information doesn't match with any life-form found on earth.
Interventions are not so uncommon in history.
I have, and continue to do so. The proof is everywhere. Read those two books I pointed out, or just read about them. They explain it way better than I can....
James DeMeo - Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World
Steve Taylor - The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
This is God intervening by introducing an element that didn't exist before. It's these changes in humanity that these two and others are keying in on. That's free will. And that's why humanity needs a savior. And no, these are not theists. They're making the case based on copious amounts of evidence to show that the appearance of the modern human ego can be seen in human history. What they are seeing is what Genesis describes. God created Adam in an already populated world. His descendents each carried the traits of free will and spread it throughout the world. Human history is the same story over and over again. Civilized cultures spreading out, overpowering the 'natives' or 'savages', taking their land, breeding them out, enslaving them.
Human history began with a not yet understood change. It started around 5000 BC in Mesopotamia, the 'cradle of civilization' and it spread from there. For tens of thousands of years homo sapien lifestyles the world over were very much the same. But starting in that region and timeframe humans changed. They became very inventive, they created government and laws and cities and they began to fight wars and oppress women and form social classes and accumulate possessions and wealth.
How silly. This is not proof. This is opinion. 3.6 billion years of adaptation and change. Yet - you latch onto one change and call it majik?
Sorry - show me the actual proof. Genesis describes 2 different versions of making humans from the dirt.
When we emerged from water - surely that is a far greater change? The only thing you have said that makes any sense is that you don't understand. There were masses of wars and conflicts before this time. What changed was - agriculture. Do some research - you will see I am right. No Majik involved. Natural progression.
You might want to check again. I've read the claims that agriculture was the difference. The problem is the evidence doesn't support that. If that were the case then those advances would have come from the people already settled and using agriculture. The thing is, those changes in human behavior, those inventions, they didn't come gradually. They were rather abrupt. And they appear just after the arrival of nomads from the desert. Semetic and Indo-European speaking nomads flushed from the Sahara region by dramatic climate change (3900 BC - 5.9 Kiloyear Event).
Genesis describes two different events of making 'humans'. Naturally evolved humans in Genesis 1 that lines up with evolution and homo sapien history, then the creation of Adam.
This is not just one random or insignificant change. This change forever altered how humans live. This change is the reason civilization spawned. It's the reason we began inventing. It's the reason for war. This one change when looked at in the context of human history is extremely significant. For tens of thousands of years humans weren't like this. Indigenous tribes untouched by civilization still aren't.
Look again, it's not natural progression. Saying it all must have been the result of agriculture is a logical assumption, but the evidence simply doesn't support it.
Silly Von Noggin. Agriculture was the change that altered the way humans live. But - you are missing the change in humans that you seek, which came some 30,000 years ago.
LOL about the 2 versions of Genesis - very funny. Neither of them matches up with evolution.
Come on show me some proof - all you have is pure conjecture and a huge miss on the clue that really shows a change in humans. Interesting that after 2.3 million years of changes that culminate in this change - this is the majik? How funny. When our ancestors left the water to live on land is pretty massive.
Nope, the change I'm talking about happened somewhere around 5000 to 4000 BC. And no, it wasn't agriculture....
Lack of violence in hunter/gatherer and horticultural human history
"it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - Archaeologist WJ Perry
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began (until 4000 BCE), there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel
"If this was the case - and most scholars agree that it was - then we would expect the transition to agriculture to be accompanied by a great deal of conflict as the groups competed over dwindling resources. But as we've seen, there is almost no evidence of warfare in these areas until the fifth millennium BCE, more than 3,000 years after the advent of agriculture" - Steve Taylor, The Fall
In any case, anthropological studies have shown that scarcity of resources does not necessarily lead to conflict between groups. Data collected by the anthropologists Carol and melvin Ember establishes that "chronic, ordinary resource shortage is not a significant predicator of war." Or, in the words of R. Brian Ferguson, "the data just does not support a direct association of increasing [population] density and increasing war." - Steve Taylor, The Fall
Significant Increase in Inventions and craftsmanship
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
Weird - you completely ignore the massive amount of inventions throughout the last 100 years which outweigh that period by a considerable amount.
And of course the amount of time that became available to develop these pursuits when the food situation was taken care of.
Come on - show me some proof - all you have is some rather ridiculous assertions. But I think it is great that you have evidence of lack of violence amongst hunter gatherer when there is no historical record - almost like you are - just making it up as you go along.
I mean - ya do know we have actual evidence of that in the good ole US of A - right?
Still missing out on the biggie that happened well before your majikal super being dunnit. And in a whole different place.
Didn't ignore the inventions of the last 100 years. Just not relevant to what I'm talking about. Besides, that was a quote from Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe. Not me.
And not only did I not ignore the agricultural change that allowed for more free time as I have mentioned multiple times now that there would be a natural progression seen in the archaeological record where inventions or dramatic changes to human behavior are concerned. They're simply not there.
As for the 'evidence of lack of violence' I was quoting archaeologists and professors/authors. That wasn't me. Assuming your fairly familiar with archaeological investigation, you should know just how much we can learn through the study of artifacts/burial sites and that kind of thing. Just because there wasn't a historical record doesn't mean we can't reach these conclusions.
The 'biggie' you keep referring to apparently wasn't big enough because it didn't lead to the dawn of human civilization and the explosion of inventions in a very short amount of time. Is it that big?
How did the universe come into being? Can you explain? Wasn't that something out of physical laws? The term 'majik' is very subjective. 'Majikal' is something which Maita doesn't understand.
I have a hub that details the Genesis creation account in the context of modern scientific understanding if you'd like more detail, but basically, yes it had to do with physical laws.
Physical laws are God's will. Genesis describes God speaking His will and the earth and all life becoming what He commanded. His will became the law that propelled existence to become what it is. Like the natural propulsive nature in all living things to survive and procreate. Even something as simple as a cell will retract from something harmful. Though a cell is way to simple to have willful volition it still has a will to survive. All living things do. Without this natural drive to live/survive/procreate evolution wouldn't have happened the way it did. That's God's will. God commanded life to 'come forth' from the seas and become this and that. The evidence shows that's exactly what happened. Life grew legs and lungs and teeth and eyes and everything else just to comply.
We're the only ones capable of not behaving according to God's will/physical laws. We often live in direct contrast. We're destructive unlike any other species.
Well, evolution is more like a dogma. I would like to believe it, but there is simply not enough evidence that supports evolution.
But the natural tendency to survive, which you've mentioned, is indeed an observable reality. But it will be a mistake to link evolution with that. Anyway, the point still remains, that is, why does all life-form wish to survive? It's a mystery yet to be uncovered. Better yet, perhaps we know the answer deep in our hearts!
God is a real possibility. All the matter and energy must have had an origin. And that origin must not be physical itself, otherwise the question of infinite regression will appear. Seemingly, the universe has a source which is beyond the laws of the universe.
It can be labeled as God, or Spirit.
Yes, A Troubled Man (Shelby), evolution can obviously be labeled as delusion based on ignorance. But objectively, it's more of a dogma.
I wasn't referring to evolution, of course, because that is a well established theory and fact based on evidence. It has been shown well beyond a doubt that those who do consider evolution a delusion or dogma obviously have very little understanding of the subject matter.
I see you've not said anything to change that, either.
Well, Shelby, sorry to nurse your delusion, but you meant evolution and now you're simply denying it. Sorry to see you change your color instantly.
This level of dishonesty is pathetic
Really? You actually think you can insert the primitive, ignorant stories from a fictitious book of silly, childish fairytales into the history of evolution? Have you NO shame?
I can just feel the desperation in your statements. Do you even believe this drivel, YOURSELF. Wow! Truly, truly disturbing!!!
"I'm saying I have good reason to believe that Adam's creation was literal. He was created in an already populated world and Genesis supports this."
Genesis does not support that. If Adam's creation was literal, then he was the first person because that is what the book literally says:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed." (Gen 2: 7-8)
"Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it... Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." (Gen 2: 15-19) (NKJV)
Every reference to the man is in the singular. If it was more than one man, then it would have said "Eden, and there he put the men whom he had formed."
You have to do some seriously creative interpretation to get a preexisting human race from these passages. A level of creativity that, if applied elsewhere in the Bible, throws into doubt practically every other concept in the book.
Genesis 4 and Genesis 6 clearly show the presence of other humans in the pre-flood era. Plus, translators often make assumptions based on the traditional view when choosing wording, so it naturally leans that way. Like where it says 'Out of the ground God formed every beast...'. That same thing in Hebrew could also be read to mean that '[In the land] God [gathered] every beast....'.
Yes, every reference to Adam was in the singular because it was just him in that story. But just two chapters later, when Cain was to leave the land his father and mother inhabited ...
Gen 4:14 Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from Thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth. And it shall come to pass that every one who findeth me shall slay me.
Reading in this context clears up a lot of really ambiguous passages, like the one above. Clearly, the story makes way more sense when there are others in the landscape.
"Genesis 4 and Genesis 6 clearly show the presence of other humans in the pre-flood era."
Yes, other humans that are all descended from Adam, such as Noah, Enoch, etc.
In Genesis 5 we again see the conflation of Adam and Eve with the creation of man:
"This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." (Gen 5: 1-3)
Regarding Gen 4: 14--that's interesting, but it does not outweigh the other passages, which together are much stronger and have a much clearer implication.
Also, consider this:
"And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." (Gen 5: 3-5)
The phrase "he had sons and daughters" can easily be taken to mean he had hundreds or thousands of offspring, so voila, the world is populated. This is much more straightforward than trying to read pre-Adam humans into the text.
That's true. From Genesis 5 forward there's ten generations of Adam's descendants, each having no telling how many sons and daughters. But in Genesis 4 there's only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Then Cain kills Abel.
Gen4:14 - Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
Gen4:15 - But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
It's possible that this could be referring to other siblings not specifically named, except that Cain is leaving. God validates Cain's concern by then marking him to protect him. Even if Cain were to encounter a vengeful brother/sister/nephew/niece while wondering the 'land of Nod', if they were to kill him it presumably would have been because they knew who he was and what he had done. Marking him seems unnecessary. Not to mention Adam/Eve/Cain all proved fully capable of not obeying God, so marking him wouldn't exactly guarantee his safety.
But then there's Genesis 6....
Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This comes just before the flood and is the beginning of the explanation for why the flood happened. These lines clearly make a distinction between 'sons of God' and 'daughters of humans'. It also says that humans are mortal and only live 120 years right after showing in Genesis 5 that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries. It then says that God regretted putting humans on the earth. Clearly there were humans different than Adam and his family, and the interbreeding between these two is sited as part of the reason behind the flood.
Then you've got Abraham. According to Genesis 11, Abraham was just 10 generations after Noah and was born less than 200 years after the events of Babel. Yet in Genesis 12 Abraham interacts with an Egyptian Pharaoh and in Genesis 11 it says that Abraham's father was from Ur, which is a Sumerian city. 10 generations and less than 200 years isn't much time to allow for two civilizations to form, unless there were already other humans.
Sumerian mythology says there were numerous immortal beings in their ancient past who were human in form, male and female. According to them it was these gods that taught them civilization. And they bred with humans, making demi-gods. Gilgamesh, for example, was a demi-god. Both Sumer and Egypt saw very sudden advances in inventions and craftsmanship in a very short amount of time. And even though the Sumerians are credited as the inventors of dozens of things, many of which we still use today, in their stories they didn't give credit to their ancestors. They say they were taught by immortal gods.
That part of Genesis 4 only mentions Cain and Abel, but that does not mean they are the only ones in existence. Isn't that your argument with Adam? That just because the story only mentions him does not mean there weren't other people around?
The Old Testament throughout seems to focus on specific men, and those are the ones named and referred to. But it seems that along with each man is implied a wife, or several wives, a family, a group of servants, etc. It's kind of like saying "Caesar conquered Gaul." Well, obviously, Caesar had a little help with that, although he was the protagonist.
The "sons of God" is often understood as referring to Angels. There is no implication here of humans not related to Adam. Just because Adam lived for over 900 years does not mean his descendants had to as well.
"10 generations and less than 200 years isn't much time to allow for two civilizations to form"
It's no more unbelievable than to say a planet and solar system formed in 6 days. Things seemed to move pretty fast in those days. Lol.
But actually it is at least somewhat believable. It only took 200 years for the United States to grow from a small population of subsistence farmers and craftsmen to an industrialized global superpower with jumbo jets and nuclear weapons.
I don't know why people are stuck up in what happened in the future. There is no point in debating over the past. Let us look at the future.
Eternal future is more important than the past. How can we escape the judgment of our sin is open now for a limited period. i.e. in our life time. The question is Can we do something to avoid the eternal punishment? How can we receive salvation? Is it possible for me to get eternal happiness? I think we should more concerned about these questions than debating over the past.
There is only one way. That is Jesus Christ. He showed us a path of life. A way to salvation. A way to unite with God.
But - there is no sin to be judged for. Your "past" is nonsense. The genuine "past," which includes humans evolving from other apes does not have any Adam, therefore no original sin. So - no need for Jesus at all.
So - while evolution may not absolutely prove there is no god (assuming a non-international god) it most certainly disproves the Christian god.
Does that answer your question? Yes - evolution proves the Christian god does not exist.
By making such a statement as this, do you feel that maybe you have insulted the millions of people, around the world, who have different beliefs than yours, yet believe just as strongly?
JUST another thought to ponder on for all>>>
When you discuss it in the terms of Christianity than you are saying there is only one major religion.
You are also narrowing things down to the realm of life we all know easily and leaving out the (if I may use the term “soul of our lives”) which is harder to fathom. Just like it is hard for some people to understand there are other realms, other dimensions, or even other life that exist on other planets.
All things are possible through “GOD”, that is why in the first place he is called GOD…The beginning and the end…
What are you referring to when you say Genesis has been debunked by science?
Just taking the word of the scholars who have studied it extensively ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Yes, I know and understand that some can delude themselves to the point that they can convince themselves of anything. If you read my profile you'll see I had the same doubts. Though I kept quiet about how I saw things for a long time I finally decided to start discussing with others for that very reason. To ensure I'm not just deluding myself.
Besides, it's not my delusion that lists 13 specific things in order as to how they actually happened. I didn't do that and there's no amount of delusional twisting I could do to make it work if it weren't so on point already. I simply noticed the point of view being from the surface in verse two and the rest just fell into place.
If we are talking literally then what measures a day, in the bible?
The Hebrew word translated as 'day' is 'yowm'. This same word means day, a number of days, some time, year, age, era
Since "DAY" can mean just about anything you want it to mean, it would clarify things immensely if you would select one definition, so that we can make sense of what you are trying to convey. Otherwise, there is not much meaning to any of your assertions.
It was the part in bold. First it says where God's spirit is, "upon the face of the deep"(v2), then from there He says "Let there be light"(v3).
He did make two great lights and He made them to serve that particular purpose, as well as to "divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth".
The thing is, just like it says, the sun/moon/stars were not visible in the sky for the first 4 billion years of Earth's existence. This age that falls right between plant life and vertebrates on land, day 3 and day 5, marks the first time in Earth's history that the atmosphere became transparent so that the sun, the moon, and even stars were visible. And it's also in that same era, as plant life on land continued to absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen, that the entirety of the Earth's continental land mass drifted from beneath the planet where daylight lasted for 6 months up to between the poles where they still are today.
Two things happened in this age between plants and vertebrates that completely changed Earth's sky. Until then the sun, the moon, and the stars simply weren't mentioned specifically. But way back 'in the beginning' it says God created the 'heavens'(v1). It also says there was light(v3) and that he defined the light as day and the dark as night(v5). That's exactly how it was. First the sky changed from opaque (no light) to translucent (light), complete with both day and night. Then 4 billion years later, from translucent (no visible sun/moon/stars) to transparent (visible sun/moon/stars). This was a significant era.
"cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (King James Version)
"cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (Orthodox Jewish Bible)
cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (Young's Literal Translation)
The moon does not define the night. It's not even a light and it's not always in the night sky. The sun defines night and day. You can justify that away as well, but you will notice you are justifying and explaining every sentence.
You start by saying a day doesn't mean a day, but God obviously knows what a day is because he made day and night and called them just that day and night.
You can choose to ignore the accuracy of the Genesis creation account by arguing semantics if you like, but I think it's pretty clear. In the age Genesis was written humans were well aware of how often the moon was in the night sky. It still provides light. True, it's reflected light, and not the source itself, but it clearly provides light by being made up of a surface that's highly reflective and serves the purpose specifically stated.
As far as what a 'day' is, I'm simply pointing out that the same word is used in Hebrew much like we use it today in English. The same word 'day' can mean a 24 hour period, it can mean the portion of the day that the sun is up, or it can be an indeterminate amount of time like "back in the day" or "in his day".
All of this is precisely why one should stop treating the bible like it was an objective and scientific account and then compare it to scientific documents and theories.
The bible is, at best, an subjective interpretation of communication with a deity, which has been ratified through the ages by scholars with confirmation bias. Comparing it to evolution is like comparing Mein Kampf with an objectively performed (??) historical study of the Third Reich.
Until science can prove which came first
- the chicken or the egg -
Evolution cannot prove there is no God.
until science can prove that the earth is not an object in a science project managed by a higher being,
Evolution cannot prove there is no God.
Following the trip to Mars -
our next space jaunt must be to discover the beginning of the Heavenly Way.
Neither. Obviously, biology is not your strong suit.
But it can certainly prove there is no direct intervention and definitely proves the Christian bible is false.
Science has already proven that.
What Heavenly way is this?
Your statements are simply a personal belief.
Science cannot prove that there was no God.
Science cannot prove that God did not make the earth.
Science cannot prove that our souls do not go to Heaven.
Therefore, science cannot prove the Christian Bible is false.
Ah - another persona. Sorry you did not understand.
Little wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
Are at a loss of words?
Go on buddy, explain a little, if you can...
my religion does not cause any conflicts, because I know everything came from God.
YOU cannot prove there is a God.
YOU cannot prove that God made the earth.
YOU cannot prove souls exist.
Therefore, you cannot prove the Christian Bible is valid.
See how that works?
I do not intend to prove to you or anyone else that God exists.
If you wish to disbelieve, that is your problem, not mine.
I know he exists in my world because of the life I have lived.
I know in my world the Christian Bible is valid.
YOu definitely picked the correct screen name.
The "first" domesticated chicken as we know it was a hybrid of red junglefowl and grey junglefowl in South Asia some 4,500 years ago. The offspring of this hybridization would have started as an egg. Therefore, the first gallus gallus domesticus was an egg.
Not proof of evolution, of course - and unrelated to God. But interesting nonetheless.
thanks for the insight.
and so, prior to 4,500 years ago, we do not know where the ancesters of the chicken came from.
so, we still do not know what came first.
Ever heard of dinosaurs? Oh wait, the Bible makes no mention of them. Never mind, then.
Don't be so certain.
In Genesis 1:21 it says "God created great whales and every living creature that moveth..."(KJV). In other translations, instead of stating God created 'great whales', it sometimes says 'great sea animals' (CEB), or 'giant sea monsters' (CEV).
The actual Hebrew words used here that are translated so many different ways are 'e-thninm', which means 'the monsters', and 'e-gdlim', which means 'the great ones'. We now know that between the debut of vertebrates on land and the appearance of birds there were numerous creatures that much more aptly fit these descriptions than 'great whales' .... namely dinosaurs.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte … f/gen1.pdf
If the bible were to mention dinosaurs anywhere, it would be right there.
LOL! Your posts are indistinguishable from Islamic propagandists who also make up stuff as they go along, attempting to take anything they can and distort it to align with science. Very dishonest.
Sorry, but great whale are great whales. Mammals, not dinosaurs.
Right, and it's the KJV of the Hebrew text that said 'great whales'. The Hebrew version says 'Monsters' and 'Great Ones'. Didn't make that up.
YOU said dinosaurs, so yes, you made that up. Try to be even a little honest, if you can.
YOU said the bible makes no mention of them. Hopefully you understand they wouldn't have actually been called 'dinosaurs'. So what would you suggest they call them if they did happen to mention them? Monsters and Great Ones is a pretty apt description.
A description would have been nice. Dinosaurs seemed to be a dead end in evolution. What purpose do you suppose they had? To feed each other then die. Sure we may have gotten birds out of them, but you God could have just made birds like it says in the bible. It's my understanding they were around for almost 200 million years for nothing.
God specifically said He wanted birds and that's where they came from. It's only a dead end when it leads nowhere. As for what they accomplished, there's really no way of knowing. At least, not yet. Maybe once we have a better grasp of DNA then we'll maybe be able to determine what extinct species attributed what to the DNA code of modern day birds.
But the issue here has not so much to do with the purpose of dinosaurs and more to do with ATM stating the bible makes no mention of them. Turns out, right in the exact place you'd expect it to be chronologically in the creation account, it does specifically speak of creatures created that are described in much the same way you'd imagine dinosaurs would be, or any number of other large creatures that existed in that era.
Are you saying great whales is a good description of dinosaurs? Because to me he sounds like he's talking about dinosaurs. You would think he would have put something in there that would make us think "how could they have known that?". It would make me listen or at least I'd look into the translation. If they translation was older then the discovery of dinosaurs I'd pay more attention. But nothing like that exist.
No, the King James Version is what said 'Great Whales'. That translation of the bible wasn't written until the 1600's. They're the ones that said 'great whales'. The Hebrew version that's taken from a source at least 2500 years old, and probably a lot older, simply said 'monsters' and 'great ones'.
The assumption made for many centuries before we learned the truth through science is that day 5 is when the sea creatures were created and day 6 when the land creatures were created. So, that's how it was always read. These must be really big creatures in the sea. Oh, they must be talking about whales.
Now we know better. King James, or at least the Church of England of the 1600's, didn't.
On a point of detail, dinosaurs are not a dead end in that they lead to various modern birds and reptiles.
We don't know about birds, but certainly not reptiles. It matters not because the bible says birds and sea creatures and then land animals. If birds came from dinosaurs that is a contraction because dinosaurs were land animals. The only way to prove that the bible is correct would be to find evidence that birds came before any land animals.
Some animals not only came from dinosaur but basically are dinosaurs. For example the tuatara and crocodilians. A dead end is a species not extant with no extant descendents. Dinosaurs are marginalized, but not a dead end.
Along with pterosaurs and dinosaurs, crocodiles were an offshoot of the archosaurs, of the early to middle Triassic period. In other words they didn't evolve from dinosaurs but they may have had similar ancestry. They evolved along side dinosaurs.
(The tuatara is a reptile endemic to New Zealand which, though it resembles most lizards, is actually part of a distinct lineage, order Rhynchocephalia.) Again, not a dinosaur, but a retile that evolved along side dinosaurs.
Archosaurs are an offshoot of dinosaurs defined by standing leg posture. Tuataras split next to them and Lepidosauromorpha. All of these are within the clade dinosauria. I also think the descent of birds is pretty well established as of the last 5 years.
It doesn't and anyone who says it does is lying.
Yes, if you make it up as you go along, they can mean anything.
Again, the original text said monsters and great ones. That wasn't me. I wasn't born yet. At least give credit where credit is due.
YOU said dinosaurs. That was YOUR claim. So, try to be honest.
Look, you said there was absolutely no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. I pointed out that in the exact spot where you'd expect to see them, if they were to be mentioned anywhere, it says there were 'monsters' and 'great ones'. This comes after God called for life to come forth from the waters and before birds. This happens between the appearance of plant life on land and beasts/cattle (mammals). You can dismiss it if you like, but this is the most logical location that a mention of dinosaurs would exist if it were to be there, and just so happens to describe creatures in this age that dinosaurs fit.
You're welcome for pointing it out. Maybe next time you'll at least hesitate before stating something with such certainty that you obviously haven't made even the slightest attempt to look into.
"Monsters" and :Great ones" does not automatically translate to mean dinosaurs. These words, more than likely, mean something entirely different from what you are desperately attempting to make them into. This is just a pathetic way of interpreting scripture to fall into the asinine conclusions that you have already blindly accepted.
Headly, are you deliberately trying to mislead people. I've always thought you were honest in your beliefs, but you are simply incorrect here.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
See, sea animals and birds and then land animals. Dinosaurs were land animals. Were there birds before dinosaurs?
Seems like an attempt to mislead people by saying (great creatures), but 20 specifically takes about birds and sea creatures, with no mention of land creatures until 24.
While I'm at it notice that the description of a day is defined as just one day, with an evening and a morning.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Don't worry Rad Man, if I'm wrong it's definitely not deliberate. I don't want you to lose your positive image of my delusion.
You're right that dinosaurs are land animals. They also fall between reptiles and birds in the evolutionary chain. All of these known as Sauropsids. In these same verses God also called for birds, which we know do not live in the sea. So why exactly do you think everything other than birds mentioned here could only live in the sea?
Mammals, branched off in the evolutionary scale as Synapsids, were kind of a left turn evolution wise. Just look into proto-mammals. Most of the fossil record you can draw a pretty direct line from one species to the next. Like in the case of dinosaurs to birds. Synapsid reptiles becoming proto-mammals and then mammals is a different story. A second command by God would explain that. Currently we have no explanation scientifically as to what would cause this evolutionary branch-off.
Same goes for humans. A third branch, which coincides with a third command by God according to Genesis 1.
You didn't even try.
Bible; Birds and sea creature, land animals.
Clearly birds are before land animals in the description and the bible clearly defines a day as having a night and morning.
We discussed this. For centuries the assumption was that sea creatures were created on day 5, then land creatures on day 6. And many translations just run with this. Remember, neither churches nor translators had any privileged knowledge over anyone else. They were just as unaware as everyone else in their day. But notice both the below translations say that the waters 'brought forth' these creatures. And remember God was 'on the surface' during creation.
King James Version -
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Orthodox Jewish Bible -
20 And Elohim said, Let the waters bring forth an abundance of living creatures, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open raki’a of heaven.
21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.
As for the night/morning thing... "And the evening and the morning were the X day". So, God does His thing, then comes evening, then comes morning, the next day. Or, the next era. Like, after the following evening and morning began the era of mammals. Or the era of plant life on land.
Nope, the KJV version clearly states that birds came before land animals.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
As for the DAY aspect. Nope, when the description of the day state morning and evening that means day.
Cattle and beast are clearly references to mammals. Before that it says "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl...". Obviously birds didn't stay in the water. What makes you think they're the only creatures that didn't stay in the water? "... bring forth... moving creature that hath life...".
Actually, the order is evening, then morning. Every time. And the evening and the morning were the X yowm/day/age/era. The end of one and the beginning of the next yowm/day/age/era.
Nope, things living in water and birds (things in water and things in the sky) And the birds get to fly in heaven?
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (all things in water and every KIND of bird)
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (he still is only speaking about water and sky creatures)
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (another description of a day)
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, (creeping thing? insects maybe, but after cows?) and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (now he's using the same language about land creatures as he did sea creatures so clearly he was not talking about the sea creatures evolving into land creatures)
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.(another day reference, and the same language used to describe how he made night and day)
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Clearly we're at an impasse here. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you, no matter how many times we go back and forth knit-picking particular lines of text. Just take a step back and look at the whole picture. There's numerous specific details that correctly describe, not just key events in the formation of the earth and evolution of life, but it does so from a surface point of view. And the correlations to actual history continue beyond creation. That's just the beginning. Chapter 1.
If this text were not so on point you wouldn't be forced to key in on such small pieces of it. It would be obvious. Like many who think the sun/moon/stars thing makes it obvious, until you realize the point of view it's speaking from. There was a time when detractors pointed to the fact that it claimed the universe had a beginning as their reasoning why it can't be accurate. Or because it says there were oceans before there was land. One by one they each fall away as we learn more. More recently learned details like the history of the earth's atmosphere or the movement of the earth's tectonic plates or the evolution of life have only brought more clarity.
There is only one truth. Through science we've found a way to arrive at the truth devoid of human influence. Just as St. Augustine said, if at any time the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature' appear to conflict, then it is human interpretation that is flawed. That goes both ways. Interpretation of scripture and interpretation of evidence. Together, both books will ultimately prove they are speaking the same truth. It's only a matter of time. In fact, as I'm trying to point out, we can already see a lot of it. It's just that pesky human element that keeps getting in the way of seeing it. One side refuses to see truth in science because it conflicts with the human interpretations of scripture they believe, the other refuses to see truth in scripture because it conflicts with the human interpretations of evidence they believe. It's kind of poetic, really, that humanity's search for truth will ultimately wipe away all the human-made clutter and lead us all right back to the same point. Him. That just sounds like God's style to me.
Here ya go...
"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
Ah, dinosaurs did not live in the seas. You know what would be convincing? If we found a translation made before the discovery of Dinosaurs that accurately described them, this way we would know that the writers and the translators had more knowledge then that was known at the time and that they were honest. Sure anyone can come up with a new translation know and say that the original described dinosaurs.
The translators have no more knowledge than anyone else, except of course where translations are concerned. The key to Genesis is that A) nobody knows who wrote it, and B) nobody knows when it was written. We have some very educated guesses, but nothing concrete. Especially in the case of creation, which was most likely a song passed down verbally for Lord knows how long, there's no telling how old it is.
Oh yes and I forgot to mention.
You will notice that in Genesis 20 God created creatures in the sea and birds. But not until 24 did God create land animals. I'm not sure how we got birds from dinosaurs if the birds came first? I'm sure you have an explanation for that as well.
If it was true that dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible, then how come, before dinosaurs were discovered, didn't anyone say "Hey, where's this giant sea creature mentioned in the Bible." I think what you have is people fitting evidence to their preconceived notions.
LOL! That has got to be one of the most ridiculous, far-fetched conclusions I've read today. Hilarious.
So, you actually have hard evidence that our earth is in fact managed by a higher being?
I don't see why it would disprove God.
That I know of, no research of any kind has come near to disproving OR proving God.
Doesn't the Bible state that God created everything in the form it's in today? Does evolution agree with that?
There's your answer, do you see, now?
God created the earth and all living things.
This science project resulted in a complex composite of opposing factors for each living object where each provides a portion of the support necessary to sustain the science project.
Man has named this project nature.
Man has denied that he cannot determine who created the earth.
Man has continually denied things that occur because they cannot explain them scientifically.
God has never failed man, but man continually fails God.
Then it is the fault of your slow witted god. He could have made successful humans, yet chose to make humans abject failures, then complains. This makes no sense at all.
your misconception is not a new venue.
your perception is stated as one of a disbeliever and so you will never recognize the value that God gave to man.
I am a successful human made by God.
I am a successful human made by my parents, and they even stuck around to make sure I made it to adulthood.
Give credit where it's due.
I was raised by grandparents in a Christian home environment.
Everything I have is due to the teachinng I received based on Christian principles.
Give thanks to your wonderful grandparents then because without them you wouldn't have gotten any help from God. He doesn't help homeless children in India or Africa, but your grandparents stepped up to the plate. Give them credit.
When one examines the doctrines of religion, it is not the bastion of wonderful moral standards it purports to be:
If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
I live by the 10 commandments - the principles of life.
Loving an imaginary character with all your mind body and soul is not a stable principle to live by. And his command to have no other god before him, or make any craven images is absurd, as he doesn't even exist himself. As far as the rest of the commandments...thy shall not kill, thy shall not steal, thy shall not bear false witness...commit adultery....are all the basic morals, which each society must adopt to live harmoniously. They pre-date your fraudulent beliefs.
That's because my mind is stable, and I possess the courage to think for myself, instead of allowing others to disable my critical thinking. The only thing you have is delusion, nothing more.
Choosing to live your life inside of a silly, childish fairytale is not impressive in the least. Say something that actually makes sense.
God gives me strength to live among irrational people who continue to provoke each other with meaningless banter.
That's because my mind is pure and filled with love of my fellow man.
My critical thinking has made me healthy, wealthy, and wise.
God is imaginary! Please grow the courage to put away childish nonsense. It is you, and maybe the ones who are close to you, who has given you the strength to thrive.
Yet you are here, deceiving your fellow man about some invisible, nonexistent, psychotic, evil god. I wouldn't call that love.
That's only outside of religion When it comes to matters of faith, you blindly follow the rest of the sheep.
God is imaginary only in your mind.
I see my God everyday.
I speak with him and he speaks with me.
I treasure every encounter through his principles.
Now, it's only getting weird and somewhat scary.
And they think we're the crazy ones for accepting the fact that we're modified fish.
I've never thought of myself as being modified fish. But I'm good with that. I am but a primitive fish and a few million or billion years of evolution. I swim therefore I am.
OK, then if I'm the one who's delusional, please produce your god. Do you see the absurdity?
There are many causes of hallucinations, including:
Being drunk or high, or coming down from such drugs as marijuana, LSD, cocaine (including crack), PCP, amphetamines, heroin, ketamine, and alcohol
Delirium or dementia (visual hallucinations are most common)
Epilepsy that involves a part of the brain called the temporal lobe (odor hallucinations are most common)
Fever, especially in children and the elderly
Psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and psychotic depression
Sensory problem, such as blindness or deafness
Severe illness, including liver failure, kidney failure, AIDS, and brain cancer
Hearing voices is still considered by psychiatry as an auditory hallucination and as a symptom of conditions such as schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis.
I've heard that it can be addictive.
If you are hearing voices in your head and you are corresponding with them please get some help because that could indicate a very serious and dangerous problem.
Sorry, but that doesn't agree with evolution.
Men understand there was no "who".
To be fair, disproving Genesis is not exactly the same thing as disproving God. And since different religions and philosophies have defined God to mean pretty much anything they've wanted it to mean over the years, God in the broadest sense is an impossible concept to disprove.
However, if we just limit the definition to the conceptions of God as Creator, then yes, evolution does force a redefinition. The idea that God is an omnipotent and benevolent creator doesn't jive well with the planet's history of mass extinctions and evolutionary dead ends, nor the vestigial organs, conserved genes, and analagous structures that make living things look exactly like they descended with modification from earlier species through a long process of trial and error. Accepting this as "creation" makes God either a cruel sadist or a blitherting incompetent.
Perhaps God created evolution. Doesn't prove anything to me.
The Bible doesn't state anything about evolution, and evolution doesn't state anything about the Bible. They are completely unrelated topics that neither prove nor disprove eachother.
Then, the Bible is wrong.
If the Bible is wrong about something that important, perhaps it should be discarded as myth?
Evolution shows the Genesis account to be wrong. Simple, really.
But we're talking about God here, not the Bible.
The Bible can't prove or disprove God any more than the theory of evolution can. It's just a book. They are both just forms of written communication.
Please, please, show us how evolution shows the Genesis account to be wrong. Show us how simple it is.
It's very simple.
1. We know from evolution that we didn't get here is 5 or 6 days because the bible describes exactly what was meant by a day.
2. The order is wrong. Birds did not come before land animals, they were in fact once land animals and before that sea creatures.
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life on the planet first originated until the present day. The similarities between all present-day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.
Btw, you may want to have a look at the Top Ten Monsters in the Bible. Maybe dinosaurs were number 11 and just didn't make the list.
You didn't explain anything. You just copy/pasted a portion of Genesis and a description of evolution. I'm not seeing how the evolution account shows the Genesis account to be wrong.
According to Genesis life came from the sea. Check. According to Genesis there are three distinct commands that shape life. First the command for life to come from the sea, including birds. This of course mirrors sauropsids. Vertebrates> amphibians> reptiles> dinosaurs> birds. Then a second command calling for 'beasts of the earth' and cattle (mammals) to come forth from the land. And what was already on the land? The animals from day 5. And where did mammals come from. Synapsid reptiles. Hence the branch of Synapsids. Then humans represent another branch.
So, the origin is right, the order is right, they're broken down correctly by type, there's a specific command that correlates to each branch, and ends with humans.
Did I miss something?
No, that is not a check, life was placed in the sea by God as it appears today, life did not come from the sea. We can duly ignore the rest of your post.
Reading comprehension classes.
What? "life was placed in the sea by God as it appears today"?
I've literally read these passages countless times in I don't know how many translations, tediously comparing to the original Hebrew word for word, and I've never seen anywhere where it says anything that could even remotely resemble what you just got. Are you serious? What are you basing that on? And then, in the same comment, you also put the bit about reading comprehension? Please, help me understand where your superior reading comprehension got all of that. If I ever hope to improve it would help to know what I'm doing wrong.
"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals"
That passages above indicate that everything was put on the earth as it is today, "livestock, winged bird, in our image, in our likeness, birds in the sky"
Those things all evolved from OTHER common ancestors that were NOT livestock, winged birds or in our likeness or image" according to evolution, especially man.
Ah, I see. Sorry for the over-befuddled response earlier. I can see how you're reading it. So, because of this, because the animals it specifically mentioned didn't start out that way, that's why evolution proves Genesis false? Nevermind that it started with life teeming in the sea, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (KJV), then specifies birds as coming from the sea as well, in that order. Nevermind that it then lists separately the following day the mammals (beasts/cattle), which is how we class animals to this day by the same dividing line (sauropsid/synapsid). Nevermind that each is listed in the same order as the ages in which they thrived, including humans. Nevermind that homo sapiens did just as what's specified as God's commands. Because it didn't list the animals that came before, because it didn't explain that they became what was specifically listed over time, that's why they're totally incompatible? That's why the Genesis account is positively false? Because when you read it, you read it to mean God made them just like that right then?
And that's just the portion about the animals. That doesn't include being right about the oceans forming first, or the earth being shrouded in darkness at first before light broke through, or that the water cycle and atmosphere came next, or that land came after all of that, or being right about plant life on land coming next. There's a lot you have to ignore here to make such a definitive proclamation. Especially when you're reasoning is so... well, it's nothing worth standing a definitive proclamation of dismissal on top of.
Whatever was in the sea was placed there by God, just like everything else.
There is no indication of anything else but that.
That is irrelevant to the fact that God placed all animals, fish, whales, plants, people, etc. on earth, that is what the Creation story is all about.
I know you can't just take my word and make it a final answer but I have to say their is a god, I have been praying in my room and suddenly I have felt this heat poured on me i was amazing and shocked it made me ran out from my room. I was told it was the holy spirit from god its a blessing. I know the truth and no one can't take that away from me. God has now been testing my faith and trials and boy they are hard. I worry on making a mistake or slipping out a bad word cause he see and hears everything. I can not explain or put it in to word but I know he is real i just wish others could give him a chance and see for them self.
to get this blessing all you have to do is repent for your sins wrong doings, ask him to change you and forgive others I know that ones hard when someone has really hurt you in the pass but he can show you. I just open the bible and see what god has to say to me today so many question so far has been answered.
pleased the blood of Jesus to protect you and give you joy in life. This evolution is to confuse us humans and believe in something that don't assist. Think it this way this world is all money making and like to twist things just to have power and money.
god bless xxx
Who told you that feeling heat is the same thing as the holy spirit from god?
But, if it wasn't the holy spirit from god and just heat, then why would you continue to embrace a false belief?
So does Santa Claus.
No problem, show me your god and I'll give him a chance.
Considering you get your answers from the Bible and that there is no mention whatsoever of evolution in the Bible, you should probably try and read another book, preferably one that can explain evolution to you. That way, you'll be able to offer a more reasonable argument.
You can see my God only if you personnally look for him.
I cannot take you to God, I can only take myself to God.
You must decide who you wish to emulate through your life.
I choose Jesus and God as my heroes.
I know they will lead me to the promised land.
I know that living under their principles will give me a great life.
Interesting, your heroes performed human sacrifice on one another.
My God did not sacrifice humans.
Humans performed sacrifice upon other humans.
Humans who live under my God do not sacrifice humans.
Then, God did not sacrifice his son, Jesus?
That is correct.
Man crucified Jesus due to the same irrational theory that profoundly lives today.
Man is the sinner - but - Jesus did inform us that we can live on the side of His Father to receive his protection and blessing.
Even in his last days, Jesus lived for his fellow man.
The world is better because of this regardless of the disappointment that many might find on this world due to their personal lifestyle.
What theory? That capital punishment is an appropriate form of justice?
And if Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, why is the term "Lamb of God" used to describe him?
As I was reading through some of these posts, I have to say I'm impressed with both arguments looking to prove how each one is right/wrong. Needless to say, I find that evolution and the life span of the universe to be truthful due to extensive research; however, it still doesn't prove that there is/are (a) higher entity(s). Cultures across time, i.e. the Mayans & Egyptians, hold information that have proven useful for comparison in today's scientific research on (a) how the universe was created, (b) if higher beings we normally discuss are aliens [that's a whole other debate that can be saved for another time, and (c) how life on earth works. Through research and the like, we have found different animals from different periods ranging in age. However that may be, there is still one question I'm at an impasse on: If life started off as evolution, and even if there are aliens out there that could have been thought of as the higher deities of ancient myth and script, there is no evidence proving/disproving another higher entity. We simply don't have the evidence to support if there is/are (an) almighty being(s). With evolution, I agree with the research done; however, on the aspect of God and higher beings, I must stay agnostic.
My opinion is that there is no God. I believe that there is something else when we die. I also don't believe that when we die we go to either heaven or hell, as I believe that is what we live everyday. I see an article coming out of this for me to write!
Isn't it wonderful that we can have differing opinions.
I believe that what we live everyday is man-made heaven or hell here on earth.
The difference being the way we treat and defend each other in the physical form.
However, based on our physical form efforts here on earth, I believe that when we transcend to the supernatural we are provided a place in heaven or hell also.
In the supernatural environment, we can then interact with our loved ones by sending impulses to them that will assist them as they live their physical lives.
This has happened to me several times in my physical lifetime as my grandparents, mother, brother, and special friends have assisted me in making the right decision to advance my life.
This world is so wonderful because we do have the right to our own opinion.
While it is your opinion and belief that the supernatural, heaven and hell exist, there is no evidence of their existence.
Of course, no one knows that as there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, hence it must be something you have made up yourself.
You will never find it because you oppose it.
I have found it because I have reaped its benefits.
I cannot make up something that is happening for me everyday as I grow more healthy, wealthy, and wise through it.
Interesting - in that case you can prove it to us.
Please do so.
I am the proof, I have found the light.
I live it every day.
If you desire the proof, all you need to do is seek it.
by the way Mark - it is currently 1:49 est in America - were you looking or thinking about the sun just now?
No - sorry. I don't live anywhere near Amerika.
regardless of your geographic position on the earth.
were you looking at or thinking about the sun?
maybe how you would enjoy a purely sunny day?
Wow, it was 1:49 in all of America? Is there only one time zone there?
Mark, was asking for the proof you said you have, then you told him to seek it out? That's exactly what he was doing when he asked for proof.
You must have no proof and you must have not found the light.
I am the proof for me.
you must seek your own proof.
if you do not find it - then you are not truly looking.
an open mind and open heart is all that it takes.
but many are unwilling to accept this because they must touch something.
If you let it touch you, you will find the proof.
I was once a christian, but then I grew up and realized I had been lied to. Do you believe everything you here? Did you see the emperors new cloths?
obviously you were not a Christian as I define them - but rather a joiner.
joiners seek the touch of others in order to claim their healthy, wealthy, and wise life.
Christians observe the universe and do what is necessary to aid, protect, and support those who cannot support themselves. If you teach them to fish, they will eat. If you teach them to plant, they will grow. If you teach tme to observe, they will be wise.
I do no such thing, but instead welcome Him with open arms.
All your efforts that have led you to grow are a result of you, your family and friends. Nothing more. Take credit where credit is due.
Why can't you make it up? Are you not very creative?
Didn't Jesus say something about wealthy people not getting into heaven? Stay poor my friend.
Did I say that my wealth was material? No.
My wealth is my life and the many friends that I have both rich and poor who follow the righteous path through the Lord.
My life is filled with great wealth of the power that the Lord has given me.
This permits me to achieve many things that others never do.
It provides me with the means to assist others when no one else can.
It allows me to make the world a better place through the assistance I can provide.
It challenges me daily as i meet others like yourself who wish only to view a piece of the scripture.
Proverbs 29:7 - The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.
I have all the same things, but I don't attribute these things to the supernatural, and I don't go around bragging about it. I credit myself, that way when things go poorly I take responsibility for that as well. I don't blame the devil and never tell anyone else that they will burn in hell if they don't do as I do.
The difference between you and me is you attribute success from God and I attribute success from character.
your character is very limited because it is based on yourself.
mine is very unlimited because it is based on all of mankind.
Insulting someone without knowing them is not a good sign of character.
How can a persons character be based on all of mankind? You are insulting me and not making any sense. Perhaps you don't understand what character is.
telling the truth through the information provided by someone is not insulting
"The difference between you and me is you attribute success from God and I attribute success from character."
your character is based on your interpretation and definition.
my character is based on all of God's humanity.
Then please don't be insulted then when I tell you the truth is you character is based on fairy tales, delusion and an inability to take take credit or responsibility for your actions. I've found that the gullible buy a lot from door to door and tv infomercials. I recommend you stay clear of those to things.
your biased feelings are of very little concern to anyone who has accepted life under God's plan.
obviously you prefer to influence others with your limited perception.
it will never work with me, because i live in the world of the true God, not the world of I as you do.
this is what limits your ability to feel the heaven than God has provided.
you may fish and you may grow, but you are limited in observation.
I understand your perception of your public face as a person of God; however, there is too much variation in anthropology, culture, faith, ethnicity, creed, etc. to prove that we are all "lambs of God"; I'm more of a cultural relativist instead of a cultural absolutist (especially with debates on faith) because conflicts occur when one side thinks their right and wants to prove the other one wrong. Yes, there may be a God or gods/goddesses or any other form of a higher being (I must remain agnostic as to what is out there due to the variability of culture and creed); however that may be, it is unethical to say how one's character is "limited" in comparison to your self-prescribed "unlimited" character in which could be seen as "limited" from another's perspective unto you. I can't help but be reminded of all the culture clashes we've had throughout written human history based upon a statement like yours, taburkett. It is understandable and respectable that you are standing your ground on your faith and belief in God and another version of how life began; however, it must be also ethical on your part to see why others believe in different versions. Scientists prefer one way, Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) have their own versions, Hinduism, Shinto, continental tribes and etc. all have their own versions. Because of this variation in culture and perspective (and instead of looking at "what's wrong" in other's theories/beliefs on life & creation), why not try and find common ground and what parts you agree and disagree with on this matter? I think there is too much cultural variation to fully believe one theory/belief and totally repel others.
It is ethical to say that one's character is "limited" in comparison to my self-described "unlimited" character even if it would be seen as "limited" from another's perspective because they would choose to limit their ability to view the global righteousness that I live under.
My faith requires me to treat everyone regardless of anthropology, culture, faith, ethnicity, creed, etc. as a "lamb of God".
This means that regardless of anthropology, culture, faith, ethnicity, creed, etc. I see every American the same way.
This blindness allows me to fully recognize the true path to Heaven.
you will find my operational charter beginning in
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV
The book of Timothy is all that I need for my life as I walk the path to Heaven.
That's because you pointed out that Adam is always referred to in the singular, thinking that if there were others then it should have been plural. Genesis 1 says there were others. It's only assumption that says the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are different depictions of the same event. There were others who already populated the planet by the time Adam was created. But Adam was different. For one, he was created separate from naturally evolved humans. Second, he lived for centuries. Third, he was able to behave contrary to God's will where the humans in Genesis 1 followed God's commands to the letter.
Genesis 4 does mention others. Others Cain feared encountering after leaving the land of his family. Then it says he built a city. Cain's banishment happened within the first 130 years of Adam's existence. He then built a city around the time he had his first son. Third generation and there's a city. Not a homestead, but a city.
Everyone specifically said to have been related to Adam lived extended lifespans. Everyone in Genesis 5 and everyone in Genesis 10. Each generation gradually shorter, but still centuries. Most likely because they were breeding with 'mortal' humans. "My spirit will not contend with humans forever".
The assumption that the sons of God are angels comes from these verses and the book of Job. Neither specifies who they are. However, this is not consistent with the rest of the bible. Not only are the 'sons of God' always human, in the old testament they're always Israelites(Exodus 4:22-23). And in the new testament before Jesus' death/resurrection always Israelites(Luke 3:23-37). After, however, it's always believers...
John 1:12 – But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
Romans 8:14 – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
1 John 3:1 – Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.
Then there's this ...
Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?
See, this is one of the key reasons why I know I'm onto something. Because this one shift, this one slight alteration to the context behind the stories, clarifies the overall story. Rather than being a collection of disjointed ambiguous texts, it becomes one cohesive narrative.
For example, in this context you have a planet full of naturally evolved humans and one family that began with a man handmade by God and the 'breath of life' breathed into his nostrils directly by God. Then it says, if you continue to breed with these mortal humans, 'My spirit will not contend'. This is followed by a gradual decrease in lifespans. Then comes the 'chosen people' who were direct descendents of Adam/Eve who were given very specific laws that said don't marry outside of your own kind, here's who you can breed with, here's who's too closely related to breed with, and you MUST breed. Oh, and only eat this. In Ezra 9 it's mentioned, don't mix the 'holy seed'. This is the bloodline that spawned a virgin birth. This same bloodline who was protected and who still carried "God's spirit" that "would not contend with [mortal] humans forever". Then, after Jesus died and was resurrected, comes the "Holy Spirit". Now, all of the sudden, anyone could be a 'son of God'. Now the 'holy seed'/'God's spirit' was no longer physically retained in one bloodline, but could now be given to all.
Yes, when there's population, like the thousands and thousands of immigrants who came to America, a nation/civilization can form quickly. But less than 200 years and only 8 or so generations starting with a small family? And not just two civilizations, but both had a ruling and working class. Kings (Sumer) and Pharaohs.
Yes, Emma and I had quite the back and forth when I first published my hub on the creation account. But, to be fair to her, the pictures I now include in that hub showing the geologic timescale and all of that wasn't there when she first read it. It was just the written bit. Personally, I think that stuff makes it much easier to follow.
Did you read these? Mine and hers? Any thoughts?
"The First Six Days: Why the Genesis Account is not Compatible with Science If God created the sun on the fourth day........"
good question - but still a supposition, not a fact.
science has provided a vague description of the past, not a full truthful substantiated description, just a theory based on assumptions.
the quandry is that man seeks to find the physical being, not the spiritual one. scientists will continue to be baffled because they will not find the physical until the Lord returns in the final days.
mankind has a problem with this because mankind is composed of sinners who seek to use only mankind theory.
the spirit lives and the content people of mankind understand that the spirit lives.
those who are caught up in the rapture of the physical will never understand that the spirit lives.
However, nothing explains reality like an ancient book, written(plagiarized) by ignorant goat herders, right?
And just what method are you using to validate that you have found a spirit? What is it composed of? How did you identify it? Surely you are not just going on childish whimsical ignorance.
And, of course, these brilliant men and women of science should consult your expertise, since you have identified their shortcomings. You could teach them a thing or two. Who would have thought?
Eloquent, but disturbing nonsense.
I learned at an early age that my life has been filled with God focused support.
The one most easily explained is one of potential death where an enemy could have easily killed me if God had not intervened.
my plight and story is this.
In explanation, my acceptance of my position to support God through my life began during military duty many years ago when I found myself in a precarious position while behind enemy lines I came face to face with an enemy combatant.
Most people being in that position would have reacted immediately by discharging their weapon and killing the enemy. But, there was something about this particular situation that was much different from the deductive reactionary battle training that I had received during field training for combat. The difference with this particular situation was that this enemy, who was less than 10 feet away with his weapon already focused on me, appeared not prepared to attack or shoot me. No, this enemy seemed to be as fearful for his life, because he and I had become entangled in a chaotic fire-fight involving our respective buddies who were battling violently all around us.
At that moment, I believe that my enemy was as afraid of losing his life if he fired upon me, just as I was fearful of losing my life if I fired upon him. It became apparent to me that neither of us knew exactly where our buddies were so we did not know if we were in a safe or hostile zone. While we both had our weapons pointed at each other, we just sat there in stalemate, trying to decide what was going to happen next. Then, all of a sudden all the violent chaos and piercing sound of weapons being discharged ceased. My enemy and I just stared at each other in despair as if were both going to die if we fired our weapons.
I quickly assessed my predicament. But just about when I was sure there was little that could be done, I thought of something that my grandmother always told me when I went off to play, “Smile you young boy, no one can react negatively to a smile.” So, I smiled the biggest and proudest smile I could muster. And then, just as my grandmother had always predicted, my enemy smiled back at me. I nodded and then he nodded. I lowered my weapon and he lowered his. I got up to leave and then I saw that he had been wounded. He had taken a bullet in the right side of his chest just under the shoulder and appeared to now be weak from the injury.
For some reason, to this day I do not know why, I went over to him and offered my medical pack so he could bandage his gaping wound. When I saw that he was having difficulty, I assisted him with the bandage and then once again got up to start to leave. But as I bent down to smile at him again, he grabbed my arm and pointed to the far side of the field from where we were. In the dim light, I could see his buddies.
They were coming our way. Now, I knew I was sure in a mess. But just when I thought my time was up, he shouted out to his buddies and they responded. Then, just as quickly as they had appeared, they were gone.
I turned back to look at my enemy and he was grinning. Then, he opened his field jacket and showed me his shiny gold cross. And, then he pointed to my chest and the parachute harness that I was still wearing. I had cut the chute off of it when I landed because it was all tangled and covered with mud. And when the chaos started I did not have time to shed the harness. There in the middle of my chest was a dark metal cross. Not a real cross, but a cross made by the two bindings that had become tangled in my chute lanyards during the jump. When I had cut and ripped the chute off the harness to discard it, they had slipped together into a perfect four inch dark metal cross. As he touched the cross on my chest, he said one word I understood – GOD. If I had been confronted by any other enemy, I would not be writing this story today. I know that GOD brought us together that evening in that chaotic field.
With that, he pointed me in the right direction and then headed off in the opposite direction to rejoin his buddies. I knew that God had been with me in that chaotic field that night. I think about that young man often, especially when I see someone wearing a gold cross. I often wonder if that young man is as happy as I am today. I pray that he lived through the Vietnam War.
It should not take this type of example for people to understand that GOD does support those who believe. But I know that this is just an example of the power of the spirit that lives.
That's a great, life altering story, as I am a former serviceman myself. But instead of God causing crosses to magically appear, why didn't He just STOP THE WAR or PREVENT MAN FROM STARTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Man has free will, God gave us free will. God didn't design war. We did. Stop blaming God.
You're now showing courtesy. Good improvement. Keep it up.
Humans make their own misery. What would there be to learn, to gain from experiencing this life, if God nerfed the world and prevented bad things from happening? If there were no consequences for our decisions and actions, or the decisions and actions of others, because God constantly intervened, then there would be no risk.
But the people who make the misery are not the ones who suffer it. So that is hardly fair.
It's not about being fair. It's about actions and consequences. If each of us are to have our own minds and able to make our own decisions, then there are effects to our causes, good and bad. The ripples of the things we do are often felt far beyond what we even know, again good or bad.
If you think about it, that's what makes life meaningful. There's risk and danger everywhere. Like in the story above. That story would mean nothing if there was no real risk of dying. Love, time spent with family and loved ones, good times, all of those things are cherished because they are fleeting. Like in the same way death gives life urgency and purpose. Without inevitable death, without that unseen ticking clock or eventual expiration date, each day would have little worth because there would always be tomorrow.
I can see how that makes sense of out overall situation, like a child born with a disorder that causes it to die in agony within hours. Not actions or consequences there. Just arbitrary suffering.
Or why the actions of one person exploiting others (like a warlord with an army of children seizing power) can let them live in happy comfort like long--horrible actions, wonderful consequences.
What can I say, life has teeth. The mere possibility that a child could be born with a disorder makes the birth of yet another happy, healthy child meaningful. Just like the way sadness makes happiness meaningful. Without sadness, what is happiness? Would we ever really appreciate the good things if there were no bad things? Besides, who's to know that that defect wasn't caused by the actions of others. It could have been something done by the parents, to the parents, it could be environmental, or it could have been something done generations prior. There's really no knowing how far the effects of our actions can reach.
Since you did not indicate any understanding of the circumstances of the newborn who suffers and dies within hours, then I can assume that something that mother or father had done may have led to this consequence.
When one person exploites others, then we need to band together to do the Lord's work.
Romans 16: 17-20
17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. 19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil. 20 And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Deuteronomy 31:6 ESV
Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
Deuteronomy 20:4 ESV
For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.’
not enough believers and followers.
during my tour, I discovered that only about 1% of us believed in God.
I lost many friends that evening, but none of them had found him yet.
Later, I was assigned to a unique squad to escort the fallen members home. I discovered then that most if not all of those who were killed had little or no belief in the Lord. I prayed before, during, and after every mission.
As a battlefield controller, I worked many joint forces efforts.
During one such effort, I was overhead as a spotter and radioman.
When our aircraft was returning to our base in Thailand, I heard a distress call on my headset. We wnet back to that location and supported the soldiers on the ground with several passes using our gattling guns to disburse the enemy. When the choppers arrived to pick up the remaining soldiers, we left the battle and headed home to rest.
31 years later at a High School gathering where I was chosen for the local Hall of Fame, I found out that one of my classmates had been on the ground at that battle. I told him that I had been overhead and had heard their radio call for help. He told me their radio had been destroyed when their radioman had been hit by a mortar. I found out that day that Dick had survived along with 5 others. They had lost 27 soldiers in that battle. Dick and I attended the same church for 18 years together before going off to different colleges. We still attend the same church today. And when we see each other, we pray together to thank the Lord for allowing me to save him and those 5 others. You see, my life has been blessed in many ways.
A noble story, but it certainly makes no sense that your god picked out 5 guys and "allowed" you to save them while the other soldiers died, let alone that you believe that's what happened as if you knew it for a fact.
And, while I understand the common answer from an argument of incredulity is that your god works in mysterious ways, it is still a huge insult to the intelligence of those who were saved, let along those who died, especially when you believe it as fact.
You definitely have chose the correct page name.
While on duty in Germany, I was assigned to a special unit supporting the Berlin area.
During our duty, we would provide speacial support to Congressmen and other VIPs visiting the area.
On one of our trips from West Germany to Berlin, the assigned security team had one individual who did not show up for the mission and so I was assigned to transport the House Armed Services Committee chairmen and his enterage around Berlin. During my mission, we were to proceed to a dinner at the Embassy in Berlin for the British. As I drove up to the entrance to the British sector, I saw that there were no guards at the gate. So, I immediately turned away from the British sector a proceeded to the safe house designated for the Chairman. Later we found that the guards were fighting the Red Army Faction who were attempting to get into the Consulate Offices. They had tried to warn us of this, but we never received the warning because our radio was not functioning. When the Chairman asked me why I was leaving the area, I simply explained that I had a gut feeling because the guards were not at their posts. But what I saw was a guard standing in the middle of the entrance as I approached. This was not a normal guard, becuase this guard did not create a shadow in the headlights of the car as we approached. I was very shocked by this but never told this story until 1 month ago when I was asked to tell the most wonderous story I could think of concerning God's activity in my life. This is the one that came to mind immediately.
I do not know why the 5 individuals lived when their radio had been destroyed. I do not question the results of any of the wonderful things that have happened in my lifetime. I just continue to thank God daily as I am allowed to continue his work.
That's an incredible story. Thanks for sharing.
I think the assumption that childhood suffering punishes the sins of the parents is unjustified and morally abhorrent.
If this is the kind of morality that springs from religion, I am happier without it.
Not sure which response you were referring to, but I did not mean to give the impression that I think this could be punishment for moral behavior. Sure, moral decisions could have led to physical action, or inaction, which then had physical consequences.
many drug users have created much newborn suffering. some is created by the original drug user even through multiple generations. This is due to the sins of the parent of one of the generations. This is the kind of morality that springs from the Devil, not God. The consequences are due to the human sin. With the current level of immoral activity in society we see more of this suffering. If we want the suffering to stop, we must begin to rebuild moral principles as outlined under God.
by Sean Thomas Gartland 6 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by Phocas Vincent 3 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
by SaiKit 7 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by Claire Evans 24 months ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?
by Luke M. Simmons 23 months ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 15 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|