Creation vs. Evolution

[sandjeep]

you would think there would be something of his childhood maybe. he is the main character in the book. the centerpiece for an entire religion.

There are some accounts, look in Luke. His time teaching was only around 3 years, and here we are 2000 years later still talking about what He said.

 

[lamont]

I would disagree. Although Einstein did not support any organized religion, and in many cases openly opposed aspects of some organized religions, he apparently believed in God, and made several comments in that regards:

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand"

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Certainly not the teachings of any organized religion, but defiantly an acknowledgment that something greater then ourselves exists.

Bryan

God to Einstein sounds very synonymous with physics and science. When religious people are trying to understand what God meant to Einstein, I think it would be useful to reflect on the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

Wikipedia seems to back me up:

In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to antinomies in thought.

The line between Spinoza's God and atheism seems very thin...

 

[Soggy]

There are some accounts, look in Luke. His time teaching was only around 3 years, and here we are 2000 years later still talking about what He said.

I think you mean to say that we are talking about whomever wrote the gospel of Luke which was likely based on Mark which was written somewhere around 70 AD, long after Jesus died.

 

[MikeFerrara]

He told you how to gain eternal life. That's not enough?

You're still avoiding the questions.[/QUQOTE]

Bryan

You think so? Which question? The one in here that I bolded?

Roman history would disagree with this - the ownership of slavery in Rome was not limited to anyone - any free person, including Christians, could own slaves. Secondly, if slavery was wrong wouldn't Jesus have said something like "Thou shalt not own slaves", or otherwise left some indication, however vague, that it is wrong. He didn't - instead he left at least 3 clear statements saying how slaves should act. Granted, it wasn’t ringing support, but it most certainly was not condemnation.

If that's it, No. I wouldn't necessarily think so. Jesus said to Love God with all your heart and to Love you neighbor as yourself. He said that to see the kingdom of God that you needed to reborn in the spirit....and so on. I don't think He missed saying anything that He needed to say. I don't think that He missed doing anything that He needed to do. He defeated death and sin for us allowing us to appear blamless before our Father in Heaven and enter the kingdom of God. I think He did an absolutely perfect job.

Does that answer your question?

 

[sandjeep]

Warthaug said
And myself and others have been continually pointing out that this is incorrect. By my count this is the fifth time this thread alone that I've had to point this out. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the creation of life. Never has, never will.

ALL that evolutionary theory is concerned with is the adaptation of life in response to selective pressures. Any claims otherwise are both scientifically incorrect and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory involves.

I agree that from a technical, scientific view, using just the plain word 'Evolution' is incorrect. I am not a scientist and tend to use general terms that are easily understandable for everyone. In a general way, is macroevolution the evolving of one species into a different one such as sea animals evolving into land animals? I'm asking because I may have a misunderstanding.

sandjeep stated: "The Bible (KJV) states God created life. (Other major religions have not been represented on this thread.) Since this fly’s in the face of what evolutionists believe, then the Bible must be incorrect."

warthaug said
Pretty much says it all - by your rational its either religion or evolution. So, by your rational, because I believe in evolution I therefore cannot be a Christian. Hence, dictating my beliefs.

Yes, that is correct. For me, I don't agree with theistic evolution at all. As far as dictating your beliefs, I think that’s a little over the top to have said that. I can't dictate anything to you especially your thoughts and beliefs. What you choose to believe is up to you.

warthaug said
I'm fairly certain you are wrong. One of my older books is a circa-1950's high school bio text (published in the US) which I picked up from a garage sale. In its evolution chapter the difference between evolution and abiogenesis are clearly delineated. If it is no longer being taught in this fashion then the book publishers and teachers need to be taken to task for teaching the theories incorrectly.

Edit: Forgot to add that while this 1950's book spent several chapters talking about evolution, and these chapters featured promenently at the beginning of the book. Many of the books I've seen today have delegated evolution to a small chapter in the back...

Dude! (can I say Dude on this thread?) I wasn't even born in the 50s! Hit the fast forward button, ugh, Elvis, ugly cars, terrible movies..shudder..

One of our Biology books from college has over 300 pages of evolutionary theory, including the beginning of chemical evolution and the supposed fact that ultimately all life formed much like the Urey experiment. I quote..."dryopithecines died out, evidence suggests one group was ancestral to orangutans while another gave rise to chimps, gorillas,...and Humans!??

Starr Tagart..circa 1987..page-646-left side.

That pretty much says it in a nutshell. Humans have a common ancestor with apes... and to think that I braved the attic to quote this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandjeep
We're not talking about just any scientific belief on this thread.

But it is "just any" scientific theory. You just don't like this one, so you treat it differently. I hate to break it to you, but evolution isn't the only scientific theory which goes against biblical literalism - relativity, QED, cosmology, and some aspects of particle physics point to a universe much older then the one you imagine. Geology points towards a much older earth, with billions of years of rock and fossil formation.

About the only thing "special" about evolution, among that fairly lofty group of theories, is the increasable amount of evidence for evolution. Every biological fact discovered over the last 150 years supports evolution. There is, as far as I've ever seen demonstrated, no biological evidence speaking otherwise.

Do you mean Macro or Micro evolution?

 

[sandjeep]

Warthaug,

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

Btw, awsome looking lake, reminds me of the mountain lake where I dive. Our local spot is right over 1000', how high is yours, as I see snow.

 

[sandjeep]

I think you mean to say that we are talking about whomever wrote the gospel of Luke which was likely based on Mark which was written somewhere around 70 AD, long after Jesus died.

No, actually I was telling a specific poster where to look for stories concerning the childhood of Jesus. The book is named Luke.

As far as the authorship goes, perhaps I will have time in the future to address these types of questions.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm sorry, I have to object to that..... it's plain nasty.

I don't know why you say it's nasty. It sure wasn't meant that way. Bill Gates is very wealthy and lots of people would like to be adopted by a very wealthy family, or joke that they would. The reference was only to his wealth and the comfort that one who was adopted by him could live in.

FWIW I think that Bill Gates has probably done more visibly for this planet than any God ever did. I don't see God working very hard against AIDS in Africa, in fact, according to what I'm reading in this thread God started the fire....it's others who have to try to put it out.

Creation? Was AIDS created or did it evolve? What about Malaria, Tuberculosis, Ebola etc....are these all creations of a loving God? How can anyone try and claim only the good for God and blame everything else on the so called 'sins' of Man. What a hype....

I don't know what to tell you Kim. If someone has a question related to scripture or Christian doctrin that I think I can speak to I'll be happy to try...though I certainly don't understand every implication of every scripture. When it comes to your apparent hate toward God (whether a God that you really believe exists or whether you just hate the Christian idea of God), I have no idea how to respond and I'm not going to try.

Have a good one.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Dude! (can I say Dude on this thread?) I wasn't even born in the 50s! Hit the fast forward button, ugh, Elvis, ugly cars, terrible movies..shudder..

I'm sorry but that is over the top. The cars of the 50's were not ugly! ok, some were but there, maybe. There were some good movies...and sad to say most of the really great actors are gone now so there isn't much sense is even seeing the new movies. While I'm not a big fan of the early Elvis stuff, he eventually did some that I really liked and, of course, Chuck Berry was great!

 

[Kim]

When it comes to your apparent hate toward God (whether a God that you really believe exists or whether you just hate the Christian idea of God), I have no idea how to respond and I'm not going to try.

For me to hate God I'd have to believe that he was responsible, or even that 'he' was a 'he' in any kind of meaningful way of being something like an actual person. I don't. That's the whole problem with the concept. If Creationism was in any way real or true then the ramifications would be extraordinary and there would be little left to do except hate who could have been responsible for such a mess. If you don't adopt such a (to me flawed) concept to start with then you don't end up having to hold it responsible for anything.