Evolutionist OR Creationist?

[BlackJAC?]

It could be argued, of course, that while the example of the Spotted Moth demonstrates adaptation through natural selection, it falls short of proving that the same process is how new species originate.

 

But evolution isn't limited to just new species appearing, it's about adapting to ones surroundings. In fact, most animals nowadays are the same animals that were roaming about all those years ago. They've just changed as the surroundings have changed. For example, there once was huge insects i.e. scorpions, bigger than us, however, they got smaller as our atmosphere changed.

 

Evolution is defined as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool",[3] an occurrence that causes a population's genetically inherited traits to change over successive generations.

[felix]

One example might be animals evolving to cope with a change in habitat caused by man, not that the intelligent designer didn't get right, but that the environment changed and the animal adapted.

 

One of the best examples is of the fish with four eyes.

Bathylychnops exilis has developed a second set of eyes to suit its domain - one set look out, whilst it's newly evolved set look down.

 

What's interesting is the species has reinvented the lens - it has grown new eyes presumably without the help of an intelligent designer.

 

Even if this were a result of environmental change..it's still evolution, not grand design.

[felix]

When you see the complexity of the universe and the living things in it, and marvel at them, it is tempting to suppose that they must have been intelligently designed and created.

 

Once we suppose that, the logic of our position surely dictates that if very complex things were intelligently designed and created, they must have been designed and created by an intelligent creator.

 

At that point we generally make the assumption that this intelligent creator was "God". Most theist (or deist) belief systems work on that assumption. The details change a little from culture to culture and from age to age, but the fundamental principle is the same.

 

To design and create this astonishing and complex universe, the intelligent creator must be (or have been) even more complex and astonishing. So we marvel at the creator. We describe the creator in spiritual terms. We say the creator must exist outside our known and describable dimensions of time and space. We credit the creator with the capacity for miracles.

 

But why do we do this? Why do we devise and use a logical process that leads us to believe in the existence of a creator - and then deny and abandon it?

 

To repeat it, the concept that leads us to believe in the existence of a creator is this: very complex things were designed and created by an intelligent creator.

 

So by our own logic - the logic of belief in "God" - the intelligent creator must have been designed and created by another intelligent creator.

 

That's reminiscant of where big bang theory stumbles ie. what happens before the singularity (or big bang).

( and a bit too taxing for a friday night...hic)

[Ulysses]

That's reminiscant of where big bang theory stumbles ie. what happens before the singularity (or big bang).

( and a bit too taxing for a friday night...hic)

 

Well spotted, and it shows the essential difference between faith and science. The scientific approach is to accept that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, to set off doing some research and examination to try to find out, and to consider the possibility that something other than the Big Bang was the starting point for the universe.

 

The faith approach is to say that nothing must have happened before its version of the Big Bang and to tell us to get on with believing in the creator because it must be true.

[davemclaren]

Well spotted, and it shows the essential difference between faith and science. The scientific approach is to accept that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, to set off doing some research and examination to try to find out, and to consider the possibility that something other than the Big Bang was the starting point for the universe.

 

The faith approach is to say that nothing must have happened before its version of the Big Bang and to tell us to get on with believing in the creator because it must be true.

 

If you assume infinite creators then the paradox is solved.

[Ulysses]

If you assume infinite creators then the paradox is solved.

 

[hughesie27]

Religion aside, jsut how big did God/Creator/Whatever, make the universe? and what is at the end of it? Can it go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....?

[felix]

Religion aside, jsut how big did God/Creator/Whatever, make the universe? and what is at the end of it? Can it go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....?

 

The universe is constantly expanding so there's no answer to how big it is.

Scientist aren't sure whether it can go on and on, but there are some estimates of the entire universe disappearing into one big black hole in a trillion trillion trillion years.

 

Before then however, the Sun will have exploded and swallowed us up inaround 5-6 billion years - not really one to worry the grandchildren - there's only been life on earth within the past 1 billion years . There is however one thing that unites most scientists, after research with the Hibble telescope..in the time it takes for the universe to dissappear up its *rse...the Hubz will still be without a Scottish Cup win.

[BigC]

The biggest problem with this debate, is that creation covers everything on the religious side, whereas evolution only covers the origin of species.

 

On the origin of species - science is pretty clear. On the origins of the universe, it isn't so clear, and it's difficult to debate that because despite the attempts of Hawking etc. we still only know a tiny fraction of what we need to know to understand how the universe came about.

 

The reality is, although we have a hypothesis which is workable, it will be redefined many times and we will probably never know everything.

 

On evolution it's a different matter.

 

With evolution, everything makes sense. Without it, nothing makes sense. Any redefining of evolution will only include small changes, because the theory has been redefined somany times already over the last 150 years.

 

If people want to believe in a creator, then that's their perogative. It's up to the individual to make their own decision.

 

People like The Doctor, who don't deny evolution, but still believe in god don't bother me. It doesn't do anyone any harm.

 

It's the ones who try to distort science to suit their own agenga, to the detriment of everyone else that get on my wick. (Hence my angry rant at Cardinal O'Brien on another thread).

[BigC]

If you assume infinite creators then the paradox is solved.

 

That's the million dollar question for me that believers have to answer.

 

Why can you not accept that life just came to be, when you readliy accept that god just came to be?

 

If life is not possible without a creator, who created god?

 

To me it's such an obvious question, with no obvious answer.

[The Doctor]

 

People like The Doctor, who don't deny evolution, but still believe in god don't bother me. It doesn't do anyone any harm.

 

 

Don't patronise me, you *$%*?&%*%

[The Doctor]

That's the million dollar question for me that believers have to answer.

 

Why can you not accept that life just came to be, when you readliy accept that god just came to be?

 

If life is not possible without a creator, who created god?

 

To me it's such an obvious question, with no obvious answer.

 

We've been here before BigC.

 

God is not a created being, He's not an anything, He is. He is the ultimate expression of being. Before the universe came to be He was, after the universe has disappeared up it's own jacksie He will still be.

 

God is not the same as us.

 

When Moses asked God what he should tell the people God's name is God said "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM sent you". This concept of God, not as created being, but in His infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless expression of existence is impossible for us to understand. We are bound by our physical dimensions, by time and space, God is not.

 

Imagine a two dimensional object, a piece of paper (I know it's three dimensional, but humour me) meeting a three dimensional object, say a sphere. The paper has no concept of what a sphere would look like, so the sphere passes through the paper and the paper gets an idea of what a sphere is. It experiences first a dot, then a circle, getting bigger and bigger, then half way through it starts to get smaller until it's just a dot again and then it disappears. What the paper understands (if paper were sentient) is that the sphere is kind of like a circle that grows and shrinks. The paper gets an idea of what a sphere is, but cannot ever understand fully what it's nature is.

 

That's kind of like our understanding of God. We do not have the capacity to understand fully what God's nature is, because He's supernatural, beyond nature. We see through a glass darkly, as Paul said.

[BigC]

We've been here before BigC.

 

God is not a created being, He's not an anything, He is. He is the ultimate expression of being. Before the universe came to be He was, after the universe has disappeared up it's own jacksie He will still be.

 

God is not the same as us.

 

When Moses asked God what he should tell the people God's name is God said "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM sent you". This concept of God, not as created being, but in His infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless expression of existence is impossible for us to understand. We are bound by our physical dimensions, by time and space, God is not.

 

Imagine a two dimensional object, a piece of paper (I know it's three dimensional, but humour me) meeting a three dimensional object, say a sphere. The paper has no concept of what a sphere would look like, so the sphere passes through the paper and the paper gets an idea of what a sphere is. It experiences first a dot, then a circle, getting bigger and bigger, then half way through it starts to get smaller until it's just a dot again and then it disappears. What the paper understands (if paper were sentient) is that the sphere is kind of like a circle that grows and shrinks. The paper gets an idea of what a sphere is, but cannot ever understand fully what it's nature is.

 

That's kind of like our understanding of God. We do not have the capacity to understand fully what God's nature is, because He's supernatural, beyond nature. We see through a glass darkly, as Paul said.

 

 

That doesn't mean anything to me I'm sorry.

 

Every answer I have had to that question, from various people basically goes along the lines of....

 

"We don't understand because he's too great and we are mere mortals so we don't have the capacity, he works in mysterious ways, you have to believe because the bible says so, and you won't know any more until you die, and if you don't believe you won't go to heaven".

 

To me that's just a convenient answer from people who want to scare people away from rejecting god.

[Ulysses]

To me that's just a convenient answer from people who want to scare people away from rejecting god.

 

I don't think that's true. I think it's an answer from people who don't want to consider the implications of the alternative.

[neobis]

I don't think that's true. I think it's an answer from people who don't want to consider the implications of the alternative.

 

100% agree.

[The Doctor]

I don't think that's true. I think it's an answer from people who don't want to consider the implications of the alternative.

 

So what are the implications of the alternative?

[The Doctor]

That doesn't mean anything to me I'm sorry.

 

Every answer I have had to that question, from various people basically goes along the lines of....

 

"We don't understand because he's too great and we are mere mortals so we don't have the capacity, he works in mysterious ways, you have to believe because the bible says so, and you won't know any more until you die, and if you don't believe you won't go to heaven".

 

To me that's just a convenient answer from people who want to scare people away from rejecting god.

 

I'm sorry that doesn't mean anything to you. I'm not sure what you want me to say. I've given you the answer, I regard it as the truth. It's got nothing to do with scaring you, I didn't expect you to read it and have a revelation that there is a God.

 

You asked a question that, frankly, within Christian theology is nonsense. God is not a created being, so 'Who created God?' makes no sense. It fails to take into account the basic nature of God.

[Ulysses]

So what are the implications of the alternative?

 

Why ask me when you already know?

[The Doctor]

Why ask me when you already know?

 

I think you're giving me too much credit.

 

I've never considered an alternative.

 

Either God, the God that I worship, exists or He doesn't. The concept that He could be created would mean that He was not was God, at least not the god that I worship, the god I understand. If He was created it would be His creator I would worship and I would be in that paradox of infinite creators, so it must end and for me it ends with the I AM, the God who always was and always will be. It's obvious to me and the only way out of the paradox.

 

If there is no God than I am a fool and the experiences that I have had have been ultimately empty. In my delusion I have accredited feelings, coincidences, experiences to a God whom I have created. (Does that make me the higher power then?)

 

And so it is a matter of faith as we well know. It might also have a fair bit to do with choice (despite what Calvin might say), perhaps I am in denial, I choose to remain in Christ anyway.

 

Why? Because it makes a difference. And that's why I believe, not because I can prove anything, not because it's reasonable (although I think it is), not because I have all the answers. I believe because it makes a difference in my life. Everything I have is wrapped up in Jesus. My marriage, strong, built on the foundation of shared faith, my sons, loved and loving, my example as a father, the father heart of God. My work, reaching the poor, the excluded, the rejected, taking Jesus as my example. My hope, in Christ, and in eternal life in paradise. My self image, bought by the blood of Christ, forgiven and restored to my creator, free from sin, free from guilt. My joy, peace, my character, gifted and shaped by a God who loves me so much that even when I was far from Him, he sent his die for me, in my place.

 

That's the difference it makes, that's the reality of God in my life. I could no more deny it than I could deny myself, because it's who I am.

 

 

 

 

 

I just want to add that whilst I think that Jesus makes me a better husband, father, person, I only mean better than I would otherwise have been. I realise that the stuff I've written there could come across as arrogant, and that's not who I am. There are many great husbands, fathers, people who are not Christians and I don't think of myself as better than anyone. (apart from some hibbies, huns, tims and so on)

[davemclaren]

 

If there is no God than I am a fool and the experiences that I have had have been ultimately empty. In my delusion I have accredited feelings, coincidences, experiences to a God whom I have created. (Does that make me the higher power then?)

 

 

I don't think you are a fool but I do think that man created God because he was needed. And this God does seem to make certain people feel better about things and those experiences, whilst based on a false premise, are not empty.

[The Doctor]

Well thank you Dave, but if the premise is false does that not at least make me a bit sad?

 

I am generally very joyful!

[davemclaren]

Well thank you Dave, but if the premise is false does that not at least make me a bit sad?

 

I am generally very joyful!

 

What's reality though? If it helps get you through life and doesn't hurt anyone else where's the harm?

 

Sometimes I wish I could believe in a god as it might make things more bearable at times.

[holymoly]

I believe the bible contains many different styles and methods of writing, some is metaphor, some is literal, some is poetry, it is not meant to be understood only one way or another. How you tell the difference is not without its pitfalls and risks, but as a believer I have the Holy Spirit to guide me and to help me interpret scripture and to help me understand it.

 

There is a passage in Deuteronomy which is pretty unequivocal, I don't think you could interpret it as metaphor or poetry. It basically says if someone tries to divert you from believing in God you have to kill them.

 

"...you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God"

 

Do you believe in that particular passage?

[Ulysses]

 

Do you believe in that particular passage?

 

I'll answer that for The Doctor. Of course he doesn't.

 

I might be arrogant in jumping in and answering - but I bet I'm right.

[holymoly]

I've actually found quite a few interesting quotes:

 

Child Abuse?

 

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." Proverbs 23:13

 

Peaceful Jesus?

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

 

Witches?

 

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

 

Kill Unruly Children?

 

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" Deuteronomy 21:20-21

 

Rape?

 

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I'm interested to hear what Christians think about these passages, they're all in the Bible. Are those the bits that you take with a pinch of salt, or do you live your life according to the morals above?

[The Doctor]

Thanks Ulysses, you're right, of course I don't.

 

But Holy Moly, you're not entirely right about that passage, it's not just about diverting someone from believing in God, it's about actively swaying someone towards a foreign god, an idol.

 

But I think I have to be clear on this, you cannot quote the Old Testament and compare it to my faith. I am under a New Testament. The old covenants, the old ways have been superceded by the new covenant. A new way that God relates to the world.

 

I don't want to repeat everything, but there's a lot of stuff in the thread 'Religious Questions' about this, that I wrote a couple of days ago.

 

God doesn't change, but the way He relates to the world absolutely does.

[The Doctor]

I've actually found quite a few interesting quotes:

 

Child Abuse?

 

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." Proverbs 23:13

Discipline not child abuse, whilst perhaps over the last 10 years physical punishment of children has dropped out of fashion, I think you've been a bit naughty here suggesting that the bible condones child abuse as we would understand it today. 10 or 20 years ago no-one would have had a problem with this passage and I would think that a majority of folk wouldn't even today.

 

Peaceful Jesus?

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

The sword here is a metaphor, but you're right to a degree. The very fact that we are not in harmony over this should show you how Jesus divides people. Believers and Unbelievers, sheep and goats (Matt 25) even families are divided over faith issues. There's no doubt that Jesus divides people, you only have to look at the schisms in the church over the past 2000 years to see how true this is. It's sad and Jesus was not taking any glory in this aspect of His message. If you read the whole chapter, what comes across is regret, but Jesus is being honest about the cost of following Him.

 

Witches?

 

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

Like the passage in Deuteronomy, a Judaic law superceded by the new covenant.

 

Kill Unruly Children?

 

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" Deuteronomy 21:20-21

Jewish law, cultural and of that time. I am neither

 

Rape?

 

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Yeah, Jewish law aside, this is a pretty horrific one. Again, we look at this with enlightened 21st eyes and it's abhorrent, but women had little value culturally then. There are many places in the world where that kind of attitude remains, and not generally amongst Jews.

 

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I'm interested to hear what Christians think about these passages, they're all in the Bible. Are those the bits that you take with a pinch of salt, or do you live your life according to the morals above?

 

It's not about taking it with a pinch of salt, and there are even more horrific passages in the OT if you want to find them (I'm not interested in a 'find worse passages of scripture' competition, but I'd fancy my chances).

 

I am a Christian, I am not under the law. I am free of the only thing the law was good for, convicting people and in the freedom I know how to live a better life, following Jesus.

 

You can't keep throwing portions of the law at me and trying to use them to disprove my faith, because my hope is not in the law.

 

I am not a Jew, I am Christian.

[JALBO]

I've actually found quite a few interesting quotes:

 

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I'm interested to hear what Christians think about these passages, they're all in the Bible. Are those the bits that you take with a pinch of salt, or do you live your life according to the morals above?

 

Hi HM, sorry for the slow reply. Us Christians have all been out at church today......

 

There's no doubt that there's lots of passages in the bible that are difficult to get our heads round. Taking your examples, it's always important to remember the context if there is one. So for instance, the passages in Deuteronomy that you quote. Essentially, we're seeing here laws for a new nation being instituted. A large Hebrew community had been pretty much enslaved in Egypt, and there are many directive laws being given for the nation. I think we'd expect as such.

 

How about for me? Well Jesus was asked a similar kind of question that you're asking, by someone who taught the law in those parts. He asked Jesus what the most important command was, and Jesus told him (paraphrased) that it was "to love God completely, and also to love those round about us in the same way that we care for ourselves." (HM, you'll be delighted to know that Jesus quotes your favourite part of the bible here, by more or less taking the words you find in Deuteronomy 6:4,5 in the first part of his answer ). In fact, Jesus went so far as to say that if we treat others as we'd like them to treat us, that sums up the law.

 

And that's the command I try and live by ? at times stuffing it all up of course, but I believe this is the essence of how people who say they are Christians should be.

 

Cheers pal.

[holymoly]

It's not about taking it with a pinch of salt, and there are even more horrific passages in the OT if you want to find them (I'm not interested in a 'find worse passages of scripture' competition, but I'd fancy my chances).

 

I am a Christian, I am not under the law. I am free of the only thing the law was good for, convicting people and in the freedom I know how to live a better life, following Jesus.

 

You can't keep throwing portions of the law at me and trying to use them to disprove my faith, because my hope is not in the law.

 

I am not a Jew, I am Christian.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer mate. Hope I didn't offend. It's all very interesting to me.

[holymoly]

Hi HM, sorry for the slow reply. Us Christians have all been out at church today......

 

There's no doubt that there's lots of passages in the bible that are difficult to get our heads round. Taking your examples, it's always important to remember the context if there is one. So for instance, the passages in Deuteronomy that you quote. Essentially, we're seeing here laws for a new nation being instituted. A large Hebrew community had been pretty much enslaved in Egypt, and there are many directive laws being given for the nation. I think we'd expect as such.

 

How about for me? Well Jesus was asked a similar kind of question that you're asking, by someone who taught the law in those parts. He asked Jesus what the most important command was, and Jesus told him (paraphrased) that it was "to love God completely, and also to love those round about us in the same way that we care for ourselves." (HM, you'll be delighted to know that Jesus quotes your favourite part of the bible here, by more or less taking the words you find in Deuteronomy 6:4,5 in the first part of his answer ). In fact, Jesus went so far as to say that if we treat others as we'd like them to treat us, that sums up the law.

 

And that's the command I try and live by ? at times stuffing it all up of course, but I believe this is the essence of how people who say they are Christians should be.

 

Cheers pal.

 

Thanks for the reply Jablo!

[JALBO]

Thanks for the reply Jablo!

 

....or Jalbo if you prefer.....

[Ulysses]

....or Jalbo if you prefer.....

 

You should have called him unholymoly!

[holymoly]

....or Jalbo if you prefer.....

 

oops, sorry

[JALBO]

oops, sorry

 

hee hee - no worries!

[JALBO]

You should have called him unholymoly!

 

Actually, Jablo is starting to grow on me. Perhaps I'm evolving from Jalbo to Jablo, and if I give it long enough, who knows - I might end up Jloba, or even a new species all together......

[Ulysses]

Actually, Jablo is starting to grow on me. Perhaps I'm evolving from Jalbo to Jablo, and if I give it long enough, who knows - I might end up Jloba, or even a new species all together......

 

I think with current trends it's more likely you'd evolve to Jabol - or add a couple of gene sequences, become Jojoba and have a big future in hair conditioning products.

 

Is Jablo pronounced like "Jab", or (in the Spanish style) "Hablo"? Perhaps Senor Jolymoly knows.

[holymoly]

I think with current trends it's more likely you'd evolve to Jabol - or add a couple of gene sequences, become Jojoba and have a big future in hair conditioning products.

 

Is Jablo pronounced like "Jab", or (in the Spanish style) "Hablo"? Perhaps Senor Jolymoly knows.

 

I'm liking the Spanish Jablo myself. A lot more sophisticated and european than JALBO if you ask me (I copied and pasted it this time so I don't make an erse of it for a second time )

 

My ex was fluent in Spanish - she told me that Juanjo (remember him?) was actually pronounced in what sounded like a rather rude word. Maybe the hibee illiterates missed a trick with that one...

[JALBO]

I think with current trends it's more likely you'd evolve to Jabol - or add a couple of gene sequences, become Jojoba and have a big future in hair conditioning products.

 

Mmmmm......if you knew how sadly meagre my (Jalbo/Jablo's) knowledge of hair products is, you'd realise that my evolutionary journey towards Jojoba is going to be a long and epic struggle.....

[JALBO]

I'm liking the Spanish Jablo myself.

 

Yup - me too.........

[Ulysses]

Mmmmm......if you knew how sadly meagre my (Jalbo/Jablo's) knowledge of hair products is, you'd realise that my evolutionary journey towards Jojoba is going to be a long and epic struggle.....

 

 

There is an alternative that involves intelligent design - but you'd have toup?e for it.

 

It's OK, I'll get me coat.