Since Creation is the first thing that was written in the Bible, that means that it was written a dern long time ago, and people we're just starting to get brighter. But, this whole thing about one guy creating everything was pretty complex. They couldn't think of a way to explain so they said, "God made everything. The End." They never really dove into the subject. Well, one day, God saw this guy. This guy's name was Darwin, and he was super smart. God told Darwin, "This is how everything came to be," so Darwin listened, and told everybody. Evolution eventually eased into society, but not easily. That's another story. Anyway, God did create everything. He did it in 6 days. But who's to say what a day is? Couldn't a day have been millions of years? A day is what you would call 24 hours, but that's because you live in 2003. That is my theory, and I think it's a darn good one, but I am open to anything you have to say. God created it, and Evolution explains how he did it. Does anybody have any insight to this?
Combining Evolution and Creation
- Thread starter willson13
- Start date
willson13:
That's how any reasonable Christian would read the biblical story of Creation - as metaphor.
The fundamentalist nutters, of course, insist that every word in the bible is not only figuratively true, but <b>literally</b> true - a totally silly and unsustainable position.
It is quite possible that a God is behind evolution. There is no way to disprove that. The only problem which creeps in is that there seems to be no actual <b>need</b> for a God in order for evolution to work as it has. Scientifically, therefore, God doesn't fit into the theory of evolution - He is ruled out by Occams razor.
This in no way implies that God doesn't exist - simply that He is an unscientific concept.
That's how any reasonable Christian would read the biblical story of Creation - as metaphor.
The fundamentalist nutters, of course, insist that every word in the bible is not only figuratively true, but <b>literally</b> true - a totally silly and unsustainable position.
It is quite possible that a God is behind evolution. There is no way to disprove that. The only problem which creeps in is that there seems to be no actual <b>need</b> for a God in order for evolution to work as it has. Scientifically, therefore, God doesn't fit into the theory of evolution - He is ruled out by Occams razor.
This in no way implies that God doesn't exist - simply that He is an unscientific concept.
Originally posted by willson13
Brighter in a technological sense, or just in general?
Actually, that is not the case, if you study the “puranic” section of the “vedas”, I think you’ll find it a little more complex than that.
Not as smart as you think, in his own words, his idea of “origin of the species” was nothing more than speculation, while aboard a ship in South America, which grew with more speculation for some years to come.
Not very scientific, imho.
As the Christian faith says, the majority is faith. There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being. The Bible is the Word of God, according to those who wrote it. It's not their dreams, its their revelations and their "visits" from God. If you choose to believe them, that's your choice. If you choose to not believe them, that's also your choice. So, like I said, it's simply faith, and whether you deny His existence doesn't make you more wrong or right than those who believe.
When I say brighter, I just mean smarter.
I meant for the
When I say brighter, I just mean smarter.
I meant for the
to be simplistic and not complex. Just a sentence to sum it up. I'm aware that it was much more complex.
While Darwin did have a speculation, remember, that Einstein had many, one of which he called his biggest blunder. Guess what? That "blunder" is true.
The idea of God came from the people he spoke to, and it also came from the fact that he sent himself down to Earth in flesh.
Those people were very bright, and the Scriptures are not metaphors, they are the truth, at least from a Christian stand point. The idea of God is very real, again from a Christian stand point.
Jan:
You've considerably mangled the meaning of my post.
<i>What use is it, or any scripture, if it is only a metaphor?</i>
The bible is partly supposed to be a historical record. But, much more importantly, it is supposed to provide a set of moral standards by which people ought to live their lives. Moreover, it is supposed to tell people about the nature of God.
None of these aims require that every word be literally true. What is important is the message - not the means chosen to get it across.
<i>Me: It is quite possible that a God is behind evolution.
You: How so, if you discount the scriptures as metaphors?
Where else could the idea of God come from over the past 5000 years?</i>
We could discuss where the idea of God comes from for quite some time. Suffice it to say that the idea of God existed long before the bible was written.
<i>So to sum up, the scriptures aren’ truth, only metaphors, written by ignorant people who weren’t very bright, therefore the idea of a god, is a fantasy.</i>
This is a poor attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said that all the scriptures are false. I never said they were written by ignorant people. I never said the idea of God is a fantasy.
Please don't attribute views to me which I have not expressed. If in doubt, ask me what I think.
<i>But… you cannot say for sure God doesn’t exist, based on the idea that there is no evidence either way.</i>
I agree.
<i>But you see no need for God in order for evolution to work as you believe it has, even though there is no solid evidence to support evolution of the species.</i>
There is an abundance of solid evidence which supports the theory of evolution. If you'd read as much about biology as you seem to have read about religion, you'd perhaps begin to realise just how silly you sound when you make uniformed statements of this kind.
<i>What significance does Occams razor have on the subject?</i>
Are you familiar with Occam's razor? It says that entities should not be introduced without necessity. There is no need for God in an explanation of evolution, so he is a superfluous entity in that theory.
<i>So please tell me, what is your understanding of God?</i>
How is that relevant to the topic of this thread?
You've considerably mangled the meaning of my post.
<i>What use is it, or any scripture, if it is only a metaphor?</i>
The bible is partly supposed to be a historical record. But, much more importantly, it is supposed to provide a set of moral standards by which people ought to live their lives. Moreover, it is supposed to tell people about the nature of God.
None of these aims require that every word be literally true. What is important is the message - not the means chosen to get it across.
<i>Me: It is quite possible that a God is behind evolution.
You: How so, if you discount the scriptures as metaphors?
Where else could the idea of God come from over the past 5000 years?</i>
We could discuss where the idea of God comes from for quite some time. Suffice it to say that the idea of God existed long before the bible was written.
<i>So to sum up, the scriptures aren’ truth, only metaphors, written by ignorant people who weren’t very bright, therefore the idea of a god, is a fantasy.</i>
This is a poor attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said that all the scriptures are false. I never said they were written by ignorant people. I never said the idea of God is a fantasy.
Please don't attribute views to me which I have not expressed. If in doubt, ask me what I think.
<i>But… you cannot say for sure God doesn’t exist, based on the idea that there is no evidence either way.</i>
I agree.
<i>But you see no need for God in order for evolution to work as you believe it has, even though there is no solid evidence to support evolution of the species.</i>
There is an abundance of solid evidence which supports the theory of evolution. If you'd read as much about biology as you seem to have read about religion, you'd perhaps begin to realise just how silly you sound when you make uniformed statements of this kind.
<i>What significance does Occams razor have on the subject?</i>
Are you familiar with Occam's razor? It says that entities should not be introduced without necessity. There is no need for God in an explanation of evolution, so he is a superfluous entity in that theory.
<i>So please tell me, what is your understanding of God?</i>
How is that relevant to the topic of this thread?
<i>I have been to all fo those websites, did you not realize they are all atheists?</i>
What makes you think everybody at www.talkorigins.com is an atheist?
What makes you think everybody at www.talkorigins.com is an atheist?
James R wrote:
I don't personally subscribe to the young earth position but I don't think theirs is any sillier than the neo-Darwinists who insist the origin of life was the product of random chance events. As far as fundamentalism goes, one only need read responses like Q25's too see religion doesn't have the market cornered.
I don't personally subscribe to the young earth position but I don't think theirs is any sillier than the neo-Darwinists who insist the origin of life was the product of random chance events. As far as fundamentalism goes, one only need read responses like Q25's too see religion doesn't have the market cornered.
It's not a theory. It's a possible explanation. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!!! I HATE it when people get "theory" wrong!
It sounds more like a blind hypothesis. The day issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Of course you may use the impotent "possible explanation." At the crux of this matter is the inability to integrate religion and science. You can take any number of incoherent passages chop them up and produce something vaguely resembling an apparition of scientific thought.
Faith as a function denies reason. Reason is fundamental to procedure. Procedure is neccessary for science. The two ideas are by default given to polarity.
It sounds more like a blind hypothesis. The day issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Of course you may use the impotent "possible explanation." At the crux of this matter is the inability to integrate religion and science. You can take any number of incoherent passages chop them up and produce something vaguely resembling an apparition of scientific thought.
Faith as a function denies reason. Reason is fundamental to procedure. Procedure is neccessary for science. The two ideas are by default given to polarity.
Willson13 said:
Anyway, God did create everything. He did it in 6 days. But who's to say what a day is? Couldn't a day have been millions of years?
==============
The bible says a day with God is a thousand years
The kingdom of heaven is in you. Jesus said.
It's a dimension faster than this one.
This ratio has been given to us in the bible.
It's 365,000 to 1
God----------- 1 day
Heaven------ 1,000 years..................1 day
Earth--------- 365,000,000 years.......1,000 years
Hell------------ ect................................365,000,000 years.
Satan--------- ect.................................ect...
The difference for each dimension is the same ratio on down the ladder.
God speaks to His prophets from heaven and said, "on the third day I will raise Him up"....Thats the beginning of the third millenium to us. (from the crucifiction, to Christ's second coming)
God came down and spoke to Adam, said the day you eat thereof , you die. Adam died at 950 years old...earth years that is.
But it was the same day still in Heaven.
From our perspective, those in heaven are here now all around us, in us, going about their bussiness at twice the speed of light.
Thats why we can't see them. (Einstein was close to something)
He created the Heavens and the Earth,......... and He "framed" the worlds also.
Those are dimensions.
God created Man first in His image. God is a spirit. This Man was a spirit. In Heaven.
Then God created a Man from the dust of the Earth.
On Earth. For the First Man to dwell in.......get it?
Two diferent dimensions at two different speeds.
Adam was "from" the eternal One....
His "body" here on Earth was immortal, until the "connection between the two was severed, because of sin.
This allowed a "fallen" nature to come upon Man, and his body here was doomed to die....that day.
Adam still had eternal life because he was a "part" , or a "child" of God......He just lost the immortality of his body here on earth.
We are all a tri-une being.
We have a body, a spirit, and a soul.
Since Adam fell, our spirit is from a fallen nature, and causes us much difficulty, In the New Testament it says: "This spirit in man is at emnity with God"
When the Soul inside the inside, is quikened, and brought to life by the Word and the Spirit of God, it matures up from a spirit babe in Christ into the stature of a perfect man... Which forms Christ in us.."the hope of glory"....This soul which is Christ then brings the spirit and the body subject to the Word of God.
"They that are led of the Spirit of God, these shall be called the Sons of God.,"
"Sin is swallowed up in victory"......then it is said:
"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God."
Anyway, God did create everything. He did it in 6 days. But who's to say what a day is? Couldn't a day have been millions of years?
==============
The bible says a day with God is a thousand years
The kingdom of heaven is in you. Jesus said.
It's a dimension faster than this one.
This ratio has been given to us in the bible.
It's 365,000 to 1
God----------- 1 day
Heaven------ 1,000 years..................1 day
Earth--------- 365,000,000 years.......1,000 years
Hell------------ ect................................365,000,000 years.
Satan--------- ect.................................ect...
The difference for each dimension is the same ratio on down the ladder.
God speaks to His prophets from heaven and said, "on the third day I will raise Him up"....Thats the beginning of the third millenium to us. (from the crucifiction, to Christ's second coming)
God came down and spoke to Adam, said the day you eat thereof , you die. Adam died at 950 years old...earth years that is.
But it was the same day still in Heaven.
From our perspective, those in heaven are here now all around us, in us, going about their bussiness at twice the speed of light.
Thats why we can't see them. (Einstein was close to something)
He created the Heavens and the Earth,......... and He "framed" the worlds also.
Those are dimensions.
God created Man first in His image. God is a spirit. This Man was a spirit. In Heaven.
Then God created a Man from the dust of the Earth.
On Earth. For the First Man to dwell in.......get it?
Two diferent dimensions at two different speeds.
Adam was "from" the eternal One....
His "body" here on Earth was immortal, until the "connection between the two was severed, because of sin.
This allowed a "fallen" nature to come upon Man, and his body here was doomed to die....that day.
Adam still had eternal life because he was a "part" , or a "child" of God......He just lost the immortality of his body here on earth.
We are all a tri-une being.
We have a body, a spirit, and a soul.
Since Adam fell, our spirit is from a fallen nature, and causes us much difficulty, In the New Testament it says: "This spirit in man is at emnity with God"
When the Soul inside the inside, is quikened, and brought to life by the Word and the Spirit of God, it matures up from a spirit babe in Christ into the stature of a perfect man... Which forms Christ in us.."the hope of glory"....This soul which is Christ then brings the spirit and the body subject to the Word of God.
"They that are led of the Spirit of God, these shall be called the Sons of God.,"
"Sin is swallowed up in victory"......then it is said:
"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God."
Last edited:
Bridge:
<i>I don't personally subscribe to the young earth position but I don't think theirs is any sillier than the neo-Darwinists who insist the origin of life was the product of random chance events.</i>
Yes, I agree that would be a silly position to take.
There's nothing random about the laws of chemistry.
<i>I don't personally subscribe to the young earth position but I don't think theirs is any sillier than the neo-Darwinists who insist the origin of life was the product of random chance events.</i>
Yes, I agree that would be a silly position to take.
There's nothing random about the laws of chemistry.
I've heard all nature of arguments. The bible says man is composed of ashes and dust and creascientists say that proves the bible considered chemistry. The problem always follows from the vaguery of the book. You can infer anything if you are given insubstance to begin with.