evolution in the bible

[David T]

Yes, but normally evolution doesn't involve magical fruit.

According to darwin "i think "determines which is way more factual.

 

[David T]

isn't evolution in the bible? adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and evolved in another state than they were originaly. doesn't the bible clearly say they evolved?

Yes, darwin just drew a picture is all, and determined "I think" determines evolution narratively . There is a problem with this but since its an inculturated, art is really the only sane way to deal with it. Its like trying to explain reality to someone who only understands virtual and they dress it up as "science" to make it more real. Identical to creationism or intellect designed. Just different narrative is all. Dogs are evolutionists stating the obvious as meaningful is a mental disorder we call today "normal". Clearly darwin suffers from normalacy from his drawing below. So sad.

 

[David T]

Yes, but normally evolution doesn't involve magical fruit.

Southern baptist reading level. Very very low pre neanderthal. Did you actually go to college? Oh wait you might have developed that handicap in college how catholic orthodox in that case.

 

[Darkstorn]

Southern baptist reading level. Very very low pre neanderthal. Did you actually go to college? Oh wait you might have developed that handicap in college how catholic orthodox in that case.

Drugs are bad m'kay. Except the good ones obviously.

 

[David T]

Drugs are bad m'kay. Except the good ones obviously.

Your understanding of the text is ken ham levell Evolve.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your understanding of the text is ken ham levell Evolve.

Actually my understanding of your text is less than Ken Ham level.

 

[David T]

Actually my understanding of your text is less than Ken Ham level.

Which would put you at the bill nye level. Btw i am an actual science major that changed majors. So obviously ancient texts arent your strong point. Its not my text it our text according to the below diagram by darwin, So to say "your text" is also to not understand evolution as well. The question does religion understand the text? You say absolutely. I say that is false based on the fact that theology exists.... My degree.

 

[Darkstorn]

Which would put you at the bill nye level. Btw i am an actual science major that changed majors. So obviously ancient texts arent your strong point. Its not my text it our text according to the below diagram by darwin, So to say "your text" is also to not understand evolution as well. The question does religion understand the text? You say absolutely. I say that is false based on the fact that theology exists.... My degree.
View attachment 20568

I am still not exactly sure what you're talking about... Are you calling me a theist or an atheist? I'm not sure. But i'll help you out. I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the bible with as open a mind as possible -read what it actually says with as few preconceptions as possible -check definitions of the words to see what they allow, etc.

From our own human example, evolution (development in its broadest sense and also DNA-based evolution) and creation are parts of the same whole. We are creative -and are at least partly a product of evolution. We can create directly, and we can create design programs similar to DNA-based evolution -which are themselves designers which are not themselves self-aware. We can also direct the course of our own evolution creatively.

The fact that we are a product of evolution does not mean there was no creative input into our existence. Why would it be impossible for man to have "evolved" (and evolution can be tweaked at any time as our example indicates) before Adam -and for Adam to also have been directly created for a specific purpose? How would that present itself in existing DNA? Was existing DNA/material used? Perhaps tweaked a bit? What would the DNA of a directly-created human look like if existing DNA was not used?

I'unno!?!?

So God is merely an incompetent designer according to your beliefs? And if you read the Bible with an open mind you would realize that it is as accurate as the Quran or the Vedas or even this:

https://www.klps.pl/pliki/gospel_fsm_eng.pdf

An all-powerful God is logically more likely to have developed -evolved, if you will, than simply always existed as the same complex creator -and as that God created would be developing himself.

Sorry but this is a claim that I know that you cannot support. There is no "logic" when it comes to positing the existence of a god. One can only believe or not believe. Without clear evidence there is only one rational way to go.

We readily accept that self-awareness and creativity develop "naturally" in microcosm, so why do we not accept the possibility that "everything" is/was/became self-aware? Why would it be different at that level?

Because there is no reason to believe that.

Why should creativity and evolution be at odds when both exist as parts of the same whole?

This is just a null statement.

As for the flood, no God capable of such things = a bunch of lies.
If no God is assumed, why think about it any more?
As for what is written, much is assumed just as much is assumed about Genesis.
It is also not to be considered a complete account even if completely true.
It says some things, but some things which people believe are not even written.

Does it actually say that every life form from all over the globe -unclean two by two and clean by sevens -made their way to the ark? No.
Does it say that the flood killed every other life form on the globe not on the ark? No.
(Man was the specifically-targeted life form)
Does it say that God caused all that is written to happen and left the rest to evolution afterward. No.
Were the animals left to make their own way back around the globe after being brought to the ark which isn't even written? No.
Would the flood actually described -and that which is specified and not specified -leave the evidence people assume? Depends who you talk to -what they believe about what it says -and all of the evidence is certainly not in.

If what is written literally means that only 8 humanoids existed after the flood (which I have not yet fully studied or considered) on the entire Earth, I would not know how that might be shown in DNA -what Noah's family's DNA was like in the first place, etc. -and, again, would not simply assume the account to be complete as far as God's activities afterward were concerned.

You appear to be afraid to make a clear statement about your beliefs since you know that a literal reading of the Bible tells us that everything was wiped off of the face of the Earth.

I'll just ask God when I see him (technically God is all we see) -because it is such a huge subject.

Or you could ask a scientist. They could tell you what the cheetah teaches us:

Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah.

It is written that our bodies will be changed to be similar to that of the "glorious" body of the Word who created all things in the first place and is able to subdue all things unto himself, so if we are later of such composition and ability we will see things much differently.

Increased knowledge.... More powerful interface.... Invulnerable body... Talk about fitness to survive!

Yes, a fantasy to lure in wishful thinkers. Religions have that quite often. But not apparently based upon reality.

 

[Etritonakin]

So God is merely an incompetent designer according to your beliefs? And if you read the Bible with an open mind you would realize that it is as accurate as the Quran or the Vedas or even this:

https://www.klps.pl/pliki/gospel_fsm_eng.pdf



Sorry but this is a claim that I know that you cannot support. There is no "logic" when it comes to positing the existence of a god. One can only believe or not believe. Without clear evidence there is only one rational way to go.



Because there is no reason to believe that.



This is just a null statement.



You appear to be afraid to make a clear statement about your beliefs since you know that a literal reading of the Bible tells us that everything was wiped off of the face of the Earth.



Or you could ask a scientist. They could tell you what the cheetah teaches us:

Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah.



Yes, a fantasy to lure in wishful thinkers. Religions have that quite often. But not apparently based upon reality.

I don't think you quite get what I was saying, but that is too much stuff to consider and respond to at present.

I will say that everything first becoming self aware is not only possible, but the best possible explanation for the present state of things -which is certainly indicative of a previously-existing intelligence. It is certainly more likely than multiple universes in every possible state. You are free to believe otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you quite get what I was saying, but that is too much stuff to consider and respond to at present.

I will say that everything first becoming self aware is not only possible, but the best possible explanation for the present state of things -which is certainly indicative of a previously-existing intelligence. It is certainly more likely than multiple universes in every possible state. You are free to believe otherwise.

This is simply a statement that you can't support. You may feel this, but there is no logical reason to believe this.

 

[Etritonakin]

This is simply a statement that you can't support. You may feel this, but there is no logical reason to believe this.

Logical -yes.

Certain things are possible only after a self-aware creative intelligence exists and certain things must precede a self-aware intelligence. That is true at our level, and as that which now exists is the same which has always existed (yet now in an extremely complex and ordered arrangement very much indicative of a pre-existing intelligence) is true at all levels.
It is not only logical, but readily apparent.

Short of God revealing himself personally, scientific proof would come by way of understanding the nature of the most basic components of reality -which would reveal more precisely exactly what was possible at any point.

However, God revealing himself personally is likely to happen first. You may not have experienced evidence to support that idea, but I have -and all evidence is not readily available to all on demand.

I don't have much time, but I will try to collect my thoughts and notes thus far about why the present state required a pre-existing intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical -yes.

Certain things are possible only after a self-aware creative intelligence exists and certain things must precede a self-aware intelligence. That is true at our level, and as that which now exists is the same which has always existed (yet now in an extremely complex and ordered arrangement very much indicative of a pre-existing intelligence) is true at all levels.
It is not only logical, but readily apparent.

Short of God revealing himself personally, scientific proof would come by way of understanding the nature of the most basic components of reality -which would reveal more precisely exactly what was possible at any point.

However, God revealing himself personally is likely to happen first. You may not have experienced evidence to support that idea, but I have -and all evidence is not readily available to all on demand.

I don't have much time, but I will try to collect my thoughts and notes thus far about why the present state required a pre-existing intelligence.

I will wait. So far all that has been presented is hand waving.

 

[Etritonakin]

I will wait. So far all that has been presented is hand waving.

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything -or prove anything to you -but I don't mind sharing my thoughts a bit. I can't present God to you -cause him to interact with you on an obviously-personal level -cause you to consider things you do not want to consider, cause you to overlook preconceived notions which may prevent you from seeing available evidence any differently -or whatever causes us to view things differently, etc., etc., so we should probably not expect anything much to happen here.

If one will not accept that the nature of a missing puzzle piece can generally be discerned from the rest of the puzzle, the only thing to do is wait until they have that missing piece.
It is not wrong to do so -though it can be an unnecessary hindrance.
I find it strange that some will allow themselves to do so with such things as physics -accepting a Big Bang they weren't around for, but when it involves an intelligence which preceded man their brains slam shut -though it is somewhat understandable, and likely the result of freaked out illogical religious people making the mere idea of "God" hurt everybody's heads.

We can generally know if something was created by man if it is something which is not produced by -or cannot be produced by -what we call "nature" -which is now an extremely complex system which once did not exist as such.

Similarly, referencing pre-universe nature (which is to say present nature before it became thusly organized) would allow us to determine that which it did not -or could not -produce without the existence of a creative intelligence.

The tricky part is that an intelligence and self-awareness must develop to a certain degree -or by degrees -before mastering or consciously determining any part of that which exists (in the case of a developing God, everything gradually wrapping its mind around itself while developing into and as a mind) -so the differences between evolution and creativity which appear obvious with complexity would be much more subtle as they developed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything -or prove anything to you -but I don't mind sharing my thoughts a bit. I can't present God to you -cause him to interact with you on an obviously-personal level -cause you to consider things you do not want to consider, cause you to overlook preconceived notions which may prevent you from seeing available evidence any differently -or whatever causes us to view things differently, etc., etc., so we should probably not expect anything much to happen here.

If one will not accept that the nature of a missing puzzle piece can generally be discerned from the rest of the puzzle, the only thing to do is wait until they have that missing piece.
It is not wrong to do so -though it can be an unnecessary hindrance.
I find it strange that some will allow themselves to do so with such things as physics -accepting a Big Bang they weren't around for, but when it involves an intelligence which preceded man their brains slam shut -though it is somewhat understandable, and likely the result of freaked out illogical religious people making the mere idea of "God" hurt everybody's heads.

We can generally know if something was created by man if it is something which is not produced by -or cannot be produced by -what we call "nature" -which is now an extremely complex system which once did not exist as such.

Similarly, referencing pre-universe nature (which is to say present nature before it became thusly organized) would allow us to determine that which it did not -or could not -produce without the existence of a creative intelligence.

The tricky part is that an intelligence and self-awareness must develop to a certain degree -or by degrees -before mastering or consciously determining any part of that which exists (in the case of a developing God, everything gradually wrapping its mind around itself while developing into and as a mind) -so the differences between evolution and creativity which appear obvious with complexity would be much more subtle as they developed.

So just more wishful thinking on your part. Not too convincing.

 

[Etritonakin]

So just more wishful thinking on your part. Not too convincing.

Not wishful thinking -perfectly logical.
As you ought to know from the refusal of many to accept that which is known about evolution, convincing people has little to do with logic -or even proof.
You are just as susceptible to being unable to see things correctly because your presently-held beliefs are for some reason preferable.

However, proving the existence of an overall or other intelligence is not as easy as proving the existence of that of which an overall or other intelligence would be composed -and few are truly interested in doing so, so it is understandable that you focus more on the material than an arrangement thereof to which you do not have direct access.

That is not to say it is impossible to prove such an intelligence exists -or that available evidence could not prove its existence just as the general nature of the beginning of the material universe has become known -you simply do not want to, or the subject makes you uncomfortable for some reason.

You asked -and were not overly rude about it, so I made information available.
Sometimes it takes a while for information do do any good after it enters the sluggish minds of men -so maybe just mull it over for a while.

You may not like it, but on some level you know I am correct -and you know you know I am correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not wishful thinking -perfectly logical.
As you ought to know from the refusal of many to accept that which is known about evolution, convincing people has little to do with logic -or even proof.
You are just as susceptible to being unable to see things correctly because your presently-held beliefs are for some reason preferable.

However, proving the existence of an overall or other intelligence is not as easy as proving the existence of that of which an overall or other intelligence would be composed -and few are truly interested in doing so, so it is understandable that you focus more on the material than an arrangement thereof to which you do not have direct access.

That is not to say it is impossible to prove such an intelligence exists -or that available evidence could not prove its existence just as the general nature of the beginning of the material universe has become known -you simply do not want to, or the subject makes you uncomfortable for some reason.

You asked -and were not overly rude about it, so I made information available.
Sometimes it takes a while for information do do any good after it enters the sluggish minds of men -so maybe just mull it over for a while.

You may not like it, but on some level you know I am correct -and you know you know I am correct.

The problem is that you have not presented any evidence. As an atheist I do not try to disprove the existence of God anymore than I try to disprove the existence of Bigfoot. You are the one that keeps claiming there is evidence for a god but I only see hand waving and wishful thinking. The fact that we are intelligent is not evidence for an intelligence. You need to show why our intelligence needs to be the result of intelligence. The fact that the universe started with a Big Bang is not evidence for a god. You need to show why it is evidence for a god.

In the sciences a testable hypothesis is formed first. Then one can use empirical evidence as evidence for that idea, if it supports it. Empty claims are not very convincing. If you provide evidence I will consider it. Atheists are not atheistic by choice. At least if they are rational thinkers.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that you have not presented any evidence. As an atheist I do not try to disprove the existence of God anymore than I try to disprove the existence of Bigfoot. You are the one that keeps claiming there is evidence for a god but I only see hand waving and wishful thinking. The fact that we are intelligent is not evidence for an intelligence. You need to show why our intelligence needs to be the result of intelligence. The fact that the universe started with a Big Bang is not evidence for a god. You need to show why it is evidence for a god.

In the sciences a testable hypothesis is formed first. Then one can use empirical evidence as evidence for that idea, if it supports it. Empty claims are not very convincing. If you provide evidence I will consider it. Atheists are not atheistic by choice. At least if they are rational thinkers.

How true. The "Believers" are that, because as they tell you so often,
they choose to believe-which might do as a definition of illogical!

I didnt choose to not believe. No more than I choose to think Godzilla
wont soon ravage the Financial District.

Maybe the goddists can choose that kind of thing. Does not work for me.

 

[Audie]

Not wishful thinking -perfectly logical.
As you ought to know from the refusal of many to accept that which is known about evolution, convincing people has little to do with logic -or even proof.
You are just as susceptible to being unable to see things correctly because your presently-held beliefs are for some reason preferable.
t.

I know the religious often like to say "you are just like me" or, that
creationism is a science, that atheists have more faith than believers, etc.

However-belief in "god", whicheever one, may be this and it may be that, but
it is not logical. Hell, if you had logic and better still proof, of what use is Faith?

"Convincing people"...depends on the people. If you are like that, I am not.
Nobody trained as a researcher is.

If one is eager to believe, say a scam, well, you will be real susceptible.
Others actually do think logically. "Did I actually enter the Dutch lottery?
How could I win? This notice about me winning is a scam."

Now, it is true that credulity and skepticism, logic and illogic are not absolutes, they go on a sliding scale.

BUT: what you have with Christianity is that among the highest values is
yes, unquestioning faith. The story of Job, "Ye of little faith". Lots of examples. Like the Red Queen, pleased that she could believe as many as seven impossible things before breakfast.

Look at the people who believe there really was a world wide flood.
They are proud to make strong their faces against, well, reality.

In science, the highest objective here is objectivity, the absolute opposite of
the Christian value of "faith". Dont be tarring others you dont know with your brush.

What kind of researcher decides ahead of time what the facts are, and
then never will budge no matter what?

(hint: "creation science")

 

[David T]

I am still not exactly sure what you're talking about... Are you calling me a theist or an atheist? I'm not sure. But i'll help you out. I'm an agnostic atheist.

What only believers, non believers, atheists exist?

The Ken hams and the dayglow jesus creators are very problematic. Although Dylan himself got sucked in 13 years after the song below its alright ma. Don't trust the experts.