The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TrueBeliever37]

Well Man is apelike, whether one considers him an ape or not.

But OK. First of all, I presume you don't think God is an old man with a white beard. After all, Christ was God incarnate in the form of a man, while God is otherwise a spiritual entity, right? So what does "in the image of God" mean, then, since it obviously can't mean God looks physically the same as a man. What it means, surely, is that Man, like God, has rationality and an eternal spiritual component, a soul, that does not have to die with the body. So it's not a statement about the shape of Man's body, but about his inner essence. (Medieval philosophers even speculated about the soul being "infused" at some stage into the growing embryo.)

There's a longer discussion of what the phrase may mean here: Image of God - Wikipedia. It has preoccupied people ever since the dawn of Judaism (and later, Christianity). But note that nowhere does it say people thought it meant God has the same physical shape as a man.

If you believe man started out in an apelike form. Why are you unable to believe he couldn't have just started out in the form of a man?

 

[Valjean]

If you believe man started out in an apelike form. Why are you unable to believe he couldn't have just started out in the form of a man?

How was the form created? Did it pop out of nothing, or is it the result of myriad small changes over a great deal of time?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you believe man started out in an apelike form. Why are you unable to believe he couldn't have just started out in the form of a man?

Because none of the available evidence suggests anything of the kind. Not the smallest iota of evidence. It may be what superstition believes, but superstition doesn't rely on evidence. Superstition relies on lack of knowledge and therefore the need to invent answers out of whole cloth.

Now, anyone who has gone through life being indoctrinated with the superstitious tales told by religion, and lacking knowledge of science, what it says, or how to do it, I guess will have to stick with what they've got. Learning is, after all, hard -- and few care to put in the effort to actually do it.

 

[exchemist]

I thought you were going to explain the compatibility of the two beliefs.

For me personally the answer is that God knew all things he was going to do from the very beginning. (He had a plan) He knew that at some point out in the future he was going to take on a physical body in order to have blood to shed for man's sin. That body was the image of the invisible God. Without that body you couldn't see him. But anyway, I believe he made man in the image of that body that he planned to take on. He had already made the angels in that image.

Man is made in the image of God. The scripture says the Messiah is the image of the invisible God. To me there is a difference in being made in the image and actually being the image.

Sorry I had thought the rest would be obvious to you. Since the "image of God" phrase does not relate to physical form, there is no reason why Man cannot have evolved from earlier creatures - and then been endowed with rationality and a soul "in the image of God" as he achieved Manhood.

 

[exchemist]

If you believe man started out in an apelike form. Why are you unable to believe he couldn't have just started out in the form of a man?

Because the evidence of science seems to me to be unassailable. Most Christians simply do not see any conflict between science and their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You aren't understanding my response. I didn't say God created the earth with the intent to deceive us into thinking it was old. If God let us know he created things in 6 days, then how is he deceiving us? Adam wouldn't have been a baby the day after he was created or he couldn't even have taken care of himself.

Because his "creation" tells us that it is billions of years old and that there never were only two people, nor was there ever a worldwide flood. So either God lied by planting endless false evidence or, or just maybe, your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. So which is more likely? That God is a liar or that you are wrong?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You aren't understanding my response. I didn't say God created the earth with the intent to deceive us into thinking it was old. If God let us know he created things in 6 days, then how is he deceiving us? Adam wouldn't have been a baby the day after he was created or he couldn't even have taken care of himself.

I don't think God has said anything. I think religious texts are written by human beings.

So how do you explain the overwhelming evidence that life evolved over billions of years? And yes, I believe in God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn't realize that you believed in evolution. I thought you believed God created man in his own image as the scripture said.

I believe in God, and I believe that God created the universe. I think the best source of facts for how God did his thing is scientific inquiry, not a a religious text. I think the two creation stories in Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 are absolutely awesome, but not because they are historically accurate. Stories like that should be seen as literature designed to teach, not as history texts or science books.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps because we don't know exactly? We know that fish lay eggs, and that land animals evolved from them. Specifically, the armored fish that inhabited the oceans half a billion years ago and were ancestral to all land vertebrates seem to have laid eggs. But it is possible that egg laying goes back before that.

I just read an interesting article about taxonomy and classifications. The absurdity of natural history – or, why humans are ‘fish’ Worth reading. And so the logic of this becomes interesting.
"The reproductive behaviour of fishes is remarkably diversified: they may be oviparous (lay eggs), ovoviviparous (retain the eggs in the body until they hatch), or viviparous (have a direct tissue connection with the developing embryos and give birth to live young)."
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean all fish lay eggs, but anyway, just for understanding, they don't. Some give birth to live young. From what I have seen, however, you're right. No one knows how it all started about eggs.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think God has said anything. I think religious texts are written by human beings.

So how do you explain the overwhelming evidence that life evolved over billions of years? And yes, I believe in God.

Since people are prone to say why they believe in evolution, may I ask why you believe in God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I just read an interesting article about taxonomy and classifications. The absurdity of natural history – or, why humans are ‘fish’ Worth reading. And so the logic of this becomes interesting.
"The reproductive behaviour of fishes is remarkably diversified: they may be oviparous (lay eggs), ovoviviparous (retain the eggs in the body until they hatch), or viviparous (have a direct tissue connection with the developing embryos and give birth to live young)."
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean all fish lay eggs, but anyway, just for understanding, they don't. Some give birth to live young. From what I have seen, however, you're right. No one knows how it all started about eggs.

I don't known anyone who says humans are fish. I know plenty of people who say humans evolved FROM fish. This is why we share certain characteristics of fish, such as having a backbone.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't known anyone who says humans are fish. I know plenty of people who say humans evolved FROM fish. This is why we share certain characteristics of fish, such as having a backbone.

OK. Seems there are those on the forum who declare that humans are fish. Took me by surprise but they also declare logic and science is behind it. Evolutionary logic, that is. In the thread "evolution of what" there has been a discussion. Evolution of what? (That is a link to the discussion)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Since people are prone to say why they believe in evolution, may I ask why you believe in God.

Sure.

First, I don't KNOW for SURE that there is a God. God is a belief I have. Not knowledge. God can be neither proven nor disproven.

In the absence of any actual evidence one way or the other, what am I to do? Clearly I have to make some kind of choice, to either live my life as though God exists or to live it as though he does not. In such a case, I choose to go with my intuition.

Intuition is not the same as evidence. It works well enough that it increases our survival. But intuition is often wrong.

When I look at the awe of nature, I am really really moved. I contemplate the stars. I look up to the distant top of a sequoia tree. I give birth to a baby. And every fiber of my being shouts "God." For me, the design implies a designer. I INTUIT agency behind the universe, and I intuit it very strongly.

But I am simultaneously aware of just how often humans intuit agency when no agency is present.

Think of being out in the woods and a bush rustles. You think "wild animal!" and run away. Now let's say your intuition was incorrect, and it was just a branch falling. NO HARM DONE. But what about the flip? What if there were a rustling in the bushes, and you said to yourself, "Don't overreact, it's nothing" and it was in fact a wild beast? Well, you'd be toast.

So I have a very healthy respect for intuition. I just don't confuse it with evidence. If I had actual evidence that contradicted my intuition, I would go with the evidence. But I don't. So I feel free to let my intuition do its thing.

This is a form of what is called "Agnostic Theism."

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's another link to the claim that humans are fish -- Evolution of what?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure.

First, I don't KNOW for SURE that there is a God. God is a belief I have. Not knowledge. God can be neither proven nor disproven.

In the absence of any actual evidence one way or the other, what am I to do? Clearly I have to make some kind of choice, to either live my life as though God exists or to live it as though he does not. In such a case, I choose to go with my intuition.

Intuition is not the same as evidence. It works well enough that it increases our survival. But intuition is often wrong.

When I look at the awe of nature, I am really really moved. I contemplate the stars. I look up to the distant top of a sequoia tree. I give birth to a baby. And every fiber of my being shouts "God." For me, the design implies a designer. I INTUIT agency behind the universe, and I intuit it very strongly.

But I am simultaneously aware of just how often humans intuit agency when no agency is present.

Think of being out in the woods and a bush rustles. You think "wild animal!" and run away. Now let's say your intuition was incorrect, and it was just a branch falling. NO HARM DONE. But what about the flip? What if there were a rustling in the bushes, and you said to yourself, "Oh it's nothing" and it was in fact a wild beast? Well, you'd be toast.

So I have a very healthy respect for intuition. I just don't confuse it with evidence. If I had actual evidence that contradicted my intuition, I would go with the evidence. But I don't. So I feel free to let my intuition do its thing.

This is a form of what is called "Agnostic Theism."

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I commend you for your reasoning on this and I will get back to this thought because there is much to it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK. Seems there are those on the forum who declare that humans are fish. Took me by surprise but they also declare logic and science is behind it. Evolutionary logic, that is. In the thread "evolution of what" there has been a discussion. Evolution of what? (That is a link to the discussion)

Well I haven't personally encountered such a person yet, but when I do, I will laugh heartily

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Here's another link to the claim that humans are fish -- Evolution of what?

sayak83 never said that humans were fish. I think you misunderstood him/her.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I commend you for your reasoning on this and I will get back to this thought because there is much to it.

I look forward to it Have an awesome evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't known anyone who says humans are fish. I know plenty of people who say humans evolved FROM fish. This is why we share certain characteristics of fish, such as having a backbone.

I have seen it rarely, but almost always when someone brings up the silly claim of a "change in kind" in evolution. It is not a useful way to use the term.

 

[YoursTrue]

sayak83 never said that humans were fish. I think you misunderstood him/her.

I checked, and sometimes I like to double check to make sure, so here is another response about humans and fish. Evolution of what?