Unified Theory of Creation/Evolution

[fantome profane]

I have already addressed this, but allow me to totally demolish this non-existent 'paradox':
Using your logic- If someone were to say- "I have a son....oh, and I was born in New Jersey", according to you, this is impossible because he mentions the birth of his child before he mentions his own! Simply because it mentions it later in a non-linear fashion does NOT make it untrue. This is the obvious fault of your argument;

This would completely demolish my argument if your example was in anyway analogous to what is said in Gen 2:18-19, but it is not. It clearly says the Adam was alone. If then animals were created first, then when was Adam alone? It says that Adam was alone, “God” saw that Adam was alone, and “God” then created the animals in because it was not good for Adam to be alone.

Actually your argument would work much better if you went the other way, tried to argue that the Bible is consistent in saying that humans were created before animals. If you look back to Gen 1:24-27 it talks about “God” creating the animals and then it talks about “God” creating man. But other than the order in which they are mentioned there is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis that indicates that animals were made first. And as you correctly pointed out simply because something is mentioned first is not sufficient reason to assume that it happened first.

So why would you take the implied chronology of the Chapter One over the clear chronology of Chapter Two?

the sun is a relative newcomer in the universal timeline, btw...and if God is outside of time, his time-periods may be incalculable eons, therefore time periods before human consciousness recognized time itself; this is perhaps the so-called 'dream time'.

Relative to what? Are you saying that the sun is in fact younger than the earth? Or are you saying that for “God” the fourth day occurred before the first?

Eve is mentioned at this time because in the pre-christian writings, she is made in the 'evening' of the 'day'....(because Eve is Adam's second wife; his first, LILITH, was banished from the physical world and exists as a 'succubus', btw). 'Greater light' sounds like the sun to me.
There are few if any real contradictions in the bible; just as there are contradictions in physics...but these so-called 'paradoxes' are always, always the result of the failure of humans to interpret information 'correctly'.
Absolutely nothing that has been put forward has shown any schism, I think. I have no agenda...if I did I would side with the bible OR science. I just think it's valid and rooted in truth.

Stories of Lilith of course came much latter in an attempt (and I am not sure it was even a serious attempt) to reconcile the two different creation myths. But that is another story altogether.

The thing I think you are failing to realize is that I agree with you that there are no real contradictions here, only the appearance of contradiction. The difference is in how we reconcile these apparent contradictions. For me if you understand that these are two separate creation myths that have been put together, and if you understand that they were both written in symbolic language, and that neither was intended to convey accurate literal scientific knowledge, then there are no contradictions in the meaning that they were intended to convey.

It is only if you assume that they were intended to convey actuated chronological information that you need to distort the text to make it match.

 

[FatMan]

I agree with you that this is symbolic language, but it is symbolic language that describes an order of creation that is not factually true. You seem to have put a great deal of effort into believing that a symbolic interpretation of the Bible can make it fit with modern scientific understanding. And I have to wonder why.

This is an excellent observation. I guess if the OP said something like "Here's my take on the interpretation of how the Bible looks at Evolution", I'd have less of an issue with the inanity of the argument rather than the way it was actually presented - as a theory.

Once science came into the discussion, any rational debate possibility was lessened. You can't take symbolism that is interpreted and make it fit to a theory, especially without examining alternate interpretations of that symbolism. The whole thread has been an example of ignoring the principles of what a theory is. You cannot make the assumptions fit the theory without nullifying its validity.

 

[PolyHedral]

God is logical

We really need the Vulcans in here sometime.

 

[linwood]

I need to falsify that statement??

How about I prove it using a math formula..."God=Truth, Logic=Truth, therefore God=Logic"...

Logic can`t be proven or evidenced nor does it need to be.
The premises which we build our logical conclusions can be evidenced.
I`d say the premise that "God=Truth" remains unfounded.
What do you base this standard on?
Which god, and what has this god done to show that he/she is interchangable with the concept of truth??

"Logic=Truth" is definately untrue as logic can be as untruthful and steeped in delusion as deeply as it`s fanciful/mythical premises will allow it.

The problem, my friend, is not that we find little logic in the Word, but that humans are often too literal-minded to understand God's logic, for example, here's a statement that I will prove true even though it has been often interpreted wrongly....: "God made Man in his image". This statement is rather silly owing to the fact that God has no physical body; so what does it mean? Simply this: it means that God had an image in his mind of a being that, like Himself, could tell good from evil and make a moral decision, free from force. This, and only this satisfies the 2 requirements: That it is 1. Poetically True, and 2. Logical.

This is perfectly logical and at the same time speaks nothing of the "Truth".
Your premises are unfounded assumptions.

You assume god has no physical form, this is not Biblically evidenced(I`m assuming we`re speaking of Abrahamic dogma here) and even if it were Biblically evidenced one would have to accept the Bible as evidence on nothing more than faith as it has no historical support of "Truth" as many of the posts previous to this one point out.

Next you assume to know gods mind, this can be forgiven as I`ve yet to meet a theist who doesn`t believe they have some idea of something that is on gods mind.

You then assume god can tell between Good & Evil and that he/she even has an interest in such concepts.

You have no empirical knowledge of the "truth" of any of these premises.
If any one of them fail your logic fails.
To my mind they all fail .

If you accept that God is the mind of the universe, ...

There`s that faith thing again.
This is where we part ways.
What I don`t understand is why you feel the need to logically "prove" the existence of a god when you happily accept the premise on faith.
Why not just accept the whole package on faith?
Whats the diff?

Hey mam!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE F****S UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I missed you too Majik

 

[Andreas]

I have no problem with faith....I have loads of it. And I just think that my brain and heart are happier if they don't disagree on something, not to mention my dislike of useless arguing over a literal bible VS. a soul-less evolution...
And- the bible makes a clear distinction between 'God' and what is called the 'Godhead'. The Godhead is the physical force of God realized in the physical world, but is no more 'physical God' than , say, an angel. Another way: you can't see your mind, only your brain, perhaps...a thought must exist before you move your hand; yet the invisible thought is the precursor to the visible result- movement. In this same way God is seperate from the physical universe....leads me to ask: what should he look like? Cylinder of fire by day, of smoke by night? Burning Bush? Hairy thunderer....cosmic muffin? The ultimate form is no form.
I have plenty of faith, I just think it's a valid theory. And you either believe or don't....there is no final 'proof' only a slippery grasp on an at-best temporary ideal.
(but I still think I'm right).

Also- I have not read all comments on these pages, repost if I don't respond.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Wow, I've just read through most of this thread and it's been a long time since I've plowed through sooooooooooo much crap. I think I need to go shower now.

 

[Andreas]

Wow, I've just read through most of this thread and it's been a long time since I've plowed through sooooooooooo much crap. I think I need to go shower now.

And thanks for adding to the pile.....next time bring a shovel....

 

[Andreas]

Okay, I finally had a few minutes to devote to this:

It says that Adam was alone, “God” saw that Adam was alone, and “God” then created the animals in because it was not good for Adam to be alone."

That's because he was without a MATE, alone as in "not having a WOMAN", so that has 0% value....nothing to do with animals...!...by your logic it means there is no God because he is alone....it means God saw man needed woman, he creates Eve....so that has demolished your argument. Him being 'alone' has nothing to do with animals.
Strike 1.

"Actually your argument would work much better if you went the other way, tried to argue that the Bible is consistent in saying that humans were created before animals. If you look back to Gen 1:24-27 it talks about “God” creating the animals and then it talks about “God” creating man. But other than the order in which they are mentioned there is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis that indicates that animals were made first. And as you correctly pointed out simply because something is mentioned first is not sufficient reason to assume that it happened first."

So...the first is not a simple timeline, but if it is, then later comments void the original timeline....? That's a heck of a worse 'distortion' than my logical progress of events... Chapter 2 is stating after-events, that's probably why it's called "Chapter 2", not 'chapter that actually explains events the way you want'...that does not invalidate (or invalidate) the idea. Strike 2.

"Relative to what? Are you saying that the sun is in fact younger than the earth? Or are you saying that for “God” the fourth day occurred before the first?"

the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. 5 3 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. Now, how does that contradict any dang thing...? It clearly says the earth was a formless void, I.E. non-existent.... day and night are 'named' later...Strike 3. I am NOT, NOT claiming the ancients got every scientific fact correct, only that the Bible basically describes, in a symbolic manner, the creation of the known universe, and the rise of man, period....now I have addressed these apparent contradictions, throw some more. You are defining the theory by challenging it. The theory is still sound, keep hitting it. This is exactly what I want you to do....you are using a logically based argument...I only wish most of the other posters would do the same.

 

[RCD1950]

1. Knowledge exists

2. Knowledge is Power

3. Infinity exists

4. Infinite Power/Knowledge exists

5. Consciousness exists

6. Consciousness 'evolves', gaining Knowledge/Power

7. Consciousness evolves infinitely

8. Consciousness infinitely evolves into infinite knowledgable/powerful consciousness

9. Time is relative

10. Infinity has already 'happened'

11. 'GOD' IS

 

[Tiberius]

Point three is false in the real world. Infinite only exists in hypothetical constructs.

 

[painted wolf]

from a genetic standpoint, woman came first... not man.

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

If God or gods do exist, then I seriously think that he made a mistake when he chose man to be the dominant species in his so-called Grand Scheme of Thingie. He had seriously miscalculated. :banghead3

He would have easier time, if he made birds as his dominant species. The birds should inherit the earth for clearly they have already inherited the sky....if they get their feet off the ground. He should get back to drawing board and scratch humans off his list of creation, as a dud.

*DUD*

OH NO! :no:

The late Gnostic has just been ERASED.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Since we're on the subject of Earth and man's creation, does anyone have anything to say about the fact that the Bible tells us that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old?

 

[gnostic]

I thought we were on the topic of how chicken evolved into a turkey?

Or how God created the chicken and thought everything was good. :clap2:

Let's :eat:

 

[XAAX]

What I get a kick out of is watching religious fanatics try desperately to prove that a book written 1700 years ago by people with very little if any understanding of geology, anthropology, or astronomy could possible have had a clue of our origin. So instead it was written to be symbolic and mysterious. Nope, they just put together a story that couldn’t hold up to future understandings of the Universe. You see the problem really is that evolution isn’t stagnant. It is ever changing, as is the Universe around us. Those who can’t comprehend the evolution of the Universe are those that haven’t evolved to that level of intelligence yet.

It’s not their fault, we should not blame them…:jester3:

 

[painted wolf]

chicken = dinosaur

mmm... dinosaur dinners:drool:

wa:do

 

[Runlikethewind]

Great topic, I stayed up far too late last night reading it. I like your theory Andreas and I hope that my input will help you to further develop your ideas.

First, I would like to address the issue as to whether this constitutes a theory or not. A theory requires evidence to support a hypothesis. In a theory of the natural sciences, that evidence comes from empirical observations which is the body of knowledge that is being studied and interpreted. In a theological theory the evidence is taken from the body of knowledge that is being studied and interpreted too, in this case divine revelation. In this sense I think Andreas has put forth a valid theory in the science of theology. From what I gather the theory takes this general form, and please correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented here,

Hypothesis: Evolution and Creation are compatible and describe the same event in different terms from different perspectives. Evolution is a sound theory that describes the rise of humans from an animal state and if this is true then the divinely reveled knowledge of the biblical creation accounts will reflect this proccess.

1. Revelation is such that if God desired to communicate to all humans through the written inspired words of the bible then those words must be able to communicate their message to all people and all time, symbolism is a good way to do this since it can contain multiple meanings simultaneously (thanks fantom profane for pointing that out). This means that it is a good thing to try and measure our modern conceptualizations of the the world discovered through the observations of the natural sciences with the inspired accounts in the bible through interpretation. We can do this objectively by taking into account the context that the inspired text is written in, who wrote it and when, to whom was it addressed, what is the style of writing, etc. This of course will not eliminate all subjectivity but it can help in judging which texts are more symbolic and which are more 'literal' in the sense we understand the word today.
2. The genesis accounts of creation are meant to be taken more symbolically than 'literally'.
3. The days of the first creation account symbolically represent undetermined lengths of time.
4. Generally the order of creation in this account follows the order that creatures evolved on earth
5. The second creation account describes the rise of man from the state of pure animal to intelligent animal.

Therefore
One can believe in The God of the bible as creator of all things and accept the theory of evolution without there being a contradiction in logic. One can hold both that, the theory of evolution accurately describes the manner in which life evolved on earth, and that God is the creator of all life on earth, simultaneously without accepting two contradictory principles.

This understanding of Genesis presented by Andreas allows for this non-contradiction in beliefs as opposed to the contradiction that does arise if one takes a more 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, for example believing that each day represents 1000 yrs as opposed to an undefined period of time. one could not accept the theory of evolution that involves accepting an age of the earth in the billions of years and that the earth is only 6-10,000 yrs old.

I think Andreas has done a good job in presenting a theological interpretation of Genesis that allows one to accept the inspired word therein and accept the science of evolution with a clear conscious. Well done!

 

[Runlikethewind]

Once science came into the discussion, any rational debate possibility was lessened. You can't take symbolism that is interpreted and make it fit to a theory, especially without examining alternate interpretations of that symbolism. The whole thread has been an example of ignoring the principles of what a theory is. You cannot make the assumptions fit the theory without nullifying its validity.

I think the problem is not what a theory is but rather what kind of theory is being presented here. If Andreas theory is taken as a theological theory then the body of evidence used to support the hypothesis is the interpetation. The hypothesis being that evolution is true and that the biblical creation account communicates to us today and the two cannot be contradictory. The hypothesis is supported by interpretations of the bible which do not contradict the principals of the theory of evolution, the interpetation does not need to be the right one or even true all that is needed is that it supports the hypothesis.

And I might add that the interpetation of data to fit the theory happens all the time in science too. Take for example the debate over gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. The same body of evidence, in this case the fossil record, is interpreted in different ways to support the different theories. Those who support gradualism would say that the so called 'gaps' in the fossil record are due to the incompleteness of the fossil record and if we had a complete record clear examples of gradual change would be seen. Supporters of punctuated equilibrium would say that the gaps are real and represent the rapid (in geologic terms of thousands of years) change and evolution of a species. Which interpretation is the right one? both groups seem, to a certain extent, to be assuming the conclusions of their theory in the interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Heracles]

How about I prove it using a math formula..."God=Truth, Logic=Truth, therefore God=Logic"...

I think you may be on the right track with your first explanations about symbolism in the bible, it can be argued for sure, from many sides, and at least you are trying to figure it all out as critically as you can. The above "math formula" on the other hand is a bit outlandish. Just because you put an equals sign does not make it valid. This form of argument can and is used to support any statement you want, and can usually be proven invalid, if the premises are untrue or unrelated. In this formula you say that God=truth. That may be true for you and the people around you, but what about the +3 billion people in the world who don't see your God as truth. Can something be true if half of the world does not find it to be true? I don't think so. Gravity is true, it is in effect ALL THE TIME, hurricanes are true, they happen when predicted and are observable, in order for something to be true, it must be applicable in all or most cases that it is expected to be. My point here is that God is not everyone's truth, just like unicorns or leprechauns or Sasquatch aren't true to everyone. Hey, thats a good example of your math; leprechauns=truth, truth=logic, therefore logic=leprechauns.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Can something be true if half of the world does not find it to be true? I don't think so.... in order for something to be true, it must be applicable in all or most cases that it is expected to be. My point here is that God is not everyone's truth, just like unicorns or leprechauns or Sasquatch aren't true to everyone.

Sounds like a relativistic view of truth. I think that truth does not necessarily require assent of the intellect or belief. I think that the truth is truth regardless of belief. Either it is true or false that God=truth. More than likely we will never be able to prove or validate or have knowledge of whether it is true or not, but it is one or the other. But I guess that is just because I am a bit more of an absolutist when it comes to truth. I don't claim to have certain 100% knowledge of what is true, especially on the God questions, but I believe something is or it is not true. According to the relativistic view of truth it almost sound like if you get enough people together, say half the world, to claim that gravity is not true then gravity becomes false, which seems rather absurd. Most of the world at one time believed the earth was flat so was that true to them? According to your definition then it was true that the earth is flat and now its true that it is round, which may be the case but thats just not how I see truth.