Evolution vs. Creation

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

To say "rejoice" in suffering is not to say "enjoy" it, or that God wills it. To be told to "rejoice" means that we are being told that our definition of the value of suffering may not be correct - that rather than a time of mourning because we believe something "bad" is happening, we're being told that there is something (however incomprehensible to us) good about what we are experiencing. Christianity is built on paradox: this is one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

---

A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.

All this does is show that in suffering, humans tend to get their priorities straight. Those who don't are often referred to as vengeful (instead of grieving for their mother's death, they assume someone killed her and become a...a...*the word escapes me* mass murderer *close enough*).

If, however, that person cannot find a way to deal with that suffering then they try to find something to help them. That is the main purpose of religion: to provide comfort in times of suffering. I won't get into my personal views too much, just wanted to point out your slightly flawed example.

nota bene - good luck finding an example that works with my views :sick:

- If the above post makes no sense, tell me. I have nerotic tendencies :lol: comes from being a mild Schizofrenic i suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. God’s choice, not man’s. God bless. :)

---

>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now :D

You say all this assuming there will be a Judgement day. I don't think there will. I've been trying for years to fit religion into my view of the world. I've tried to alter my view of the world, but I can't change who I am to please our culture.

By culture I mean the traditions, stereotypes, and general kind of person which follow a certain religion.

:sick: sorry I just had to fend off my mother, shes been nagging me all day...I have yet to figure out what for. something about email...

anway, I appreciate your open-minded view. It has taken me years to break free of the bonds I was bound by through growing up in surronded by people who...its hard to find a word to describe them. Narrow-minded is a good start though.

I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...

basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.

And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...

again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainstrain

A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.

---

Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtpspur

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

---

Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.

Oh, this thread is still going!

*quietly vanishes into the air*

"Oh, this thread is still going!"

No - its evolving creatively.

.

:D But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainstrain

>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now :D

I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...

basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.

And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...

again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^

---

No blood, no foul. May I also state that never assume people will always stand by you no matter what. When I had my own problems, my genetic condition that had already caused havoc with panic attacks and whatnot finally took me for good, the people I trusted in churches I preached in across the country deemed me demon-possessed and threw me out. It didnot kill my faith in God. I keep fighting the battle. But I am a changed man. If I can reach one person, I will go for that one. One has become as important as a churchfull. And to reach the world, you must not attack, but reason. You can't show the love of God if you have none of your own, and are ill-mannered towards people. What do you expect them to want that you're selling, when they can get talked about, run down, and called names anywhere? My Native American ancestors would say, "Speaking with forked tongue." God bless. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoundOnPekes

Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.

---

Quite true. Which is why so many cultures are so rich in oral history. My Native American blood is Cherokee. The tribe could not write until Sequoyah invented the alphabet that written Cherokee uses. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."

---

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainstrain

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D

---

Wow - how cool. That just made my day. :D


(PS: Shoutgrace: "But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . " - Nice :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainstrain

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D

---

You just made a lot of people's day a little brighter. Any help I may be in anyway, don't hesitate to PM me. We all need somebody to lean on sometimes. God bless you as you seek out your path. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie B.

...if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?!

---

You've heard of HIV? SARS? Avian Flu? All completely new species of virus that have evolved by completely natural means within the past century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

---

Wrong wrong wrong, it's so very very wrong. Theories explain facts, and can be disproven. Any scientific theory can, if it is incorrect, be disproven by experiment. The theory of evolution would have to be thrown out if some paleontologist were to, say, find a complete human skeleton in pre-cabrian rock. The theory of gravity could be disproven by an experiment whenin one drops lead weights in a vacuum to see which direction they fall. The Big Bang theory would be thrown out if a red-shift experiment gave conclusive evidence that the universe is not, in fact, expanding. Scientific theories are not monotlithic, carved-in-stone slabs of physical law. They are constantly changing and evolving to account for new evidence and better explainations. The modern scientific concensus on evolution and gravity would be almost indistinguishable to Darwin and Newton were it not for the fact that both of those gentlemen are, in actual fact, dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.

---

First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).

I'm going to give an explaination of phi a shot, but math is not my dicipline, and I encourage you to find out about it from somebody who knows what they are talking about. To the best of my understanding, phi is simply an efficient ratio that spirals, such as those of snail shells and the like, tend to fall into. The fact that it is a very complicated ratio, and must be expressed using irrational numbers, should not imply design. Pi is a very complicated number. You can, if you wish to waste your money, buy a very thick book consisting of pi to a terrifying number of decimal places, and ending with an elipsis. However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).

---

Hm..I think I should clarify my point. My intended meaning is that I will believe the theory of Evolution up to a certain extent - that is to say, I believe it verily possible for humans to have evolved from chimps, but am more doubtful as to whether that line of evolution stretches all the way back to fish. While it is true that the evidence for the relation follows from the same line of empirical methods used to identify our connection with chimps, you could say that this line grows thinner as we travel further into the past, where evidence then becomes sparse. Hence my doubts for the concept of humans having evolved from fish. It should also be noted that empirical data is not always to be trusted, as it is our observations of the empirical data that determines their meaning; human interpretation may not always be 100% accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

...that just happens to be the way geometry works.

---

By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted. While you believe in that, at the same time you don't know why it works that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

---

I agree with you that it is "difficult to comprehend" such concepts as well as to prove that such rules hold true for every single case. The other thing we have to know is that it is also for this same reason that we call them mathematical "postulates" - because we have no way of proving them absolutely, and as a result have to just to assume based on reason and logic that they will hold true (because logic and reason tell us this must be the case - yet another dependence on human intelligence which has its own flaws). These are, after all, theories designed by humans as models for the sake of convenience.

What the true way to solve such mysteries as well as how they work still remain veiled and unknown to us. It is because of this that I believe some sort of divine intelligence may be at work here, excluding that belonging to humans such as Einstein and the like. To better explain this, we could recall the example of Copernicus and his heliocentric theory of the solar system. At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise? The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

Therefore, as I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of Divine Creation and Evolution, but not by all means do I strictly narrow my mind to either one or the other.

//Edit: Typos and re-positioning of paragraphs.