Evolution and science...

This statement means that, in your opinion:

  1. The Jews worship foolish things.
  2. You laugh at them for it.
  3. It’s okay to laugh at people who worship things that you do not agree are worthy of worship.
  4. God thinks the Jews worship foolish things.
  5. God laughs at them for it.
  6. God thinks it’s okay to laugh at people who worship things that He does not agree are worthy of worship.
  7. The Jews worship God. If the Jews worship foolish things, then that means that their worshiping of God is foolish.
  8. And that means that God laughs at the Jews for continuing to worship Him, when (according to you) He already sent them their Messiah and, silly people! They missed the bus.

Not gonna sit here and argue heresy with a heretic. In Open Theism, God is apparently less-than-God, as he cannot “know” all things.

In my religion, the fact that He Knows All is precisely what makes a little-g “god” into Capital-G God.

So I guess we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this, you bein’ an Open Theist and all.

Piffle. Tommyrot. Bushwah. I never said any such thing. If you’re going to make up fictional statements to rebut… :rolleyes:

Maybe, maybe not. Left to its own devices, and given millions of years of mutations to accumulate, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t.

But.

I know a way to make a bacteria mutate instantly into something other than a bacteria: Have God reach down and touch it, saying, “Be thou mutated into the next step up in Creation.”

And this is how mainstream Christians can co-exist happily with evolution.

NoLies, I suggest that you stop and think about what you are trying to achieve by posting here. So far you have only succeeded in portraying a very negative image of your particular brand of Christianity.

You appear to believe that you are the highest authority here on diverse subjects such as astronomy, biology, geology and theology, and that no one here can teach you anything about these fields. Yet you are unable to explain your insights in a rational manner, or offer much in the way of reasoned argument when flaws in your theories are exposed (e.g. fermentation). I can only conclude that you are not as knowledgeable as you believe yourself to be. I’ve made similar mistakes in the past, it can be quite painful to realise that your assumptions are lazy or your reasoning is badly flawed, but as I can personally attest it’s a valuable learning process.

As an aside, a quick thanks to DDG for your posts in this thread and the How can Christians “believe” in Evolution one.

I always find it quite amusing when liberals are presented a conundrum by their own ideology.

Liberalism’s inherent hostility towards religion almost demands that Creationism be rejected, while its devotion to secularism leads to an embrace of evolution. (Now for the conundrum)

When pointing out the inherent differences in culture, social behavior and intelligence of the different groups within the human species that can be attributed to the evolution process, liberals suddenly get religion and start preaching, “there are no inherent differences within the races, we’re all created equal”.

This is inaccurate. Liberalism does tend to be at odds with fundamentalist religion, but is not hostile towards all religion.

There is no need for an idealogical rejection of creationism, it can easily be rejected on scientific grounds.

I am not aware of any scientific studies which show any fundamental difference in abilities between racial groups of humans. I am aware of some localised adaptations, for example populations which live at altitude tends to have thicker blood, but I don’t see how this impacts a person’s intrinsic worth or their rights. The equality line applies to a person’s rights, not their abilities, which obviously vary from individual to individual.

I do not think there is a conundrum here.

Razorsharp: When pointing out the inherent differences in culture, social behavior and intelligence of the different groups within the human species that can be attributed to the evolution process

:confused: What “inherent differences” would those be? IANABiologist, but AFAIK, biologists are pretty much agreed that all modern humans are descended from a quite small population (maybe only a few tens of thousands) of humans that survived an evolutionary bottleneck less than a hundred thousand years ago.

That’s not a lot of time in evolutionary terms; we’re all so closely related that we’re not even close to biologically speciating. And our current differences in “culture” and “social behavior” emerged over even shorter time scales that are even less susceptible to the long-term influences of natural selection.

(I’m also puzzled by your phrase “liberalism’s inherent hostility towards religion”. Most of the religious people I know IRL are liberals, as are several of the Christian participants in this thread, such as tom and Poly. AFAICT, liberalism isn’t “inherently” hostile towards religion at all. It does seem plausible, however, that liberals are less likely than conservatives to belong to fundamentalist religious groups; perhaps that was what you meant?)

Razorsharp, this is NOT a contest to see Who Can Say the Most Foolish Things (despite appearances).

But if it were, while Nolies seems to have it sewn up by combining quantity with inanity, you definitely deserve honorable mention for attempting a political hijack and packing three paragraphs far fuller with drivel (and racism) than any comparable post.

Masterful job. All you forgot was the red nose and bicycle horn.

Nolies, I have a direct question for you —

Even if Genesis is the literal word of God, even if he went so far as to personally come down and dictate it to a scribe, why does it have to be a factual description of our origins?

The story was written down by pre-technical nomadic sheepherders, at least 3,000 years ago. Those people were quite incapable of understanding the origins of the universe as we do now. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that God knew that, and so gave them a story that made sense in the context of their own existence?

I can imagine the conversation:

Moses: So, God, where did we really come from?

God: Well, nearly 14 billion years ago, in this huge whoosh, I created about a googol or so of really, really hot subatomic particles. Then I blew space up like a balloon to give them room to expand. And as they expanded and cooled off, they started joining together to make atoms, then atoms started joining together to make molecules. And after a while, some of the atoms and molecules started clumping together into big balls of gas, and got hot again just from the gravity pushing all the gas together. Inside these big gas balls, atoms starting crashing together to make bigger atoms, and then even bigger atoms. And that gives off lots of heat so these balls glow really bright, too. You’ve seen them … you call them stars; they’re actually really big and really far away. Inside these stars the atoms crashing together made carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and silicon and iron and all the other kinds of atoms that everything is made of. (I’m especially proud of carbon; neat stuff- it can combine in so many different ways you can make almost anything out of it.) And eventually after stars run out of all the smaller atoms, they just blow up and spread atoms all over space.

God: So anyway, after about 9 billion years of this, some of this gas and scattered stardust clumped up and became the sun (yep, it’s just another star, but a lot closer) and the earth and some other planets; stuff just kinda swirled around and fell into place (amazing what gravity can do). Once things settled down, earth got pretty interesting. It was real different than it is now; the hydrogen and carbon and nitrogen and oxygen all connected up into molecules of water and methane and cyanide and more complicated stuff like amino acids. And with all this soupy stuff in the water, all kinds of different molecules formed and broke apart and reformed. And some of the molecules happened to be able to make copies of them selves and some ended up shaped sort of like molds that could make multiple copies of other kind of molecules. And of course, once these molecules existed, they just kept making more of themselves and pretty soon they were everywhere. Some of them ended up inside tiny membrane balls, and pretty soon you have bacteria. No, you’ve never heard of bacteria; they’re way too small to see. Trust me on this.

God: Gotta say, that deoxyribonucleic acid is pretty neat stuff. It can make copies of itself, and it can code all the instructions for how to make a bacteria. And it’s incredibly versatile; a few tweaks here and there and it can hold instructions for making all kinds of things. Pretty soon some of these bacteria started getting ideas. One would get inside another, or several would get together inside a larger membrane, and they started making cells. Then the cells started grouping up and specializing in different jobs, and making organisms. Some cells would be in charge of getting food, some in protecting the organism from dangers, some in making more organisms, and so on. And thanks to that amazing DNA, they can mix and match the codes and makes whole new creatures. Just small changes at a time, of course, but small changes can really add up over a few million years.

God: About a half a billion years ago, things got really interesting. Organisms started getting really complicated. Some of ‘em eventually figured out to survive out of the water. Just by changing the DNA around, plants and animals could exist which would adapt to just abut any environment on the whole planet. Of course, most of them were just experiments. Some other creature came along that was better at living in a certain niche, and the first one ended up dying out. There were some big catastrophes, too. Why just 65 million years ago the earth was just overrun with giant lizards. An asteroid came along and crashed into the earth and killed the whole lot of ‘em. But thanks to good old DNA, the creatures that survived just developed into a whole lot of new kinds, and filled the earth up again. Finally, some of these organisms learned how to think. Several different kinds even learned how to make things and use tools and stuff like that. But you people seemed to be the best at that, so the other ones eventually died out. And so, here you are.

Moses: Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

God: Oh, OK. So I made the whole thing myself in 6 days.

Moses: That makes a lot more sense.
Obviously, I’m being facetious in the details here. But you should get my point. Genesis could not possibly have described our origins in terms of the big bang and evolution, because these concepts were totally beyond the comprehension of the target audience. Is there some legitimate religious objection to the idea that God gave them a story that made sense in the context of their own lives, without it having to be the Absolute Truth?

I’m not saying, of course, that I actually believe that. But it does seem to me to be a reasonable way that one could accept the truth of Genesis without needing to try to disprove evolution.

Nolies’ “scientific” ideas are from the dinosaur wing of religion and will gradually, unfortunately extremely gradually, pass from the scene.

As the article from the Los Angeles Times shows, investigators are gradually filling in the fossil record of the evolutionary history of humans. Sooner or later that record will be complete enough that all but the crackpots will change the subject.

Of course, there are a lot of crackpots existing and still to be created.

There is no conflict between liberalism and religion, so that is a false premise. (There are people who are anti-religious who might be categorized as liberal, but there are people who are anti-religious who would be categorized as conservative.) So you have gathered the empty clothes and begun stuffing them with straw.

No differences in culture, in social behavior, or in intelligences havce ever been scientifically linked to any differences that can be attributed to evolution. The claim is not that the races are equal but that we cannot even accurately identify who belongs in which race. It was not religion, by the way, but a deist-influenced liberal philosopher some of whose whose writings actually condemn religion, who first published the notion that “all men are created equal.” (He has been followed in that thought, of course, by several conservative" thinkers.) Several religions rejected that idea for many years.

So now you have filled your artificial man with straw, hung him up from the tree, and are swingling wildly at him with your wooden sword. Interestingly, even though he is your own creation and you are the one who set him in place, you still keep missing him as you swing blindly at the target you created.

But the dinosaur wing has proven to be more successful than the mammal wing, although not as widespread as the insect wing. I see no signs of it passing away; out of all the creatures that inherited the dinosaur wing I believe it has only “passed from the scene” in the kiwi.

What?

Good point. However, it only goes to prove my contention that Nolies’s science and religion are both for the birds! ;j

This is one of the greatest arguments for thesist evolution. Foolish thinking and some here accuse me of not making sense.
God didn’t want us to know so he lied to us and told us something we could understand.
But this god that they speak of wasn’t great enough to keep us from finding out the truth.
So now man is greater than God and able to uncover secrets he didn’t want us know or that were uncapable of undersatnding. But we are now capable of understanding. WOW>>> The incapable of understanding part is the best. Some how we are smarter than they were, that is arrogance…

DDG,

The God you seem to think of is more in line with the one that Aristole described.

But the real LIVING God said this about himself
Gen 18- 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Excuse me! If not I will KNOW! So he dosen’t know now! He needs to investigate for himself. Have you really ever read the bible?

Jeremiah 19:5 - They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jeremiah 32:35 - And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

You read “A God Who Risks”

Do you know how the Jews came up with the whole kosher law thing?

ONE verse

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk…

So from that one verse they came up with all these silly laws that God never told them to do.

God said not to strike anyone more than 40 lashes so they made a law that 39 was the most you could give. They made laws around the laws that God gave them. If they followed the laws that they made then they for sure wouldn’t break God’s laws. That is the same mindset that says a piece of paper with the name Johovah on it should be treated with respect is foolish. So don’t try to decern what I believe.

Just another layer of law to keep them from God and seem holier than the rest. Now they can puff themselves up, that is what the law does you know…
BTW Where did birds come from? Not reptiles, not dinosaurs from where? what magical beast…

Have a good and Godly day :wink:

Yes, some don’t use even less.

Dinosaurs are not magical beasts (although they catch the imaginations of some people in the same way), and your false declaration that birds did not descend from dinosaurs does not change the fact that they did, indeed, descend from dinosaurs.

This is either the boldest lie or the most extreme example of ignorance that you have demonstrated yet. The practices of kashrut certainly have been expounded upon in the Talmud, however, those rules are based on many more verses than the one you cited, deriving from nearly the whole chapters of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 as well as a few other passages. To claim that all of kashrut derives from a single verse is the height of arrogant ignorance (or deceit).

(And with your willingness to propound falsehoods while calling the objects of your inappropriate scorn “silly,” I would say that you are very much demonstrating anti-semitic behavior.)

Nolies, I could not care less if you make a fool of yourself on this board by propounding utter nonsense and lies as if they were truth. But when you go and attempt to witness for the God of truth with your lies, you turn people away from Him, thinking that only fools like you would believe in Him. In a few weeks you have done a great deal to undermine several years of patient witness by sincere and devout Christians who try to carry out Christ’s commandments, instead of making them naught by relegating them to a previous dispensation as you do. You have proven you know nothing of science; and you are proving you know nothing of Christianity. Will you stop it, for Christ’s sake!?

That’s time I ever seen that phrase used and meant literally.

And what is that patient witness?

When the bible says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days throughout the bible it really doesn’t mean that… Keep it up your really bringing them closer to Jesus by undermining the very word you claim. Isn’t that the height of confusion.

I do have a hard time communicating in writing but I went to publik skool so you must excuse me…

So when Paul says that he is the Aspostle to the Gentiles and that the
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
So as we can clearly read that Paul was given a NEW revelation a mystery.

Now if you can’t see that you will always be confused…
Aren’t you a gentile?