Actually I think it's more like 2 million years - horses have gone through similar changes, losing toes etc. But they are still hairy all over. Or maybe eohippus or whatever they call it these days was a naked proto-horse.

Anyway, there seems to be a common idea that God really really likes people. Maybe He likes the great apes just as much; what does the Bible say on the subject?

If God loves me even though I'm the slime flavor-of-the-millenial-week, arisen from the Primordial Soup, isn't that just as cool as the whole God-loves-the-people-he-made-from-clay? God has time to watch things develop, so much time that giving things a push isn't necessary.

P.S. I can't figure out why I have nipples. :(

dd, I thought I'd get away with pointing the finger of shame at those folks whose views are at the polar ends of this debate, and only to the degree that their views leave no room for the possibility that the other side might have relevant input. Not so, I guess.

And I still am curious about what message I am supposed to get from the Darwin Fish. I expect folks to express their religious beliefs. "Religious fervor" I think they call it. What I find more surprizing is "science fervor." What's up with that, except intellectual boasting?

And again, dd....I'm respectfully suggesting you consider taking a Logic class. We've had good chats and I have a high degree of respect for you. My suggestion is not a backhanded insult. In a Logic class you would learn the difference between deduction and induction. For example, if all horses have hair, and Trigger has no hair, then clearly Trigger is not a horse. To the degree that the premises are to be adopted as true, this is deductive reasoning.

But if any and all aspects of this argument can be assailed, then there are several reasons why we cannot deductively conclude that Trigger is not a horse. Trigger may have been shaved. There may be horses we have never discovered which are hairless.

With evolution, we have a rather thin smattering of evidence, and a theory that seems to be consistent with most or all of that evidence. That is hundreds of miles from a deductive conclusion.

Besides the Bible which was written by MAN, what evidence do we have for creationism? At least evolution has scientific method behind it. We are less than 150 years into the understanding of the evolutionary process that has take millions of years. I think it understandable not to have all the answers yet.

Ahhh! And the other end of the polarized spectrum speaks. Another ignorant observation.

99.45%? :rolleyes:

What about the other .55%?

Anyway that seven-day-a-week regiment sums up more than "Jesus freaks."

sup

It's simply a belief different than your own.

I happen to think they are rather funny.

On the one hand you say you don't understand it but on the other hand you are certain of what it implies. Is that not a major contradiction? If you don't understand it how can you be so certain of it's intended message?

Maybe the next time you see one ask the person, "what's up with that" you'll either learn some new insight into or have your suspicions confirmed.

Regards,
Scott

I'm not surprized that ape DNA is largely similar to ours. I think they compared human DNA to the DNA for a dandelion once, and found them more than 99% similar.

Correct. There is little "proof" or hard evidence of God's manipulation of physical things. If there were, then the choice we are offered would not be the same. Wouldn't be much of a choice. Or maybe there is plenty of evidence, but that we're so used to seeing it that we miss it. At any rate, some folks are just "I'm not going to believe it unless I hold it in my hand" people. In my humble view, and even outside the arena of religion, I'd assert those folks miss lots of stuff. Truly the old addage "Seeing is believing" is also true in reverse. Some things have to be believed to be seen.

True, we don't have all the answers yet. That's my point. Until that post, it looked to me like you thought you had those answers. I'd also agree there is some interesting evidence regarding natural selection and the development of specific improvements in species. BTW, last I heard, there has never been an instance of one species actually becoming another species. Except in the minds of evolutionist, that is.

Again I say that the folks who proudly conclude that anyone with a brain should accept the conclusion that we evolved from an ape-like creature, are not in unanimous agreement with scientists. Scientists continue to attend church, many accept what they read in their bibles and most of them are still scratching their heads on this fossil record thing and wondering what happened. The ones I have talked to basically say that evolution is an interesting theory and may be true, but that there are some problems with that construct. There are certain questions raised by that conclusion which are not resolved. Like the speed thing. Creature seem to adjust a little over a HUGELY long period of time, but in order for evolution to be true, that process had to see BREATHTAKING ACCELERATION in the last several tens of thousands of years. Right about the time the bible asserts there was divine intervention. That raises questions unless you're not a rational, objective thinker. Remember, scholars believe the bible does not start out "in the beginning the earth was void and formless" In reality, they now think that phrase ("Tobu Wahobu") means "In the beginning, the Earth was, having been beautiful in the beginning, ugly, and was therefore replaced so it could be beautiful again."

I would not conclude that the Darwin fish shows an overt sign of superior intellect. I would propose the following: God, as defined by most major religions, has no limitations on power. If, therefore, God wanted to experiment over time and take 4 billion years to do it, why not? It is only our limited time span on this earth that makes it impossible to imagine that a timeless being might enjoy prolonging the process. We have no frame of reference when it comes to large time spans. Nothing in this idea contradicts the concept of creationism or intelligent design or evolution. Trying to understand the mind of God is an exercise in total futility, like trying to teach a cat calculus.

It is claimed that the Creator created us in His image. What image? Certainly not physical since the entity is incorporeal. Certainly not morally, since mankind is prone to acts that would not pass the test of purity of purpose. Therefore all that is left is intellectual, centered on exploration and discovery. We are, de facto, created in the image of a tinkerer, an experimenter. This would also not contradict what many religions accept as holy scripture.

Moneyguy - have you been reading that Dilbert book?

Vic:

WHich one? Short answer, no. Just some ruminations by an old guy with entirely too much time on his hands and smart enough to know when something is unknowable.

I would never presume to know the mind of God.

Bob,

It's called "God's Debris" I suggest you read it. It's most thought provoking and very amusing.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0740721909/qid=1102043774/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-4242423-3987865?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I ought to know better than to get involved in this one. (sigh) Superman's doing such a great job of equivocating and holding fast to a solid middle-ground position, I hate to step in with anything more conservative. A lot of good points have been made here, but I felt it would be shameful to remain silent any longer.

That said, I wrote an excellent defense for the deity of Christ and the accuracy of the Gospel accounts in this thread. Before disputing the accuracy of a document, please check your research. As it turns out, the Bible is widely recognized among historians as historically accurate -- both old and new testaments. Dismissing the Bible demonstrates that a complete lack of real interest in the discussion. Further, insistently holding that there is no God cannot result in anything like a rational discussion. Clearly, if there is no God, then the Bible is some kind of hoax, and we all crawled up out of a pool of slime 10 billion years ago. Further, if there is no God, then life has no purpose, and there is no such thing as morality. Without an entity who exists outside of our finite human world, without someone with the authority to determine a standard of truth, there can be no discussion of Right and Wrong. We may as well revert to terms like "convenient" and "inconvenient," as "right" and "wrong" have no meaning outside of some external standard.

You see, all of us have the same data, we're just approaching it with different assumptions. The evolution camp assumes no God, while the creation camp assumes a Creator. Of course we reach differing conclusions! :) I have no disrespect for those who hold to the atheistic position -- rather I have great respect for one who can look plainly upon the world around them and announce that there is no God. I am truly impressed by the blind faith of those who enjoy the rain, then turn to thank the clouds. Would that I had such faith!


While I'm posting, I'm also somewhat impressed by the logical leap that many, even here, make. They say "I've seen too many people who misinterpreted scripture, so clearly there can be no God" -- or similar. That's like saying "I'm sick and tired of seeing physics students misinterpret Newton -- Newton must be wrong!" Rather than doing the research to determine if there is any truth behind the "Sunday-only Christian's" poorly-lived faith, they simply discard the whole belief. Again, I make this point only because this crowd is certainly smart enough to catch the mind-blowing logical fallacy.


True, to an extent. The word for "formless and void" is pretty challenging. The best data I have was a thesis on the term suggesting that the only thing we're certain of is the chaotic nature of what existed. The question of where or when the matter itself was actually created is not necessarily answered -- the opening statement seems to assume that stuff exists, but that it is utterly chaotic: no direction, no pattern, no purpose. The analog to our lives before the influence of Christ is clear: without a theistic approach to life, there is a hollow that cannot be filled, life has no meaning, and no purpose. After surrendering control to the God who Created everything, who has authority over all the universe, life gradually becomes a purposeful thing; chaos is transformed by the power of God. For the one who believes the truth of God enough to take action, it is a growing process, a continual casting off of the old ways and growing into a new life in Christ. I cannot vouch for every man who has claimed that "God told me such-and-such," nor can I vouch for every action of every person who claims the title "Christian." I can only speak for my God - the Creator of the Universe, the author and perfector of our faith - and His influence on my own life.


Dan

Not all evolutionists (those who believe that things slowly evolved) are of the opinion that there is no God. Many believe that there may be an intelligence behind the process, but not in six days. Probably there is more marvel in the many kinds of life that have been created than simply saying that everything was created in a relative instant. Once again, it is the inability of man to comprehend the time spans involved.

God will not be rushed. Time is irrelevant to an incorporeal being.

Dan, I was referring to the "Gap" theory. The theory that "In the beginning" refers to the end result of a re-tooling by God. The actual meaning of the "formless and void" phrase is something that was once beautiful, but then was annihilated. So there's a theory that God shuffled the cards at that time.

And yes, your defense of the diety of Christ was excellent, even if you do say so yourself.

Bob, you are exceedingly correct when you assert that we are making a grave error when we assume our perspective is anything like that of God's. Our ability to understand his nature and agenda is far far lower than a cat's ability to master calculus.

Also, I take a different view of the image which we share with God. I think it is morality. Sure, we act in violation of the Moral Code, but we're never ever confused about that's right or wrong. I mean, certain principles seem to transcend both space (different cultures) and time (different historical periods). The principles are always the same.

Which brings me to a warning. Dan is right. Those of you who dismiss God or Christianity because of some misbehavers are failing to expose yourself to the source document. But be warned. Many have taken up the gauntlet of reading the bible for a critical purpose. The vast majority of those people were rewarded with conversion. A textbook example is CS Lewis. His book, Mere Christianity, is one of the most dangerous books an atheist or agnostic can read. Don't pick it up if you want your life to stay the same.

Oh, right, "Gap theory." Yes, that's considered a major viewpoint by many well-educated scholars; I missed your meaning at first, my apologies.

FTR, I simply espouse a more conservative stance -- given that the phrase in question is ancient, and we have relatively few contemporary uses of the word, we aren't positive of it's meaning. The only thing common among all of the possibilities is the chaotic, disorderly, "annihilated" nature of the thing. I cannot say with certainty what existed before the "formless and void" status -- only that at that point, it was "formless and void" -- so I avoid interpretations that imply the details of what happened earlier. (shrug) Otherwise (and I hate to admit to this), I'm totally in agreement with you. :)


Dan


PS -- CS Lewis is good. Lee Stroeble also has an excellent book, a little more modern. Like Supe says, if you're comfortable with the status quo of your life, happy with everything deep down inside, and don't have any desire for a life-change, these are bad books for you to spend $5 on.