I think God created Science and if evolution exists God created it. I don't have any solid answers for you on this one, because these are only my beliefs.
As far as evolution goes, I don't really buy it. Never really have. I think God created everything as is, no special links between apes and people. Other than that we are all a part of the Web. Pull one thread, it affects all the Web.
jimbo;678886 wrote: GUYS WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS
there have been skulls found of the missing link between man and an ancestor resembling an ape
there is as i see it proof that god did not make man ,so how do you guys keep the faith in spite of overwhelming evidence ... i just don't get it
i'd like to but i dont
I am an atheist jimbo and evolution is just one of the things that validates my thinking, but basically the whole concept of creation via Christian or Judaic thinking has never made sense to me. It's been debated endlessly with neither side ever convincing the other. One must have blind faith in my opinion, and that is something you just can't throw a switch and have. I have no problem with believers, be they followers of Eastern or Western religion and can understand how they gain comfort from it.
Lon;678919 wrote: I am an atheist jimbo and evolution is just one of the things that validates my thinking, but basically the whole concept of creation via Christian or Judaic thinking has never made sense to me. It's been debated endlessly with neither side ever convincing the other. One must have blind faith in my opinion, and that is something you just can't throw a switch and have. I have no problem with believers, be they followers of Eastern or Western religion and can understand how they gain comfort from it.
thats pretty much how i see it LON
Pinky;678921 wrote: I don't believe in god in an organised religion sense, more that all things in nature are divine. Nature has evolved through evolution and to me at least, they are linked.
of course it has pinky
please watch this i have posted it before it has an f word or two but it sums it up for me
I have absolutely no problem with the fact of evolution. It is quite clear as far as I can see that generally that is what has happened and continues to happen. Nor do I accept the concept of "blind faith". I don't believe that my faith is blind any more then a lot of others. This is not to deny there are those who practise blind faith.
However, evolution makes no comment about faith whether it be Christian or otherwise.
Some have mentioned here that the are atheists or agnostics. I have no problem with that either. The fact of the matter is I don't believe in the god that they proclaim not to believe in.
Lon has mentioned not accepting the Christian-Judeo concept of creation. The problem I have with that comment is I'm really not sure what concept is not accepted or believed.
Ted;678966 wrote: Let me say first off I am a Christian pluralist.
I have absolutely no problem with the fact of evolution. It is quite clear as far as I can see that generally that is what has happened and continues to happen. Nor do I accept the concept of "blind faith". I don't believe that my faith is blind any more then a lot of others. This is not to deny there are those who practise blind faith.
However, evolution makes no comment about faith whether it be Christian or otherwise.
Some have mentioned here that the are atheists or agnostics. I have no problem with that either. The fact of the matter is I don't believe in the god that they proclaim not to believe in.
Lon has mentioned not accepting the Christian-Judeo concept of creation. The problem I have with that comment is I'm really not sure what concept is not accepted or believed.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted---for me to believe in creation as presented in the Bible, The Immaculate Conception, that Christ died on the cross for our sins, arose from the dead, etc. etc., would certainly take an act of Blind Faith on my part. I think of religion as being like a child's stuffed toy, it giving comfort and security. We grow up thinking about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Peter Pan, the Easter Bunny, and then some of our parents take us to church or temple and the stories continue.
I have no problem with most of what you have said. The literal interpretation of the Bible is a non-starter. The beautiful story of creation was borrowed by the Hebrews and adapted to the Israeli situation and culture. Most Jewish folks don't take it literally.
The problem is that fundamentalist/literalism is a product of the reformation some four hundred years ago. Prior to that there were some who took the Bible literally but most knew it was to be taken metaphorically and as midrash.
For instance there are Jewish scholars who will tell you that the story of the Exodus is a myth in the true sense of that word. That it is not historical and for which there is not one shred of archaeological evidence.
I agree with your comments about the arguments back and forth. They are indeed a waste of time. However, there are members of the scientific community, who like myself see no contradiction between science and religion as they both deal with the same topics but from different perspectives. Religion has no business commenting on scientific discoveries any more than science has in commenting on the various religious faiths around the world. They should be complimentary and not antagonistic.
I know that I will not you convince you and that you will not convince me. However, I think there is great value in the exchange of information between both sides; not necessarily at this level.
god it is said created man in his own image ..if man evolved from an ape like uncle feaster like creature does it there fore follow that god created a monkey like creature and we evolved from that thing ...some more than others :wah:
What are the stages of man evolution?
Any documentation identifying the stages of “man evolution has to assume that man evolved rather than having been created. We believe that evidence has failed to support the evolution from ape to man or any other type of macroevolution.
The Cambrian explosion and the complete absence of transitional fossils testify against evolution. The fossil record shows all life forms appearing fully formed and not changing during their tenure on earth, except for extinctions. This information, and the recent finding that human DNA is losing its vitality by developing genetic disorders supports devolution, the opposite of evolution.
The story below represents how evolutionists describe the stages of “man evolution. The timeframe for the stages of man evolution from the ancestor of both man and the modern ape to modern man is not known, but I will give you an abbreviated chronology of what has been discovered from fossil remains over the years.
First of all, the word, hominidae, is used to describe the total member species of the human family that have lived since the last common ancestor of both man and the apes. A hominid is an individual species within that family, and the field of science that studies the human fossil record is known as paleoanthropology. It is made up of two disciplines of paleontology, which is the study of ancient life forms, and anthropology, which is the study of humans. Each hominid name consists of a genus name (Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a species name (africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case.
To begin our study of the stages of man evolution, the earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery dating 4.4 million years ago. He was 4 feet tall and bipedal (having two feet). It is thought this species lived as forest dwellers. Australopithecus anamensis, a new species, was named in 1995 and was found in Kenya. This species lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.
Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. He retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a ridge over the eyes, flat nose, and a chinless lower jaw, and height, 3’6 and 5’ tall. He was fully bipedal, and the thickness of his bones showed he was quite strong. His build was similar to a human, but the head and face were proportionately much larger.
The Australopithecus africanus was similar to the afarensis, but lived between three and two million years ago. He was also bipedal and slightly larger in body size. His brain was not advanced for speech. The hominid was an herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was human-like.
The Australopithecus robustus lived between two and 1.5 million years ago. His body was similar to that of the africanus, but had a larger and more massive skull and teeth. His huge face was flat and had no forehead. He had no indication of speech capabilities.
The Australopithecus boisei lived between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. He was smaller than the robustus, but with a more massive face. He had huge molars, for which the largest measured 0.9 inches across. Some authorities believe the robustus and boisei are of the same species.
Next is the Homo habilis, or also called The Handy Man because tools were found with his fossil remains. He existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain shape shows evidence some speech had developed. He was 5’ tall and weighed about 100 pounds.
Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Toward the end, his brain was that of the size of modern man, and definitely could speak.
Erectus developed tools, weapons, fire, and learned to cook his own food. He traveled out of Africa into China and the Southeast Asia developing clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food, and only his head and face differed from modern man. Homo sapiens (archaic) lived during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. He had speech capabilities; his skull was rounded with smaller features. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human, but well proportioned.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Brain size averaged larger than modern man, but the head was shaped differently, longer and lower. His nose was large and extremely different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man, about 5’6 tall with a heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man, and his jaw was massive with a receding forehead like erectus.
Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago, which is our own species.
Although this sounds like quite a convincing story, it is very slim on evidence and big on evolutionary presupposition. What is not included in the above story is a long list of frauds, deceptions. and extrapolations from a few small bone fragments into complete descriptions of semi-human or human life forms.
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo draws the following conclusion. “The only scientific objective, valid, reliable, calibrated studies, which any biologist may verify, prove all so-called ape-men are frauds or forgeries. To date, no contrary evidence has overturned these scientific objective, valid, reliable, calibrated studies. Therefore, the ape-man alternative to Adam and Eve is based upon the anti-biology of frauds and forgeries whereas the historical and Eve are based upon sound biology.
The story of a critical phase in human evolution may have to be rewritten after the discovery of two remarkable fossils in Kenya that have shed new light on the origins and behaviour of two ancient relatives of Homo sapiens.
One of the fossils found near Lake Turkana has shown that two early human species thought to have evolved one from the other actually lived side by side for almost half a million years, redrawing the most widely accepted version of humanity’s family tree.
The discovery means that only one of the two species, known as hominins, can be a direct ancestor of modern human beings, and not both as was previously proposed.
While scientists are still confident that Homo erectus, the younger of the two, ultimately gave rise to Homo sapiens, it is now suspected that the older, Homo habilis, was an evolutionary dead end.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UKScience','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');}Related Internet Links
Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution - Nature
Related Links
Neanderthal DNA will help to unlock the buried secrets of humanity
Meet the relatives: Little Lucy, the half-ape half-human
Both are likely to have evolved from another, older common ancestor, a missing link that has not yet been found in the fossil record, which lived between two and three million years ago.
It was thought that Homo habilis, which means “handy man in Latin and was the first hominin to make sophisticated stone tools, was likely to have been Homo erectus’s ancestor, and hence a more distant ancestor of modern humans as well.
The new Homo habilis fossil, a jawbone, makes this extremely unlikely. It has been dated to 1.44 million years ago, at least 200,000 years later than the oldest known example of the species, meaning it survived to live alongside Homo erectus for hundreds of thousands of years.
Homo erectus is thought to have emerged about 1.8 million years ago, and while a short period of overlap is consistent with the theory that it evolved from Homo habilis, the new dates virtually rule this out.
Meave Leakey, of the Koobi Fora Research Project, who led the discovery team with her daughter, Louise Leakey, said: “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis. The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition.
Frank Brown, of the University of Utah, another author of the research paper published in the journal Nature, said: “The most important conclusion is that there was more than one species of early man for an extended period of time in East Africa.
The parallel existence of several species of hominin would have been normal through most of history: only since the extinction of the Neanderthals about 28,000 years ago has there been just one. “As you go through time, in general there was more than one hominin, Dr Brown said. “Yet today Homo is represented by only a single species: us.
The second fossil, which is described in the same paper, is significant for what it reveals about the probable sexual habits of Homo erectus. The exquisitely preserved skull has been dated to 1.55 million years ago.
Fred Spoor, of University College London, said: “It is the smallest Homo erectusfound thus far anywhere in the world.
It belongs to an adult, almost certainly a female, and this suggests extreme variation in body size among the species, with males growing much larger than females. The disparity would have been almost as great as in modern gorillas. In modern monkeys and apes that are monogamous, such as gibbons, there is little variation in size between males and females. Among those where dominant males monopolise mating, such as gorillas and baboons, males are much larger.
Modern humans lie between the two, but the small size of the Homo erectus female suggests that our ancestors may have had a harem-like system, in which a single male who could see off rivals won the sexual favours of many females at once.
Susan Antón, of New York University, said: “In gorillas, males are much larger than females, and this sexual dimorphism is related to their strategy of having multiple mates. The new Kenyan fossil suggests that, contrary to common belief, this may have been true of Homo erectus as well.
I have no problem at all with the fact of evolution. Creationists are still playing their silly games in spite of overwhelming evidence evolution. The claim there are no transition fossils is simply false.
As far as I am concerned it is not an issue even worth discussing.
Evolution does not speak to the spiritual aspects of life nor to the reality of God. It is simply a view of how life developed on earth.
The view that evolution has to be a false idea is brought about by those who want the Bible to be the absolute and inerrant word of God which is is not. The problem is quite clearly a lack of trust in God, if you so believe. Like most humans they want absolute assurance about the direction and purpose in life. Thus they want a contract signed, sealed and delivered. This gives them something to hold onto. It also results in a form of idolatry because people begin to place the Bible even above the Divine.
There ought to be no contradiction between science and religion. It is not some kind of competition. They are two ways of viewing life: one from the physical aspect and another from the spiritual aspect. Neither is in a position to answer the basic questions that the other is looking into.
Different folks have different ideas. Nothing new here. It is simply better to live together in mutual respect and open dialogue thus fostering some understanding of each other. Science has nothing to contribute to religion any more than religion has anything to contribute to science beyond trying to understand and respect each other.
I don't really think you have explained how others view God. However, at this point that is really not important.
There is within Christianity a movement towards a new paradigm referred to as the emerging paradigm. It does not hold to the traditional views of the Divine.
Generally I would agree with your last statement. We are responsible for what we say and do. We are also responsible for the mess that the world is in. We indeed, are free to make our choices and we have screwed up royally. We can't blame it on the devil or anyone else. We have messed up. It is now up to us to try to clean up the mess.
None of this speaks to the reality or non-reality of God. That is an whole other issue which I have not desire to debate as it is a futile and circular effort with no end in sight.
I believe in evolution....theres statistics....facts....everything right there in your face....I mean....there was once a day when we thought the earth was flat...and genius' like DaVinci and Galileo were accused of being "witches" purely because they thought outside the box ...so we have really "evolved" as we continue to do so.....but on the other hand...what a sad life to lead if one thinks that THIS is it....your here...then your dead. Pretty depressing....so I do believe in something other than JUST evolution....so just a thought....you might wanna check out QUANTUM MECHANICS....its very hard to explain you'll just have to read on it....but if your wondering where the hell we came from...thats as close as I've ever come to believing in something higher up! If you look it up tell me what you think!
Oh yeah...computers...Ipods....IPHONES!!!! The fruits of evolution...CLEARLY!
Unfortunately the fruits of evolution have given us poison gas for the ovens of Nazi Germany, weapons of mass destruction, a rationalism that is one sided, reductionism which hardly answers our questions etc. There are both positive and negative results to evolution. Apparently during the 20th cent. we have been able to kill more humans than all of the wars etc. in the past. These killings had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
Even the so called religious killings of the past had little to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
Ted;680779 wrote: Unfortunately the fruits of evolution have given us poison gas for the ovens of Nazi Germany, weapons of mass destruction, a rationalism that is one sided, reductionism which hardly answers our questions etc. There are both positive and negative results to evolution. Apparently during the 20th cent. we have been able to kill more humans than all of the wars etc. in the past. These killings had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
Ted:-6
Interesting that you only mentioned the negative Ted.
Not at all. I was very clear that there were also positive outcomes. Does someone need to be told that air travel is one such result or modern medicine.
I was simply pointing out that not all the outcomes were positive.
As dustbunny said re computers, I Pods and Iphones. I was simply showing the other side of the coin. One might of course think about whether one outweighs the other. ???
Not at all. I was very clear that there were also positive outcomes. Does someone need to be told that air travel is one such result or modern medicine.
I was simply pointing out that not all the outcomes were positive.
As dustbunny said re computers, I Pods and Iphones. I was simply showing the other side of the coin. One might of course think about whether one outweighs the other. ???
Shalom
Ted:-6
OK--------I'll buy that, but you did choose to show the negative side of the coin which I suspect most are aware of as well as the positive.:-6
This is yet another very nice difference of opinion in FG. Thank you all for not getting irate about your beliefs that could lead to heated debate.
My belief is terribly athiestic. I still really believe in each persons ability to find their own spirituality. It matters not if it is God or personal belief or in others that holds our souls true. What matters is the internal belief in what makes each person comfortable and able to carry on.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Humans evolve everyday! The scary thing is....I think we're all evolving way too fast...we're all going so fast that most don't stop to think about what we're really doing....like what TED was saying about the poison gas and atom bombs.... I believe we have too much knowledge and not enough wisdom:) but if your searching for another take...CHECK OUT QUANTUM MECHANICS...otherwise known as the "many worlds theory" its more of a physical scientific theory that there are infinte parallel worlds just like ours....so when we die....theres another world out there that we are still alive on....kinda like being immortal or reincarnation....but more science and fact....and if you find it hard to imagine or believe....I feel better about that one rather then what the bible says....WHICH was written by man and has been passed down for thousands of years.....its like the longest game of "telephone" ever!
skittles2004;680978 wrote: Its been the most accurate recordings ever though! The masoretes for crying out loud knew that the first five books contained 400945 letters! why would these people care so much about the translation if the book were a fairy tale? then later in life 72 people translated that book to greek and so on and so on. The bible is completly accurate from when it was written in hand! just in a different language. not as simple as a little game of Telephone!
Hey! I didn't mean to offend you....I'm just saying that MY belief is that it has been passed down for thousands of years...and I refuse to put my full faith into a book! Ofcourse its more serious than a game of telephone....its called an ANALOGY! And why would people care so much about a "fairytale" because everyone WANTS to believe in that! And how are you so sure that is accurate? I'm not trying to test your beliefs....simply saying that I don't believe in it.....plus the people who have written it....were much more naive than people nowadays....but thats just MY OPINION!
drumbunny1;681191 wrote: Hey! I didn't mean to offend you....I'm just saying that MY belief is that it has been passed down for thousands of years...and I refuse to put my full faith into a book! Ofcourse its more serious than a game of telephone....its called an ANALOGY! And why would people care so much about a "fairytale" because everyone WANTS to believe in that! And how are you so sure that is accurate? I'm not trying to test your beliefs....simply saying that I don't believe in it.....plus the people who have written it....were much more naive than people nowadays....but thats just MY OPINION!
fair post in line with my own thoughts i dont think you have upset any one its not that kinda thread , i have been well pleased that every one has talked frankly and no one has had a tantrum :-6:-6
I've been studying the history of the Bible as well as translation and theology both formally and informally for 40+ years. I now attend the Vancouver School of Theology for more courses.
The Bible is not historically accurate nor is it just a fairy tale. The historical accuracy idea does not stand up under close scrutiny.
The Torah was put together during the Babylonian exile from oral tradition of which there were at least three. It was never intended to be read as history. It is primarily midrash and metaphor. There is some kernels of history spread throughout the Bible but not that much.
The problem that faces people today is a result of the enlightenment which says if it is not historically accurate it is not true. This is false. Many profound truths are conveyed and probably better through metaphor than through historical accuracy.
The Bible is a book composed of myth (creation), legend (Noah), folk tale spread throughout, poetry (Job), fiction spread throughout, short story (Ruth), theology, philosophy and some bits of history. It was written in the ancient Hebrew style called midrash which is different from modern midrash. This style uses stories from the past to explain the events of the time it was written. For example Joshua crossing the Jordan on dry ground is a reflection of Exodus story, which itself is a myth. It was written that way to show how important the story of Joshua was to the Hebrew. Spong, Goulder and others
Books like Jeremiah were written by many people over many years. "The Oxford Commentary on the Bible".
The Birth stories of Jesus are in fact midrash. What we know historically about Jesus is that he was born to a worman named Mary and perhaps Joseph was his father. We know he became a teacher and a prophet. We know that he was crucified for treason. Basically that is all we know about him except for a few of his sayings. 85% of the sayings in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are in fact the words of the evangelists and the early church. This does not negate the truths they teach.
The New Testament was compiled from many documents but not the originals. Those documents were copies of copies of copies and so on. Over time they were altered and changed in places. Between all of the manuscripts, perhaps dozens of Matthew alone there are some 400 000 variants. We cannot be sure we have the exact words of the writers. "Misquoting Jesus", Bart Ehrman.
The question to be asked is "What does it mean?" and not "Is it historically accurate?'.
I've been studying the history of the Bible as well as translation and theology both formally and informally for 40+ years. I now attend the Vancouver School of Theology for more courses.
The Bible is not historically accurate nor is it just a fairy tale. The historical accuracy idea does not stand up under close scrutiny.
The Torah was put together during the Babylonian exile from oral tradition of which there were at least three. It was never intended to be read as history. It is primarily midrash and metaphor. There is some kernels of history spread throughout the Bible but not that much.
The problem that faces people today is a result of the enlightenment which says if it is not historically accurate it is not true. This is false. Many profound truths are conveyed and probably better through metaphor than through historical accuracy.
The Bible is a book composed of myth (creation), legend (Noah), folk tale spread throughout, poetry (Job), fiction spread throughout, short story (Ruth), theology, philosophy and some bits of history. It was written in the ancient Hebrew style called midrash which is different from modern midrash. This style uses stories from the past to explain the events of the time it was written. For example Joshua crossing the Jordan on dry ground is a reflection of Exodus story, which itself is a myth. It was written that way to show how important the story of Joshua was to the Hebrew. Spong, Goulder and others
Books like Jeremiah were written by many people over many years. "The Oxford Commentary on the Bible".
The Birth stories of Jesus are in fact midrash. What we know historically about Jesus is that he was born to a worman named Mary and perhaps Joseph was his father. We know he became a teacher and a prophet. We know that he was crucified for treason. Basically that is all we know about him except for a few of his sayings. 85% of the sayings in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are in fact the words of the evangelists and the early church. This does not negate the truths they teach.
The New Testament was compiled from many documents but not the originals. Those documents were copies of copies of copies and so on. Over time they were altered and changed in places. Between all of the manuscripts, perhaps dozens of Matthew alone there are some 400 000 variants. We cannot be sure we have the exact words of the writers. "Misquoting Jesus", Bart Ehrman.
The question to be asked is "What does it mean?" and not "Is it historically accurate?'.
Jewish archaeologists such as Finkelstein and others have quite openly said there is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written. It is a story thought to arise out of the fact of the Hyksos expulsion from the Nile delta.
That being said, however, it is the story of everyone's life. We are all slaves to one thing or another. We are all in bondage in one way or another. It is a universal story containing much truth though not historical.
Okay, so that brings a very simple question to my mind. What about the prophecies outlined in the bible? Are they, in fact, true or false? To be believed or not to be believed? And for that matter, does Heaven exist? Scores of people believe we are living in "end times". What's your take?
These are just questions for discussion, as I have my own personal beliefs.
First of all one has to understand the nature of prophesy. According to scholars such as Anderson, Borg, Crossan and others prophets are talking about their own time not about some time in the distant future. Generally they were out calling people back to the worship of Yahweh and to the practice of justice and kindness. For example one might say "If we persist on this track such and such will happen.
The book of Revelation is not about the great distant future. It was a comment on ancient Rome but done is such a way that the Romans would not understand what was being said, like a cryptogram.
The last days is another issue. Jesus himself thought that he was living in the last days. In fact the last days were prophesied hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.
Whenever we speak of the Divine we by necessity use metaphor. God is beyond our comprehension and beyond our language and conceptualization abilities.
To believe or not to believe is a very personal choice. Personally after 40+ years of both formal and informal studies and continuing studies I have come to firmly accept the reality of God.
The last days as described in the Bible are but metaphor and allegory. However, Jesus brought to us the Kingdom of God. He said it was within us. Thus it has already arrived. Now we must go to the parable of the mustard seed which is a tiny seed that eventually grows into a large plant. So it is with the kingdom of God. It starts with a few and slowly grows. Heaven is another one of those things for which metaphor has to be used. We believe the Kingdom of God has begun here on earth and will continue into eternity and we will be part of it. I do not comprehend it beyond metaphor. But I do believe it.
We believe the Kingdom of God has begun here on earth and will continue into eternity and we will be part of it. I do not comprehend it beyond metaphor. But I do believe it.
First of all, thank you Ted! I always, always enjoy reading your posts. They are always both well thought out and informed, as well as respectful and informative.
Now, this passage that I quoted stood out for me as it's similar to the way I feel. Faith, for me, is believing in those things that are not necessarily tangible, but are alive within us.
Are we dealing only with the bible and the christian god in this subject?
I ask because there are more religions than just one but it's the only one being used as a yardstick. What about Buddhism or any other religion that doesn't use the bible for instance? How would their aspects influence the discussion? Curious.
As a Christian pluralist I can only speak for Christianity but I do accept the validity of all the great faiths. I do not know what their take on evolution is so I cannot comment from their perspective.
Evolution does not say we are descended from monkeys or apes. What it does say is the we are descended from a common ancestry. Though I don't particularly mind if I am the nephew of an ape or monkey.
As a Christian pluralist I can only speak for Christianity but I do accept the validity of all the great faiths. I do not know what their take on evolution is so I cannot comment from their perspective.
Evolution does not say we are descended from monkeys or apes. What it does say is the we are descended from a common ancestry. Though I don't particularly mind if I am the nephew of an ape or monkey.
If we go back in time far enough we come to a realization that we are made of the elements that were originally created by the big bang. In short we are stardust. Quantum physicists have now come to the conclusion that matter, all matter, is nothing more than frozen light. I guess I'm a flashlight whose batteries have died. LOL
jimbo;678886 wrote: GUYS WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS
there have been skulls found of the missing link between man and an ancestor resembling an ape
there is as i see it proof that god did not make man ,so how do you guys keep the faith in spite of overwhelming evidence ... i just don't get it
i'd like to but i dont
I always felt that this was a non question.
Of course evolution exists - we can see it happening.
In no way does it reflect on the existence of God - God created the universe and everything in it, including the conditions leading to evolution.
As long as you do not see Genesis as a literal seven days and believe that the universe was created in 4638BC exactly as it is today, then Genesis stands as a good timeline for the creation of current conditions :-
Heaven & Earth (Void) Big Bang
Light Formation of Sun
Water Early Earth after condensation
Dry Land
Grass Should be after sea life - first life on dry land was vegetation
Sea life First life in sea
Birds A stretch but representing the age of dinosaurs
Mammals Reasonable enough
Man A relative newcomer
Why constrain God? Why say (s)he must have made the world exactly as it is now? Creating a dynamic system that evolves over time and remains stable is far more impresive that creating a fixed system that just sits there.
