Jump to content


Creation Evolution Debate


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#41 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:41 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 3:37 PM, said:

"My" interpretation is absolutely a literal interpretation of Genesis. God made all of those things in that order, and it doesn't matter how long it all took in today's standards of time.
But that is scientifically inaccurate.

Quote

Once all those things were made, they universe was free to run according to the laws of nature, including evolution. What is non-literal about that?
That's perfectly literal, it just ignores the mountain of paradoxes found in the first chapter of Genesis as viewed from a modern scientific perspective. I already gave one of the most obvious examples - from everything we know from our study of the universe, our sun is not particularly unique. It certainly was not created before every other star in the universe, and it certainly was not created after the creation of the Earth. Genesis quite blatantly says that it was, on both counts. That alone requires a non-literal interpretation.Another blatant paradox is that fruiting plants existed before the sun. I don't see how it's possible to reconcile that with a "literal interpretation."

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 3:48 PM, said:

Tim. In your reality, where did the universe come from? How did it start? Was it always just there? How can reality pop out of nothing? Does that even make scientific sense?
I have no definite answers to any of those questions. What does that prove? That humans, despite being many many measures more intelligent than any other animals on Earth, are still generally clueless when it comes to questions about the meaning of life and why we're here? I think it's almost impossibly arrogant to assume that those questions must be answerable by humanity at any point in our (future, current, or past) history, and I think it speaks to a blatant desire to be comforted in a cold unfeeling universe when one clings to ancient religious testimony as having the definitive answer to all of those questions, in spite of a 100% lack of any supporting scientific evidence for any of it [God created the 'verse, God started it, it wasn't always just there, it didn't just pop out of nothing - God constructed it].
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#42 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:43 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

Tim. In your reality, where did the universe come from? How did it start? Was it always just there? How can reality pop out of nothing? Does that even make scientific sense?
Oh Jesus. Come on brv, you know there is a commonly held scientific theory about how everything in the universe came to be, all the way back to the big bang. If you want to argue about some intelligent being having had to create the big bang, fine, but then we go to "but who created that being...if that being can be infinite or come from nothing, why can't the universe be infinite or the big bang come from nothing", after which LLY comes and tells us that, yes, something can come from nothing.
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#43 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:52 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:43 PM, said:

Oh Jesus. Come on brv, you know there is a commonly held scientific theory about how everything in the universe came to be, all the way back to the big bang. If you want to argue about some intelligent being having had to create the big bang, fine, but then we go to "but who created that being...if that being can be infinite or come from nothing, why can't the universe be infinite or the big bang come from nothing", after which LLY comes and tells us that, yes, something can come from nothing.
"How can reality pop out of nothing? Does that even make scientific sense?"I think that was his most pointed question, but as you suggested it's no less mysterious if we say "Uh, God did it" than if we say, "Uh, I dunno." It doesn't actually answer the question in any measurable way, and the question of WHY? is just as mysterious as ever.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#44 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:09 PM

there was never "nothing". There was God. The closest science can come to finding God since he is beyond the understanding of science is the math behind the vacuum, otherwise called space-time. You can glimpse the LORD in the fundamental uncertainty that would be present even in an otherwise empty universe (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). On the most minute physical scales (the Planck scale) space-time isn't flat. Empty space vibrates and contorts.the quantum vacuum on the smallest level manifests this fundamental uncertainty by spontaneously creating pairs of particles and antiparticles for less than a blink of time. In all places and at all times. This is the physical manifestation of God's will. It always was, and always will be. Emptiness as a philosophical concept is meaningless, as there is always the eternal presence of God who is not subject to space-time. "Nothingness" would be perfectly symmetrical. Therefore, anything has more entropy than nothing, and when entropy can increase, it does. Consequently, "nothing" is less stable than anything.If you ask why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists? There is exactly one answer: God.

#45 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:38 PM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 5:09 PM, said:

On the most minute physical scales, (the Planck scale) space-time isn't flat. Empty space vibrates and contorts.the quantum vacuum on the smallest level manifests this fundamental uncertainty by spontaneously creating pairs of particles and antiparticles for less than a blink of time. In all places and at all times.
We all know you're a satirical account, but I'd still like to get some LLY confirmation on this. I even recommend he overlooks the statement "a blink of time." Regarding your first point I quoted: huh? What is the significance of space-time being non-flat "on the most minute physical scales?" Isn't space-time always non-flat?EDIT: Thanks for the annoying wikipedia links, for those of us without google.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#46 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:46 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 2:38 PM, said:

We all know you're a satirical account,
Whatever you say, sport.

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 2:38 PM, said:

Regarding the first point you make, huh? What is the significance of space-time being non-flat "on the most minute physical scales?" Isn't space-time always non-flat?
the discussion was concerning "something from nothing". The closest we can get to "nothing" would be space-time as an absolute vacuum, with no "things" present to curve or warp space-time. I am pointing out that even in empty space, space is not flat and particles and antiparticles pop into existence. To be clear: it is flat (if empty of things) on a larger scale. Like if you look at a road from the top of a building or from a distant field. But if you go up and look closely at this road there are bumps and loose gravel ect. This fundamental uncertainty - this always something - is a direct manifestation of God's will.Prove me wrong.

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 2:38 PM, said:

I'd still like to get some LLY confirmation on this.
lol you think LongLiveDork is going to come to your rescue on this one. good luck, you'll need it. I know what I'm talking about.

#47 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:58 PM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 5:46 PM, said:

Whatever you say, sport.the discussion was concerning "something from nothing". The closest we can get to "nothing" would be space-time as an absolute vacuum, with no "things" present to curve or warp space-time. I am pointing out that even in empty space, space is not flat and particles and antiparticles pop into existence. To be clear: it is flat (if empty of things) on a larger scale. Like if you look at a road from the top of a building or from a distance field. But if you go up and look closely at this road there are bumps and loose gravel ect. This fundamental uncertainty - this always something - is a direct manifestation of God's will.Prove me wrong.
You know as well as I do that it's definitively impossible to prove a negative. Why don't you start with trying to prove yourself right? When somebody's best evidence for God is, "prove me wrong," they've already conceded the argument by suggesting that the only way their opponent can win is by doing something altogether impossible. So thanks, I guess.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#48 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:13 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 2:24 PM, said:

It does certainly get one thing (fairly) correct though - the fact that man is younger, as a species, than most other animals. But that's practically the only thing in there which is historically accurate.
Genesis did cover all the bases on that one, by hedging that position in the next chapter.

'Genesis II' said:

Man in the Garden of Eden4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,5 and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life; also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.10 ¶ And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Hav'ilah, where there is gold;12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.14 And the name of the third river is Hid'dekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphra'tes.15 ¶ And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#49 Dread Aidan

Dread Aidan

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Seas

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:15 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 3:13 PM, said:

Genesis did cover all the bases on that one, by hedging that position in the next chapter.
The second part of verse 19 is pretty awesome.

#50 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:28 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:52 PM, said:

"How can reality pop out of nothing? Does that even make scientific sense?"I think that was his most pointed question, but as you suggested it's no less mysterious if we say "Uh, God did it" than if we say, "Uh, I dunno." It doesn't actually answer the question in any measurable way, and the question of WHY? is just as mysterious as ever.
This post made me smile. Spot on.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#51 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:44 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 2:58 PM, said:

You know as well as I do that it's definitively impossible to prove a negative.
oh really?P → Q, ¬Q-------------. ¬PUh oh. :club: :ts :4h or for the less learned, a second bit of explanation of how silly atheist "intellectuals" are: You can't prove a negative? got to love atheists who think logic and science are on their side. When really they just don't understand either.

#52 SuitedAces21

SuitedAces21

    once and future king

  • Members
  • 24,850 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:08 PM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:09 PM, said:

there was never "nothing". There was God.
but how do you know this?
Spoiler

#53 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:14 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 10:14 AM, said:

Why can't one say, "God created everything a long time ago, and since then there has probably been some evolution (after all, there are no pictures or specific anatomical or physiological descriptions in the bible...or, for that matter, explicit statements that all things created will never change), and moving forward that evolution will continue."I feel like that's a legitimate way of holding onto religious beliefs without completely ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence that make denying evolution a sign of closed-minded brainwashed idiocy. Uh, you know, no offense BG.
According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no ancestors. That is not compatible with evolution.

#54 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:14 PM

View PostSuitedAces21, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:08 PM, said:

but how do you know this?
The Bible. Common sense. Life experience. Personal relationship. Shall I go on?Unless you mean how do I know there was never nothing. if so that's explained in my post. It is both philosophically and scientifically silly to say that there was ever "nothing". The eternal underlying somethingness is God. What else would it be? Random chaotic stuffiness? lol, ya, that makes sense that life and love and truth and beauty came from that. lol, use your brain, sport.

#55 Dread Aidan

Dread Aidan

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Seas

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:17 PM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:14 PM, said:

The Bible. Common sense. Life experience. Personal relationship. Shall I go on?
Yes please.

#56 speedz99

speedz99

    It don't matter to Jesus.

  • Members
  • 28,085 posts
  • Location:North Hollywood

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:21 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:14 PM, said:

According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no ancestors. That is not compatible with evolution.
Nothing god planted on the earth at genesis had ancestors. That's why I'm saying evolution could have started AFTER god did his thang. Dread Aidan, am I being unclear here? Are they just messing with me?
You got a date Wednesday, baby!

#57 Dread Aidan

Dread Aidan

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Seas

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:34 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:21 PM, said:

Dread Aidan, am I being unclear here? Are they just messing with me?
You're probably just flustered by how Miami just took the opening kickoff and marched right down the field for a touchdown.Yes, I'm intentionally avoiding the question.

#58 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:34 PM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 6:44 PM, said:

Quote

Hales acknowledges that people may actually mean "you can't prove that something doesn't exist".
It is painfully obvious that this was what I actually meant.

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 7:21 PM, said:

Nothing god planted on the earth at genesis had ancestors. That's why I'm saying evolution could have started AFTER god did his thang.
What vb and I are saying is that that hypothesis is incompatible with evolution. Everything has an ancestor, even the very very first signs of life on earth (their ancestors would have been non-living amino acids, or whatever). You're also ignoring the major points I made about the sun being created before the rest of the stars in the sky, or plants being created before the sun. Those paradoxes may not speak directly to Darwinian evolution, but they are certainly related to the whole question of whether or not we can reconcile Genesis with modern scientific knowledge.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#59 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:37 PM

View Postspeedz99, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:21 PM, said:

Nothing god planted on the earth at genesis had ancestors. That's why I'm saying evolution could have started AFTER god did his thang. Dread Aidan, am I being unclear here? Are they just messing with me?
the early chapters of Genesis lay the foundation for much of the Bible. Here we meet Adam and Eve, formed from the dust of the Earth, brought to life by the breath of God (Genesis 2:7), and placed in a beautiful garden with two mysterious trees, one that gives knowledge and the other life.God tells Adam and Eve that they can eat from any tree in the garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they break this rule, God tells them that they will surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). but nonetheless, they disobey this command and are cursed and cast from the Garden of Eden. God places an angel with a flaming sword at the entrance to the garden so they can’t get back in.This is the story of how Adam and Eve’s relationship with God was broken. this breach, often referred to as the Fall, marks not only the separation of God and humankind. The Biblical narrative, beginning particularly with the story of Abraham, recounts the story of what God does to resolve this problem. This story comes to its climax in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth.the familiar story of Adam and Eve is a staple of both Sunday school lessons and the stained glass motifs of Christianity’s great cathedrals. How does the Fall fit into an evolutionary history, where the Earth is billions of years old, and humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago most likely in Africa? Is the story of Adam and Eve actual history, or is something else going on here? Christians over the centuries have held many positions on this, ranging from straightforward literalist interpretations of the texts to readings that emphasize the theological content.The Literalist ReadingMany Christians prior to the emergence of the historical science of geology interpreted the first chapters of Genesis as literal history. In the medieval period, for example, intrepid biblical literalists would head off on adventures to locate the Garden of Eden. Maps from this period even indicate where creative cartographers thought Eden was located and where Adam and Eve went upon being expelled.2this literal reading implies that God specially created Adam and Eve from dust, and that all humans are descended from these original parents. They were created to have a perfect relationship with God, but their disobedience resulted in a curse for all humankind, including their descendants.The literalist reading, despite its attractive simplicity, does not fit the evidence. First, there are two stories of creation, found in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-2:25. These accounts have different chronological orders, a fact that didn’t bother Christians who lived in the centuries before the discipline of history emerged. As odd as it may sound, people long ago talked about the past in radically different ways. Past events could be placed in an order reflecting their importance, for example, rather than their chronology. History is simply not done like this today, and we cannot imagine writing the history of the United States with the Civil War coming after World War II.A literalist reading of Genesis runs into historical trouble immediately when we try to reconcile the chronological details of the two very different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. Difficulties also arise when we work out the implications of the human race beginning with only two initial people. For example, where did the wife of Cain, Adam’s son, come from? The only possibility from a literalist reading is that she was Cain’s sister. Not only does this conflict with later Biblical commands against incest, but there is no reference in Genesis to Cain having a sister or any other humans who could populate another area (the land of Nod, east of Eden, Gen 4:16). Ironically, defending a literalist reading of this story requires one to explain away the text's literal meaning. Equally problematic is that when Cain is banished from his homeland for killing his brother Abel, he fears being hunted down and killed. Genesis 4:13-14 reads:"Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the Earth, and whoever finds me will kill me'." tgain, it is highly implausible that the people Cain fears are also offspring of Adam and Eve. The people trying to kill Cain would have to be his extended family — siblings, nieces, nephews and so on — all united in trying to kill him. But the text taken literally does not allow it. Along the same lines, Genesis mentions the city that Cain built and named after his son (Genesis 4:17). Who would populate this city or help to build it? All of this points strongly toward a non-literal, symbolic reading of the creation stories.the scientific evidence suggests a dramatically larger population at this point in history. Recently acquired genetic evidence also points to a population of several thousand people from whom all humans have descended, not just two. Finally, fossil and DNA records point strongly to a more unified creation reflected in the relatedness of humans and other animals. The comparison of human and chimp chromosomes provides one of many compelling pieces of evidence for this unity. The chromosomes of the two species match up almost exactly, except for human chromosome 2, which appears to be a fusion of two chromosomes that were distinct in a primate ancestor of our species. This remarkable claim was confirmed when sequences that are normally found only at the ends of chromosomes were discovered in the middle of human chromosome 2, right where the fusion was thought to have taken place. Today, we carry in our bodies this evidence of our relatedness to other species. The evidence argues strongly against a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation account of humans.The Everyman ReadingThe Everyman Reading of the creation story understands the Fall as an allegory representing every human’s individual rejection of God. In this light, the Fall was not a historical event but an illustration of the common human condition that virtually everyone agrees is deeply flawed and sinful. In this view, Adam and Eve were not intended to be presented as historical figures. Their deeds simply represent the actions of all humans and remind us of this troubling part of our natures.This interpretation is less popular among many Christians, for the historicity of Adam seems to be assumed by the apostle Paul. In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15) , Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity, but in different senses: Adam brings death to all, whereas Jesus brings life; Adam was disobedient, Jesus was obedient; Adam's disobedience affects all, whereas Jesus' obedience affects "all". Since Jesus is an historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be an historical figure in the very same sense. You cannot have one part of the analogy be symbolic and the other historical. Plus, if Paul believed in an historical Adam as the first human, Christians should too. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data, which has lead Christian thinkers to consider different ways of handling Paul's words. Historical ViewsAnother view sees human-like creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the Image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil — an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences that have carried through the history of Homo divinus.This view can fit whether the humans in question constitute a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine God interacts with all members of the group and essentially initiates the relationship that exists today. If the initiative is with a single human couple, then that relationship can spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population comes to dominate.In these two cases, humans exercised their free will and caused the Fall. The connection of the Fall with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil suggests that Homo divinus exercised their moral consciousness by choosing to live independently, rather than by God’s instruction. The Genesis narrative provides a vivid description of their consequent alienation from God.these views require a non-literal reading of the Adam story, which follows from the details of the story itself (as we saw above), and from the genetic evidence, and from the significant amount of corroborating textual data that we have from the ancient Mesopotamian world. These views can also preserve the representational role of either a human pair or a larger initial population.Conclusion:Are views such as those above acceptable for a Christian? Many thoughtful, faithful Christians throughout history have subscribed to nonliteralist views of the Genesis accounts of creation. For example, the respected scholar and Christian writer C.S. Lewis held a similar view. In The Problem of Pain, Lewis notes the following:“For long centuries, God perfected the animal from which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated [. . .] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past [. . .] We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods [. . . ] They wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”

#60 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:43 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, September 12th, 2011, 4:34 PM, said:

It is painfully obvious that this was what I actually meant.
I had a 10-speed when I was a kid. unlike bikes with chain-based breaking where you simply reverse course on the pedals to stop the bike, it had the hand breaks instead. When you reversed the direction your feet moved to propel the bike it made a very specific sound - a sort of grating white-noise. It didn't stop the bike at all and you were free to move your feet in that direction without resistance. that sound is literally coming from my computer's speakers you're back peddling so fast.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users