1. Standard membergenius
    Wayward Soul
    Your Blackened Sky
    Joined
    12 Mar '02
    Moves
    15128
    19 Mar '05 11:28
    okay - i, personally, have always though that evolution could coexist with creationism quite nicely, but then last night i heard a speaker (john mackay) whi put forward a very convincing argument for creationism over evolution. indeed, his argument was slightly more sound than any i've heard for evolution. however, i'm still not sure which i beleive and am just putting forward the argument for creationism out of intrest and for poops and giggles...so here we go!

    how can creationism coexist with evolution, when God greated the world "good". the "good" that he used is used only once more in the bible, when somone calls jesus "good". he then replies - why did you call he good? only god is good! do you relise what you've just said...

    so, if God created the world to be "good", then there would be no survival of the fittest. survival of the fittest is not "good"! it's a very sick way of doing things - killing off the weak!
  2. Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    97738
    19 Mar '05 12:30
    Originally posted by genius
    okay - i, personally, have always though that evolution could coexist with creationism quite nicely, but then last night i heard a speaker (john mackay) whi put forward a very convincing argument for creationism over evolution. indeed, his argument was slightly more sound than any i've heard for evolution. however, i'm still not sure which i beleive and am ...[text shortened]... al of the fittest is not "good"! it's a very sick way of doing things - killing off the weak!
    Go back to the first verse of BIBLE:
    In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. GENESIS 1:1
    If you accept this verse as truth, you may find a road to clearer understanding. If you accept that GOD created the earth think about this........
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. GENESIS 1:2
    When God created the earth, when did it become void and without form. What happened between verse 1 and verse 2. Not asking the reason for this. But looking at Evolution and creationism. Those that believe in Evolution believe that the earth is millions or billions years old. While those that Believe in Creationism believe that the earth is as less than 8,000 years old.
    Could it be that they are both right? Point being, we donot know the time set that GOD used when HE began to create. Was there time as we know it? Was the days or years during the Creation the same as we know it?
    Was there a created earth before this one? If there was what caused it to become void and without form. Did GOD use the ruins of the first earth, if there was, to reform and create this one?
    If there was Evolution and life began from single cells that some how came together. Where did these single cells come from? How did these single cells give all of mankind all different DNA cells. How did these cells figure out their different fuctions? How did, let's say, the Heart figure out what to do with Blood? How did our Brain begin it fuction. There are millions or billions of questions that could be asked, and maybed answered. But could the answer to both Creationism and Evolution be answered in Anwswered in GENESIS 1:1,2.
  3. Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    97738
    19 Mar '05 12:44
    Originally posted by blindfaith101
    Go back to the first verse of BIBLE:
    In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. GENESIS 1:1
    If you accept this verse as truth, you may find a road to clearer understanding. If you accept that GOD created the earth think about this........
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit ...[text shortened]... ut could the answer to both Creationism and Evolution be answered in Anwswered in GENESIS 1:1,2.
    Ther seond part of you statement is somewhat the same in thought. If GOD created the earth and said that it was good. GENESIS 1:10 where did evil cme from. GOD didnot say that it was good and evil. HE said that it was good. In fact HE says:
    And every thing that he had made, and, behold it was very good. And the the evening and the morning were the sixth day. GENESIS 1:31 Now he said this after HE created Man. HE said that, what HE created was "very good". What happened or what caused that which was good to become evil. HE again did not say that it was very good and evil. In fact HE never said that I created evil at this point. At this point there was no evil. Where did evil come from?
  4. Arizona, USA
    Joined
    15 Jun '04
    Moves
    656
    19 Mar '05 18:091 edit
    One thing that puzzles me about liberal believers of the Bible, i.e. those who can accept the Genesis account as a metaphor, and who believe that the earth is old and life evolves, is how do they plug the big hole that such liberality punches in the "original sin" part of the scriptures?

    For instance, I know an Episcopal who has no problem believing that carnivorous dinosaurs lived long before there were any humans, and that those big, sharp teeth really did inflict pain on other creatures of the day. And he believes that fossilized clutches of dino eggs really do show that stillbirths happened long before humans existed. But what I haven't asked him is why such evil should have occurred when, according to his bible, the only reason for such pain and suffering is that the first pair of humans disobeyed God. I wonder if he chalks original sin up to biblical metaphor? But if so, then the whole story of God needing to send Jesus to the Earth to atone for original sin is also just a fable, and his Bible is on a par with any other ancient work of fiction.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    19 Mar '05 18:16
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    One thing that puzzles me about liberal believers of the Bible, i.e. those who can accept the Genesis account as a metaphor, and who believe that the earth is old and life evolves, is how do they plug the big hole that such liberality punches in the "original sin" part of the scriptures?

    For instance, I know an Episcopal who has no problem believing ...[text shortened]... inal sin is also just a fable, and his Bible is on a par with any other ancient work of fiction.
    Good point!
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    19 Mar '05 18:17
    Originally posted by genius
    okay - i, personally, have always though that evolution could coexist with creationism quite nicely, but then last night i heard a speaker (john mackay) whi put forward a very convincing argument for creationism over evolution. indeed, his argument was slightly more sound than any i've heard for evolution. however, i'm still not sure which i beleive and am ...[text shortened]... al of the fittest is not "good"! it's a very sick way of doing things - killing off the weak!
    What was Mackay's argument?

    What is the definition of 'good'? Why isn't survival of the fittest good?
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    19 Mar '05 18:291 edit
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    One thing that puzzles me about liberal believers of the Bible, i.e. those who can accept the Genesis account as a metaphor, and who believe that the earth is old and life evolves, is how do they plug the big hole that such liberality pu ...[text shortened]... and his Bible is on a par with any other ancient work of fiction.
    There is no mention of "original sin" in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and the only mention of Adam is in Luke's geneology of Jesus. I see no scriptural reason to believe that Jesus was sent to "atone for original sin". Such a belief is not a necessary component of Christian faith. Therefore there is no contradiction between seeing the Garden of Eden story as a metaphorical parable explaining Man's decision to sin though God made him good and believing in the Jesus' existence and Him being sent to cleanse ALL sins under certain conditions.
  8. Arizona, USA
    Joined
    15 Jun '04
    Moves
    656
    19 Mar '05 18:381 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    ... Man's decision to sin though God made him good ...
    Are you taking the point of view that some hominid somewhere in time--maybe two million years ago--was the first one God endowed with a soul? If so, are you saying the the parents, grandparents, etc of that first true human were made good by God and didn't fuss or fight amongst one another or exhibit any other bad behaviors?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    19 Mar '05 18:48
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    Are you taking the point of view that some hominid somewhere in time--maybe two million years ago--was the first one God endowed with a soul? If so, are you saying the the parents, grandparents, etc of that first true human were made good by God and didn't fuss or fight amongst one another or exhibit any other bad behaviors?
    I take no such point of view; you asked how the Garden of Eden as metaphor story can be reconciled with Jesus being sent to atone for original sin and I told you. I wouldn't know which hominids were first given a soul; in fact, I don't know if any hominids have been given a soul. I fail to see your point; if the Garden of Eden story is metaphor it says nothing about how the average hominid acted 2 million years ago.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    19 Mar '05 19:13
    To be more precise, in the Gospels Jesus repeatedly stresses that to be good one must show charity and compassion to their fellow man. Why wouldn't Humans as social animals living in groups be instrinically "good" under such a definition? Obviously human cooperation is what brought this species to the top of this dung heap and just has obviously the possibility of getting cooperation from others is enhanced if we treat them nicely. So I would argue that humans are instrinically "good" i.e. generally willing to treat each other with compassion and charity. Social situations and other factors may defeat this general tendency, but I would think that its evolutionary survival value is apparent.
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    19 Mar '05 19:48
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    One thing that puzzles me about liberal believers of the Bible, i.e. those who can accept the Genesis account as a metaphor, and who believe that the earth is old and life evolves, is how do they plug the big hole that such liberality punches in the "original sin" part of the scriptures?

    For instance, I know an Episcopal who has no problem believing ...[text shortened]... inal sin is also just a fable, and his Bible is on a par with any other ancient work of fiction.
    After reading exactly what the "original sin " was i.e. knowing good from evil , wouldn't a "good " god realize the neither Eve or Adam had commited any sin at all , for they had no clue to that anything could be right or wrong prior to the first bites.

    So whose " sin" was it..the unaware creations or the creator that put evil into the world on that tree?
  12. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    19 Mar '05 21:111 edit
    Originally posted by genius
    okay - i, personally, have always though that evolution could coexist with creationism quite nicely, but then last night i heard a speaker (john mackay) whi put forward a very convincing argument for creationism over evolution. indeed, his a ...[text shortened]... d"! it's a very sick way of doing things - killing off the weak!
    survival of the fittest is not exactly the meaning of natural selection, in fact it's more about strenghtening than killing.
    Mass extinctions occur because of major environmental changes. and the only part selection plays in them are some species can either withstand the changes or rapidly adapt to them..
    Concepts like good play no part in selection except healthy organisms tend to breed better than unhealthy organisms, healthy here meaning evironmentally adapted. In that sense selection is "good" for the species.That is if survival of the species is also considered to be good.
  13. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    20 Mar '05 02:09
    Originally posted by genius

    so, if God created the world to be "good", then there would be no survival of the fittest. survival of the fittest is not "good"! it's a very sick way of doing things - killing off the weak![/b]
    You misunderstand 'survival of the fittest'. It simply means that the organism that best fits the ecological niche (eg cold place, or hot place, or windy place, or salty place etc) is more likely to survive than the organism that doesn't fit that niche so well.

    For an extreme example: If you put a lizard at the North Pole with a polar bear (and assuming that the polar bear doesn't eat the lizard) which is 'fittest' to survive this ecological niche?

    Thus the organism that best fits the niche is most likely to breed...

    It has nothing to do with good nor evil. It just is.
  14. Standard membergenius
    Wayward Soul
    Your Blackened Sky
    Joined
    12 Mar '02
    Moves
    15128
    22 Mar '05 11:33
    Originally posted by Maustrauser
    You misunderstand 'survival of the fittest'. It simply means that the organism that best fits the ecological niche (eg cold place, or hot place, or windy place, or salty place etc) is more likely to survive than the organism that doesn't fit that niche so well.

    It has nothing to do with good nor evil. It just is.


    but isn't that cruel? the fact that they just "die off" as they can't survive? why would God do that?

    Originally posted by frogstomp
    After reading exactly what the "original sin " was i.e. knowing good from evil , wouldn't a "good " god realize the neither Eve or Adam had commited any sin at all , for they had no clue to that anything could be right or wrong prior to the first bites.

    So whose " sin" was it..the unaware creations or the creator that put evil into the world on that tree?


    but they diobeyed God, which is a sin. the knowledge of good and evil is a byproduct of the sin.


    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What was Mackay's argument?

    What is the definition of 'good'? Why isn't survival of the fittest good?


    Mackay had lots of arguments, many of which i forget or didn't understand (like the reasons for dinosaur bones being buried under human ones, even though they could, feasibly, have been alive at the same time.)

    survival of the fittest isn't good, as animals are meerly killed off as they simply can't survive! also - carnavores didn't exist when the world was good as the lion and the (something - lamb?) lived side by side...and i forget hte defintion of good he gave - but bascially it was that only God is good now. it is something without imprefection, i suppose...
  15. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36083
    22 Mar '05 11:39
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    One thing that puzzles me about liberal believers of the Bible, i.e. those who can accept the Genesis account as a metaphor, and who believe that the earth is old and life evolves, is how do they plug the big hole that such liberality punches in the "original sin" part of the scriptures?

    For instance, I know an Episcopal who has no problem believing ...[text shortened]... inal sin is also just a fable, and his Bible is on a par with any other ancient work of fiction.
    Not if Original Sin was an action committed outside normal space-time.
Back to Top