# Reading > Religious Texts >  A thought on Evolution

## Stanislaw

I was thinking about the Adam and Eve story and thought of something, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil? Now this could explain how people have a balance of good and evil in them and how people can commit autrocities on in our modern times. Now suppose because of time that the tribes of good and evil crossbred and created the grey societies of today? Now how does evolution tie into this? Well the devil was not as powerfull as God so he would not be able to create a person directly but could cause the indirect creation of a person through _evolution_ .

Anythoughts, questions, arguments?

----------


## subterranean

Sorry to say, but I think that's silly..

I believe that all humans were created by God only. I don't really get your point with other tribes. I thought all men were Adam's and Eve's descendants ? :confuse:. The nature of good and evil are there in all humans since they ate the forbidden fruit. There's no such thing as seperation between good-natured man and evil-natured man. What I know so far is that evolution thing doesn't have anything to do with the story written in Genesis. It's purely about science stuffs.

----------


## Yeroptok

My thoughts on evolution and the book of genisis are as follows. Genisis is not a literal text, it cannot be due to irrefutable evidence against it (which I will list many good websites with enough evidence against a literal genisis it is not even funny).

Evolution is something that does occur and that humans have evolved from a common anscestor. I am not saying that genisis is getting it figuritively right. However I am not naive enough to believe genisis as a literal text. There is no supporting scientific evidence for it being literal, and if fact there is a lot of scientific evidence that proves literal translations wrong. 

Some good websites to check out on evolution and the creationism-evolution debates

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html 
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoDefinit...tiondefinition
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2509
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

try browsing around on them, they have a lot of information.

----------


## ajoe

I think Adam and Eve were the first couple God invented, but God didn't stop with them. After He created Adam and Eve, He went on creating other people, which is how people in the world don't all look the same.

----------


## star blue

if you're dumb enough not to believe in evolution, I can see why talking snakes and trees might scare you.

----------


## star blue

thank god for creating drugs, though.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I can't believe we're talking Garden of Eden here on this website in the 21st century. I mean, how surreal is that? This is a literature website. People here should know about analogies and metaphors. They should be able to spot one from a mile away. Maybe we can discuss the tooth fairy, or the bogeyman next...

There seems to be a distinct lack of dinosaurs in the Bible. Can't think why...

----------


## star blue

my grandma wouldn't take me to see _jurassic park_ when I was little because 'dinosaurs never existed'.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Come to think of it, one thing has always bothered me about the immaculate conception: did Mary give her consent? Cos if not, well you know what that means don't you?.....

----------


## star blue

but back to evolution . . .

I always thought it was interesting that, in _genesis_, there is nothing to suggest that there was only one god.

----------


## star blue

the theory now is that mary was raped by a roman guard and she claimed her son was conceived through divine intervention <giggle> so she wouldn't be stoned to death.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Yeah. I think a lot of biblical scholars suggest several Gods of the OT. I think they are variously translated as Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, God etc.

----------


## star blue

apparently someone decided that the only way to resolve the contradiction was to bombard three identities into one: a god who was simultaneously the father, son and the holy ghost. 

100% bulls.hit. I mean that, it's not even in the bible.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<the theory now is that mary was raped by a roman guard and she claimed her son was conceived through divine intervention <giggle> so she wouldn't be stoned to death.>

He always did have a bit of a soft spot for the Romans. Now if he had just listened to Judas who he betrayed....

----------


## crisaor

> _Originally posted by star blue_ 
> *apparently someone decided that the only way to resolve the contradiction was to bombard three identities into one: a god who was simultaneously the father, son and the holy ghost.*


Resolve the contradiction? Nobody solved the contradiction, that's part of the point. Anyway, does it upset you that much that people believe in god (THE god, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or any other)?

----------


## star blue

if by 'upset' you mean 'think it's hilarious', then yeah.

----------


## Stanislaw

What is so hilariouse about believing in God?

AND why can't genisis be literal? Who sais it can't, who has concrete proof that thise events never ocured?

----------


## Yeroptok

Ummm yes... Genisis cannot be literal... as there is proof of evolution which disproves a literal translation of the whole 7 days thing. As well the proof the universe is older then a view thousand years old. It can be figuritive but literal has been proven false.

----------


## star blue

stop and think, stan . . . a talking snake and a tree? I hate to rain all over your sunny day parade, but that creationism bulls.hit's been bled white.

----------


## crisaor

Yes, a talking snake and a tree. It's a common element in practically all of mythologies, why does it shock you? The tree usually holds some sort of prize or treasure, and the snake guards it. It's pretty simple to understand.

----------


## star blue

you said it, crisaor . . . mythology is all it is.

----------


## crisaor

You know, practically a lot of the wisdom acquired by men can be derived from mythology (any of them).

----------


## ajoe

I don't think stories in Genesis should be taken literally. After all, these stories were passed down to generations before they were actually written down. I do, however, still believe in the point Genesis is trying to convey, which is God's existence and His greatness.  :Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

I don't think God's gender should be taken literally, after all, God's gender claim was passed down to generations before it was written down.

I don't think God's existence should be taken literally, after all........

----------


## star blue

and, likewise, nothing else.

----------


## ajoe

> _Originally posted by atiguhya padma_ 
> *I don't think God's gender should be taken literally, after all, God's gender claim was passed down to generations before it was written down.
> 
> I don't think God's existence should be taken literally, after all........*


Dude, no need to sound so offensive.  :Frown:

----------


## atiguhya padma

I didn't mean to offend you Ajoe. I was just making a point. :Smile:

----------


## ajoe

:Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

:Smile:

----------


## the ring

:Smile:

----------


## Lara

I don't believe God created the world, nor do I believe we all started as a single celled organism, frankly I don't know how we began, because there is no proof to anything, it is all just theory. Evil comes from the workings of our own minds, we all have evil thoughts, most of us just don't act upon them. That is why people enjoy reading and watching horror so much, it exercises that part of the mind. What do you consider to be the grey areas of society Stan? Isn't every society, every country, every nation full of grey areas? There are no absolutes in this life, nothing is clear. And atrocities are not just a modern dilemma, people have committed such acts upon other living beings for as long as anyone can fathom.

----------


## the ring

to relate anything, however, by implication, to the industrial genocide of world war II undermines everything that was unique about it----and it is slowly becoming more and more trivialized. the survivors of the holocaust have almost all died off, the term itself has become something of a cliche. we aren't simply perpetuating the same atrocities committed by our ancestors. we've dropped atomic bombs and developed nuclear missiles. the terror is out there, it is real, not just thoughts in a person's mind.

----------


## Lara

Hey Ring,
Was your last post a response to my post? Now you have me confused. I didn't say anything about WWII and I didn't imply that atrocities were only in the mind. I said that most people don't act on their thoughts, and how does a thread on evolution jump to WWII? I was simply giving what Stan asked for, thoughts on evolution and other ideas in his post. I think WWII is not to be trivialized in any way. If you have more to say on this particular subject, maybe we should move it to general chat.

Cheers,
Lara

----------


## the ring

> _Originally posted by Lara_ 
> *Evil comes from the workings of our own minds, we all have evil thoughts, most of us just don't act upon them. [. . .] And atrocities are not just a modern dilemma, people have committed such acts upon other living beings for as long as anyone can fathom.*


I couldn't disagree more.

----------


## the ring

atrocities like the persian wars and the crusades pale in comparison to the bolshevik revolution, the holocaust, both atomic impacts and the nuclear arms race.

----------


## Lara

Ring, I have no control over how you or anyone interprets and perceives anything I say. If offense is taken, my apologies.

Are you thinking that I'm thinking evil is just imagined? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the horrible things that happen in the world are created by human beings, hence, it comes from the mind. Our own little brains think up these crazy things and some people, like Hitler, take these thoughts and create them into real atrocities. So I don't know if we're just totally misunderstanding each other, however, if you wish to strongly disagree with what I say, by all means, you have a right to.

Cheers,
Lara

----------


## atiguhya padma

Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions etc don't come from human minds. They might come from the mind of God though.

----------


## Isagel

> _Originally posted by Lara_ 
> * Evil comes from the workings of our own minds, we all have evil thoughts, most of us just don't act upon them. 
> ---
> 
> And atrocities are not just a modern dilemma, people have committed such acts upon other living beings for as long as anyone can fathom.*


I agree with you. Reminds me of a qoute from Conrad " The belief in a source of supernatural evil is not necessary. Man alone is quite capable of every wickedness". I diagree with the Ring when he says that comparing the Holocaust with old cruelty is making it smaller. I think that it is important that we compare the cruelty in the nazi era and the way they stop looking at jews (and homosexuals, or communists, Jehovas witnesses, criminals or anybody that did not fit the regim) as human beings with our own tendency to do the same. If we understand this process - how we start to perceive people as things and not humans- we might prevent a new holocaust. If we can find the connection between the history and today perhaps we might find a cure, a liberation. 


And sorry , I guess this has nothing to do with evolution. Could not help myself.

----------


## Lara

Getting off topic, but I can't help myself either. Well said Isagel. It seems societies way of thinking rarely changes. Apparently, just a little over a century ago, Oscar Wilde had a homosexual affair and was convicted for indecency and went to prison for two years. Maybe people don't go to prison now, but such convictions still exist.

You are right Atiguhya, I was only thinking of the harm people do unto others with my statement, however, at the risk of delving into religion with you :-), I don't believe those come from God, and if anyone does, that is their choice to do so and I respect that choice.

----------


## atiguhya padma

These natural disasters are 'designed' into the very structure of Earth. If there is a designer, then they are a by-product of that design.

----------


## Lara

That's an interesting view Atiguhya.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Thank you, Lara :Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

On behalf of the view, that is :Smile: 

It is an interesting question, as to what claim we can ever make on our thoughts. I mean where do they come from? How do we get them? and why on earth do we think they 'belong' to us? And where do they go to?

Have you ever tried to track a thought?

----------


## Lara

Now you're making my head spin. That's where my thoughts go, in a whirlwind in my brain. And sometimes, because I like to write I get some of those thoughts on paper, just sometimes. Your questions have given me something to ponder.

----------


## Stanislaw

Sorry to interpose...

In respone to the grey areas question, I mean most people.
All people do some bad stuff and some good stuff in their life, Iwas using grey because it is a mix of blakc and white, symbolic of good and evil, no one today is 100% evil, nor is anyone 100% good, so ther is a kind of grey area, a mass of people who are neither, neutral if you wish, some just lean more to one side than the other or jump back and forth.

And autrocities in modern era, was a poor choice of words, I agree, however, I am trying to formulate a solution, no proof for or against except opinion. Grey, I guess that is what life is.

----------


## Adelheid

> I was thinking about the Adam and Eve story and thought of something, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil? Now this could explain how people have a balance of good and evil in them and how people can commit autrocities on in our modern times. Now suppose because of time that the tribes of good and evil crossbred and created the grey societies of today? Now how does evolution tie into this? Well the devil was not as powerfull as God so he would not be able to create a person directly but could cause the indirect creation of a person through _evolution_ .
> 
> Anythoughts, questions, arguments?


Well, those people were not good. They were fallen angels Gd created them. Satan wanted them to marry the humans because that would be disobeying what God intended...

People do not have a balance of good and evil... there is no grey area. It is all either white or black. It's either right or sin.  :Nod:  I personally don't think that Satan can create. He can only make something appear differently than what it is.




> I think Adam and Eve were the first couple God invented, but God didn't stop with them. After He created Adam and Eve, He went on creating other people, which is how people in the world don't all look the same.


No. God stopped creating after the sixth day. He gave the command for people to be fruitful and multiply, though. Nowadays, it is known that you can get different looks by intermarrying. Some people say that the race of Blacks came from the line of Ham, and the Asians and Jews came from either Shem or Japheth and the Europians from the other... I can't remember which is which.

----------


## Stanislaw

well yes there is either right or wrong physically speaking, however this would account for why some people are moreso prone to evil, and others to good, no can be pure good, and like wise no one can be pure evil, so people (currantly) are a mix of good and evil, a moral grey if you will. This is seeded by the doubt of God, yes, however, the need to disobey is stronger in some people.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Life is filled with grey areas. Was the Allied effort in WWII right? or was it sinful? Can killing someone in battle be right? If it prevents an invasion or the slaughter of thousands maybe millions, then is killing in time of war really sinful? If so, then abstention, leading to the massacre of innocent people, is right?

Adelheid, maybe it says something about our societies that we live in, that we could even think that there are no grey areas in moral dilemmas. Personally, I think this idea of black and white clearcut morality is just silly.

----------


## Stanislaw

well, there is still the idea of a clearcut definition of ones acts. for ex. would it be bad or good if I stole a car today?

however the War example, its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Even the stealing of a car cannot always be so cleancut as you think. Would it be wrong to steal a car in order to drive a serious casualty to hospital? If there was only one car around and you could steal it, would it be better to let someone die than commit the moral wrongdoing of theft?

The problem with the idea that there are clearcut black-and-white cases of morality, is that such an idea assumes that acts can be isolated from all mental and physical events that precede them. There are reasons (whether we know them or not) to all our actions. To make a judgment upon an act without taking into account a whole host of causes and effects is, in my opinion, simply naive and an incorrect way of assessing what has happened.

----------


## Stanislaw

hmmm, perhaps you are correct, maybe it is based on what would be the lesser of two evils.

For example, Jesus healed on the Sabbath, breaking a law of Moses, however, he Helped those in need. 

Good Point. 'tis always nice to discuss with you.  :Nod:

----------


## baddad

I read a comment once (can't remember where) that went something like this: "There is no right or wrong, there is just what is". It is only a human trait to apply morality to any given action. 

I guess in a totally objective view this may be fairly accurate..... *looses train of thought......"hoo-boy"...mutter...mutter*

----------


## Stanislaw

You do have a point, Animals don't obviosly show remorse when they kill something and eat it, ie people, prey, or eachother.

But then again, not all people posses morality it is a learned behaviour perhaps.

----------


## Scheherazade

Morality/moral values are learned... which is why they change from one society/culture to the other.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I'm not sure about morality as just a learned behaviour. Some unfortunate people are born with an inability to feel pain (Andrew Miller wrote a novel based on such a person called Ingenious Pain), and people with Asperger Syndrome cannot identify with people's feelings in a conventional way. I imagine it would be extremely difficult for these people to act morally under certain circumstances.

----------


## Scheherazade

But you are refering to some biological conditions which makes it difficult for those people to learn social codes and norms...

----------


## Stanislaw

Indeed, sometimes people with severe learning dissabilities, appear to act without a moral consionce, however, this is not their fault, just merely a symptom of their handicap.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I think most people have an innate ability to identify with others and this is the starting point for the development of morality. Theory of mind is pretty much essential to moral development, and maybe this is something that most of us can learn. But a significant number of people will not be able to learn theory of mind. So I guess I am trying to say that moral development isn't just something that can be picked up or learnt. There does have to be certain physical developments to enable morality to develop. It would be difficult to show that moral differences in other cultures are merely a result of learning. People physically adapt to environments over time, and it may be that moral differences are tied up with this physical adaptation.

----------


## Scheherazade

I am not sure I am following your train thought but everyone, as much as their capacities let them, will learn certain moral codes and what is acceptable within the social group they are living. We all learn what is considered right and wrong and what we can get away with.

----------


## subterranean

> So I guess I am trying to say that moral development isn't just something that can be picked up or learnt. There does have to be certain physical developments to enable morality to develop. It would be difficult to show that moral differences in other cultures are merely a result of learning. People physically adapt to environments over time, and it may be that moral differences are tied up with this physical adaptation.



Just want to be sure that you are reffering to physical developments of a society as a whole there, not the individual entity....

----------


## baddad

> Just want to be sure that you are reffering to physical developments of a society as a whole there, not the individual entity....



I thought A.P. meant brain development, physical development of the individual......No?

----------


## Scheherazade

That was my understanding too... brain and physical development of an individual... hence the physical disability reference.

----------


## q0987

Actually you would not believe how much the bible agrees with evolution. take for instance the fruit of knowledge. After Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge they 'evolved' into knowing good and evil. Also we do not know what Adam and Eve looked like, and how eating of the fruit would affect them physically. 
As for the species of man. After Adam and Eve left the garden they had children. LOTS of children. Those children married each other. Because of this inbreeding, the perfect body was no longer perfect. The need for inbreeding happened again after the flood. There was only 8 people left on the planet. This again caused more defects in the human gnome. I believe that this is why we suffer from deformations, and sickness.

----------


## Stanislaw

Scientologist? Well, it could be interpreted that way, after all Darwin said life was breathed into this mess so...

----------


## atiguhya padma

Baddad, SubT, Scheher:

Yes. Bad and Sche are right, I meant physical and brain developments of the individual. Certain types of disability, imo, leave individuals incapable of moral judgments.

----------


## baddad

Wow, hear that Sher? We were right! That's one in a row!!!

Yeah A.P., no argument here. There are many people who suffer from debilitating defects (physical development of the brain) who may not be morally responsible for their actions. I really don't see how this could be in dispute.....

----------


## subterranean

> Wow, hear that Sher? We were right! That's one in a row!!!


Oh shut up  :Wink:

----------


## moveablefeast

> Yeah. I think a lot of biblical scholars suggest several Gods of the OT. I think they are variously translated as Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, God etc.


same god, its use of translation depends on the context through which GOD is working. 

someone said the OT and more specifically the book of Genesis does not suggest one God. Soooo much the opposite. "I am the Alpha and the Omega..."
sound familiar. God renounces all others in Genesis and claims himself to be the only true God in the face of these false gods. Jesus would later reacclimate this saying the very same.

----------


## Dyrwen

Funny how God's first commandment of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" leaves the possibility that there are in fact other gods than God, but you could always just read it as "there aren't any other gods and God is it." Considering it's a commandment though, seems kind of silly to reiterate the facts rather than command them not to believe in other gods, so who knows..

Sure, I may not believe there are any gods, but if there were going to be some out there it'd probably be more than one, if any, just to make it interesting. There's a higher probability of +1 gods than ~1, but considering the probability of any gods is just as probable, suppose I'm working under odd contexts.

----------


## Taliesin

If we are not mistaken, then it is believed that it could have probably meant something like that one mustn't worship other gods. They knew that there were other gods and stuff, but as time went by it is believed that people misunderstood the text and started to think that the other gods did not exist.

So, that possibility to interpret this commandment like there were other gods is actually not funny but it is believed to be closer to the original meaning than the interpretation that there are no other gods.

Of course, because this text was written in so distant past, everything is very hazy indeed, but this is believed to be closer to the original meaning.

----------


## LV_Designs

> Well, those people were not good. They were fallen angels Gd created them. Satan wanted them to marry the humans because that would be disobeying what God intended...
> People do not have a balance of good and evil... there is no grey area. It is all either white or black. It's either right or sin.  I personally don't think that Satan can create. He can only make something appear differently than what it is.
> No. God stopped creating after the sixth day. He gave the command for people to be fruitful and multiply, though. Nowadays, it is known that you can get different looks by intermarrying. Some people say that the race of Blacks came from the line of Ham, and the Asians and Jews came from either Shem or Japheth and the Europians from the other... I can't remember which is which.


I'm not sure if I got you right, but did you say that Adam and Eve are fallen angels? If so, where did you get this idea from? Also, where did these other humans come from? Genisus does not mention God creating any humans other than Adam and Eve, so in order for Adam and Eve to "marry" humans would imply that either God or Satan created other humans outside of Eden.

I personally don't agree with a litteral interpretation of the Bible, but there are limits to where you can guess as to what it implied happened. I equate the Bible to all other works of mythology. It's an interesting read and teaches a few morals along the way.

Going with the idea of "sin." Even the Bible leaves room for some grey areas:

For example, one must honor (obey) their parents, but what if the parents are "sinful" and want their child to murder for them. This would be an instance in which sin and good are part of the same answer. If the person chose to obey his parents, he would be sinful against his victim. However, if the person chose to disobey his parents, he would be sinful against his parents but do good by not murdering.

So, God litterally stopped creating after the sixth day? Yes, incest would cause differences between humans. And really, if you are going to talk about why we have different races today (and want to use the bible) you have to move ahead in the bible to the flood story. According to the bible, Noah starts the human family tree. I happen to find the idea that god would knowingly create a situation where humans would be forced to interbreed hilarious. It's like he wanted genitic problems to exist. After all, He is claimed to be all knowing, he would know what was going to happen.

Back to evolution. Do you really think that this interbreeding is why we find fossils of hominoid species that can be sequentially laid out along a time line up to our own time? Think about it, it doesn't make sense. 

Maybe God created us in his own image, and that image was similar to that of apes. There is little difference between man and ape especially on a genetic level. Over time the huminid that is now man evolved in a separate direction from other apes of the time. If you look into what we know about evolution, this is a possibility. But maybe you don't like the idea that we came from apes.

----------


## baddad

I think man also shares 98% of his/her genetic code with mice (among other creatures). These remarkable similarities between so many disparate species in earth says more about evolution, a creation from the sole resources of the planet than it does about a god creating the human species. Evolution is all about working with what you have, and 'generously alike' genetic codes indicates to me a similar source of resources, namely the earth.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Funny how God's first commandment of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" leaves the possibility that there are in fact other gods than God, but you could always just read it as "there aren't any other gods and God is it." Considering it's a commandment though, seems kind of silly to reiterate the facts rather than command them not to believe in other gods, so who knows..
> 
> Sure, I may not believe there are any gods, but if there were going to be some out there it'd probably be more than one, if any, just to make it interesting. There's a higher probability of +1 gods than ~1, but considering the probability of any gods is just as probable, suppose I'm working under odd contexts.



My "translation" of this commandment is that it doesn't have to be another god. I think what it means that you don't put anything infront of him. I'm not sure how to describe this. You could put lets say music, (I love music don't get me wrong) in front of God. That is all you care about and all you live for. You are putting this object or whatever before him. So yeah, I tryed.

----------


## ThatIndividual

It is actually high time that Christians embrace evolution. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis can certainly be read, and quite reasonably, as a metaphor for what science supports as the _actual_ history of our universe/world. Furthermore, God having caused evolution to occur, could have still sent a son to sacrifice to the sinners of the world. (Do note, in case you are unfamiliar with my frequent posts concerning christianity, I am not a christian.) 
Shunning evolution, and clinging to the asinine belief that the world is no more than 10,000 years old, only causes the learned community to disregard Christian beliefs as unfounded and outrageous, and Christianity as no more than a highly successful cult. 
Science is not a collection of "flaming darts" shot from the sling of the "evil one." It is science. It is mathematical. Christ or no Christ, God gave man a rational mind, and may in fact be quite offended if we were to shun the use thereof.

----------


## greenburke

.
"With the MBBT, the sun is created prior to the earth. With the Bible, the earth is created prior to the sun. The same goes with the moon and stars. With the MBBT these bodies didnt evolve until much later in history. With the creation account in Genesis, they were created on the following day...
grass, trees, and flowers were made on day three, whereas the sun, moon, and stars were made on day four."

_-Jonathan Sampson_


(MBBT- Modern Big Bang Theory)

----------


## Triskele

> Yeah. I think a lot of biblical scholars suggest several Gods of the OT. I think they are variously translated as Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, God etc.


perhaps you should also look into what the biblical shcolars said about these names. there are many name, because 1)there are many translations of the bible 2)each of the seperate names represents a different aspect of the god 3)the bible was written by many authors, in many different lands, so it stands to reason that they would not all have the same terminology.

----------


## Wintermute

> my grandma wouldn't take me to see _jurassic park_ when I was little because 'dinosaurs never existed'.



Lol Star! My grandma said the same thing. She was firmly convinced the devil put the fossils here to throw us off, hehe. You can't teach stupid (not that I didn't love her).

----------


## cuppajoe_9

The OP doesn't work for a few reasons. First of all, good and evil are abstract descriptions of human behavior, not genetically inhereted traits. Second, if we're going to take the book of Genesis literally, then the earth really was created in six days, and therefore the devil wouldn't have had the billions of years it takes to create a person indirectly by evolution. Third, we have to take Genesis literally. Fourth, the Bible describes no such 'other tribes' or any intermarriage of Adam and Eve's children. Fifth, if this did happen, the genes for good would be so diluted as to be indistinguishable.

----------


## Stanislaw

> The OP doesn't work for a few reasons. First of all, good and evil are abstract descriptions of human behavior, not genetically inhereted traits. Second, if we're going to take the book of Genesis literally, then the earth really was created in six days, and therefore the devil wouldn't have had the billions of years it takes to create a person indirectly by evolution. Third, we have to take Genesis literally. Fourth, the Bible describes no such 'other tribes' or any intermarriage of Adam and Eve's children. Fifth, if this did happen, the genes for good would be so diluted as to be indistinguishable.


well...it was sort of a bad idea, mixed with an idea of a metaphoricle bible...I'm really not to sure what I was thinking at the time.

----------


## fisherofmen

> Lol Star! My grandma said the same thing. She was firmly convinced the devil put the fossils here to throw us off, hehe. You can't teach stupid (not that I didn't love her).


I see no reason as to why dinosaurs couldn't have coexisted with humans for a while... brings to mind many of the tales concerning dragons we hear about, as well as loch ness monster, etc...




> The OP doesn't work for a few reasons. First of all, good and evil are abstract descriptions of human behavior, not genetically inhereted traits.


I think evil is merely the absence of good, same way darkness is merely the absence of light. I think good and evil go beyond just human behavior...



> Second, if we're going to take the book of Genesis literally, then the earth really was created in six days, and therefore the devil wouldn't have had the billions of years it takes to create a person indirectly by evolution.


If we were to take it word for word, yup, earth created in 6 days. I think it would be impossible for the devil to create a person, I don't think he can create life, only destroy it (but then, not being the devil myself, I have no clue what he can do)



> Third, we have to take Genesis literally. Fourth, the Bible describes no such 'other tribes' or any intermarriage of Adam and Eve's children. Fifth, if this did happen, the genes for good would be so diluted as to be indistinguishable.


There's the kicker! The thing is... cain and able had to have married their sisters. Today, we go something along the lines of "ewwww gross", and think about what genetic defects will occur. 

But think back. The world had just started, these people were living for hundreds of years, and not too long ago they were "perfect". How can we be sure that they were exactly as we are today? Perhaps there was something different about them, or maybe they just werent as "polluted" as we are today, so "in-breeding" didnt cause any genetic defects.

----------


## Stanislaw

well...I suppose, that could explain why people are so flawed today.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There's the kicker! The thing is... cain and able had to have married their sisters. Today, we go something along the lines of "ewwww gross", and think about what genetic defects will occur. 
> 
> But think back. The world had just started, these people were living for hundreds of years, and not too long ago they were "perfect". How can we be sure that they were exactly as we are today? Perhaps there was something different about them, or maybe they just werent as "polluted" as we are today, so "in-breeding" didnt cause any genetic defects.



Correct: our genetic material was still in reasonably good shape - but sin (I believe) is so deadly that it can "rewrite" our genetic "source code" - so that, by the time we have the exodus out of Egypt, God laid down the law in terms of prohibiting incestual relationships (and to differentiate them from the pagan tribes around them who continued in those (and sundry other) behaviors.)

----------


## Theshizznigg

> I was thinking about the Adam and Eve story and thought of something, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil? Now this could explain how people have a balance of good and evil in them and how people can commit autrocities on in our modern times. Now suppose because of time that the tribes of good and evil crossbred and created the grey societies of today? Now how does evolution tie into this? Well the devil was not as powerfull as God so he would not be able to create a person directly but could cause the indirect creation of a person through _evolution_ .
> 
> Anythoughts, questions, arguments?


We have no definate answer that Adam and Eve were the only people in Eden. We only know they were the first, and therefore the leaders of whatever group they may have belonged. 
Secondly it is hinted in Genesis that God made other humans after, and also the fact that childbirth held no pain for a woman, and we do not know how long they were in Eden. 
It could then be argued that because of their leaders decisions, the people under them also ate of the tree, etc, etc. 
The problem with Genesis is that it is more a summary of a point in time. (Moses wrote it, don't forget.) So while they're might have been others it only ever concerns itself with those who were important, hence Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth. 
If one reads books from the apocrypha, then there is a wealth of books that cover the subject of Adams time in Eden and early mans live outside of it. 

It funny you should mention cross breeding. If you read the works of Bede and Caedmon, then Caedmon explains humanity as being split into two factions. Cains decendants, and Seths. Seths were peaceful and lived in peace away from Cains descendant. Cain's descendants were war like and fought amongst themselves. In the course of time the two groups co-mingled creating the modern human race.

Excellent thoughts.
Shizz.

----------


## Jorrit

lol
there isn't any god or whatever according to my believes...
I believe in the evolution

----------


## Redzeppelin

Fair enough. Care to share why you believe so?

----------


## roger_roger_m

Thank you for the education. I believe the Bible to be literal without contradiction and accurate scientifically and no I do not believe the earth is the center of the universe. I always enjoy speaking with people who believe in evolution because they have so few answers and so many misconceptions about the Bible. 

I have learned from the kind and open-minded evolutionist that I am stupid, ignorant, and blind. Also that I accept any myth, and the things I have seen by evolutionary scientist that are error are truth (even though they later admitted them as false). I have learned that facts said and statistics created on the number of scientist that reject creation are true even though they are made up numbers.

Honestly some of the arguments against the Bible are somewhat inane. I can accept someone disagreeing with me and not insult him. My guess is those who have been so vociferous against Christians who believe in Creation are liberals. Liberals are the most narrow-minded people alive. Please notice I did not call childish names. Disagree like adults and not like 3rd graders. tsktsktsk

----------


## hyperborean

> I always enjoy speaking with people who believe in evolution because they have so few answers and so many misconceptions about the Bible.


It's the history behind the bible that gives me fuel to reject the religion I've followed through childhood. You guys are the ones without any answers. Like parrots you repeat words like "faith" and "God".

----------


## Orionsbelt

If I were to say that it appears to many who understand evolution that the process is no accident. It is not so random. It appears to have a goal.... no proof... that evolution favors the development of intelligent creatures. Those with more a neurons and finely developed nervous systems.. Perhaps as an expression of something deeper. 

Suppose that you were a Hebrew poet. Knowing what you knew, you chose to express it to others from the heart... then evening came and morning followed on the next day... 

So what poem would an evolutionist write knowing what you know? ... something like

This is my home, this is my only home
This is the only sacred ground that I have ever known
if should I stray in the dark night alone
Rock me goddess in the gentle arms of Eden - Dave Carter... 

Just a thought. :Tongue:

----------


## hyperborean

I'm not rejecting God. I believe in both God and evolution. 

What I do reject is that fairytale, which we call "adam and eve".

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm not rejecting God. I believe in both God and evolution. 
> 
> What I do reject is that fairytale, which we call "adam and eve".


Well, upon what basis do you base your belief in God then? I'm curious.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

My personal beliefs are a little different than anyone else's that I've read so far, so I'll put them out there and see what anyone thinks.

I believe that a person has an intangable aspect to themself- that is, a mind (not to be confused with a brain). It is this "mind" that gives us interests and what appeals to us. The mind is greater than everything else. 

I believe that it really doesn't matter whether or not God, or anything along those lines, actaully exists. What matters is whether or not you _want_ God to exist. I think that when a person dies, the mind is released from the control of the functioning brain, and it will create whatever scenario the person might have wanted. If that makes any sense; it's hard to describe what I mean.

So, it doesn't matter if a person believes in God or not. If they want God to exist, and they want to go to a fluffy white heaven, their mind will create that for them. If a person believes that when they die, they simply go back to the earth and that's it, than the mind will simply not create anything else for them.

In my case, I would like God to exist. I like the idea of there being a completely peaceful place to go when we are no longer people. So, my belief is that when I die, because that is what I want, my mind will create that for me. I suppose it sounds kind of selfish, but that's what I believe. 

Any thoughts? I won't be offended...

----------


## hyperborean

That's a really interesting way of looking at things. You believe that the mind lives on after the bodies death, and our "afterlife" is whatever we perceive it to be...almost like a never ending dream after death.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Regarding the mind:

The mind and the brain are not so separable as you think. When someone suffers from something like senile dementia, or some accident that dramatically alters the brain, and thus the person, what do you think is happening to the mind? Senile dementia is a brain disease that creates changes in personality and mental ability. Scientists can create experiences, sensations, feelings, emotions, visions, thoughts, etc just by prodding areas of the brain. Theoretically, by taking parts of the brain away, you can change the characteristics of a person can't you? So what does that say about the mind? When you have a thought, it is always correlated with electrical activity in the brain. I really can't see that there is a place for a distinct entity called mind in the brain. Where could the mind reside outside a living body?

Furthermore, dualism is simply not defendable as far as I am aware. No-one has come up with an adequate description of how 'mind' interacts with brain. The mind is a unified experience created by the brain; it is an illusion, a sub-system of complex material processes.

I suggest you read Derek Parfit's account of mind in Reasons and Persons, or the more easily digestible account by John Gray in Straw Dogs, or Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's What Does It Mean To Be Human? 

Regarding you view:

It sounds like a pragmatic point of view. The problem is, we might as well believe anything if it is of benefit to us. And if we did that, then our beliefs would be poorer for it. The value of belief would diminish.

----------


## hyperborean

> The mind is a unified experience created by the brain; it is an illusion, a sub-system of complex material processes.


Very true. The mind and brain separation reminds me of Socrates' body - soul separation.

----------


## Orionsbelt

and yet ....

there appears to be something else.... if things were all just physical what happens when people pass on for what appears to be no physical reason. The cells all work... the chemistry is all good.. no major malfunctions in critical biological systems yet.. what? If it is all mechanical wouldn't things just continue? On the flip side... and not intending to be insenstive, where was Terri Schiavo while the courts where deliberating? or .... some trees return in the spring... some don't .... what changed?

----------


## Wintermute

> Any thoughts? I won't be offended...


Hi Classic,

I think its a wonderful idea. I have two problems with it though. The first is physical--what is the medium for this existance? The brain cells are gone, no synapses are firing. Where does this happen? And my second problem may be related to my dim-witted imagination. But I'm unable to imagine anything or any scenario where I would be happy existing for eternity. I'd always get bored after the first trillion years or so...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Let me start off by saying that I'm still working out what entirely I believe- I'm young and I've only started to really explore my beliefs in depth recently. It was so much easier just to go along with what I was being taught!!

atiguhya padma:

I see what you're saying about how when the brain is damaged, so can be what I consider to be connected with the mind. I'll be quite honest with you and say that I haven't gone so far as to examine that to any great degree. I think, though, that while we are alive, our mind is controlled by our brain. It may have some creative input in our being (like I said, it gives us interests and what appeals to us), but while we are alive it is controlled by the brain. That's why while we're alive our brain cannot create a place for us like it can when we die if it creates a heaven or whatever it may be. While we are alive, our mind is subject to the chemical impulses and synapses of the brain. If the bain is damaged, the mind, too is altered. Let me emphasize my use of the word _intangible_. In this, I'm saying that the mind does not a require a place to reside. 




> It sounds like a pragmatic point of view. The problem is, we might as well believe anything if it is of benefit to us. And if we did that, then our beliefs would be poorer for it. The value of belief would diminish.


I'm not entirely sure of your meaning-please clarify!

And thank you for the reading suggestions, I'll definitely look into them!

Wintermute:

Thank you for your enthousiam! I haven't actaully suggested this belief to anyone until this thread. About your two conerns: Who are we kidding, I haven't worked out that whole physical part yet!! :Confused:  I'm thankful that everyone here has been pushing me to figure out what I mean! As for your not wanting to exist for eternity: I don't believe that you would have to!! If you thought that death would result in something other than permanent existance, than that is what your mind would create for you!

Thank you everyone who has replied!! Your comments will only help to push my mind further to decide what I truly believe. I'd love to hear more!

----------


## smartblonde2010

> if you're dumb enough not to believe in evolution, I can see why talking snakes and trees might scare you.



 :Flare:  who said christains are afraid of snakes and trees? your statement is blown completely out of porpotion.

----------


## smartblonde2010

> So, my belief is that when I die, because that is what I want, my mind will create that for me.
> 
> Any thoughts? I won't be offended...


so your mind just does w/e you want it to? how can you explain that? if for a moment there isnt a God, then when you die you die. your mind doesnt stick around living out w/e fantasy you believe in. and God sure as heck isnt going to let you fantasize a heaven when you deserve to rot in hell.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> so your mind just does w/e you want it to? how can you explain that? if for a moment there isnt a God, then when you die you die. your mind doesnt stick around living out w/e fantasy you believe in. and God sure as heck isnt going to let you fantasize a heaven when you deserve to rot in hell.


Eaaaaaaasy does it there, friend. I tend to be very careful putting the word "deserve" on the table in terms of God's judgment in connection with someone else I don't know. Take Classic's argument to task if you wish, but neither you nor I know the condition of his/her soul. 

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> so your mind just does w/e you want it to? how can you explain that? if for a moment there isnt a God, then when you die you die. your mind doesnt stick around living out w/e fantasy you believe in. and God sure as heck isnt going to let you fantasize a heaven when you deserve to rot in hell.


Oh my, aren't we feisty!! I didn't mean to offend you or your beliefs (Seeing as I don't now what they are), but let's see here. 




> so your mind just does w/e you want it to? how can you explain that?


That's not what I said. While you're living, your mind is controlled by the chemical processes within your brain. That's why your mind doesn't simply whisk you off to somewhere else while your alive. Once you're dead, your brain is no longer functioning in control of your mind, leaving it free to create what it will. If while you were alive, you believed in God and everything that is a part of that faith, your mind will allow that to happen. This isn't saying that this can change whenever it wants- you won't be in heaven one day and then in a completely different situation the next. There has to be great faith and resolve when you're alive for this to occur after. 




> if for a moment there isnt a God


I never said that there wasn't a God. I said that I believe that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a physical nature to God. 




> your mind doesnt stick around living out w/e fantasy you believe in. and God sure as heck isnt going to let you fantasize a heaven when you deserve to rot in hell


Firstly, I might suggest that you cannot say that your mind "doesn't stick around" after your death, the same way I may not say there's no fluffy white heaven. Neither you nor I have experienced death, so I will not think so highly of myself to say that anything "is" or "is not" after we die. Secondly, I don't think that I would call it a fantasy. For example, for a person who believes in God, when they die, their mind will create that for them. So in your statement, based on my theory, you're calling someone's belief in God a "fantasy". Finally, in the same situation, if a person believes in heaven and hell, and deserves to go to hell, then that's where said person will end up. If he or she does not believe in that, their afterlife (or not) will be different. As for your final statement, it does not apply to my beliefs if you've read through them clearly.  :Smile: 

BTW, welcome to the litnet!

And thank you, Redzeppelin, as always.

----------


## The Atheist

> Neither you nor I have experienced death, so I will not think so highly of myself to say that anything "is" or "is not" after we die.


Goodo!




> Once you're dead, your brain is no longer functioning in control of your mind, leaving it free to create what it will.


 :Wink:

----------


## The Atheist

> Eaaaaaaasy does it there, friend. I tend to be very careful putting the word "deserve" on the table in terms of God's judgment in connection with someone else I don't know. Take Classic's argument to task if you wish, but neither you nor I know the condition of his/her soul. 
> 
> Welcome to the forums, by the way.



Even as a n00b myself, I'll echo the comments welcoming a smart blonde!

I think smart may have been using a second person "you" rather than suggesting Classic deserved to go to hell. Godly/ungodly, there are some people we all agree deserve to go to hell. Stalin, anyone?

----------


## billyjack

> That's a really interesting way of looking at things. You believe that the mind lives on after the bodies death, and our "afterlife" is whatever we perceive it to be...almost like a never ending dream after death.


the movie "waking life" suggest this possiblity. its the scene when ethan hawke and some gal are laying in bed talking. or maybe its when somebody is watching t.v. anyways, its there.

and this topic is intersting. my input is this: belief in an afterlife is fine. brain studies of people who have come "near death" show that the happening which usually consist of a "white light" is associated with part of the memory cortex (meaning our last consciounce activity before death is remembering our idea of what death "should be like".) take that for what its worth. 

when i see people claiming that they've "figured out or faithed out" what happens after death, i think that is fine and dandy. but, this "figuring out" of the afterlife is often accompanied with testimony of the all powerful god outlining rules for this life. this is when i raise an eyebrow.

----------


## Wintermute

> . . .but, this "figuring out" of the afterlife is often accompanied with testimony of the all powerful god outlining rules for this life. this when i raise an eyebrow.


Yeah Billyjack, I does give one pause--particularly when its asking for 10% (or is it 15%) of my income.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Goodo!


Crap. That's terribly embarassing. What a bad word choice. You got me there haha.  :Blush:   :Blush:

----------


## HannibalBarca

we all know nothing and thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be

----------


## Redzeppelin

> we all know nothing and thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be


I know I disagree with your statement.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Evolution is something that does occur and that humans have evolved from a common anscestor. I am not saying that genisis is getting it figuritively right. However I am not naive enough to believe genisis as a literal text. There is no supporting scientific evidence for it being literal, and if fact there is a lot of scientific evidence that proves literal translations wrong. 

Just a foot note. Evolution is a hypothosis based on spontaneous generation,which is might say was proven impossible by Francesco Redi and 
Louis Pasteur. Anyway..spontaneous generation is impossible, it is apposed to 
scientific laws and principles....being the law of biogenesis stating that living 
things can only come from living things.Also the cell principle which I might say totally blows evolution out of the water...it states that all living things are divided into cells and that cells come only from preexisting cells.This is
considered the most fundamental law of biology.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> However I am not naive enough to believe genisis as a literal text. There is no supporting scientific evidence for it being literal, and if fact there is a lot of scientific evidence that proves literal translations wrong.


This statement is only correct if God isn't real; if He is (and is as the Bible describes Him), then the description in Genesis is quite possible. Science has its limits; understanding God is one of them. I contend that the blind following of science involves a similar brand of naivete.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I contend that the blind following of science involves a similar brand of naivete.


The difference, of course, being that you can repeat the experiments of the scientists and obtain similar results every time.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The difference, of course, being that you can repeat the experiments of the scientists and obtain similar results every time.


Depends upon the nature of the experiment. Some things can be tested and observed again and again. Other things can only be _inferred_ by observation and hypothetical _speculation_. Both do not carry the same authority. There are "scientific" beliefs accepted by mainstream culture that have no more evidential veracity to them than the Bible - but they are accepted as "fact" nonetheless (e.g. evolution as "fact" - homosexuality's "genetic" origin as "fact").

----------


## charles

> if you're dumb enough not to believe in evolution, I can see why talking snakes and trees might scare you.


However, Evolution is still a Theory.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> There are "scientific" beliefs accepted by mainstream culture that have no more evidential veracity to them than the Bible - but they are accepted as "fact" nonetheless (e.g. evolution as "fact" - homosexuality's "genetic" origin as "fact").


Well, there are several experiments that can be used to confirm common descent. In fact, thanks to the Genome Bank, you can do them yourself from the comfort of your own home (if you're a big fan of reading hundreds upon hundreds of pages of GATTCGGTATTCGTGTA).

As for homosexuality as genetic, that can be experimentally shown also, provided that your subject is a fruit fly. Human sexuality is a bit more complicated, however, and can almost certainly be influenced by a wide variety of environmental and genetic factors. I submit, however, that continuing this conversation is likely to make at least one of us angry.




> However, Evolution is still a Theory.


Gravity is still a theory. The atomic model of matter is still a theory. The heliocentric view of the solar system is still a theory.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well, there are several experiments that can be used to confirm common descent. In fact, thanks to the Genome Bank, you can do them yourself from the comfort of your own home (if you're a big fan of reading hundreds upon hundreds of pages of GATTCGGTATTCGTGTA).


The presence of similar genes/DNA or individual parts/capabilities may indicate "common descent"; however, they may also indicate a designer who decided that "x" was an efficient way to get things done, and, as such, equipped a number of creatures with it.




> As for homosexuality as genetic, that can be experimentally shown also, provided that your subject is a fruit fly. Human sexuality is a bit more complicated, however, and can almost certainly be influenced by a wide variety of environmental and genetic factors. I submit, however, that continuing this conversation is likely to make at least one of us angry.


Well, it won't be me getting miffed. I've already spent the last few weeks debating homosexuality and the Bible elsewhere on another site - at least 3 of my opponents left in a huff because I'm "deluded" and "won't think for myself" etc etc etc.




> Gravity is still a theory. The atomic model of matter is still a theory. The heliocentric view of the solar system is still a theory.


Not in the same way that Evolution is still a theory. Gravity is still here for us to check/experiment with; ditto for atoms and the solar system. What isn't here is the primordial ocean in its "virgin" state.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The presence of similar genes/DNA or individual parts/capabilities may indicate "common descent"; however, they may also indicate a designer who decided that "x" was an efficient way to get things done, and, as such, equipped a number of creatures with it.


Well no, not quite. There are about three different ways to code for any given protein, making an extremely large variety of different configurations for any given gene. There is no particular reason to suppose that any two organisms will have the same gene, or even remotely similar genes, for the same function, unless the two are related. Then there are things like transpons and endogenous retroviruses that have, at best, no function.




> Well, it won't be me getting miffed.


No, it will probably be me.




> Not in the same way that Evolution is still a theory. Gravity is still here for us to check/experiment with; ditto for atoms and the solar system. What isn't here is the primordial ocean in its "virgin" state.


And again with abiogenesis straw-man. Abiogenesis is not a theory, but evolution is.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

How can homosexuality be genetic? Homosexual sex can't result in reproduction, so homosexual genes would have been weeded out long, long ago.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> How can homosexuality be genetic? Homosexual sex can't result in reproduction, so homosexual genes would have been weeded out long, long ago.


Parlez-vous recessive trait?

----------


## hyperborean

there is no evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. 

here's some good links: http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html
index: http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

http://www.dunamai.com/articles/Chri...ty_genetic.htm

----------


## Scheherazade

Please let's stay on topic.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well no, not quite. There are about three different ways to code for any given protein, making an extremely large variety of different configurations for any given gene. There is no particular reason to suppose that any two organisms will have the same gene, or even remotely similar genes, for the same function, unless the two are related. Then there are things like transpons and endogenous retroviruses that have, at best, no function.


Fine - I'll assume you weren't contradicting my suggested alternative.




> No, it will probably be me.


That would surprise me.




> And again with abiogenesis straw-man. Abiogenesis is not a theory, but evolution is.


Sorry - I don't mean to argue fallaciously; my understanding of evolution is that the _total_ theory involves the belief that life began "on its own" without a guiding/designing agent and then continued to "morph" from there. If God is not the designer, then - at some point - naturalistic science must answer the question as to what/who began life and created the matter of the universe. That's all I'm trying to say - if I create terminolgy problems or appear to be constructing "straw men" - excuse me - I often lack precise terminology when discussing this topic. (I'm a _bit_ more precise when discussing literature... :Smile:  ).

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Fine - I'll assume you weren't contradicting my suggested alternative.


It doesn't quite contradict it, but it makes it extremely odd. There is no particular reason for an intelligent designer to code for proteins in exactly the same way in every organism, and there is certainly no reason for him to include the exact same non-functioning (or even harmful) codes.




> That would surprise me.


Trust me.




> Sorry - I don't mean to argue fallaciously; my understanding of evolution is that the _total_ theory involves the belief that life began "on its own" without a guiding/designing agent and then continued to "morph" from there.


Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.




> If God is not the designer, then - at some point - naturalistic science must answer the question as to what/who began life and created the matter of the universe.


And it hasn't. Yet. I agree. That's far outside the scope of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It doesn't quite contradict it, but it makes it extremely odd. There is no particular reason for an intelligent designer to code for proteins in exactly the same way in every organism, and there is certainly no reason for him to include the exact same non-functioning (or even harmful) codes.


It makes sense to me that - since all creatures live on the same planet - God might choose to encode us with some similar components. I'm no scientist, so I shouldn't persue this too far at the risk of saying something stupid; nonetheless, I don't know why considering God as designer means that each creature need be completely different from the next, all the way down to the molecular level.




> Trust me.


I'll trust your evaluation.




> Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.


Fine - then I'm railing (in general) at abiogenesis then?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I'm no scientist, so I shouldn't persue this too far at the risk of saying something stupid; nonetheless, I don't know why considering God as designer means that each creature need be completely different from the next, all the way down to the molecular level.


Well, because the specific similar genetic components we're discussing don't do anything. Humans and apes have genetic codes that are 98% similar, and about 70% of that is junk DNA that has no function whatsoever. Why God might see fit that we share inhereted traits that don't have any effect whatsoever on the actual functioning of our bodies is quite beyond me.





> Fine - then I'm railing (in general) at abiogenesis then?


Mostly. There isn't much to attack, however. It's only a colection of hypotheses.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well, because the specific similar genetic components we're discussing don't do anything. Humans and apes have genetic codes that are 98% similar, and about 70% of that is junk DNA that has no function whatsoever. Why God might see fit that we share inhereted traits that don't have any effect whatsoever on the actual functioning of our bodies is quite beyond me.


Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.


Presumably because it is more efficient to collect junk dna and keep it stored uselessly, than it is to eradicate it. We inherit dna from our genetic ancestors through evolution, and the dna that we do not need we neutralise, or exile to some safe storage area. Besides, it might come in handy later on in the evolution of the species.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Right - and why evolution would do anything similar is beyond me as well.


It's exactly what you'd expect, in fact. The only thing a gene has to do to become common is to be good at replicating itself.




> Besides, it might come in handy later on in the evolution of the species.


Maybe, but that's not wh it sticks around. Evolution is a blind force, and cannot anticipate possible opportunities for evolution in the future.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Cuppajoe 9,

You are right. Of course, there is no ghost in the gene. They can only perform to their abilities which is to replicate. Nevertheless, I presume that 'old' obsolete genes may find some future use, depending on environmental conditions.

----------


## The Atheist

> Cuppajoe 9,
> 
> You are right. Of course, there is no ghost in the gene. They can only perform to their abilities which is to replicate. Nevertheless, I presume that 'old' obsolete genes may find some future use, depending on environmental conditions.


That's a very good point, given the difference in time-spans between evolutionary changes and climatic or social changes.

Take human gentic make-up and metabolism as a classic example. Most of humans has had slower metabolism bred into them through natural selection when those with higher metabolic rates die off in famines. Roll forward to the 21st century and genes giving a low metabolic rate are suddenly not all that desirable - fast-food, high fat content foods and sedentary lifestyles are giving us nations of fatties. Anyone doubting that, just go to Google and type in "morbid obesity". Climate changes may exacerbate this, or alternatively may balance it out if food again becomes scarce.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's a very good point, given the difference in time-spans between evolutionary changes and climatic or social changes.
> 
> Take human gentic make-up and metabolism as a classic example. Most of humans has had slower metabolism bred into them through natural selection when those with higher metabolic rates die off in famines.


REVIVED (in honor of the now closed Evolution vs Creation thread):

Should we assume that some of these "humans" even had slower metabolism? Why would there be any variation? Why should some of these early humans have a slower or faster metabolism?

----------


## Pendragon

> Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.


I find this point good considering that I believe in both God and Evolution. And I also agree, Cuppa, that a lot of arguement could be silenced if people heeded what you have stated here: *For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever.*  The theory of evolution need not concern itself with what started it, we know it has taken place. I choose to believe that God started it. Others can choose what they wish. But obviously, things change and evolve. Man thinks that he hasn't evolved still? Go back and look at life expectency over history. And then check out what life expectancy is now. Daniel Boone lived into his 70's and was a very unique man for his time. Now, he would be just another Joe.

----------


## atiguhya padma

[QUOTE=cuppajoe_9;361905]

Evolutionary theory stops at predicting a common ancestor. For the purposes of the theory, it doesn't matter whether that ancestor evolved from self replicating molecules, was created by God, was put there by martian scientists, dropped in for a cup of tea from the eighth dimension or whatever. Any of those things could be conclusively shown to be true, and it would not have the slightest impact on evolutionary theory.

QUOTE]

But whilst none of them have the slightest evidence to support them, they are bear an equal likelihood of being true. However, maybe that is being a bit too generous, after all, god could not be proven to be the creator, not least because the idea of god involves contradictory notions.

----------


## MaryLupin

> but back to evolution . . .
> 
> I always thought it was interesting that, in _genesis_, there is nothing to suggest that there was only one god.


In fact direct evidence to suggest that there are many gods.

----------


## MaryLupin

> You know, practically a lot of the wisdom acquired by men can be derived from mythology (any of them).


Mythology is usually viewed as a culturally specific encoding of the wisdom gained by people through the experience of living.

----------


## MaryLupin

> However, Evolution is still a Theory.


So is gravity as was mentioned earlier. A theory is only as good as its predictive ability. The theory of gravity is therefore a strong theory because it can be used to regularly predict the movement of objects. On the other hand Creationism is not really a theory at all in this sense because it has no predictive ability. Creationism is an act of faith. Gravity (and evolution) are theories. Different animals. 

Have you read Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria?

see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

----------


## MaryLupin

> REVIVED (in honor of the now closed Evolution vs Creation thread):
> 
> Should we assume that some of these "humans" even had slower metabolism? Why would there be any variation? Why should some of these early humans have a slower or faster metabolism?


Probably for the same reason that some people have better vision, hearing, taste, etc. than others.

----------


## MaryLupin

> How can homosexuality be genetic? Homosexual sex can't result in reproduction, so homosexual genes would have been weeded out long, long ago.


Evolution is processed through reproduction, this is true. It is also true that actively negative genetic differences tend to be weeded out (for example anomalies that might cause acephalous infants. However, in social species it is not only important to produce an infant to carry your genes it is also important to raise the child as a socially integrated member of the group.  If that doesn't happen then the genes stop there. To see what happens when an infant is kept from the group see Wikipedia's article on Harlow's macaque experiments. 

The second point is that because our social nature is so critical to a functioning transition of genetic material, sexual intimacy must serve more than one purpose. In any social species intimacy also binds people, serves to reify alliances and break them as well. In a recent study of the bonobo, it has been clearly demonstrated that abundant sexual and intimate contact (between all manner of ages and sexes) can be used to create a relatively peaceful social group. Sex, grooming and petting are used to relieve tensions, to establish ties and to comfort. The desire to create stable relationships is a staple in the hominid line. Homosexuality is just one aspect of the use of a human ability to establish ties throughout the group. In this way, it can be seen that both homo and heterosexuality are necessary for the solidity of the human group. 

And the solidity of the human group is necessary for the successful rearing of the current crop of human infants. Therefore, homosexuality is an integral part of our evolutionary future.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Probably for the same reason that some people have better vision, hearing, taste, etc. than others.


Doesn't answer the question; merely states that the issue at hand may be connected to others via a similar cause/process/whatever. But no answer has been offered.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I can't believe we're talking Garden of Eden here on this website in the 21st century. I mean, how surreal is that? This is a literature website. People here should know about analogies and metaphors. They should be able to spot one from a mile away. Maybe we can discuss the tooth fairy, or the bogeyman next...
> 
> There seems to be a distinct lack of dinosaurs in the Bible. Can't think why...


Although this goes way back to your post #7, I didn't see it until today - when it lifted my heart from where all the literalists had cast it down.

I suspect the process may have been something like this:

Very early man # 1: This is a pretty scary, strange business, don't you think?
Very early man # 2: At times, yes, I do think so, but then I think maybe there was something or someone who started it all and who looks after us.
Later:

Very early man # 1: Did you hear that there might be something or someone who started all of this and who looks after us?

Very early man # 3: Really? No, I didn't hear it but it sure sounds good to me!
Later still:

Very early man # 3: I was thinking we ought to do something to stay on the good side of that something or someone who started all of this and who looks after us.

Very early man # 1: Great idea! You tell me what it is you think we ought to do and I'll see if I can get a few of the other people to go along with us.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Doesn't answer the question; merely states that the issue at hand may be connected to others via a similar cause/process/whatever. But no answer has been offered.


Because of the existence of genetic diversity within populations. Genetic diversity is the evolutionary strength of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual). It allows variation in a population. Why this is a strength has already been brought to bear here on this thread. Briefly, environmental conditions fluctuate. (floods, droughts etc.) Also we share the planet with a multitude of other organisms some of which can kill us unseen and in mass (viruses, bacteria etc) The best defense against environmental variability for a population is to vary genetically so that even if a good half of the group dies from starvation (say) there will have been some left (with slower metabolisms) to keep producing more descendants. 

Normally such disasters are short term and wouldn't effect the long term genetic drift in a population. Others (like the fluctuation of heat with ice ages) can and have effected hominid populations. The existence of white skin (with low melanin so that more of the sun's rays get through to produce vitamin D), for example, has been mentioned as one possible cold-climate adaption. So if a group lived in an area of earth where food supplies are often critically low, and the group lived there long enough to breed out those with a high metabolic rate then this could effect their overall metabolic condition. They would be "different" in this way from a population that lived in an abundant environment.

Re: vitamin D see http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C113681.html

or http://www.healthscience.org/content/view/192/80/

Here is a fun site about the origin of white people (with a bit about the vitamin D thing.)

http://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/D...ArticleID=2575

----------


## MaryLupin

> Very early man # 3: I was thinking we ought to do something to stay on the good side of that something or someone who started all of this and who looks after us.
> 
> Very early man # 1: Great idea! You tell me what it is you think we ought to do and I'll see if I can get a few of the other people to go along with us.


My favorite version of the creation of the permanent religious class goes back to something we used to talk about when I was taking my first degree in Anthropolgy. From what I remember it was about the _surprising_ coincidence between the appearance of the first cities, the sudden need to convince people to work longer, harder and for someone else, and the rise of the first permanent military force and the first religious specialists. There was even a story about it all centering on the god Marduk. The end of the story: his brother gods (his sister gods had vanished from the story by then) were so happy that Marduk had killed their grandmother (Her name was Tiamat and she was in favor of keeping things the way they were) that they started to build the first city in Marduk's honor. Then they realized how much work that was going to be. I mean the irrigation ditches alone were a real bummer. So they came up with a solution. They killed their grandmother's consort (Kingu); they mixed his blood with the earth of the new city. They called the result man---so the new religious men said. We were born to be slaves. Cool, huh.

The story is from the _Enuma Elish_ by the way, in case anyone wants to read it.

Another good text that talks about the transition from Tiamat-life to Marduk-life is actually a book of economic essays called _Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment._

----------


## MaryLupin

> after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil?


Did you know that Islamic myths about our origin have something quite similar to the origin-idea presented here? In that faith there are djinn. Djinn are beings thought to created from fire, whereas humans were created from earth. Djinn (root of genie, genius) were quite a bit like trickster spirits and thought to create occasional havoc, although they aren't considered evil in the current Christian sense. I do find the concept of creation from different _prima materia_ interesting. A being of earth (slow to learn?); a being of fire (quick to judge, impulsive?); a being of water (drown one in feeling?); a being of air (the origin of the idea of angels?)...

The Internet Sacred Text Archive has a searchable series of texts if you want to read about the djinn in the koran (Qur'an). I have just quoted a couple of lines here of the relevent material.

"We created man of dried clay, of dark loam moulded;
And the djinn had We before created of subtle fire.
Remember when thy Lord said to the Angels, 
"I create man of dried clay, of dark loam moulded: 
And when I shall have fashioned him and breathed 
of my spirit into him, then fall ye down and worship him."

----------


## ampoule

> Although this goes way back to your post #7, I didn't see it until today - when it lifted my heart from where all the literalists had cast it down.
> 
> I suspect the process may have been something like this:
> 
> Very early man # 1: This is a pretty scary, strange business, don't you think?
> Very early man # 2: At times, yes, I do think so, but then I think maybe there was something or someone who started it all and who looks after us.
> Later:
> 
> Very early man # 1: Did you hear that there might be something or someone who started all of this and who looks after us?
> ...


That's it! It's a conspiracy. I just knew it.  :Wink:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> That's it! It's a conspiracy. I just knew it.


Yes, indeed - and bout time you fessed up to being at the center of it.

----------


## impishmonkey

> I was thinking about the Adam and Eve story and thought of something, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil? Now this could explain how people have a balance of good and evil in them and how people can commit autrocities on in our modern times. Now suppose because of time that the tribes of good and evil crossbred and created the grey societies of today? Now how does evolution tie into this? Well the devil was not as powerfull as God so he would not be able to create a person directly but could cause the indirect creation of a person through _evolution_ .
> 
> Anythoughts, questions, arguments?


Adam and Eve were the only people on the Earth. It was from Noah we got different cultures

----------


## El Viejo

> I was thinking about the Adam and Eve story and thought of something, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven (eden) other tribes were also present in the world. What if these people not from heaven were people created by the devil? Now this could explain how people have a balance of good and evil in them and how people can commit autrocities on in our modern times. Now suppose because of time that the tribes of good and evil crossbred and created the grey societies of today? Now how does evolution tie into this? Well the devil was not as powerfull as God so he would not be able to create a person directly but could cause the indirect creation of a person through _evolution_ .
> 
> Anythoughts, questions, arguments?


Biblically, Adam and Eve were alone on the earth, as far as humans go. After being kicked out of Eden they procreated, and soon one of their offspring killed another. God made it known at this point that murder was a bad thing, and that we are indeed our brother's keepers. Apparently incest wasn't an issue at the time as nothing was said against it until Moses brought the law down from Sinai. Good thing God was OK with it for a while too, or we wouldn't be here.

It looks as though people either always had bad in them, or introduced it when they disobeyed and prompted God to boot them. No white, black, and gray people. Just people. Except for what Noah said about his sons. It sure sounded like Ham's descendants were supposed to be serving Japheth's, but most of the world has rebelled and outlawed slavery. We should be paying the price any time now.

There are some 'stars of heaven' and 'son of the morning star' and sons of God lying with the daughters of men verses that get a lot read into them. I can't see it myself. Apparently the seed of those mighty men of old, the men of renown, has become so diluted that no one stands out anymore. 

Evolution doesn't tie in. God made it all, just as we see it today. Except for the way we live, which has become hopelessly twisted, what with women no longer being subservient and most of the monarchies having been thrown down. But all the creatures were made just as they are now, and we were made to dominate and rule over them and the whole of creation.

Pave it now, before it's too late.

----------


## pbmn

Evolution definitely could tie into the Bible. It has been seen (not in a literalistic way) that since the Pentateuch (or the Torah) weren't written until a great time after the Babylonian Exile (which occured in 587 BC). The Deuteronomists that wrote the these books wrote to explain things that they couldn't understand, and to also teach the Jews how to behave and what to follow. Many stories (such as the story of Moses and Abraham) are seen as true, but there are many exaggerations in them (like Abraham's age or the forty years in the desert) that were applied to show God's grace or a very long amount of time. So, the Genesis story of the creation of the world and Adam and Eve may not be completely true, just used to teach the Jews that murder was wrong, that you are not to question God, and to not follow the devil and temptation. So evolution could definitely work with the Bible, it just depends on how you look at it.

----------


## El Viejo

> I don't believe God created the world, nor do I believe we all started as a single celled organism, frankly I don't know how we began, because there is no proof to anything, it is all just theory. . .


A note on 'theory.' Usually when we say 'theory' we mean 'hypothesis.' A hypothesis is a guess that we make, based on evidence seen and what we know. If we're bold enough to challenge and test it, and it survives whatever testing we are able to devise, it becomes a theory.

And every theory eventually needs tweaking again because we find ways to poke holes in it. Then we have to come up with revised hypotheses and still more testing. That's how we got from huddling in trees and hitting one another with sticks to driving with a cell phone in one hand and a latte in the other.

It's because knowledge keeps advancing that the flat earth under a colander model gave way to the globe with heavenly bodies swarming 'round it, which in turn gave way to the heliocentric universe similar to what we recognize today. Even this model continues to be further refined. 

A flat-earther could reject what we know now and cling to their cherished beliefs on the basis that it's all just 'theory,' but most outside that little society would laugh, ignore them, or back slowly away. Respectfully, of course.

----------


## El Viejo

> Evolution definitely could tie into the Bible. It has been seen (not in a literalistic way) that since the Pentateuch (or the Torah) weren't written until a great time after the Babylonian Exile (which occured in 587 BC). The Deuteronomists that wrote the these books wrote to explain things that they couldn't understand, and to also teach the Jews how to behave and what to follow. Many stories (such as the story of Moses and Abraham) are seen as true, but there are many exaggerations in them (like Abraham's age or the forty years in the desert) that were applied to show God's grace or a very long amount of time. So, the Genesis story of the creation of the world and Adam and Eve may not be completely true, just used to teach the Jews that murder was wrong, that you are not to question God, and to not follow the devil and temptation. So evolution could definitely work with the Bible, it just depends on how you look at it.


Lots of stories were created by different cultures to explain the universe, how it worked, and where it came from, back when we had no way of knowing the earth wasn't a plate sitting under a colander, balanced on a tortoise's back. I don't see how we can say that evolution and Scripture 'tie,' except in the sense that evolution can be said to have eventually caused Scripture, as depicted in those clever Early Man exchanges.

----------


## pbmn

> ...I don't see how we can say that evolution and Scripture 'tie,' except in the sense that evolution can be said to have eventually caused Scripture, as depicted in those clever Early Man exchanges.


I see where you are coming from, and maybe I should have worded it differently, but evolution and the Bible could definitely coexist quite harmoniously, maybe not tie into one another. Just because the Bible states something doesn't mean it is one-hundred percent factual, no "ifs" about it. So the theory of evolution (with man descending from apes) shouldn't have too much an impact on the Biblical way of life (unless your a literalist, then evolution makes about as much sense as green ketchup). It all depends on one's perspective.

----------


## El Viejo

> I see where you are coming from, and maybe I should have worded it differently, but evolution and the Bible could definitely coexist quite harmoniously, maybe not tie into one another. Just because the Bible states something doesn't mean it is one-hundred percent factual, no "ifs" about it. So the theory of evolution (with man descending from apes) shouldn't have too much an impact on the Biblical way of life (unless your a literalist, then evolution makes about as much sense as green ketchup). It all depends on one's perspective.


I've been a literalist and a non-literalist. I've tried to make the Bible co-exist peacefully with science, and it isn't easy. The Bible tries to be the one book you'll ever need for history, theology, ethics, medicine, law, and science. It has the odd nugget here and there, but we're well beyond just about all of it. Like an ancient medical text, it's an interesting curiosity, but dangerous to use as an authority.

Using medical texts as an example, many people adhere to the ancient one, justifying this on the grounds that all contemporary medical science is merely theory. And this is true, it is 'just' theory. Some try to find new ways of reading the old to make it agree with the new. With a little imagination, some suspension of disbelief, it can be done.

Here's what I see happening with evolution. We've evolved these big, curious brains, but not everyone wants or knows how to use them. Typically in evolution a variation either creates an advantage or a disadvantage which determines if the trait dead ends or eventually becomes the norm. Intelligence, in some respects, is ambiguous. Those who make and use better tools, have a clear advantage over those who don't. On the other hand, when it comes to basics like foraging or procreating, those who think the earth is round have no advantage over those who think it's flat. 

Where might this lead?

----------


## pbmn

It seems as though we are arguing over two different ideas on evolutionism; I on the fact that it could be possible in regards to Scripture, and you in regards of... how it affects our lives pertaining to Scripture?

That's how I interpret it, please correct me if I am wrong.

----------


## dzebra

> (unless your a literalist, then evolution makes about as much sense as green ketchup)


This stuff?
green ketchup

----------


## El Viejo

> This stuff?
> green ketchup


Just doesn't make sense, does it?

The purple was just as bad.

----------


## El Viejo

> It seems as though we are arguing over two different ideas on evolutionism; I on the fact that it could be possible in regards to Scripture, and you in regards of... how it affects our lives pertaining to Scripture?
> 
> That's how I interpret it, please correct me if I am wrong.


Maybe. I'm saying science in general (evolution, for example) is reason to reject the Bible as an authoritative work. Science changes and refines over time. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and his word is as unchanging as He. 

You seem to be saying the Bible is flexible enough to accommodate science (i.e. evolution) and that when science and the Bible conflict it's possible that both are right and our understanding of Scripture must be at fault.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Sorry to say, but I think that's silly..
> 
> I believe that all humans were created by God only. I don't really get your point with other tribes. I thought all men were Adam's and Eve's descendants ? :confuse:. The nature of good and evil are there in all humans since they ate the forbidden fruit. There's no such thing as seperation between good-natured man and evil-natured man. What I know so far is that evolution thing doesn't have anything to do with the story written in Genesis. It's purely about science stuffs.


There are many stories about creation. It is hard to say the version of one religion about creation is true and about others untrue. 

Therefore I do not subscribe to any religious theories with regard to the creation of the world.

I do not subscribe to any particular idea about creation. This thing we have yet to know. Even the theory of evolution too is not complete.

----------

