America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[cwes99_03]

This is in fact wrong, in my opinion, not because of my christian beliefs. Those who view the Bible as nothing more than a couple of stories and metaphores are not christians.

 

A christian is a follower of christ. Someone who studies the Bible and agrees to adhere to it's commandments. Those who only want to select what they want to do therefore are not christians, as much as they'd like to call themselves as such. Instead they are enamored with a human philosophy that says do some of these things that christians do, but only those that you want to do.

[Zythryn]

Cwes, which interpretation do you subscribe to? King James, only the original text, etc.

 

You stated you don't believe the 6 24hour day timeline for creation. How do you do that and not disagree with the bible (on the first day....).

 

I respect your faith, even though I may not hold that faith myself. I just am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[cwes99_03]

Gladly. Give me until tomorrow.

As far as which Bible I use, check out the "I am not ashamed thread".

[learnin to learn]

Cwes, which interpretation do you subscribe to? King James, only the original text, etc.

 

You stated you don't believe the 6 24hour day timeline for creation. How do you do that and not disagree with the bible (on the first day....).

 

I respect your faith, even though I may not hold that faith myself. I just am trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

well you have stumbled onto what I like to call the 2 different forms of Christianity. Fundamentalism, and everyone else. Fundamentalist believe the bible word for word. They believe that Moses parted the red sea, that the world was created in 7days, etc. Then you have people like me, who believe that the bible was created to help guide us through our mortal lives. We believe that god created the heavens and the earth, but it took longer than 7days. We also understand that the bible is a book written by man, and since man is not perfect there are many flaws in the bible. Also since the bible IS a book the men (and possibly women) who wrote the bible knew that they no one would read the Bible unless it was interesting, therefore some parts were blown out of proportion.

We use the bible as a guide, nothing more. We see christ as our savior, and we follow the laws of god. And the stories in it, we see as more of an inspiration to live a holy life, than actual historical events.

[Dov Henis]

A 15 June 2006 entry in my blog:

 

About Science and Religion

 

The psychiatrist draws a straight vetrticle line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: "what do you see?"

 

Patient, somewhat excited: "A standing naked woman..."

 

The psychiatrist draws now a horizontal line, shows it and asks: "What do you see now?"

 

Patient, more excitedly: "A lying naked woman..."

 

The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: "And what do you see now?"

 

Patient, overcome with excitement: "A naked woman lying with her legs up..."

 

"Man", says the psychiatrist, "You're sex crazy!"

 

"Doc", says the patient, "It's you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!"

 

 

 

Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings...

 

Dov

[Boerseun]

Dov, I read halfway through your post and thought that maybe you mistook the Theology forum for the jokes thread. And then I came to the final line, and I have to say this is actually a very good analogy! If you pause and think about it for awhile, it's actually brilliant.

 

Kudos!:)

 

Rep's a'comin...

[cwes99_03]

well you have stumbled onto what I like to call the 2 different forms of Christianity. Fundamentalism, and everyone else. Fundamentalist believe the bible word for word. They believe that Moses parted the red sea, that the world was created in 7days, etc. Then you have people like me, who believe that the bible was created to help guide us through our mortal lives. We believe that god created the heavens and the earth, but it took longer than 7days. We also understand that the bible is a book written by man, and since man is not perfect there are many flaws in the bible. Also since the bible IS a book the men (and possibly women) who wrote the bible knew that they no one would read the Bible unless it was interesting, therefore some parts were blown out of proportion.

We use the bible as a guide, nothing more. We see christ as our savior, and we follow the laws of god. And the stories in it, we see as more of an inspiration to live a holy life, than actual historical events.

 

And then you have me and many others like me. Who believe that the Bible is accurate. Who believe that mans understanding of parts of the Bible is flawed. Who believe that there are 100s of million of people who pretend to care about the Bible, but only the parts that satisfy their own imperfect desire. Who thoroughly study the Bible to discern the meanings of words and phrases. Who verify the historical events time and time again and can't understand why some doubt the ones that are harder to verify.

 

Okay does science contradict the Genesis acount, or do both sides misunderstand what the Bible really says.

 

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Note this does not say, on the first day. It simply points to an initial starting point for the creation of the universe. Scientists so far are in agreement with this idea in that they say the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old, denoting a starting point. Many scholars agree that this simple statement describes an action separate from the actions during the creative days. Day and night have not been set forth yet. There is no time period associated with this statement here or anywhere else in the Bible, therefore it took an indefinite amount of time to be created according to this opening verse.

[cwes99_03]

Sorry I was half way through a response when I got a call and accidentally lost my work.

 

Anyway.

Exodus 20:11: "For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day. That is why Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and proceeded to make it sacred."

 

Obviously the Isrealites observed every 7th day from sun down to sun down as a day of rest (while each sun down may not have been exactly 24 hours apart, we can obviously see that they were honoring a 24 hour day and night period.) Does this mean that the day after God finished creating things was a literal day?

One way we can see an answer is in the further command to observe a sabbath year every seventh year (Lev. 25:8) and a Jubilee Sabbath (every 50th year). So the day of rest also occured as a year of rest, and every 49 years as 2 years of rest (the 49th and 50th years). So the length of God's day or rest was not literally equal to the day of rest observed by the Isrealites.

Does the Bible attribute the time period of a day to any other length of time? Why yes.

 

Genesis 2:4 "This (the following) is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created , in the day that Jehovah God made the earth and the heaven."

Moses goes on to describe the events of all 6 creative days, but note in 2:4 he called it the DAY that Jehovah God made the earth and the heaven. Obviously, 6 is not equal to 1, therefore Moses is talking about a time period during which similar events happened. Does this happen elsewhere?

Do we not have a common saying (well older people use the term) "in my day" to refer to a time period or era in which we lived?

 

Other Bible scriptures in which day refers to a time period other than a literal 24 hours.

Gen. 1:5 calling the light day and the darkness night (only a portion of the 24 hour period was called day)

Num. 14:34 a day is equated to a year

Prov. 4:18 "until the day is firmly established" day is referring to a time period when the light would cease to get brighter

Isa 2:2 "and it must occur in the final part of the days" (days referring to a length of time not literally a few days when God would set up his kingdom and invite all the loyal ones to become members of his kingdom)

Dan. 2:44 "in the days of those kings" referring to several decades of time not just a few literal days

2 Peter 3:8 "However, let this one fact not be excaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

 

That last one in particular should leave no doubt.

 

Did all of the creation of the animals take place on just one day?

During the 5th day water creatures and flying creatures were being created. (Gen 1:21,22)

During the 6th day God created man (Genesis 1:26,31) but he was still creating the flying creatures and the wild besats (Genesis 2:18,19)

This shows that while some of the creative process may hvae started on one day, it was not necessary for that particular process to have been finished on that day (again bringing us back to how long did each of those "days" last.)

Also note that Genesis uses the word kind when refering to the creation of the animals. Kinds is not equivalent to the modern term of species. There were various kinds of animals in the sea, on the earth and in the air, as well as various kinds of plants bearing different seed.

Think of that for a second. Is it possible to have various different apple trees with different types of apples? However, aren't these all still apples? Would you confuse one of those types of apples with an orange? Genesis 1L21 says that things "swarmed forth according to their kinds" which both allows for variation within a kind and sets a limit to the amount of variation with in a kind (meaning that an apple did not evolve into an orange tree or vice versa, but they were created according to their kind). This is in complete agreement with the existing foxxil record and modern research that show that plants and animals (within a kind) have changed very little (mutated) if at all over vast periods of time.

The description that animals first appeared in the sea and air (insects) and later animals on land appeared is also in harmony with fossil record.

 

Do I think that most Americans know all this material? No. In fact, I think more than 95% would get it wrong if asked. I also think that many Americans would get evolutionary theory wrong, possibly stating that it is a proven fact that all life evolved from a single celled organism, which there simply is no proof of.

[cwes99_03]

Dov, I read halfway through your post and thought that maybe you mistook the Theology forum for the jokes thread. And then I came to the final line, and I have to say this is actually a very good analogy! If you pause and think about it for awhile, it's actually brilliant.

 

Kudos!:)

 

Rep's a'comin...

 

While comical, it has nothing to do with the thread as far as I can see. Perhaps you could explain.

 

Are you saying that religious people just interpret whatever they want to interpret based off of what tradition they hear?

I would say actually quite the opposite. Thousands of years ago these scriptures were written, understood and needed no interpretation, and yet they got things right. They understood that the earth was round, that the sun and the earth were suspended in space and not supported by any visible force. They understood things that thousands of years later, scientists were still arguing over.

 

No God created the lines, scientists have tried to study them. True christians let God explain what those lines are, and didn't make up things to fit their own fancy.

[Zythryn]

Other Bible scriptures in which day refers to a time period other than a literal 24 hours.

Gen. 1:5 calling the light day and the darkness night (only a portion of the 24 hour period was called day)

Num. 14:34 a day is equated to a year

Prov. 4:18 "until the day is firmly established" day is referring to a time period when the light would cease to get brighter

Isa 2:2 "and it must occur in the final part of the days" (days referring to a length of time not literally a few days when God would set up his kingdom and invite all the loyal ones to become members of his kingdom)

Dan. 2:44 "in the days of those kings" referring to several decades of time not just a few literal days

2 Peter 3:8 "However, let this one fact not be excaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

 

So basically a day can mean anything you want it to?

 

You don't see these different definitions as contrary?

If some are literal and some are not, is it left up to each ready to interpret which are literal and which are 'stories'?

[learnin to learn]

So basically a day can mean anything you want it to?

 

You don't see these different definitions as contrary?

If some are literal and some are not, is it left up to each ready to interpret which are literal and which are 'stories'?

 

well I wouldn't say anything. a day cant equal a million years or something like that... but something logical.

 

Just look at the bible with an open mind.., if something sounds blown out of proportion then most likely it was.

[Turtle]

Are you saying that religious people just interpret whatever they want to interpret based off of what tradition they hear?

I would say actually quite the opposite. Thousands of years ago these scriptures were written, understood and needed no interpretation, and yet they got things right. They understood that the earth was round, that the sun and the earth were suspended in space and not supported by any visible force. They understood things that thousands of years later, scientists were still arguing over.

 

No God created the lines, scientists have tried to study them. True christians let God explain what those lines are, and didn't make up things to fit their own fancy.

 

Poppycock! Rubbish! Balderdash! Galileo's experience contradicts every bit of what you say there.:D

[Boerseun]

Just look at the bible with an open mind.., if something sounds blown out of proportion then most likely it was.

Sorta like the existence of an invisible omnipotent and omniscient being, who's responsible for all visible known and unknown evils that we can't do anything about. Sounds kinda kooky, make-believe and self-contradictory, if you ask me.

[Dov Henis]

Re Religion and Re Bible

 

- Religion, being a component of culture, which in turn is an extension of biology, is one of the evolutionary factors ( not revolutionary, yet, I know, subversive too...) that humans artifacted when/where it served them well for survival. It has been functioning socially and personally for human phenotypes survival (comprising also a feeling of geno- and pheno-type self-esteem) for few thousands of years. However, being a human artifact based on faith and also in many cases (not all) favoring inherently and intolerantly one cultural phenotype to the exclusion of others, it has been becoming socially increasingly more disruptive and destructive. For the human genotype to survive it is sensible to hope and to plan to replace its faith-based ethical-moral foundation of civilization on a rational science-informed comprehension of the evolution of the universe and of life and of humanity. I think.

 

- I am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially to the "old testament". I am familiar with it only in Hebrew (my mother tongue) and I am also fairly well familiar with its evolution from earlier cultures and literatures in the middle east thus I am able to trace the evolution of its meanings and messages as the tool it has been for the survival of the Judaic culture-phenotype (Yehudi, from the kingdom of the two tribes Yehudah and Benyamin). But most of the discussions and references to it that I see in the electronic media are carried on by persons who have read it only in translation into another language, and furthermore they amazingly refer to the Bible as if it has been compiled and written in anticipation and in reference to present-day ideas and comprehensions of the society and culture in which they themselves live. This has always amazed me. It is unbelievable. I think.

 

Dov

 

 

PS re Bible:

 

And lest there is an impression that I attribute the reading of hidden meanings and messages in the Bible only to or even mainly to the translations, let me clarify that many are also the Israelis and/or Jews whose mother-tongue is Hebrew who likewise find those hidden or implied things in the Bible. I.e., it is not the language but the psychology/state-of-mind...that makes one see an image in the line(s).

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

Ok Dove, let me apologize ahead of time if I misunderstood what you have said.

 

You believe that religion (in this case chritianity) was created when these beliefs were needed for survival? Is that basically what you meant in your first paragraph?

[Dov Henis]

In my opinion as an amateur biologist-evolutionist religion is religion is religion as far as biological evolution is concerned, and as far as we now know the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis goes back around 100,000 years ago. I think.

 

Dov

 

PS: Dov in Hebrew = Bear, ursus.

[learnin to learn]

I'm sorry Dov,

But does that mean that relgions are created to help the "survival" of a humainity?