Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE BIBLE AND NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?
Kooka
Good post. I've been thinking for a long time that the theories of creation and evolution walk hand-in-hand. They're a perfect complement to one another, not polar opposites. Evolution fits within creation and creation fits within evolution. Some just prefer to pick a favourite and, of course, that's where the extremo's end up butting skulls.
posted by
Lensman
on July 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM
| link to this | reply
KOOKA
Once again, I do not follow the Bible for my beliefs, but if I did, I would still believe that the Bible neither supports nor denies the theory of evolution. To answer your question, I would probably accept the "in His or Our image" reference as a clearer picture of what God, Himself, looks like. I think that any evidence that the Bible supports Evoution is far too insubstantial to make that conclusion.
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on July 10, 2006 at 7:40 AM
| link to this | reply
gepruitt -- which account of
human creaton would be more valid to you?
the first one in Genesis 1:
| Gen 1:27 | So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. |
or the one you quoted?
And, you discover a hint at evolution in the story of the Garden -- where pepole had all they wanted, just like hunter-gatherers, then were "cursed" to have to till the ground, progressing to agriculturalists.
and women enduring the pain of childbirth when once they didn't.
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 10, 2006 at 6:30 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT
This concept does not work with where man came from, only that man has since then evolved into a different species. Modern man clearly can not be the same kind of animal as Adam was, since Adam lived to be over 900 years old.
The concept only backs up the idea that evolution happens and that it is foolish to write off the whole concept of evolution just because you dislike it. The Bible itself does not really say evolution can not or does not happen.
Adam being created from the dust of the ground could actually go with the idea of evolution, if you put in a fairly good sized time gap there. I won't try to figure the Eve being from Adam's rib thing out. That is just your basic mythological story.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 9, 2006 at 12:11 PM
| link to this | reply
KOOKA
If I followed the Bible for the explanation of such things (which, by the way, I do not!), I am afraid I would have to believe that the first man, Adam, was created from the dust of the ground and the first woman, Eve, was created from the side or rib of the man. Since no mention of evolution was made in that creation account (and most certainly not in the creation of the woman), the evolution thing would be a non-issue.
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on July 9, 2006 at 3:07 AM
| link to this | reply
its a fish story
the more distance from the event, the more fantastic it becomes
then again maybe they were talking about elephant years -- you know, like dog years -- 1 yr = 7 human -- so a certain number of human years = 1 elephant year
or is it elephant ears
or elephan tears
oh well
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 7, 2006 at 5:01 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - the answer to the age differences may be as simple as
what calendars were in use back then.
Appreciate that a uniform calendar did not come into widespread use until the time of Julias Ceasar.
posted by
gomedome
on July 7, 2006 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Darrke
Are you saying the Bible might have flaws in it? The years equal months thing could only work in some areas, since in other it would be saying that these guy had kids when they where five years old.
If people really were living to be that old, it would support the idea of evolution. To be able to survive to such an age and still be able to reproduce would mean that hey had a noticeably deferent genetic structure (Very much labeling them as a different species) than ours and truly could not be considered homo-sapien. We age the way we do due to our genetic code.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 7, 2006 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm pretty sure the ages before the flood are months, not years. So Adam lived 900 months...not 900 years...making most of the reported ages similar to humans today. Life span doesn't seem to be very good evidence of evolution in any case. Now that talking donkey...
posted by
DarrkeThoughts
on July 6, 2006 at 11:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
You must have posted that while I was writing my reply.
There are just those out there who seem to not wish to understand the actual concept of evolution. A fair amount of it is due to their won desires to misunderstand it. We did have a blogger a while back who openly admitted he gave the B.S. sci-fi logic of evolution when he was discrediting it, all the while claiming to understand that what he was making fun of was not accurate, but that did not stop him from wishing to follow what he knew to be an inaccurate concept of evolution.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 6, 2006 at 8:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
First off, once more you clearly do not understand evolution, since evolution does not go in one direction. Now to follow that up, what logic are you using to say that shorter life spans are less desirable than longer one? My locig does not at all say that we are devolving, which is really a term which does not make too much sense and is mostly used by sci-fi which are not really trying to be accurate but instead are just going with the misunderstood ideas. Outside of that, survival of the fittest it truly only about survival of the species, not the individual. All one needs to do is live long enough to reproduce and ensure the species survives, then they can die. Longer life spans should not really be considered an evolutionary advantage.
Unless the men and women in the Bible who grew to be two hundred or more actual aged the same as we and so where in really, really bad shape physically when they got to that two hundred mark, then they were not the same species as we are. Homo-sapiens age at a fairly standard rate. I do plan to write a actual post someday soon explain that we are basically built to mature, have offspring, raise offspring and then fall over dead. That is what our species(And all other species on Earth) are built for. If someone were to be able to break that cycle naturally, then they should not be considered human because they would have to have a noticeably different genetic code in order to be able to live such lengths of time as a natural life cycle.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 6, 2006 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - I can actually answer the question that you pose here
.... and at the same time use the first comment of this post as an illustration of my point.
There are two common misconceptions concerning evolution that are held by the majority of people. The first one being that to evolve means to grow bigger, better, stronger etc. when in fact evolution is non-directional. An example would be; some of the species of fish found in the deep and dark depths of the oceans have evolved to become sightless when at one time they had fully functional eyes. The second misconception is that "devolve" is actually a word in the English language. There is no converse word for evolve, the word "devolve" came into use simply because it sounds like it should be the opposite of evolve. This word came to us from the movies and television and is quite often used by laymen but you will never hear it used by a person who has studied evolution. That's it in a nutshell, most people don't know the meaning of the word evolve, nor the scientific principle of evolution.
posted by
gomedome
on July 6, 2006 at 8:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Uh, Kooka, it would seem using your logic that we're not
Evolving, but instead we're Devolving (if I might be so bold as to coin a term for this). We're not getting better, we are winding down! You'd think, with Darwin's survival of the fittest and such, that the longevity of life would continue or even increase. The strong would prevail and continue evolving ever stronger (living longer), while the weaker of the species devolved and died.
But also to use your argument, I'd say that we are for sure micro-evolving of sorts in that humans are constantly changing, depending on what we eat, how much, etc. Just look at obesity in this country -- right there you've got some microevolution occuring. Or perhaps I should say "micro-devolution."
And obviously, comparing people today with people in the Dark Ages who lived to be about 30 -- sure we're micro evolving. But we certainly haven't turned into an entirely new species -- changed from a human to either a super human of sorts vs a talking donkey or something along that line.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 6, 2006 at 6:58 PM
| link to this | reply