Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Audie]

You say you might be pleased to be wrong but you don't seem to countenance that possibility. The reality is you are accepting the status quo. Perhaps the status quo is correct in this instance but that doesn't explain why you won't address arguments against it.

Ultimately the issue here is that in most cases where we know what changed a species it resulted from "natural or unnatural selection of behavior" and had nothing whatsoever to do with "survival of the fittest".

I maintain we can't see the obvious because of existing beliefs imparted by language. Meanwhile religion seems to have the right take on things; behavior is paramount. That consciousness confers survivability rather than strength, speed, or intelligence should be obvious even to we humans whom are devolving. That there could be a creator and that this Creator might be conscious certainly can't be disproven by any of the tiny amount known by science at this time. And still everyone seems to enjoy an holier than thou attitude and sit at the very crown of creation.

Ok,whatevs, you know more about me than I do, and
more science than any scientist!!

Not bad!

For lo-

Withal, it puts you squarely in a proud literary tradition, of
bold thinkers who plunge far beyond the limits of ordinary people.

Faust, Frankenstein. Captain Nemo. Even Elvis, as a young rebel chemist.

Taking your pronouncements as the conceit of a literary figure, I find no
exception to what you say, but also, of course, nothing to discuss.

Carry on, boldly going.

 

[gnostic]

From the CJB...."And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place."

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Berei****)
Look it up in Strongs. It has a wider range of meaning.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

EDIT: Oh dear, the site's word police are at it again.

I was only trying to be helpful, by giving you a 1985 translation from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS).

You did ask for Jewish interpretations or translations.

I provided the only Jewish translation of the Tanakh that I do own, and it’s sitting on my bookshelf.

The NJPS Tanakh is just one of many, and I not denying their may be other translations that used “side”, eg the Judaica Press, which can be found online at Chabad.org.

It was just more convenient for me to cite a book that I have.

I am not trying to be “site’s word police”. Did my reply seem hostile to you? Was I arguing with you?

You request a Jewish interpretation, so I provided one source that I have, that’s all I did.

Man, you are being awfully paranoid.

 

[Deeje]

I was only trying to be helpful, by giving you a 1985 translation from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS).

You did ask for Jewish interpretations or translations.

I provided the only Jewish translation of the Tanakh that I do own, and it’s sitting on my bookshelf.

The NJPS Tanakh is just one of many, and I not denying their may be other translations that used “side”, eg the Judaica Press, which can be found online at Chabad.org.

It was just more convenient for me to cite a book that I have.

Gnostic...you read my post all wrong. I was not trying to argue with you but showing that, as @Jayhawker Soule had mentioned, there may have been a different translation in Jewish understanding. I appreciated your response actually but was after more. It was not meant as a criticism, I assure you.

I am not trying to be “site’s word police”. Did my reply seem hostile to you? Was I arguing with you?

You request a Jewish interpretation, so I provided one source that I have, that’s all I did.

Man, you are being awfully paranoid.

My edit was not a criticism of you either. Did you not notice that the censorship edit on my link blocked out a word that is part of the Hebrew Bible that I quoted......it is a swear word in English.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Berei****)

Sorry if you read it the wrong way. No paranoia...no criticism....OK?

 

[cladking]

Ok,whatevs, you know more about me than I do, and
more science than any scientist!!

No. I don't know one tenth as much as most scientists but they know a tiny fraction of a trillionth of everything there is to know so they are nearly as wholly ignorant as I am. The big difference is I know I'm ignorant and most people know everything. This is why I say the human species (homo sapiens) became extinct at the "Tower of Babel" and were replaced by our ancestors "homo omnisciencis". Each of us (except me who is completely ignorant) has known everything ever since.

That my theory would explain myriad things would not change my status as "ignorant" even if it were proven true. We'd all just have to adapt to a new perspective. This would be a perspective from which many "human" aspects of reality are more easily seen. It would provide almost no new knowledge at all but it might set us up to make great strides in gaining knowledge and understanding.

It was you who said being wrong is OK (I agree of course) but then ignore my arguments and misrepresent what I'm saying. Change in species is not gradual. It is almost always very sudden. It results not from "adaptability" or "survivability" but from random mutation and/ or behavior.

 

[Audie]

No. I don't know one tenth as much as most scientists but they know a tiny fraction of a trillionth of everything there is to know so they are nearly as wholly ignorant as I am. The big difference is I know I'm ignorant and most people know everything. This is why I say the human species (homo sapiens) became extinct at the "Tower of Babel" and were replaced by our ancestors "homo omnisciencis". Each of us (except me who is completely ignorant) has known everything ever since.

That my theory would explain myriad things would not change my status as "ignorant" even if it were proven true. We'd all just have to adapt to a new perspective. This would be a perspective from which many "human" aspects of reality are more easily seen. It would provide almost no new knowledge at all but it might set us up to make great strides in gaining knowledge and understanding.

It was you who said being wrong is OK (I agree of course) but then ignore my arguments and misrepresent what I'm saying. Change in species is not gradual. It is almost always very sudden. It results not from "adaptability" or "survivability" but from random mutation and/ or behavior.

I've no need to misrepresent you, to find nonsense.


Your statement about a "change in species" being
'sudden" is somewhere between nonsense, and so vague ad to be meaningless.

You just make things up as it suits you, as in the above, or The big difference is I know I'm ignorant and most people know everything.

Ancient language and ancient science are your fantasies, made up by you.

Did you know that no theory can be proven true?

 

[cladking]

Your statement about a "change in species" being
'sudden" is somewhere between nonsense, and so vague ad to be meaningless.

It is observational science, logic, anecdotal, and observed phenomena.

Where we can actually see what caused change in species it was sudden and normally caused by population bottleneck caused by behavior or mutation. Indeed, EVERYTHING that concerns life appears to occur with swiftness. Life at all levels doesn't evolve into or out of existence. One moment it exists and then without warning it ends or there is nothing and then a life, massive infection, or a new species.

It appears even life on earth likely was seeded here from debris in space. This is based on the huge amount of similarity between plant and animal genomes as well as the tremendous unnecessary complexity of the genomes. The simplest explanation is that when the earth was ready to support life the regular bombardment of biological organisms from space simply took root.

The point though is still that what we see and what makes sense is that natural bottlenecks or human imposed bottlenecks each based on behavior creates species. This is seen in agriculture and in domestication of the dog. It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents. The question we should be asking is what made these wolves so different that their offspring were dogs. The obvious answer is that they were the tamest wolves around.

There was another new species created just recently from minks. A mink farmer wanted animals that were tamer so that they'd be easier to raise and healthier. When he bred the tamest minks he got a new species.

Mutation and behavior are simply observed to cause species change and "theory" based not on experiment or modern metaphysics may simply be irrelevant. "Survival of the fittest" is likely a quaint 19th century notion to justify oppression of people and an unfair label to tar real evolutionary "theory".

So far as I know all the real observation and logic supports only sudden change in all life. There is no experiment to show significant gradual change other than where it is engineered to simply kill parts of populations less adaptive to toxins. Nature can work this way but most conditions on the face of the earth oscillate within relatively narrow ranges and animals have a tendency to migrate when conditions become intolerable. I wouldn't deny that survival of the fittest drives change in species, merely that it is primary in the real world.

 

[Audie]

It is observational science, logic, anecdotal, and observed phenomena.

Where we can actually see what caused change in species it was sudden and normally caused by population bottleneck caused by behavior or mutation. Indeed, EVERYTHING that concerns life appears to occur with swiftness. Life at all levels doesn't evolve into or out of existence. One moment it exists and then without warning it ends or there is nothing and then a life, massive infection, or a new species.

It appears even life on earth likely was seeded here from debris in space. This is based on the huge amount of similarity between plant and animal genomes as well as the tremendous unnecessary complexity of the genomes. The simplest explanation is that when the earth was ready to support life the regular bombardment of biological organisms from space simply took root.

The point though is still that what we see and what makes sense is that natural bottlenecks or human imposed bottlenecks each based on behavior creates species. This is seen in agriculture and in domestication of the dog. It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents. The question we should be asking is what made these wolves so different that their offspring were dogs. The obvious answer is that they were the tamest wolves around.

There was another new species created just recently from minks. A mink farmer wanted animals that were tamer so that they'd be easier to raise and healthier. When he bred the tamest minks he got a new species.

Mutation and behavior are simply observed to cause species change and "theory" based not on experiment or modern metaphysics may simply be irrelevant. "Survival of the fittest" is likely a quaint 19th century notion to justify oppression of people and an unfair label to tar real evolutionary "theory".

So far as I know all the real observation and logic supports only sudden change in all life. There is no experiment to show significant gradual change other than where it is engineered to simply kill parts of populations less adaptive to toxins. Nature can work this way but most conditions on the face of the earth oscillate within relatively narrow ranges and animals have a tendency to migrate when conditions become intolerable. I wouldn't deny that survival of the fittest drives change in species, merely that it is primary in the real world.

Just, never mind. Your fantasy world, and welcome to it.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic...you read my post all wrong. I was not trying to argue with you but showing that, as @Jayhawker Soule had mentioned, there may have been a different translation in Jewish understanding. I appreciated your response actually but was after more. It was not meant as a criticism, I assure you.



My edit was not a criticism of you either. Did you not notice that the censorship edit on my link blocked out a word that is part of the Hebrew Bible that I quoted......it is a swear word in English.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Berei****)

Sorry if you read it the wrong way. No paranoia...no criticism....OK?

ok. I see where I’ve misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[Deeje]

How is believing amoebas evolved into dinosaurs over millions of years and countless generations any more ridiculous than believing a fully grown, adult human can form from just a couple of cells over a period of less than 20 years?

That was my point. You Evolutionists have swapped what you believe is a fairy tale for another fairy tale. You have no reason to do that except that one requires accountability to a Creator and one lets you think you can make your own rules.....why wouldn't you choose the latter if you are not a spiritual person?

I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours. When have we ever suggested such a thing?

The Creator is like all creative individuals.....he likely designsed all the individual components and then constructed the finished product. Like the ones who manufacture computers or cars or anything that has many parts that all interact to produce a working model.

Who said it took less than 20 years? The Creator is not human and has no human limitations. He didn't tell us how long it took him to create each individual creature, but only what he accomplished in each creative period, collectively.....this demonstrates to me that he had some kind of 'schedule' or order in what he made, and when he made it, but it would not have been in earth years. Each day accomplished something that benefited the creatures that were coming in the next period. It suggest order and purpose to me.

I believe because we are 'made in his image', we reflect the Creator's qualities....and creativity is one of them.

 

[ArtieE]

I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours. When have we ever suggested such a thing?

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

 

[Deeje]

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

Ummmm...I think you need a womb to grow one of these. Chicken and egg scenario.....the womb had to come first. Eve had one and grew some of these into baby humans.
She herself was never a baby...neither was Adam who provided the swimmers.
They were both formed fully equipped to handle the assignment given....."be fruitful, become many and fill the earth".

That's logical isn't it?

 

[ArtieE]

Ummmm...I think you need a womb to grow one of these.

Doesn't matter. You said and I quote: "I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours."

Chicken and egg scenario.....the womb had to come first. Eve had one and grew some of these into baby humans.
She herself was never a baby...neither was Adam who provided the swimmers.
They were both formed fully equipped to handle the assignment given....."be fruitful, become many and fill the earth".

That's logical isn't it?

As logical as believing humans are fully formed by a god instead of evolving from two cells.

Your creation procedure would be like looking at an autopsy in reverse, right?

 

[Audie]

Doesn't matter. You said and I quote: "I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours."As logical as believing humans are fully formed by a god instead of evolving from two cells.

Your creation procedure would be like looking at an autopsy in reverse, right?

The "chicken or egg" thing is kind of lame, but it keeps
popping up again.

 

[sayak83]

Waiting for God to create some life....

 

[gnostic]

That was my point. You Evolutionists have swapped what you believe is a fairy tale for another fairy tale. You have no reason to do that except that one requires accountability to a Creator and one lets you think you can make your own rules.....why wouldn't you choose the latter if you are not a spiritual person?

This is laughable because, that people such as yourself, as a creationist, believing God can turn dust into a living and breathing adult human male, is nothing but fairytale, which we generally called “myth”.

That a serpent (Genesis 3) or a donkey (Numbers 22) can talk to humans, in human language, these are also called fairytale, which are often classified as either a myth or fable (stories of talking animals).

That the whole population of people talking in a single language, but in the next instance at the Tower of Babel, speak different languages and unable to understand each other, is another fairytale, more precisely called myth.

A lot of the miracles supposedly performed, including Jesus changing weather, walking on water, healing sick, diseases (like the lepers) and blind, raising the dead (the Lazarus episode), and exorcising demons from the possessed, are all fairytale.

 

[gnostic]

I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours. When have we ever suggested such a thing?

The Creator is like all creative individuals.....he likely designsed all the individual components and then constructed the finished product. Like the ones who manufacture computers or cars or anything that has many parts that all interact to produce a working model.

Who said it took less than 20 years? The Creator is not human and has no human limitations. He didn't tell us how long it took him to create each individual creature, but only what he accomplished in each creative period, collectively.....this demonstrates to me that he had some kind of 'schedule' or order in what he made, and when he made it, but it would not have been in earth years. Each day accomplished something that benefited the creatures that were coming in the next period. It suggest order and purpose to me.

I believe because we are 'made in his image', we reflect the Creator's qualities....and creativity is one of them.

You cannot compare god to car makers or computer makers.

If you have the time and will to track things down, you can track down any component of car, to who have the components manufactured, the machines used to make them, and even who design and made those machines.

You can track down real people who were involved in making the parts, designing the parts. They are not invisible people, but people who names, addresses, their social security numbers (if they are Americans) or tax file numbers (if they are Australians), parents, and if they have families of their own, spouses and possibly children.

But god. People may believe in god, but no one have ever seen god. They just believe in god, because they believe in books they called scriptures, which contained a lot of myths and false history.

But have anyone seen god creating anything?

I don’t think so. All people such as yourself, believe in the bible, which are nothing more than hearsay and great deal of superstitions.

Sorry, but I do question your credibility, when you believe in the fairytales within the bible.

 

[gnostic]

I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours. When have we ever suggested such a thing?

Now I don’t believe in two cells can turn into adult humans, but I do know that human can grow into adulthood.

And it is better to believe that human can be born, after conception of 2 cells, than creating adult human directly from dust as Genesis 2 say.

It is basic biology on reproduction, which don’t require understanding of evolution.

The sperm from the male is a cell, just as the egg coming from woman’s ovaries, is also a single cell.

The egg and sperm are each a gamete, and a gamete is a single cell, called haploid cell. They differed from other cells in the human body, because each gamete or haploid cell contained 23 chromosomes.

When conception occurred, the meeting of sperm with egg, fertilisation occurred, which involved a process of “recombination”. It combined the two cells into one cell, called a zygote.

A zygote now have 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs of chromosomes. If the zygote is viable, it undergoes a series of cell divisions and cell replications, where more cells are grown, to grow human embryo. (Note that these new cells developed are different cells to haploid cells, eg blood cells, brain cells, etc.)

Now I don’t remember the duration of each process (I doing this from memory from what I have learn from hig school, so times are not the thing I remember that well), but eventually the embryo turn into human foetus in the woman’s womb, and about 9 months after conception, an infant child is born.

Unlike most other animals, like other mammals, humans take years to reach maturity, reaching adulthood.

If you have any understanding of biology, you should know all this.

And there is nothing magical or supernatural about what I just told you, about the cells, about the development from 2 distinct gametes to zygote cell, from zygote to embryonic state, from embryo to foetus, from pregnancy to childbirth, from childhood to adulthood, all of which take time. It is all natural.

So you don’t believe human can develop from just 2 cells?

Maybe you ought to go back to school, and learn human reproduction.

The only fairytale I see, is that you believe in the whole human adult can be created from dust. Believing in such thing in this day and age, just show that creationists are still believing in dark ages make-believe superstition.

 

[Deeje]

I don’t think so. All people such as yourself, believe in the bible, which are nothing more than hearsay and great deal of superstitions.

Sorry, but I do question your credibility, when you believe in the fairytales within the bible.

Its a funny thing that "believers" believe. We are all 'believers' in one way or another. We believe things that people whom we have never met, say....why?

As I see it, we attach ourselves to a belief system because it serves a purpose for us. What we believe and who we believe has to have some kind of pay off....isn't that true?

Doesn't your stating that you believe the Bible is fairytales reflect your need for proof that you can see with your own eyes? If God came down from heaven and handed you the book, would you "believe" him then?

And yet, if someone hands you a science textbook written by someone you have never seen, you "believe" them....why? What's the pay-off? Is it evidence that you can see with your own eyes? You know that science cannot prove what they assume about the evolutionary past, don't you? It is assumed because no one was there to document it and humans only have what is left in the ground to make their assumptions. They interpret it to suit their theory...why wouldn't they?

From the tone of your posts it sometimes appears as if you are angry with God for not making himself more visible in some way so that you can believe in him. But the fact is, no human can see God because we would not survive the experience as mere earth-bound mortals. If we cannot even look at the sun, (despite our distance) without physical harm, what does that say about the power of the one who created it along with the whole universe? Our sun is but a tiny speck when compared to other suns.

I compared God to other 'creators' because of their methodology. No one can create complex 'machinery' without a full knowledge of the working components, how to assemble them and integrate them, and then how to power them.

When you own a piece of such machinery, do you demand to meet the creator of it, or do you just give credit to the person's genius? Every time you use it are you not moved to be grateful for its usefulness in your life?

That is how I feel about creation. Every time I see the work of the Creator, I know he is a genius and I am grateful for what he has made...even if its just beautiful for the sake of it. Beauty lifts the spirits in a world where destruction is the by-product of an endless quest for wealth and power, regardless of the cost to the planet. I for one will be glad to see the back of this mess when God brings it to its final conclusion. He has already told us what to expect. We can believe him...or not.

Where is humanity headed in your belief system? Are you confident about the future?

 

[gnostic]

Its a funny thing that "believers" believe. We are all 'believers' in one way or another. We believe things that people whom we have never met, say....why?

As I see it, we attach ourselves to a belief system because it serves a purpose for us. What we believe and who we believe has to have some kind of pay off....isn't that true?

Doesn't your stating that you believe the Bible is fairytales reflect your need for proof that you can see with your own eyes? If God came down from heaven and handed you the book, would you "believe" him then?

But god hasn’t done no such thing.

You are just making up hypothetical question about thing that happened to no one.

Did you receive the bible directly from God himself?

No one has.

Beside all, most of books within the bible, particularly the Old Testament, were written by people generations later than the supposed events took place.

For instance, the book of Isaiah were written by the same person, and half of his book were 3 or 4 centuries after his death. So many of his so-called prophecies, happened after the events have already taken place, which mean they are not prophecies at all.

To give you example, Isaiah 44 and 45 were in the 5th century BCE, added to the book, to include the exile from Jerusalem and their return, destruction and rebuilding the temple, all written, after the events have taken place, Cyrus’ involvements of return and rebuilding. That’s not prophecy, but a fraudulent claim to prophecy, since Isaiah was a prophet of the 8th century BCE.

And none of bible were written by God himself. So god didn’t author anything.

The question to you is why would I receive a man-made book, called the bible, from God?

You have provided a nonsensical question, you will get a rejection of your frivolous question.

Second, even if god do appear to me, then yes I would know and believe that he exist, but it doesn’t mean that I would worship him.

Why would I worship an evil god?

To give you an example why I think the Abrahamic god to be evil.

Scenario 1, god testing Abraham, by ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him, by showing his loyalty to god.

Yes, I know that god stop the sacrifice of Isaac, in the last instance, but that don’t mean god is “good”.

In my book, god is evil because he did order this test anyway, he demanded a sacrifice. The test itself is an evil act, and god is responsible for it.

He also had Satan test Job, so how is god any different from Satan, which most Christians considered to be evil. When Satan cause Job’s diseases and his children’s death, Satan was following God’s command. So it was his authority to make Job suffer, through mean of winning a petty wager, it depicted god not only evil and oppressive, but petty too.

In the New Testament, the authors depicted Satan to be evil, the Devil, the Father of Lies, the Tempter, the Tester, the Trickster.

But in the Old Testament, with the Abraham-Isaac episode (as well as Job episode), it is god who is the Tester and the Trickster.

Look it up, Deeje. Look up the Trickster, which is sometimes a mischievous being, and sometimes a malevolent being, who like to play trick upon mortals, like a series of tests. That bill fits God quite nicely.

 

[gnostic]

I compared God to other 'creators' because of their methodology. No one can create complex 'machinery' without a full knowledge of the working components, how to assemble them and integrate them, and then how to power them.

When you own a piece of such machinery, do you demand to meet the creator of it, or do you just give credit to the person's genius? Every time you use it are you not moved to be grateful for its usefulness in your life?

But the machinery are not in invisible, nor is it nonexistent. They are real, just as the people who design it, manufactured it, are real people, nothing like imaginary and nonexistent “god”.