No one should believe in evolution!

[Audie]

Sheesh A bit like pulling teeth but ok.

"Six day poof" is shorthand, and, yes, derisive.
Rightly so.

World wide flood is also an idea unworthy of
any respect as of at least 200 years ago.

If you subscribe to neithrr of those fantasies, great.

Seems like easy to have said in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From @Shaul 's post. I am sure that he will clean up his error in use of the Reply function:

"Here are some things I accept and or believe:
1) Torah is true.
2) The theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and within the mainstream of science.
3) Torah, including the Genesis (Beresheit) account, is subject to multiple interpretations.
4) Some interpretations of the Genesis account are in conflict with the theory of evolution but others are not in conflict with it.
5) Some conflicts between them are insurmountable, others not.

That should be enough to give you some idea of my perspective. One further thing which might preempt needless misunderstanding., I am agnostic with respect to sundry “day/age” theories regarding the creation account. Some are quite interesting, others are bubkes."

1) The Torah and the theory of evolution seem to be at odds with each other. For example we know that there were never only two people. Or are you merely reinterpreting the story so that it matches reality? What is your justification for doing so.

2) That is good.

3) That is true too, but one can only go so far before the interpretations "break".

4) I would like to see some of those that are not. They would appear to be a massive reinterpretation.

5) I would say that all of them are insurmountable. Massive reinterpretation breaks the Torah, or the Bible.

 

[Shaul]

From @Shaul 's post. I am sure that he will clean up his error in use of the Reply function:

"Here are some things I accept and or believe:
1) Torah is true.
2) The theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and within the mainstream of science.
3) Torah, including the Genesis (Beresheit) account, is subject to multiple interpretations.
4) Some interpretations of the Genesis account are in conflict with the theory of evolution but others are not in conflict with it.
5) Some conflicts between them are insurmountable, others not.

That should be enough to give you some idea of my perspective. One further thing which might preempt needless misunderstanding., I am agnostic with respect to sundry “day/age” theories regarding the creation account. Some are quite interesting, others are bubkes."

1) The Torah and the theory of evolution seem to be at odds with each other. For example we know that there were never only two people. Or are you merely reinterpreting the story so that it matches reality? What is your justification for doing so.

2) That is good.

3) That is true too, but one can only go so far before the interpretations "break".

4) I would like to see some of those that are not. They would appear to be a massive reinterpretation.

5) I would say that all of them are insurmountable. Massive reinterpretation breaks the Torah, or the Bible.

I don’t agree that know that there were never only two people. Where did you get that? The theory of evolution doesn’t require that. I can only guess you think the collective fossil record shows that. That is debatable.

All human understanding of Torah is incomplete and contains misinterpretations of it. That doesn’t break Torah. Torah itself, as an axiom of those that accept it as scripture, is true.

For your consideration I would like to suggest the works of Gerald Schroeder for an interesting variation of a “day/age” interpretation of Genesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder. I am not saying Dr. Schroeder got it all right. But his work is a good source of food for thought.
Here is a link to an article by Dr. Schroeder describing his take on reconciling Genesis and a earth which is billions of years old.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t agree that know that there were never only two people. Where did you get that? The theory of evolution doesn’t require that. I can only guess you think the collective fossil record shows that. That is debatable.

All human understanding of Torah is incomplete and contains misinterpretations of it. That doesn’t break Torah. Torah itself, as an axiom of those that accept it as scripture, is true.

For your consideration I would like to suggest the works of Gerald Schroeder for an interesting variation of a “day/age” interpretation of Genesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder. I am not saying Dr. Schroeder got it all right. But his work is a good source of food for thought.
Here is a link to an article by Dr. Schroeder describing his take on reconciling Genesis and a earth which is billions of years old.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

The Genesis myth tells us that Adam and Eve were the first two people. And I know the theory of evolution does not require that. The theory of evolution disproves that.

And yes, I know how many reinterpret the "days" to be ages. You are essentially making the story worthless when you reinterpret it to that extent. You do realize that Genesis has plants created before the Sun. How does that work with a day/age interpretation?

 

[Shaul]

With respect to conflict between the Genesis account of creation and science, there are several methods of handling it. (I say science since the conflict may not be specific to the theory of evolution necessarily but could be with archeology or some other science)

Option one is to choose to accept one (either one) and reject the other. Another option is to recognize the conflict but reserve choosing between the two. Yet another option is to struggle until the (presumably apparent) conflict is reconciled. The first option certainly has the benefit of being decisive. Those that are predisposed with animus towards either Genesis or science find it appealing, of course. On the downside it means giving up on whatever benefits one might get from the rejected part. On the other hand, option two also has pros and cons too. First is the tenuousness of indecision. Of course, since science is a moving target, the conflict could resolve itself. There is precedent for that with previous Genesis/science conflicts. Option three requires effort to do the reconciliation. It also has a problem that, if there isn’t truly any way to reconcile them, of interminable wasted effort.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With respect to conflict between the Genesis account of creation and science, there are several methods of handling it. (I say science since the conflict may not be specific to the theory of evolution necessarily but could be with archeology or some other science)

Option one is to choose to accept one (either one) and reject the other. Another option is to recognize the conflict but reserve choosing between the two. Yet another option is to struggle until the (presumably apparent) conflict is reconciled. The first option certainly has the benefit of being decisive. Those that are predisposed with animus towards either Genesis or science find it appealing, of course. On the downside it means giving up on whatever benefits one might get from the rejected part. On the other hand, option two also has pros and cons too. First is the tenuousness of indecision. Of course, since science is a moving target, the conflict could resolve itself. There is precedent for that with previous Genesis/science conflicts. Option three requires effort to do the reconciliation. It also has a problem that, if there isn’t truly any way to reconcile them, of interminable wasted effort.

Why not view Genesis as morality tales? They would still have value that way. They could even be in thought to be "true" if one did so. Not that they have anything to do with reality, but rather by teaching a true lesson.

 

[Shaul]

The Genesis myth tells us that Adam and Eve were the first two people. And I know the theory of evolution does not require that. The theory of evolution disproves that.

And yes, I know how many reinterpret the "days" to be ages. You are essentially making the story worthless when you reinterpret it to that extent. You do realize that Genesis has plants created before the Sun. How does that work with a day/age interpretation?

Actually, according to non-Genesis Jewish sources, there could have been other people, or people-like entities, besides just Adam and Eve. Have you ever heard of Lilith, for example?

The Hebrew text of Genesis does allow for a “day/age” interpretation. I don’t see how that makes it worthless at all. You are misreading the text about the sun being created after plants.

 

[Shaul]

Why not view Genesis as morality tales? They would still have value that way. They could even be in thought to be "true" if one did so. Not that they have anything to do with reality, but rather by teaching a true lesson.

A problem with that is that Genesis purports to be holy writ, without error.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Seriously, everyone read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, according to non-Genesis Jewish sources, there could have been other people, or people-like entities, besides just Adam and Eve. Have you ever heard of Lilith, for example?

The Hebrew text of Genesis does allow for a “day/age” interpretation. I don’t see how that makes it worthless at all. You are misreading the text about the sun being created after plants.

Yes, but Lilith is from mythology outside of the Bible, or Torah.

How was my interpretation incorrect? I can quote the verses for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A problem with that is that Genesis purports to be holy writ, without error.

Where? And if that is the case then it has been refuted. By claiming that you make it worthless.

 

[ecco]

Seriously, everyone read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.
​

Care to elaborate, in your own words?

 

[Baroodi]

But I find that divine revelation, prophecies and miracles equally problematic.

And I have seen Muslims, recently here, and in the past, using numerology, playing the number games with verses in the Qur’an.

Numerology, like astrology, is occult in nature.

Numerology is no more maths, than astrology with astronomy.

sorry to answer so late I was busy

telling fortune and extracting hints from Numbers is different
some Muslims tarnish Islam by misconducts as in other religions. Teachings should not be judged by what delinquent followers do but by the curriculum

 

[Baroodi]

Absolutely.

 

[Baroodi]

Math has equations and numbers. Where are they?

you are so bookish man

 

[gnostic]

sorry to answer so late I was busy

That’s ok.

telling fortune and extracting hints from Numbers is different

They aren’t different.

The way Muslims used numbers as if they holds holy or magical significances, are numerology and superstitions, just as fortune telling and astrology are.

Numerology is tied to occultism. It is just playing the number games, but in Muslim’s case, it relate to words, verses or chapters, and trying to match what coincidentally may match numbers from science.

This is the sort of absurdities are based on clinging to superstition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that I can still find a good woman, even at my age. Belgian lambic ales are awesome. Dodge Chargers rule. I believe in God. I accept science based on reason, logic and evidence as much as I can. I'm a entomologist and not a physicist, I don't have a complete understanding of all the evidence for the Big Bang. What I do understand,

Thanks for the lesson, I would like to think that I am making an effort to understand these types of science.
Please note that;

1) I try to keep abiogenesis separate from any topic around evolution even though I think that is a cop out because the implication of evolution is that life originated from a "primordial soup" or a "warm little pond" and moved on from there. I think, you cannot have evolution without the supposition that biogenesis is a thing. Strangely, to me, most posters seem to get really antsy when you try to combine the two things in one sentence.

2) Your bear discussion, while interesting, I think is about micro-evolution, mine was originally around abiogenesis so while I appreciate the effort which went into such a long post, I don't think it really is in the spirit of my original post. In fact, I would have to agree that micro-evolution is a thing so you really don't have to spend time convincing me of that.

On another note, I think that your comment "You don’t understand either abiogenesis or evolution" is a little unfair, I feel like I have, in fact, read an enormous amount of really trying and dull material on both of these subjects, and I mean real books as well as the online stuff that everyone quotes, and while I concede that I am not a scientist, I do take the care to brush up on any subject I am posting about. Admittedly, I may not always "get" what I am reading but as said, I am not a scientist.

There is no dependence of evolution on any specific origin, whether natural or supernatural. Once life existed with heritable genetic change, biological evolution took over. Primordial soup was just an expression of one idea of a natural origin of life. The only tie to evolution is that it has been mentioned in conjunction with evolution and was an idea expressed by Darwin. That is the end of he connection and not one of dependence. We don't know how life originated, so tagging a specific version to the theory of evolution is not only premature, it is incorrect.

 

[Thief]

I am of the firm opinion that no one should ever believe in evolution. Belief is based of placing faith in something. Evolution is a scientific theory. No should ever accept a scientific theory by faith. One can believe in many things properly, such as the innate value of people, or that your favorite sports team is the greatest. But scientific theories aren’t like those. Scientific theories can be accepted as correct, or assented to, or tested and verified, or a host of other empirical and scientific actions. But to believe in a scientific theory is an oxymoron.

Whenever I encounter someone that says they believe in evolution I roll my eyes metaphorically and think to myself that here is someone that lacks a genuine understanding of evolution and science.

I will now don my asbestos suit and await comments.

God created evolution

that incident in the garden was an upgrade
NOT evolution

 

[Audie]

I believe that I can still find a good woman, even at my age. Belgian lambic ales are awesome. Dodge Chargers rule. I believe in God. I accept science based on reason, logic and evidence as much as I can. I'm a entomologist and not a physicist, I don't have a complete understanding of all the evidence for the Big Bang. What I do understand,
There is no dependence of evolution on any specific origin, whether natural or supernatural. Once life existed with heritable genetic change, biological evolution took over. Primordial soup was just an expression of one idea of a natural origin of life. The only tie to evolution is that it has been mentioned in conjunction with evolution and was an idea expressed by Darwin. That is the end of he connection and not one of dependence. We don't know how life originated, so tagging a specific version to the theory of evolution is not only premature, it is incorrect.

Entomology...what specialty?