Why does God care about some mammal species floating around in the middle of nowhere?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I seem to recall, you were the one that said this...
To have equal quality evidence of god, one would have to be able to observe god doing his work.

I am only pointing out the need for you to fairly apply the same reasoning to yourself .
So when did you see whales evolve from four footed creatures?

I don't know on which planet you live, but over here on this planet, we have these things called fossils, genetics, comparative genomics, phylogenies, comparative anatomy,....

All of which are things that can very much be studied and observed.

One doesn't need to observe an event first hand to be able to rationally determine that the event took place.
Events of the past leave evidence that can be studied in the present.

That is, after all, the very logic according to which literally every crime that was ever solved, was actually solved. We can't go back in time to witness a murder first hand. But we can sure enough study all the evidence, piece it together and come to a conclusion of who did it, when and how.

It does not matter to me how you choose to interpret evidence

It actually seems more of a case of you not caring about evidence, full stop.

Every person interprets evidence, and those interpretations are different.

That is simply not true. There very much is consensus about what this evidence means among paleontologists etc. You know... the people that are actually qualified to evaluate such evidence.

Much like how a medical doctor isn't qualified to diagnose computer problems or how IT experts aren't qualified to diagnose a brown spot on your skin.

If you doubt me, just ask any scientist, since your faith seems to be built on their opinions.

I have no need for faith, I have evidence.
And yes, scientists are qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. And their consensus is that whale ancestors where land animals.


I also note you conveniently skipped over the part where ancestral whale fossils, just like Tiktaalik, were found by prediction. Predictions made, based on evolution theory and everything we know about evolutionary history.

How is it possible that paleontoligsts knew in advance where they would be able to find a creature like Tiktaalik, hundreds of millions years old, AND accurately predict the anatomical traits it would have, all based on evolution theory, if evolution theory is ow so false supposedly?

 

[sojourner]

Then perhaps you should be clearer.

Perhaps you should think more broadly and not assume so much.

 

[sojourner]

It actually doesn't.

Theology plays out entirely in a theologian's brain.
Theology is not a study of the external world.

Here we go again.
Theology is a study of particular ways in which the human community understands and makes meaning of the realities we encounter.

It patently doesn’t involve making things up. Patterns of thinking, cultural paradigms, societal metaphors are as much part of the real world as are the different ways in which we quantify things.

 

[sojourner]

What does that mean?

It means you need to get out of your own head and realize that there many ways both to perceive the Divine and to understand existence. I don’t particularly believe that God is some existent being. I believe that God is Being, itself. God does not exist as a particular thing in the universe,, but is existence, itself.

If you can’t wrap your mind around that concept, there’s no helping you. God is Creative Principle, God is the Power and Energy and Dynamic of the creative process. It’s the difference between atomistic thinking (you) and organic thinking. You see everything as some individual something that happens to have existence with a lot of other individual things. I see everything as parts of a larger, organic whole, whose very existent principle is God.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but if I make a puppet out of wood, that puppet is not my child. God made man out of mud and gave him the potential to become His children. Other animals do not have that potential.

Where did the mud come from? How did humanity become living beings? The mud comes from God’s essence. Life comes from God’s breath. We come out of God and contain God’s life force. I’d say that pretty much makes us God’s children.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps you should think more broadly and not assume so much.

I'm not a mindreader.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here we go again.
Theology is a study of particular ways in which the human community understands and makes meaning of the realities we encounter.

Errr, no. Theology is the study of religious beliefs in terms of the "nature of the supernatural and revelation".
Without religion, theology has no raison d'être. It has no real substance and nothing "real" to study.

It patently doesn’t involve making things up. Patterns of thinking, cultural paradigms, societal metaphors are as much part of the real world as are the different ways in which we quantify things.

You seem to be confusing theology with social studies and psychology.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not a mindreader.

I didn’t say you should be. I do expect that you’ll pay attention and read closer. I’ve been very clear in my writing. It appears as though you have so many preconceived notions of how a Christian understands God, that you’re getting in your own way. Not all Christians read the texts literalistically, and not all conceive of God as an invisible sky daddy whose existence is a magical mystery.

 

[sojourner]

Errr, no. Theology is the study of religious beliefs in terms of the "nature of the supernatural and revelation

No. Theology does include those things, but is not exclusively those things.

You seem to be confusing theology with social studies and psychology

Theology does take into account philosophy, psychology, sociology, ecology, anthropology, and some other disciplines like mythology.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think you named yourself well:lostwanderingsoul.

As I see it, religion has corrupted your view. You are living in their box of beliefs. Perhaps. a peek out of the box into reality might show you that reality is better. Creation has never been making mud pie puppets. Stories might be entertaining but never add up like reality.

I would truly like to hear reality if you know it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It means you need to get out of your own head and realize that there many ways both to perceive the Divine and to understand existence. I don’t particularly believe that God is some existent being. I believe that God is Being, itself. God does not exist as a particular thing in the universe,, but is existence, itself.

So, to you, god and the universe are the exact same thing?

If you can’t wrap your mind around that concept, there’s no helping you.

So far, it sounds like word salad.
That's not meant to be insulting or anything.
It just means that I can't make heads or tails about it.

God is Creative Principle, God is the Power and Energy and Dynamic of the creative process

See... it's stuff like that. I see english words strung together in some kind of sentence, but it doesn't seem to mean anything. What's with the capital letters? What do you mean "the power and energy and dynamic of the creative process"?

I'm a drummer. When I create a drum groove, is this God you refer to part of that somehow?
If not, then what are you refering to when you say "the creative process"?

It’s the difference between atomistic thinking (you) and organic thinking. You see everything as some individual something that happens to have existence with a lot of other individual things. I see everything as parts of a larger, organic whole, whose very existent principle is God.

lol, I'm almost afraid to repeat it once more but.... again, I have no idea what this means.

Seems to me like you are talking poeticly / metaphorically and I have no idea how that translates to, or is supposed to translate to, actual reality.


Sounds like we are not going to succeed in communicating. I'm sorry to say that I really don't understand a word you're saying. It's so vague and metaphorical that I have no clue what you truelly mean.

O well.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Where did the mud come from? How did humanity become living beings? The mud comes from God’s essence. Life comes from God’s breath. We come out of God and contain God’s life force. I’d say that pretty much makes us God’s children.

I must have missed that class when I was learning where children come from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I’ve been very clear in my writing

I have to disagree to the extreme.
I think your writings are anything but clear. Your posts are so vague and metaphorical that I'm not even sure how to formulate my clarification questions.

It appears as though you have so many preconceived notions of how a Christian understands God, that you’re getting in your own way.

Not really. In fact, I'm off the opinion that there are about as much understandings of God(s) as their are theists in the world. I can ask 10 people to define their god to me and chances are rather real that I'll get 10 different answers. Even when the 10 people supposedly follow the same religion.

Not all Christians read the texts literalistically, and not all conceive of God as an invisible sky daddy whose existence is a magical mystery.

I am very much aware of that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Theology does include those things, but is not exclusively those things.


Theology does take into account philosophy, psychology, sociology, ecology, anthropology, and some other disciplines like mythology.

I heared this argument once, not sure where. I'm paraphrasing:

Imagine a biologist or physicist going back in time 100 years. He could go to a university and tell them all the things we've discovered this past century and those people from 100 years ago will be blown away.
However, if a theologist goes back even 500 years - that person would barely, if at all, be able to tell them something new.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know on which planet you live, but over here on this planet, we have these things called fossils, genetics, comparative genomics, phylogenies, comparative anatomy,....

Ooh. How insulting.
Yup. He hates my guts.
Too bad some Athletes get all riled up, and show their anger , whenever their religion come under fire, or someone disagree with their accepted view.
Yup. Your philosophies are religious beliefs.

All of which are things that can very much be studied and observed.

One doesn't need to observe an event first hand to be able to rationally determine that the event took place.
Events of the past leave evidence that can be studied in the present.

That is, after all, the very logic according to which literally every crime that was ever solved, was actually solved. We can't go back in time to witness a murder first hand. But we can sure enough study all the evidence, piece it together and come to a conclusion of who did it, when and how.

That's right.
So we see fully formed complex organisms of all life-forms basically, just appear on the scene, and they remain the same till now - never changing, and we have evidence of intelligent agents carrying out tasks, with an intelligent mind communicating information into planning.
Manufacturing various vehicles from the same materials, and with similar design features, doesn't say much, other than they had been designed with a similar plan, and by similar minds.
Yes the evidence is indeed overwhelmingly in favor of creation.

It actually seems more of a case of you not caring about evidence, full stop.


That is simply not true. There very much is consensus about what this evidence means among paleontologists etc. You know... the people that are actually qualified to evaluate such evidence.

Much like how a medical doctor isn't qualified to diagnose computer problems or how IT experts aren't qualified to diagnose a brown spot on your skin.



I have no need for faith, I have evidence.
And yes, scientists are qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. And their consensus is that whale ancestors where land animals.


I also note you conveniently skipped over the part where ancestral whale fossils, just like Tiktaalik, were found by prediction. Predictions made, based on evolution theory and everything we know about evolutionary history.

How is it possible that paleontoligsts knew in advance where they would be able to find a creature like Tiktaalik, hundreds of millions years old, AND accurately predict the anatomical traits it would have, all based on evolution theory, if evolution theory is ow so false supposedly?

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
Flight
As in the wings of modern birds, the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were somewhat asymmetrical and the tail feathers were rather broad. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation, but it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was capable of flapping flight or simply a glider.
...................
According to a study by Philip Senter in 2006, Archaeopteryx was indeed unable to use flapping flight as modern birds do, but it may well have used a downstroke-only flap-assisted gliding technique.
...................
The feathers of Archaeopteryx were asymmetrical. This has been interpreted as evidence that it was a flyer, because flightless birds tend to have symmetrical feathers. Some scientists, including Thomson and Speakman, have questioned this. They studied more than 70 families of living birds, and found that some flightless types do have a range of asymmetry in their feathers, and that the feathers of Archaeopteryx fall into this range.
....................
In 2010, Robert L. Nudds and Gareth J. Dyke in the journal Science published a paper in which they analysed the rachises of the primary feathers of Confuciusornis and Archaeopteryx. The analysis suggested that the rachises on these two genera were thinner and weaker than those of modern birds relative to body mass. The authors determined that Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, were unable to use flapping flight. This study was criticized by Philip J. Currie and Luis Chiappe. Chiappe suggested that it is difficult to measure the rachises of fossilized feathers, and Currie speculated that Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis must have been able to fly to some degree, as their fossils are preserved in what is believed to have been marine or lake sediments, suggesting that they must have been able to fly over deep water. Gregory Paul also disagreed with the study, arguing in a 2010 response that Nudds and Dyke had overestimated the masses of these early birds, and that more accurate mass estimates allowed powered flight even with relatively narrow rachises. Nudds and Dyke had assumed a mass of 250 g (8.8 oz) for the Munich specimen Archaeopteryx, a young juvenile, based on published mass estimates of larger specimens. Paul argued that a more reasonable body mass estimate for the Munich specimen is about 140 g (4.9 oz). Paul also criticized the measurements of the rachises themselves, noting that the feathers in the Munich specimen are poorly preserved. Nudds and Dyke reported a diameter of 0.75 mm (0.03 in) for the longest primary feather, which Paul could not confirm using photographs. Paul measured some of the inner primary feathers, finding rachises 1.25–1.4 mm (0.049–0.055 in) across. Despite these criticisms, Nudds and Dyke stood by their original conclusions. They claimed that Paul's statement, that an adult Archaeopteryx would have been a better flyer than the juvenile Munich specimen, was dubious. This, they reasoned, would require an even thicker rachis, evidence for which has not yet been presented. Another possibility is that they had not achieved true flight, but instead used their wings as aids for extra lift while running over water after the fashion of the basilisk lizard, which could explain their presence in lake and marine deposits (see Evolution of bird flight).
.......................
Recent studies of flight feather barb geometry reveal that modern birds possess a larger barb angle in the trailing vane of the feather, whereas Archaeopteryx lacks this large barb angle, indicating potentially weak flight abilities.
........................
Archaeopteryx continues to play an important part in scientific debates about the origin and evolution of birds. Some scientists see it as a semi-arboreal climbing animal, following the idea that birds evolved from tree-dwelling gliders (the "trees down" hypothesis for the evolution of flight proposed by O. C. Marsh). Other scientists see Archaeopteryx as running quickly along the ground, supporting the idea that birds evolved flight by running (the "ground up" hypothesis proposed by Samuel Wendell Williston). Still others suggest that Archaeopteryx might have been at home both in the trees and on the ground, like modern crows, and this latter view is what currently is considered best-supported by morphological characters. Altogether, it appears that the species was not particularly specialized for running on the ground or for perching. A scenario outlined by Elżanowski in 2002 suggested that Archaeopteryx used its wings mainly to escape predators by glides punctuated with shallow downstrokes to reach successively higher perches, and alternatively, to cover longer distances (mainly) by gliding down from cliffs or treetops.

Phylogenetic position
Modern paleontology has often classified Archaeopteryx as the most primitive bird. It is not thought to be a true ancestor of modern birds, but rather, a close relative of that ancestor. Nonetheless, Archaeopteryx was often used as a model of the true ancestral bird. Several authors have done so. Lowe (1935) and Thulborn (1984) questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx. Barsbold (1983) and Zweers and Van den Berge (1997) noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and they suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.

The discovery of the closely related Xiaotingia in 2011 led to new phylogenetic analyses that suggested that Archaeopteryx is a deinonychosaur rather than an avialan, and therefore, not a "bird" under most common uses of that term. A more thorough analysis was published soon after to test this hypothesis, and failed to arrive at the same result; it found Archaeopteryx in its traditional position at the base of Avialae, while Xiaotingia was recovered as a basal dromaeosaurid or troodontid. The authors of the follow-up study noted that uncertainties still exist, and that it may not be possible to state confidently whether or not Archaeopteryx is a member of Avialae or not, barring new and better specimens of relevant species.

So they don't have different interpretations...

 

[sojourner]

So, to you, god and the universe are the exact same thing?

Not quite. That’s what we call “pantheism.” You can look it up. What I suggest is pannentheism. More like God is found within everything.

So far, it sounds like word salad.
That's not meant to be insulting or anything.
It just means that I can't make heads or tails about it.

That’s ok. You’re not used to thinking in that way.

I'm a drummer. When I create a drum groove, is this God you refer to part of that somehow?
If not, then what are you refering to when you say "the creative process"?

Yes, but not just your creativity — more the force of all creativity. When we create, we’re “tapping into” God, IMO.

Seems to me like you are talking poeticly / metaphorically and I have no idea how that translates to, or is supposed to translate to, actual reality.

YES!! All theological language is metaphoric, because that’s the only way we can grasp the concepts in language. The character “God” in the Bible is a metaphor.

For my money, any time someone talks religion, Divinity, spirituality, they’re talking in metaphor. They may not think they are; but I believe they are. God is too vast for us to wrap our minds completely around.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Where did the mud come from? How did humanity become living beings? The mud comes from God’s essence. Life comes from God’s breath. We come out of God and contain God’s life force. I’d say that pretty much makes us God’s children.

You probably do not believe the Bible but John 1:12 says that God gives SOME people the power to BECOME His children. That pretty much means some are not His children.

 

[sojourner]

I heared this argument once, not sure where. I'm paraphrasing:

Imagine a biologist or physicist going back in time 100 years. He could go to a university and tell them all the things we've discovered this past century and those people from 100 years ago will be blown away.
However, if a theologist goes back even 500 years - that person would barely, if at all, be able to tell them something new.

Well... ok. Theology doesn’t move as quickly as science, because human metaphor and mythic conceptualizations don’t change so quickly; they’re a little more “burned in” to our psyche. But let me run these past you as food for thought.

In the 20th century, we saw the rise of feminist theology, which someone 500 years ago would never understand. We also saw the rise of womanist theology, ecological theology, and liberation theology. They wouldn’t be able to grasp these either. All of these speak to humanity issues that came to a boil within the last 75 years.

All of them are methods of understanding ourselves and our current life situations within a spiritual/mythic context. Here’s a small example.

For the first time, humanity is faced with the reality that we have the power, through nuclear weapons, to completely destroy ourselves. We are also beginning to face a very real possibility that we’ve exploited the planet beyond its capability to recover. Those things are existential and fundamental game-changers for us as a species. An ecological theology helps us to reframe the world and our understanding of it in ways that allow us to see it as a fellow creature to be honored and with which to build an interdependent relationship, rather than something unrelated to us that we can just exploit.

 

[sojourner]

I must have missed that class when I was learning where children come from.

Think in terms of metaphor. You’ll be much happier.

 

[sojourner]

You probably do not believe the Bible but John 1:12 says that God gives SOME people the power to BECOME His children. That pretty much means some are not His children.

And what does it mean to “receive Jesus?” (Hint: it means more than “getting saved.”)