Did God create Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

As I said, in Genesis 1 God created men. YET in beginning of Genesis 2 there are no men, and then he had to create men again at the middle of Genesis 2. So may be ice age happened during the Genesis 1. So Genesis 1 starts billions of years ago and describes how God created men back then. Then it forgets to tell us about ice age. And then Genesis 2 begins 6000 years ago right after ice age is over, which is why it says there are no men to cultivate a garden or whatever. And then God creates Adam and Eve.

Roman

You thinking is to linear in time from one chapter to another chapter in time. The first few chapters of Genesis may jump around in time. So it may not matter from one chapter to another. Especially the first three or two chapters of Genesis.

The point is that my linear thinking in time actually answers another question -- namely young earth vs old earth dillema.

It is ironic that ppl who try to defend the old earth are the ones to tell christian fundamentalists they are too linear. Since there are too many of those, I decided to use different aproach -- be even more linear and show where christian fundamentalists created a problem for themselves by not being linear enough.

Some people read the Bible as though it were exact history, whereas most of it is conjecture, written second hand, and metaphor, especially in Genesis.

I see the earth as being as old as science see it for we truly do not know what is a day in time and length time God's Day is to Him. I know some see it as the earth is only as old as the first man is old 6000 to 7000 years. I know some see the earth 45000 to 50000 years old. To me it since we do not truly know what a Day to God is the earth to me is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is 15 or 12 billion years old. I prefer the old earth myself. Thouugh I see where You are coming from.

I get your point about not knowing how long is the day. However, you can assume that when God says at what age someone had children, then their age is told us on our scale. And we can also konw no generations were skipped since, for one thing, you have complete geneology of Jesus.

So this means that the time when days were much longer HAS to be Genesis chapter 1. And that is exactly what I am saying. I believe Genesis chapter 1 includes BILLIONS of years, while creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 2 is actually 6 thousand years ago.

Now, if Genesis chapter 1 includes all the history up untill the "young" Adam and Eve, it would include glacier period. More importantly, since archeological findings discovered ppl who were BEFORE glacier period, they are also part of Genesis 1. Thats why I stick to "linear time" interpretation and insist that the ppl created in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in fact two separate creations and the ppl of Genesis 1 died out.

Furthermore, even if you completely distrust God's scale to the point of insisting he got the ages of ppl wrong, then let me through something else at you. Archeological findings tell you that there were humans before glacier period, they died, and then the new humans came to be. Now, if you trace the geneology of Jesus up to Adam and Eve you would NOT see such a thing. So the conclusion is that whoever died out HAD to be created before Adam and Eve since the geneology of Adam and Eve went un-interupted. So who was it? Again look at Genesis chapter 1. It shows that the ppl created there didn't survive to Genesis chapter 2. And that exactly fills in a gap that you would expect from archeology.

That is a new way of seeing Genesis for I have never seen it that way. It is something to think about for sure. We do find archaeological evidence in the Bible as well and it does conform with the histories of the area very much. Though some do dispute the Bible but for the most part I think the Bible is right on.

The thing about this "god" concept is that it is not so much an explanation as a mystery. You can say God created evolution. But then I have to ask, where did God come from?
You can say "everything must have a cause, and God is that cause"
but again, what caused God.

The only thing remarkable about God really is "nothing."
That is, "nothing" caused God. God came from "nothing"
I prefer to just stick with this amazing infinite nothing, and put this "God" business behind us. Just as our culture has long ago put "the gods" behind us.

So what I believe is that nothing created evolution.
It simply is an immutable law of the universe.

I like GautamaBuddah.
He refused to answer the question about God.
He believed, as do I, that it had very little to do with eliviating human suffering, his primary aim.

May be you can define God as an underlying principle. Then the difference between atheists and relious ppl would be that atheists say God is math or God is physics while religious ppl say God is Yahweh or God is trinity or God is Allah.

What is interesting about this way of thinking is that when you ask why isn't God fair, the typical answer you get is taht our mind is too small to understand his logic. But the amaising thing is that atheists accuse religious people of imposing human logic on nature by saying that God is human. And here Christian Fundamentalists accuse the humanists of exact same thing.

So I can actually answer more than one question at once. First, I can answer everything I don't understand about Christian god from humanistic perspective by saying that God is science and I don't have a problem with science being "unfair" when it causes ppl to have genetic diseases. And AT THE SAME TIME I can easilly adress waht the opposite question as to how do I know there is humanity on the base of things -- the answer is there isn't -- Christian god isn't human since we dont' understand their logic. Finally I can answer how do I know there is God. Sure I know. There is "basic principle" even if it is math.

By the way, there is a nice parallel to the question of "who created God" Lets make a litte dictionary. "A created B" translates into "B logically follows from A". God translates into "axiom". So the question translates into "what is the proof of your axioms". The answer is there is none, you just believe in them. Now another question asked is how does God explain anyting if he is mystery in and of itself. The transaltion of the quesiton is how do axioms help us with anything if they are mysteries in and of themselves. The answer is that they do because we believe in them. And we don't have problem beliving in them do we?

Now you can alwasy say that it is silly to quesiton why 1+1=2. Well fine. But you see, when the "axioms" of Neutonian physics didn't work, we invented axioms of relativity. They make less sense, yet we believe in them.

So, this last paragraph means that axioms are NOT without proof. HOWEVER, proof goes in the opposite direction: you get a bunch of facts and you FIND an axiom that explains them all. So I guess same goes here. Neutonian physics made a lot of sense but didn't explain many things. So we invented relativity. Similarly, science makes a lot of sense but doesn't explain some things (such as for example why so many prophecies are being fulfilled including microchip implant) and so we invent a different axiom, God, to start with.


And by the way, I came up with a very good parallels between the "questions" one might ask about religion and "questions" one might ask about science.

RELGION: The fate of all of us depends on only ONE thing: belief in Jesus. Nothing else counts, DESPITE the fact that we are all so complicated. Isn't it a gross oversimplification of complicated story?

SCIENCE: All those diverse phenomena on nature are only described by three interactions: electroweak, strong and gravitational. Even worse, string theory attempts to unify them into only ONE interaction, which would make the analogy with religion perfect one.

RELIGION: Isn't it unfair that people who never heard of Jesus are going to hell

SCIENCE: Isn't it unfair that people who are born with genetic abnormalities are DOOMED to be sick (and there is no after-life to make up for it)

RELIGION: It is unfair that people are forced to follow a particular belief system aganist their will

SCIENCE: It is unfair that people who don't want to be on a good diet and exercise regularly end up being sick

RELIGION: How can we understand God's word if Jesus warned us in Matthew that we are too "blind" to understand it

SCIENCE: How can we trust our intellect if our brain is made our of a bunch of molecules and it is possible to deliberately construct a computer that always gives wrong results and make obvious logic errors. So we can't even trust ourselves as far as 2+2=4

RELIGION: every sin is the same

SCIENCE:every error in theory is the same, it doesn't matter if your numerical answer is twice wrong or ten times wrong

RELIGION: you are either saved or damned

SCIENCE: you are either right or wrong

RELIGION: where is the line between saved or damned if no one knows ALL truth

SCIENCE: where is the line between right theory and wrong theory if there is always margin of error in measurement

RELIGION:how can I know I am right if all those other denominations are wrong

SCIENCE: how can we know we are right today if Newton and others were wrong

P.S. To further explain my point, lets ask ourselves what is the difference between God and science? One would first think that God has feelings while science doesn't. Thats a wrong answer because when we are doing science we are VISUALIZING what we do, so whatever we visualize are the feelings that God-science has. After all, we need eyes to see a particle. We also need nervous system to feel it, feel that it is "hard" and thus distinguish it from its surroundings. And who is there to do it before humans ever existed? Must be God.

SO the correct answer is that both God and science have feelings. But there is a difference between them: we insist that we can RELATE to teh feelings that God has but we can only LEARN the feelings that science has. And that is where the LOGICAL CONTRADICTION comes when Christian Fundamentalists say that our mind is too small to understand their God. So, the accusation that they receive is pure logical -- THEY were the ones to claim that their "god" can be UNDERSTOOD by humans.

So either way, better definition:

God= underlying principle that can be IMAGINED by humans. This covers both religious and atheist God. And ANYTHING that can be IMAGINE has feelings. So yes God has feelings.

Science = God to whose feelings humans can't relate and are only forced to learn them. We don't understand why is it "good" that all planets obey the law of Gravity. Altough we know how it feels: we visualize how they move. But we can't relate to their feelings.

The second definition woudl imply that God of Christianity is science. We "learned" about one way ticket of hell but we don't understand it. Now in science no one complains it is unfair that certain things are poisonous. So it isn't any less fair that denying Jesus is "poisenous".

Either way those were some of my own questions. But it relates to the question on whether there is God. I mean if there is science and science is God then by definition there is God.

Last edited by Roman on 11 Nov 2005, 5:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I cut and pasted this addition into my previous reply. Please re-read it now that it is longer:)

I agree that science and religion are not all that different.
I think the reason people get nervous about eliminating God from the equation is that he is often used as a moral authority figure.
"If you don't do this then God shall smite you"
There are plenty of obvious reasons to live a moral life, without this authority figure laying down the law.

Well, to attempt to answer this cunundrum of cosmology, I was told that asking "Who made God?" is a meaningless question because it assumes a self-contradiction. It's like asking who made the square circle. This is, of course, if we assume God is Aristotle's eternal, uncaused cause. That isn't perfect, I know, but that does not make the concept of God logically contradictory. It just makes it an alternate and unprovable hypothesis to the eternally existing universe.

But this is a God of neither religious nor scientific significance. I think all of the comparisons you made above this were superficial at best. And, if we redefine God this way, then what is an atheist?

It is certainly possible for one to percieve a rational intelligence governing the laws of the natural world, but science is only dedicated to discovering the methods of those laws, and does not require their coder. I ultimately think it's safer to assume that much of what is known by faith is unknowable by science, and vice versa, not that they are two sides of the same coin. Try to combine them, and you generally end up offending everyone (that movie "What the **** do we know?" is a good example of this).

I agree that science is not quite looking at the whole picture.
But this expression "known by faith" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It is a perfect example of the way faith has become abused and distorted over the years.
I think people in power promoted this scewed definition of faith, to gain more power over their followers.
I still think that faith has its place in religion, but not the way it is generally tossed around. I like the word fidelity better, as it has not suffered as much corruption.

New Question Does God Exist.

Just thought I would ask.

Last edited by kevv729 on 24 Nov 2005, 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bad question...Prone to heated arguments...

I say "I don't know"