Forums | MacLife

I don't think there's any real criteria.  It's a matter of perspective.
Generally speaking, evolution = gaining useful functionality to better match ones surroundings, devolution = losing functionality which is no longer used. But it can also be considered that some previously useful functionality (such as extreme aggressiveness and adrenaline production) in one environment could be detrimental in another (such as an urban civilization--the ddifference in physical and behavioral characteristics in dogs and wolves, for example, is basically tied to adrenaline production).

So one beings devo is another beings evo.

Sassy wrote:

Lots of interesting questions

Well, that's the thing...evolution can be discussed and studied (and that guy says that he finds the evidence compelling and accepts it).

On the other hand, the theological and philosophical implications are completely open to discussion.

He makes some great points.  You ask some good questions.  I am not him, so I don't know how he'd respond.

However, I bet if you were to email him your questions, he'd give you some interesting responses.  If you were to do that, and post responses here, it would be pretty cool.

Sassy wrote:

For example, if god created evolution to be the mechanism for human knowledge and the Bible reveals god to humanity, why is it cloaked in mystery and discovery? Archeology tells us that early mankind's 'religion' was based on the 'mother' figure. The female figure who brings forth life. In some so called 'primative' societies, that philosophy still prevails.

For a YEC, this is not really a question. The Bible has to be taken literally, except in the cases where it's not (and you can determine this by studying the original translations). Since though it's not practical for everyone to study the literal Bible, we just have to take the words of people who do (this is typical of any field though). So, it's only cloaked in mystery if you try to "interpret" it outside of context, and you can only know the context by studying the original form.

Along comes the more 'civilized' societies wherein, again, violence is the measure of civility. The male figure is idealized to 'fight' for freedom and power to rule. The male figure rules supreme in the Muslim religious lore even today, and to a great extent in the Judeo and the Christian religion. Whereas, in the eastern, early south seas island nations, the Greeks and even the Egyptian societies, the 'mother' figure strongly held sway.

Conflict is the norm for every earth society, but when women gained the power to rule, it was usually a time when prosperity, art, science and education gained a foothold that moved the society forward to a higher goal than conquest.

What I am trying to say is that if god set in motion the mechanism of evolution to bring mankind into a sense of knowledge concerning god, himself and all creation, why did he allow men to write the Bible, for the period of time in which it was written, when only men were educated? Once men learned women were not 'divine' for the gift of 'life,' he crowned himself as divine.

Early societies were misguided in many ways, due to influences outside of the Bible, sourced either in temptation from the devil, or from other humans who rejected God to try and create their own beliefs. Christianity and the Bible can't be held responsible for people who deviate from the righteous path. The reason males had to be chosen to carry the word of God is because that is the only way, given the society that us imperfect and rebellious humans formed, God could have had His message carried forth. Again, this is the result of the actions of flawed humans, and God simply had to work with it (or risk removing our free will).

If, in fact (I don't believe this for an instant) if it was Adam who sinned, not Eve, why did god tempt Adam with Eve when god and Adam should have been content and happy in the garden? Isn't that the 'ideal' place for mankind to be -- in the presence of god? Why take that away from Adam and thus force mankind to spend a lifetime trying to find that special place once again?

It was the Devil who tempted Adam and Eve, and IIRC, he did it outside of God's watch, secretly. God though gave us free will, and the Devil manipulated this to make humans turn away from God, thus losing our Utopia.

Do you see why I don't think the Bible is the 'inspired' word of god? Most people 'think' or accept that god is a male figure. Yet, in creation, 'he' created a female in just about every living creation beyond the celluar level. Most life cannot reproduce without both sexes -- not in every case, but in the 'complex' model that Lamoureux uses to prove his thesis, that is, in fact, the case.

Moreover, I don't buy his explanation that mankind is too inferior to know the mind of god. That's an old saw that every pastor I've ever heard relies on to end the questions. They don't have the answer, so they hedge or, in my mind, beg the question. Like Rummy says, "It's unknowable." Baloney!

How is that hard to understand? God has a scope and understanding of the universe FAR greater than ours. It's like an ant trying to think as a human. Us humans can see things, and affect change on a level that ants couldn't even dream of. It would be impossible for them to understand us. However, that doesn't stop them from living their lives and having their own meager achievements. It's the same way with God/Humans.

I do admire the gospels. It is the message of love and tolerance and hope that gripped the hearts and minds of mankind. It changed the world except for all the wars and conflicts fought in the name of Jesus or 'the Christ.' These actions are a denial of the message and thus of the divinity of the message. In reality, mankind, just doesn't understand what divinity really is.

I would disagree that the Gospels changed the world. They are merely a product of the world. They would have come about, no matter what, in any contortion of societies. If you could go back in time and eliminate all records of Christianity, some other, new idea or belief system would spring up in its place. What religion shows though is that a few people are born with the innate belief of cooperation and peace, and they try to spread that message and belief. We aren't all born dumb animals.

(note: my crazy ramblings earlier in this post were my pretending what a YEC might say)

mo' ron wrote:

(note: my crazy ramblings earlier in this post were my pretending what a YEC might say)

The only thing I understand in your post is the above sentence. Perhaps that is because none of the argument explicitly addresses my points because they cannot, even by the OT. Plus, your argument that the gospels did not change the world because the philosophy would have come about over time actually suggests the possibility of social evolution based loosely on biological evolution. The fact of the matter is, the gospels DID change the western world's view of the Hebrew religion and the character of god, to a dramatic degree.

What no one has yet addressed in my posts is the relationship of the 4 major characters in the garden of Eden: God, Adam, Eve and the serpent (not satan or the devil). In the beginning, god and Adam had a compatible relationship -- the same relationship that every Jew and Christian works to recreate through obedience or the 'blood' of Jesus. Why did god throw a monkey wrench into the mix by introducing Eve and the serpent?

God most certainly did 'tempt' Adam through his creation of Eve, coming from Adam's rib. Why did god to that? Was it to prove something? If so, what? Further, mo'on, you say the serpent tempted Eve 'in secret, hidden from god.' That implies that god is not omniscient (all-knowing). Either way one views the scenario, god was inconsistent in his motivation.

Therefore, 'inconsistency' becomes the strong argument opposing the last assertion listed in your post: mankind is so inferior to god, we can never understand god or his motivation. Yet, we are told over and over again that we can know the mind of god thru the Bible, or other 'scriptural' writings. Inconsistent and illogical, except thru the same old saw: it is by faith and faith alone.

Still I do not fault someone's faith. They have their reasons to believe. I have mine to NOT believe. It doesn't follow that I reject philosophy. If religious people can 'pick and choose' what they believe, so can I. If I respect their philosophy, I expect they will respect mine and not fault me for it. I am not inferior because I do not fit the mold they construct. There is no way to prove which of the opposing philosophies is correct, now, is there?

cbaines wrote:

Sassey wrote:

As stated earlier, I find Lamoureux's view to be highly romantic and idealized. Nothing wrong with that except that the cosmos, the earth, life and especially, humanity, are NOT romantic, but rooted in violence re birth, life and death.

I found Lamoureux's views very familiar to my own and his path very near mine. I would differ with you on the romance part though.. I find the cosmos, birth, death, the struggles, all very romantic.. in fact I view it as the essence of romance. I know, it seems odd, almost contradictory.. but that's part of the illogic of being human. I loved the way they played with this concept in Star Trek with Data's character.. it was great.

romantic
adjective

Affectedly or extravagantly emotional: bathetic, gushy, maudlin, mawkish, sentimental, slushy, sobby, soft, soppy. Informal gooey, mushy, schmaltzy, sloppy, soupy. Slang drippy, sappy, tear-jerking. See feelings.
Not compatible with reality: idealistic, quixotic, starry-eyed, unrealistic, utopian, visionary. See hope/despair, real/imaginary.

While all apply, emphasis is mine.

this'll trip you out if you are into science. maybe you know this already, but i just watched an astronomy lecture on the local college tv station. the professor said that all the elements on the periodic table from H to Fe are produced in dying "red-giant" stars and when the star "supernovas" all the rest of the elements are formed in varying ratios. so those pennies in your pocket are parts of a star.

Redirected from the Big Bang thread... ref article http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … laxies.asp

The Fabric of the Cosmos, page 301 wrote:

"Early on. the energy of the universe was carried by the inflaton field, which was perched away from its minimum energy state. Because of its negative pressure, the inflaton field drove an enormous burst of inflationary expansion. then, some 10 to the minus 35 seconds later, the inflaton field slid down the potential energy bowl, the burst of expansion drew to a close and the inflation released its pent-up energy to the production of ordinary matter and radiation. For many billions of years, these familiar constituents of the universe exerted and ordinary attractive  gravitational pull that slowed the spatial expansion. But as the universe grew and thinned out, the gravitational pull diminished. About 7 billion years ago, ordinary gravitational attraction became weak enough for the gravitational repulsion of the universe's cosmological constant to become dominant, and since then the rate of spatial expansion has been continually increasing. "

Now our vocabulary and science terms are more developed from the writer of Genesis 1:1-3, but to most people either version makes about as much sense, and both require a lot of faith to accept.

But to speak to the problem with aparently mature galaxies at the limit of our cosmic horizon, the classic 'big band' model has been replaced with a 'inflationary model' which galaxies, if I understand it, had an equal opportunity to develop all over the universe at about the same period almost as if they were timed to form at a particular stage.

StaticAge wrote:

Genesis was around way before Plato, like 1,200 or so years before. And unlike Plato, the bible teaches that death is an enemy, that the dead are as unconscious and non-living, and that their future prospect of life is entirely dependent on God's power to resurrect them through Jesus Christ, and not the migration of the soul to a better universe.

Wrong bub... we (jews) don't even believe in jeebus. The christian bible was written well after plato. Also, I'm pretty sure the old testament wasn't written until after the jews were liberated from babylon and returned to israel by the persians, which wasn't too long before plato.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Wrong bub... we (jews) don't even believe in jeebus. The christian bible was written well after plato. Also, I'm pretty sure the old testament wasn't written until after the jews were liberated from babylon and returned to israel by the persians, which wasn't too long before plato.

Sorry, didnt mean to imply Jews believe in Jesus, but Sassy was commenting on the Bible, not just the OT, and definitely not the Torah.
Certainly, the Pentateuch had existed for a very long time, since kings were required to copy it in their own hand. The Samaritans even had their own copy of it, which would indicate at the very least its existence before 740 BCE.

One of Resedit's objections to evolution is that it violates the "Law of Biogenesis".  Basically, this refers to the principle put forth by Pasteur and others that life comes only from other life.  If this were absolutely true, then evolution would not have a starting point, because that would require life arising from entirely non-life.

There are two aspects of biogenesis that are worth commenting on.  The first is that Pasteur proposed the law in reaction to the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation.  Quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Spontaneous generation, also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks, there were mice in the rags. Many believed in spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots on decaying meat.

By the 18th century it had become obvious that higher organisms could not be produced by nonliving material. The origin of microorganisms such as bacteria, however, was not fully determined until Pasteur proved in the 19th century that microorganisms reproduce. See also biopoiesis.

Pasteur showed that if you sterilized the original material and kept it in a flask that was open to the atmosphere only through a twisted tube (to prevent dust, spores, etc, from drifting in), no mold, etc, developed.  Thus, life comes only from other life.

The other aspect is that some people then came to believe that there is some "life force" or "life essence" that is necessary for life, and that this essence could be acquired only by direct inheritance from other life.  Again, you cannot get life from non-life.

My understanding is that Resedit believes this principle is absolute, and for all time.  The simple rebuttal is that it is not absolute.  Again, citing Britannica:

Biopoiesis: a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth. According to this theory, conditions were such that, at one time in Earth's history, life was created from nonliving material, probably in the sea, which contained the necessary chemicals. During this process, molecules slowly grouped, then regrouped, forming ever more efficient means for energy transformation and becoming capable of reproduction.

Some scientists think that under present biospheric conditions new forms of life are not likely to be created from nonliving matter. Others feel that life is continuously being created but that the new forms are not so well adapted to the environment as existing ones and are thus unable to compete successfully.

Furthermore, back in July 2002, scientists created a virus entirely from scratch.  That is, the virus components were constructed from raw chemicals and then self-assembled into functional viruses. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm

Now, you can argue that viruses are not really alive.  I'd say they are about 1/3 of the way to full life.  But, this synthesis shows that the idea of building life from non-life is plausible.  My guess is that a functional cell will be similarly constructed within 15 - 20 years.

Metacell wrote:

If virii aren't alive, what are they? Just a coalescion of inorganic elements into a complex reproducing survival driven mechanism? Hmmm...

Viruses are life.  Period.

I was taught back in HS AP Biology that viruses were biotic, but they weren't fully considered life.