So I would like to find out, from those who. . .distrust? evolution, or don't think it is a viable theory to explain the diversity of life as we know it, Why?
Which part(s) do you contend with?
Promise I won't preach or demean.
Tec?
I don't distrust evolution. I don't have a problem with it at all. A few questions here or there, but what we know right now I accept. (knowing full well that new discoveries could add a new angle to the whole thing somewhere down the road) I have nothing against it.
But some others have a problem with me accepting evolution, and believing in God and Christ. Because it doesn't mesh with some locked-in version of god. Very black and white. They make no room for all sorts of variables that could be occurring or have occurred. I can see some of those variables. But I know I can't see them all because I am limited, as we all are, to our current knowledge, e x perience and understanding.
So I am accused of mental gymnastics often enough. But that's fine. I consider that a compliment. I would rather acknowledge the many variables and admit that I don't know the correct one at this time; than to see in absolutes and ignore those many variables.
You also say that there is no conflict between your god and evolution. What Cofty and others have tried to do for you ( since you - like so many - refuse to ) is frame your argument with evidence, if god did a creation what would it look like?
And my opinion on this would count, why? I am qualified to know what the universe should look like from a creator? I am pretty limited in my knowledge, Q. So I do not refuse to do it. I know that I am unqualified. I could guess and have theories, but for some reason, you and others do not consider those to count unless they agree with the conclusions that you have drawn.
Well the primary source of the story is the creation myths especially the bible one. You've said you don't see the bible as infallible so I suspect you reject te seven day creation story * 2 as presented by the bible
7 literal days, yes, I do. 7 time periods (of any sort), no.
( a story that is diametrically opposed to evolution as it has all species already formed at creation. )
It says nothing about how they were formed (the tools - like the paintbrush, paint, water, canvass description - are not listed. Only that the picture was painted). So God created plants... doesn't mean he 'poofed' them into e x istence.
The odd thing is that having rejected the story you still hold onto creation ( or do you accept abiogenesis!?) but now you have no cards other than evolution plus an initial creation on the table.
I don't know what abiogenesis is to speak for or against it.
Since evolutionary evidence shows us a time when only simple life forms existed this makes your god a creator of basic replicating machines and nothing else ( certainly no crowning glory of creating man as per the bible ) so god turns up and makes one self replicating machine then bogs off to watch.
Yeah, because he wouldn't have known what that 'self-replicating' machine was going to replicate into, to form?
Not only does this destroy the Garden of Eden story and creation myth it also handily does away with your need for an atonement.
Untrue. At some point, with man (and it seems also the animals) God specifically intervened in the process. He could have plucked that hominid species up (perhaps they were seeking Him out), 'breathed life into him', thereby granting him knowledge of God and giving him spiritual life (which Christ makes very clear is more important than the flesh). Then placed him in the 'garden of eden'. (a place to be with and know God) The story can proceed from there. I say that it seems also the animals because they were brought inside the garden at some point too. So spiritual.
Or perhaps Adam and Eve were the actual literal first humans that God formed, to be in 'his image' and to govern the planet. Perhaps there were other hominids and that is the form that he used to place into the world (long garments of skin). Perhaps Adam and Eve were a race of people and not two literal people. In any case, we ARE unlike any other species on this planet. No other species has the ability to govern this world, to care for its creatures, to heal environments and bring species back from the brink of e x tinction. To care about all life, and not just our survival. That we have that ability just makes it worse that we instead use it to kill, cause suffering, hunt to e x tinction, and destroy the environment.
God intervened with man. He still does. Sending Christ and prophets is an intervention. He's not doing nothing.
As for atonement... I have plenty of sins of my own that Christ atoned for. No reason to think (no evidence to think) that it has ever been different for anyone else.
Oops no need for Jesus to die.
See above. As well as that, He also showed us how to live. Even to death. To not fear death; to live in love and honesty and courage and compassion for others, and mercy and forgiviness. He certainly could not have shown us to forgive even those who would kill us, if he hadn't forgiven those who killed him.
While we are at it the flood story also disappears ( creation had to be done a second time since evolution isn't quick enough a process to handle the variety of species in the world observed currently .)
A literal version of a global flood story disappears within that specific time frame. Nothing more.
So evolution pretty much destroys the OT and the need for a NT.
It does not. It destroys one absolute view of things... which leaves no room for all the many variables and options and views that we can know of, never mind the ones we cannot yet know of.
Lets not get too bogged down in that though and look back at what a deistic creator plus evolution says about that god:
You mean what you think it says about God.
1 - hands off. Either through impotence, laziness or curiosity ( add additional terms as you see fit ) this being is no longer involved.
He was and is involved - evolution or no evolution.
2 - cruel. To design death via predation and illness is to have been sadistic. Design solves problems and makes things easier.
How can you possibly know that design solves problems and makes things easier? Can you see the future of every variable? Besides, He did not design with death through predation in mind. Death entered the world through Adam. Now I don't know what precisely that means. Or understand. But that doesn't mean I throw it out. Not understanding or knowing is not the same as there being no understanding or answer. I just don't know it.
3 - haphazard. Taking no interest in the results of evolution ( allowing adaption to exist as opposed to design so forcing life to use what is there and laboriously adapt it to provide functionality is not the sign of a methodical god. You end up with stupid results like windpipes and gullets in the same place and the all too common phenomenon of choking)
4 - heartless. Evolution produces a large number of offspring who are less fit for an environment. Having DNA that can have copy errors leads to babies born with genetic defects and dying horribly or living on in constant pain or discomfort. The deistic god is responsible for every genetic illness and the brute force approach of survival of the fittest. Trillions of mini genetic life forms ill suited to their environment or genetically damaged all consigned to an early death normally via predation.
Again, you are speaking without knowledge of every other variable. How do you know that adaptation and evolution is not the best and only way for life to survive in a living universe? That it cannot mean only the 'good' life and not the 'bad' as well. Besides which... we were not meant to die. Our flesh perhaps. But not us, ourselves.
5 - liar. Deist god is willing to allow charlatans to write books ascribing him a greator role than he took and to enslave people on the basis of that misrepresentation. One of the more successful mendicants enslaves people in his name and has them waiting for a second coming thats overdue by 2000 odd years. Deist god is apparently unconcerned that women have been treated as second class citizens based upon this central lie of the book.
So you think God should just strike down everyone who does not listen to Him? Who misrepresents Him? We have the choice. He gave us the choice to listen or not to listen. We live with the results of either choice, and that is on us. If he says to do good to all, including your enemies, and we refuse to listen and do our own thing (sort of like Adam and Eve), then who is to blame? If he tells us to forgive and show mercy, and we instead hold grudges, get revenge, and condemn... who is to blame?
6 - wasteful. Evolution requires death. God supposedly promises eternal life. Death and replication cannot coexist with eternity ( an infinitely reproducing system will rapidly fill all available space .) Evolution requires death through age or predation to make room for offspring and to allow change to occur. Eternal life is anti evolution. Deist god could have cut to the chase and just created a group of eternal , physically perfect beings and not bothered with the whole fall, death, evolution mess you propose.
Eternal life is spiritual. I don't think size matters in that realm.
And you just answered your own question about the need for physical death in the physical realm.
7 - illogical. The fall is supposed to have somehow de-evolved us allowing what was perfect become imperfect. Evolution shows that no prior perfect state existed ( DNA is shared by all life showing common ancestry and there are key areas of DNA that show the accumulation of copy errors that take hundreds of thousands of years to accrete ). If we are the result of evolution then recognisable humans have been around far longer than the bible and the bible story. Deist god has a 'plan ' to save humans ( where is the cut off point where Grandma is just too primate to make people heaven ?) but doesn't bother telling humans till its almost all over. Most humans have never had a bible and then the few who have lived in modern times rarely get to see it and when it finally gets mass printed its full of lies ( garden of Eden and creation ).
The cut-off point would be the spirit, which is life. I say would be, but I don't KNOW the answer. Just guessing; same as you. I'm just not limiting my guesses to one, and calling it the truth.
You are still assuming a lot of things about 'the fall' that may or may not be true. You don't know. So how can you come to a conclusion based on an understanding that might well be wrong?
Evolution destroys the credibility of a Jehovah god and makes deist god pretty much a simple bio chemical scientist who is now on permanent holiday. Tec :)
Only if you're locked into one view. Which I don't know how you can be.
Peace,
Tammy
