I don't understand evolution.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
Ok so if that is true.

If it was Gods intention for us to be above the animals and command over them from day one. And he could make us in any image he wanted. Why did he not give us a unique physical structure.

you seem to have misunderstood the meaning i intended in my first reply to you..
He simply decided to grant the species with the most potential to make a decision on its own and evolve conscious self awareness and free will.

the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", it is an image of "mental structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and perform abstract thought. this is what is meant by "created in our image". not a species built from scratch with a unique physical structure, but a species adaptable and intelligent enough to evolve the point of being capable of holding dominion over the animals and the earth.

Why do we share so many similar body parts to animals. Why do we look like all primates ? Why did he specifically choose primates as a template for us, after he made them.

Why are we not our own obviously separate species.

Serious question. Really.

i completely agree and don't understand how you might think i disagree. re-read my first reply to you and see that we are on the same page here. we evolved from primates. this has been proven and scripture does not dispute it, if interpreted the right way. God did not go around "creating" every species individually as they are today. I am certainly not that literal when interpreting scripture, i am in no way a creationist.

however, homo-sapiens are obviously our own separate species. we are members of the genus "Homo" (giggity), which also includes several extinct species classified as ancestral to or closely related to modern humans, like Homo habilis and Homo neanderthalensis.
The genus is about 2.8 million years old. It first appeared as its earliest species Homo habilis, which emerged from the genus Australopithecus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of the genus Pan, the chimpanzees.
That is why we look like all primates.

God did not "choose primates as a template for humans". A species of primate evolved into the species of homo-sapiens, and God, through natural selection and fundamental physical law, simply said:
"Okay then, you're adaptable enough and smart enough, and i think most probably clever enough by now, have a go at this riddle. You are free to choose to suppress your instinctual urges and exercise free will and logical reasoning and abstract thought and even take over the whole planet. Hell, do whatever you want in order to find the answer: what is the meaning of your existence?"

The answer is... drum roll...

...this:



you see? we are in agreement on every point.

i am a little concerned here; in your original post you said "for those who really know their scripture and are close to God .... no pretenders please."
would you consider myself a pretender? i definitely know my scripture, but i don't know how you quantify closeness to God.. do i have to be a fundamentalist, creationist, biblical literalist christian to answer? Or can i simply reply as a person who understands scripture, understands the nature of the principles of God, and the relationship between ourselves and Him? Do i have to accept a particular doctrine to be "close to God", or can i find Him in my own way, and feel close to Him through my own personal, subjective understanding?

I'm not a christian, in the sense that i do not believe that specifically only one of many historical philosophers in particular who had tremendous insight and the ability to explain the nature of life and our relationship with the universe, only to be killed by the ignorant society in which he taught, is humanity's saviour. i'm just a guy who has studied religious texts as much as i have scienctific texts, and realise that the two are completely different things describing two completely different phenomena. One (science) is the objective study of the world through rigorous, clinical, verifiable method, the other (religion) is a study of our personal relationship with the universe as a whole. I view science the same way i view mathematics, and i view religious teaching the same way i view poetry and philosophy.

after all, isn't the idea of "God" just the personification of the universe in the first place?
To me, belief in God is simply the belief in existence. I know the universe exists, i'm 99% sure I exist, if God represents the living universe and what it does on a human scale, then I know God exists too. I don't have to go to church, or join a certain religion, to understand what the concept of God means. If you replace every instance of the words God, Lord, almighty, He, Him, and His with the term "the universe" while reading biblical texts, it is pretty clear that these ancient writers were just personifying the world they live in to help themselves describe and understand it. When put into context of the time it was written, who it was written for, and what it was written for, the bible makes perfect sense.

When someone asks me if i believe in God, they often think they are asking "Do you believe in a supernatural being that created and controls all time and space?". What they are actually asking if they sat down and thought about it critically is, "Do you believe the universe, if personified as a character in a novel, shows a degree of intelligence and wit?". My answer to the second question is, "of course, yes, absolutely".

originally posted by: JackReyes
Thank you for sharing that with me. I understand you. I know a lot of former religious people who are atheists, and mostly the reason is because of hypocritical religion.

In my case it had nothing to do with how people acted. I've always understood that people aren't infallible. That said, there was definitely a lot of hypocrisy to be seen by many in the small church I attended. For me, the sins of others were just that. Sins. Sins to be forgiven. I didn't let it reflect on what I believed at the time.

spygeek

Thankyou for a very well put together dialog that reflects the balance of science and religion I wish all people had.

We are more similar than you could imagine.

PS. The pretender comment was aimed at fundamentalist pretending to engage in a dialog. But miss the forest for the trees even in their own beliefs. You are clearly not one of these.

Respect.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
spygeek

Thankyou for a very well put together dialog that reflects the balance of science and religion I wish all people had.

We are more similar than you could imagine.

PS. The pretender comment was aimed at fundamentalist pretending to engage in a dialog. But miss the forest for the trees even in their own beliefs. You are clearly not one of these.

Respect.

entirely my pleasure, thank you for giving me the opportunity to describe and explain my understanding of evolution and how it relates to religious teaching. God knows the op certainly has not provided such an opportunity in the last 18 pages.

before we pat ourselves on the back too much for discovering each other, i think we should spare a thought for those still trapped underneath the rubble of religious dogma, and the "pretenders" who would rather push their ideals and undeveloped understanding of biblical teaching on those who do not accept it than take the time to employ some critical thinking and examine every argument as it comes in and judge it on its own objective merits..

With them, i wish to ask a few simple questions: if everything is created and controlled by God, why do you feel the need to control and exert your own will on His creation? If everything is a part of His Divine Creation, who are you to question what we discover by examining it, including The Bible? You freely admit that His mysterious methods are beyond human reasoning and understanding, and yet you still insist that your particular order alone possess the only correct understanding of the matter, why is this?

i also wish to share with them one last musical interlude:

a reply to: Barcs

yes, it is just like you said!

evolution is proofed to be real in the psychical world. But if you meditated for a while about emptiness or any other Buddhist technique, it is made clear to each individual that there is a lot more to the world than just material. At least that is my experience with meditation. I have made tons of proof on my own and to think all of us who have the same experiences are all misguided and it is just mind tricks. Well it is sad that you would think so little of your mind. It is true mind can be and is a trickster. But it can be the greatest friend also! And once you get an experience of samadhi in meditation, you can get to such bliss which is nothing compared to sexual orgasm which is the heights bliss a body can produce.

Meditation is just a tool of prolonging the state without a thought and how you use it is up to us - just to clear the mind, to relax, spiritual or breathing practices, etc.....! But for instance. In Buddhism there are no god or souls. They are explaining everything in a whole different prospective which does not need those expressions and it is a philosophy and is not religion - there is no god, no soul, no entity which makes your destiny! Buddha himself said: Do not believe me, try it yourselves and you will come to the same conclusions!
Buddhism is a manual for the mind and how to unlock it if you follow it and walk the path of dharma. If you would explore for instance dzogchen or mahamudra teachings. Which are oldest and purest Tibetan traditions, they do not relay on fate and god and so on. They are guides in philosophical and theoretical sense about what to do and what kind of experiences you have and how can you progress to perfection in the spiritual sense. Those "religions" have nothing to do with god OR beliefs! They are talking about real experiences within you.

But people think in general that this is a matter of weeks or months to achieve and give up when there are no results. For some lucky ones maybe it is so, but normally it takes a lifetime of meditation and study of teachings and most importantly to live by certain principles with full faith everyday to get complete self realization.

So yes. If you want proof of physical world. Evolution is the answer. But is this really all there is to us? progress in physical sense and that is all? Please think deeper than that! for instance what about dreams? this is the realm of the spirit and we all have them. Some of us even leave the body sometimes while dreaming and are concious. Do not think that dreams are just random experiences...they are potential doors in there to a lot of knowledge about oneself and this can be and IS explored by anyone who is a serious meditator and is threading a spiritual path.

In thread like this I usually just sigh and think to myself. Fine guys evolution is evident and is true for material progress. This is obvious. But why would that disprove spirit or deeper layer of reality which is beyond material? what about who are you, who am I, what am I? answer this question. The answer is in all of us, deep within!

It happens when the puzzle pieces fit together differently.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

TzarChasm in the case of evolution, you are the hero!
What a total fascist comment.
Here's a thought, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

In the case of evolution, you are the hero randy. You did far more to promote evolution here than I ever have. If i didn't know better i'd say you were making fun of creationism. You are really good at it.

I second TzarChasm comment.

I am still wondering why this was not moved yet to rant subforum?!

a reply to: spygeek

This is a good attempt to "modernize" the concept of the bible to science, However, the bible is still the ramblings of culture long past, with stories, borrowings from other folk tales, errors and inaccuracies.

There is no evidence to support that nature/universe is a personal caring entity and that man is the core subject/interest of nature. I think the evidence suggest that we have evolved and learned to study and understand some aspects of the universe to our benefits..nothing more.

On the subject of intelligence, there has been extensive and well-documented research that has found evidence of some key elements of high intelligence in ape, dolphins, elephants, crows, fish and octopuses including self awareness, emotional understanding, problem solving and reasoning, culture, and language.

Currently we are on top of the intelligence chart but that does not mean that the universe intended for it to be so.

a reply to: spygeek

the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", it is an image of "mental structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and perform abstract thought. this is what is meant by "created in our image".

Total crap!

Image- a representation of the external form of a person or thing.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Maybe because it isn't just a rant Einstien!

a reply to: toktaylor

Currently we are on top of the intelligence chart but that does not mean that the universe intended for it to be so.

Coupling our physical ability in relation to this 3-D physical
existence with our mental capicity we learn to navigate
and have dominion. This can not be with out intent.
Lucky for us that the intentioner left us a letter telling
us exactly that.

a reply to: UniFinity

I wasn't suggesting the physical world is all that exists. Just that there is a big difference between physical tangible verifiable evidence and and a worldview that cannot be verified in any way except to yourself in your mind. Like I said, I'm big into meditation, I think it's great and I do think there is more out there than the physical world. I just don't claim to know this as fact, we have a marvelously monstrous subconscious, but we don't know that it is anything more than the physical brain projecting things for us.

I agree about dreams. They are key in understanding yourself. Evolution definitely does not disprove soul, god, spirit or any of that. I don't think anybody argues that it does. They just say that evolution is fact based and religions/worldviews are faith based for the most part. The OP has admitted that he is blindly rejecting evolution without reason, because of religious beliefs, which demonstrates the problem with most people who don't accept evolution. There is no logic involved. There is an emotional connection to a world view, that leads to irrationality.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: toktaylor

Currently we are on top of the intelligence chart but that does not mean that the universe intended for it to be so.

Coupling our physical ability in relation to this 3-D physical
existence with our mental capicity we learn to navigate
and have dominion. This can not be with out intent.
Lucky for us that the intentioner left us a letter telling
us exactly that.

No such letter was left... for if your "intentioner" can create the universe surely a "bible", written by man could not have been his best option to deliver this message. Look at how we are communicating now (via the internet) and we are mere 'mortal'.

On your issue of "intent"... if the asteroid hadn’t struck the Yucatán 66 million years ago, dinosaurs might still have run of this planet, and humans might have never evolved.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: spygeek

the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", it is an image of "mental structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and perform abstract thought. this is what is meant by "created in our image".

Total crap!

Image- a representation of the external form of a person or thing.

hmmm...

Image (noun)

1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. in Psychology; a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance
6. counterpart; copy
7. a symbol; emblem

yeah, i'm the one posting "total crap"... once again you have shown an ignorance of accepted standard theological interpretations..

IMAGE

im'-aj (tselem; eikon):

Its usage falls under 3 main heads.

(1) "Image" as object of idolatrous worship (translations about a dozen words, including maccekhah, "molten image" (Deuteronomy 9:12, etc.); matstsebhah, in the King James Version translated "image" or "pillar," in the Revised Version (British and American) always "pillar" (Exodus 23:24, etc.); pecel, "graven image" (Exodus 20:4, etc.); tselem, "image" (2 Kings 11:18, etc.); eikon, "image" (e.g. Revelation 14:9));

(2) of man as made in the image of God; (3) of Christ as the image of God. Here we are concerned with the last two usages:

I. Man as Made in the Divine Image.

1. In the Old Testament:

To define man's fundamental relation to God, the priestly writer in Genesis uses two words:

"image" (tselem) and "likeness" (demuth); once employing both together (Genesis 1:26; compare Genesis 5:3), but elsewhere one without the other, "image" only in Genesis 1:27; 9:6, and "likeness" only in 5:1. The priestly writer alone in the Old Testament uses this expression to describe the nature of man, though the general meaning of the passage Genesis 1:26 is echoed in Psalms 8:5-8, and the term itself reappears in Apocrypha (Sirach 17:3; The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23) and in the New Testament (see below).

The idea is important in relation to the Biblical doctrine of man, and has figured prominently in theological discussion. The following are some of the questions that arise:

(1) Is there any distinction to be understood between "image" and "likeness"? Most of the Fathers, and some later theologians, attempt to distinguish between them.

(a) Some have referred "image" to man's bodily form, and "likeness" to his spiritual nature (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus).

(b) Others, especially the Alexandrian Fathers, understood by the "image" the mental and moral endowments native to man, and by the "likeness" the Divine perfections which man can only gradually acquire by free development and moral conflict (Clement of Alexandria and Origen), or which is conferred on man as a gift of grace.

(c) This became the basis of the later Roman Catholic distinction between the natural gifts of rationality and freedom (= the image), and the supernatural endowments of grace which God bestowed on man after He had created him (the likeness = donum superadditum). The former remained after the Fall, though in an enfeebled state; the latter was lost through sin, but restored by Christ. The early Protestants rejected this distinction, maintaining that supernatural righteousness was part of the true nature and idea of man, i.e. was included in the "image," and not merely externally superadded. Whatever truth these distinctions may or may not contain theologically, they cannot be exegetically inferred from Genesis 1:26, where (as is now generally admitted) no real difference is intended.

We have here simply a "duplication of synonyms" (Driver) for the sake of emphasis. The two terms [image and likeness] are elsewhere used interchangeably.

biblestudytools.com

to rephrase the part of the post you have quoted and apparently have some problem with, to make it more clear to you what i meant by it:
it is perfectly acceptable and logical to interpret the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", and that it is an image of "mental and moral structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and demonstrate a degree of free will. these natural endowments can be what is meant by the usage of the term "image" in the biblical phrase "created in our image".

originally posted by: spygeek

it is perfectly acceptable and logical to interpret the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", and that it is an image of "mental and moral structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and demonstrate a degree of free will. these natural endowments can be what is meant by the usage of the term "image" in the biblical phrase "created in our image".

Surely by that statement it could be said that the entire bible could be "interpret"ation? If that's the case and it's all interpretation we can also go on the assumption that everything in the bible isn't literal and is only a "mental and moral structure" made by man.

That's my interpretation anyway

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: spygeek

This is a good attempt to "modernize" the concept of the bible to science, However, the bible is still the ramblings of culture long past, with stories, borrowings from other folk tales, errors and inaccuracies.

There is no evidence to support that nature/universe is a personal caring entity and that man is the core subject/interest of nature. I think the evidence suggest that we have evolved and learned to study and understand some aspects of the universe to our benefits..nothing more.

i couldn't agree with you more, although my "attempt to modernise the concept of the bible to science" is not by any means original, modern or unique. what i have described is an interpretation that goes back hundreds of years itself, is completely accepted by the likes of the catholic church (who support evolution), the anglicans, methodists, most modern christian denominations. It is really only opposed by some sctrict biblical literalists, a few protestent religions and jehovah's witnesses. the point i am attempting to make is that belief in God is not at all detrimental to the validity of physical science, if your belief is based in logical deductive reasoning.

On the subject of intelligence, there has been extensive and well-documented research that has found evidence of some key elements of high intelligence in ape, dolphins, elephants, crows, fish and octopuses including self awareness, emotional understanding, problem solving and reasoning, culture, and language.

Currently we are on top of the intelligence chart but that does not mean that the universe intended for it to be so.

again you are completely right and i wholeheartedly agree with you. however, back when the bible was written, it was widely assumed and accepted that Man was the only one with these qualities, and the writing of the time reflects this.

I want the people who reject evolution on the basis of one particular interpretation of scripture to realise that scripture actually supports evolution, and that their interpretation is flawed. the inconsistency between what they believe and what is objectively shown to be true through the scientific method can be completely removed by putting the bible into perspective and not interpreting arbitrarily chosen specific passages it as 100% literal.

"A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution." - American Scientific Affiliation

You can believe in God creating the universe, and scientific findings on the formation of the universe and life, without throwing away a single passage of the bible. That is my point and what the op refuses to consider, which is what this thread is apparently about.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: spygeek

it is perfectly acceptable and logical to interpret the "image" referred to in genesis is not an image of "physical structure", and that it is an image of "mental and moral structure". we are the only animals on the planet with the ability to logically reason and demonstrate a degree of free will. these natural endowments can be what is meant by the usage of the term "image" in the biblical phrase "created in our image".

Surely by that statement it could be said that the entire bible could be "interpretation"? If that's the case and it's all interpretation we can also go on the assumption that everything in the bible isn't literal and is only a "mental and moral structure" made by man.

That's my interpretation anyway

you are absolutely correct. it is completely acceptable to interpret the bible this way.
however, what must be acknowledged is that it is a very important historical document that has stood the test of time as far as it is a record of man's belief and the progression of his ideas. There is some truth in the bible, and it does record some events that have been shown to have actually happened in detail, as described by the people who witnessed them. Put in to context, without the levity of the presumed "immaculate and perfect word of God", it is a veritable goldmine of information regarding our development as a species and how we interpret history.

Timothy 2:15
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker bwho has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

I don't understand evolution.

I don't understand cricket. Difference is, I don't deny it exists.

a reply to: Barcs

first part of the post is telling me that you are very open minded but with to much doubts. If you would let go of them all and everything else you are thinking when you are meditating I believe that you will find more clarity that you are not only your body and mind but that it is just most gross material level of your existence which you are aware of currently. But awareness can expand beyond that. If you are really into meditation on a regular basis, than this issue will be someday cleared without a doubt! This will be a beautiful moment for you! It is for everybody...we are all the same, with the same doubts and questions as some point, the only difference is when will we give up trying and stop searching to find answers.

second part is true. Some people are so hard coded that they cannot accept facts. But you must admit that evolution while certainly true, it is still a bit of a mystery and not figured out. Also then there are people who would do anything for money, and probably some stuff which we all take for granted is not true because of the corrupt human nature and manipulation of facts to suit their agenda. Like for instance how they falsified dinosaurs skeletons from just a few bones or something like that waay back, when first dinosaur bones were found. There are probably more cases like this and who knows what or how real facts even are!? And this can be applied to every science or any other paper or research which is published. For instance: marijuana propaganda when it all started.
Money is the king and lies becomes truths!

And that is why people are not satisfied and are turning to god for answers while ignoring the facts. We brought this on ourself with corruption if we were honest it would never come to this!

Then on the other side. There are some people who have devoted to god fully and who would never even tell a lie or hurt another being in ANY way (even mentally with thoughts!) and are totally devoted to sharing everything they posses and know for FREE. They were and are saints, yogis, rishis.... and they are the ones who are losing a battle to science which is run by people who lie, fight, cheat,...yet they are the ones who are considered to be that. They are the ones who know the power of love and do not have ANY love for power.