Jupiter Images
I know it's a touchy subject but I thought people might be interested in this slant on things:
Evolution says that life came from the 'primordial soup (mud)' and the Bible actually says, what I am convinced, is the same thing:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Gen. 2:7)
Dust (as powdered or gray; hence clay, earth, mud:-ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish) ‘of the ground (soil - from its gen. redness).
Darwin said that human beings came from the primates, and Bible writings have this to say:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy (red)’, rosy, the flush of blood
"...man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7b):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = breathing creature/the animal sentiment principal only
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth - dust/ground)
"Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (ruddy) whom he had made." (parentheses mine, Gen. 2:8 & 15)
So then, Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (had to have been a chimpanzee/rhesus monkey because according to recent genome mapping, somewhere along the line we picked up the chimp gene - see attached 'chimphand').
It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained it, could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the human species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other primates? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?
soul = mortal
spirit = immortal
animal = sou
human being = soul + immortal spiritl
Login or Register to post comments
neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I know it's a touchy subject but I thought people might be interested in this slant on things:
Evolution says that life came from the 'primordial soup (mud)' and the Bible actually says, what I am convinced, is the same thing:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Gen. 2:7)
Dust (as powdered or gray; hence clay, earth, mud:-ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish) ‘of the ground (soil - from its gen. redness).
Darwin said that human beings came from the primates, and Bible writings have this to say:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy (red)’, rosy, the flush of blood
"...man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7b):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = breathing creature/the animal sentiment principal only
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth - dust/ground)
"Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (ruddy) whom he had made." (parentheses mine, Gen. 2:8 & 15)
So then, Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (had to have been a chimpanzee/rhesus monkey because according to recent genome mapping, somewhere along the line we picked up the chimp gene - see attached 'chimphand').
It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained it, could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the human species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other primates? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?
soul = mortal
spirit = immortal
animal = soul
human being = soul + immortal spirit
Consider this article in NewStatesman (u.k.):
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/schools-religion-science
and (though I know many of you need no convincing) take a look at this chimp hand:
http://www.savethechimps.org/chimps_facts_hand.asp
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
so god took a monkey into the garden to become Adam and off we go?
sounds like a lot of faffing about on god's part.
yes animals are too sound to mess with religion
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I think this theory fits better all round than any other. I mean, if we evolved from primates, why aren't the other monkeys in church???
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
mesoamerican cultures believed all things arose from the primal mound, so we could say that too is an analogy for evolution in said context. so should i believe in those religions upon the same basis?
i don’t think so, it is far better to simply understand things for what they are, science doesn’t need analogies.
besides god should have been quite capable of expounding evolution directly!
_____________________________________________
here is a thread i done on it recently at another forum:
the basis of terrorism resolved; you are not a Jew, you are not a Palestinian, your god is a liar, your religions are false, and you are all heretics.
funny how the truth presents us with an adverse poetry of meaning, the resolution to the main conflicts in the world is enough to cause greater conflict than it resolves. this thread is an amalgamation of what i have learned from other people since i came on line, i have just put it all in one place in hopefully a concise manner.
1. you are not a Jew or a Palestinian, English, German, Chinese etc.
1a. there is no such thing as race. if you take an African and place them in e.g. Scandinavia for a few thousand years, their nostrils will close and hence noses become smaller, due to the colder weather, their skin will turn white and hair blonde ~ all due to environmental conditions. Scandinavians are Africans as are we all. the human race is a species of ape, there are other species of ape but not within humanity, thus humanity is a single race. you cannot rightly call yourself Jewish or Palestinian ~ they don’t exist.
1b. you are not the chosen people. simple as there is no such thing as race nor culture, then the notion of a chosen people is built upon a false basis.
1c. there is no such thing as culture specifically. if you take any culture in the world not only does it change as it merges with other on its borders, it changes through trade and human relationship. moreover all cultures change within themselves for example, if you took a snapshot of Judea at say 500 year intervals, you would see a culture that changes as much as any two cultures do comparatively. even its religion has changed from pagan to a godhead live monotheism to monotheism proper, upon that the definition of god has changed in all its incarnations.
2. your god is a liar. according to the bible and other related texts of abrahamic religions, god has told the Israelites that they are the chosen people, this is clearly a false analogy as there are no races nor cultures just varying peoples of the world.
3. your religions are false. the nature and truth of god is beyond definition, if we define it in any way whatsoever, that definition can be broken down and shown to be false. if then, there is a true god its truth cannot be spoken, you cannot know what god is nor what he believes. any religion is an interpretation of the said truth, even if god ventured to tell his truth, as soon as he speaks to us his words cannot describe his truth.
4. you are not a Muslim, Christian etc. you cannot define yourself by any given set of info due to the fluidity of the mind. secondly if you take away a given set there still remains a whole set ~ in real terms we can imagine this as like, if we renounced our religion we would still have a complete vision, it may have many elements of the former vision but they will be reinterpreted. in much the same way one persons vision will always be different to anothers, as it is a subjective whole derived from a set of other and never a single set!
5. we are all heretics. ‘any definition taken from one source and given to another, is subjective’. on a basic level we may transfer simple info but once gathered in the mind the overall vision will always be different. any two minds will have a different interpretation of applied religion, the brain does not just take in one source of info and that it, it has many sources and continually re-evaluates all info and adds to it. the minds book is always open and never complete, hence cannot have an overall specific definition.
is it not time for humanity to let go of falsehood, no matter how distasteful the truth is we must concede to it. i state; there are no basis to war and terrorism, i defy anyone to counter that.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
Me thinks thou dost protest too loudly!!!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
indeed, it is interesting that they can in a round about way correlate, this may be because of ancient ideas like the sandman. people see plants grow from the ground then animals eat of the plants, so it is a simple analogy to make that in origins things come from the ground.
thing is god could have said about evolution just as easy as using metaphors ~ or he could have used a more accurate metaphor!
haha yes, well the truth should be louder than ignorance, yes? my main ehem relevant point there was concerning the ‘chosen people’, god would be well aware of the truth and it is far wiser to say we are all equal rather than some are better than others, or that we all come from 12 tribes of israel and not from africa!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I should clarify that I agree with you, we are all equal. God is impartial, the Hebrew race benefitted not because of themselves (they weren't even around) but because of Abraham. God liked this man, and made promises that he would bless Abraham's 'seed'. God didn't pick the seed (read the Old Testament, God was always mad at them for their backsliding), he picked Abraham and the seed benefitted solely because of that man.
I almost hate to say it, simply because I don't want to cause any more trouble than already exists for these people, but it needs be said; present Jewish religion is not what Abraham believed.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
What 'truth' are we talking about?
I'm still trying to verify that humans originated from Africa. Don't forget that Pangea was a super continent and the geography was very different initially.
I think that 'black' skin was an adaptation of the human body to a very 'hot' climate because black people were initially, only found in very 'hot' regions.
As for the 12 tribes - life didn't orginate there, however, God did (because of Abraham) make a covenant with those people.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
hi
that there is no such thing as race. that truth cannot be expounded even by god ~ due to its nature [is beyond linguistic definition].
its a well known fact [that humanity came from africa] in scientific circles. pangea was millions of years ago, long before humans or even apes existed. you are right about black skin being environmental, as are wide nostrils [to keep cool].
humans naturally are white [hence white underside of many blacks hands and feet], anything like widening or tightening [i.e. in cold climates] of nostrils and hair colour etc are all environmental.
i would think it wiser for god not to choose between peoples ~ unless he believes in dualism! equally he could have told us the truth from the start ~ that we are all equal etc etc.
i think god is if anything [i.e. if ‘god’ is the correct term to use even] an infinite being, he simply does not have the apparatus to ‘talk’ with us except perhaps intuitively.
this is why meaning derived from divine source is always subjective! why do you think people were pagans for thousands of years, it is surely because they interpreted divine intuitions/visions differently.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
maybe god is a symptom not a condition?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
That would be true were it not for the existence of the 'book'!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
when you say 'book' do you mean, "MISSING PIECES OF THE BIBLE: Lost Books Fill-in the Blanks REVISED EDITION"or just some other 'book'?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
again, how did you know that I was the author?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I should further clarify that though I believe in the uniqueness of the Bible, religion is the bane of my existence.
The fact of its (the Bible's) existence, means it's something we cannot, must not, ignore. In it's present known state, however, I personally wish that Bible writings didn't exist at all (I say it reverently to God) because though I know it contains the deepest wisdom, yet people who lack understanding are using it to line their pockets, or misinform and control the weak, keeping themselves and others in the pit of deception.
Use the conjunctive-repetitive method to decode the writings and one comes up with - logic.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
It's all down to interpretation. When you ask what about the apes, they came from that same primordial soup. That's what evolve means. As for humans having a living soul, they became conscious of their surrounding and learned through their lifetime, each generation learning and evolving with their environment. Consciousness. Whatever god is, if there is such a thing, could simply be nothing more than the world/the earth/the forces of nature/the sun/the galaxy/the universe.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
or just three lttle letters strung together to cause maximum misery like war and tax ?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
logic aint all that wisdom is cracked up to be
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
if wisdom isn't logical then are you saying it's illogical?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
How do you know about that book? And no, I didn't mean that one, I meant the book as in the Bible. The name Bible is the English translation for Greek 'book'.
You should have read, 'Redefining Bible Interpretation' on Lulu.com instead.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
For those who might be interested in reading the entire book (approx. 400 kb), I can provide the pdf format, but obviously that can't be done on the forum, or can it?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
what do you think of this picture?
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/schools-religion-science
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
dmwessel has cited this link to a New Statesman article by professed ("but not quite practising") atheist Peter Wilby discussing the Rev Prof Michael Reiss' statement which led to his resignation from the Royal Society in September 2008, as reproduced in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
Arguably poor Prof Reiss was only trying to be helpful. I am not sure whether the Guardian article was his original statement, but all he asks there is that if a 'creationist' student raises issues about creationism or ID in a science class they should be discussed, and "can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works". As far as I can see he does NOT ask for creationism to be taught in the same class as evolution.
Prof Reiss does say "Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures." 'Understood' is maybe the wrong word, and if they are 'a religious issue' this is completely one-sided since religion has no relevance whatever to evolution and cosmology as disciplines. If these raise moral hackles over ways they might lead people to behave, that is a separate matter. Still, nothing here to get heated about.
Mr Wilby, on the other hand, asserts that "Keeping religion and biology separate, as though one has no bearing on the other, is intellectually incoherent". Nothing personal, but I think placing religion and biology together is pernicious, dangerous and a betrayal of what those who value truth have fought for, and in some cases died for.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I agree with Mr. Wilby, 'religion' and biology should be kept separate, but religion and the Bible are not the same things.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
This post is incoherent as well as duplicated. What Mr Wilby said is that they should NOT be kept separate. Read the original article.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
Mr. Wilby said: "But I do not like faith schools or the teaching of religion in schools as a discrete subject. To me, intelligent design is an attempt to reintroduce creationism in a more plausible form, having got round the manifest falsehood that the world began in 4004BC. It is a theory, but it happens to be wrong, while Darwin's theory of natural selection, overwhelmingly supported by evidence, is right."
Besides, I was pointing out the 'picture', not the article - though I should have said that!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
yeah maybe sometimes its better to say nothing otherwise post for post's sake
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
[QUOTE dmwessel: Mr. Wilby said: "But I do not like faith schools or the teaching of religion in schools as a discrete subject. To me, intelligent design is an attempt to reintroduce creationism in a more plausible form, having got round the manifest falsehood that the world began in 4004BC. It is a theory, but it happens to be wrong, while Darwin's theory of natural selection, overwhelmingly supported by evidence, is right. Besides, I was pointing out the 'picture', not the article - though I should have said that!
Dmwessel makes a perfectly good point. The picture is amusing though you could say that '2001' did it better. However, what Mr Wilby says above is really quite unremarkable compared to his assertion which I quoted: "Keeping religion and biology separate, as though one has no bearing on the other, is intellectually incoherent". As for 'post for post's sake', there could hardly be a better example than the last one quoted.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
its not always flattering to keep score
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I agree with Mr. Wilby, 'religion' and biology should be kept separate, but who said that religion is Biblical?
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
if you think that's pernicious invite a few friends over and get out your juicer to make a smoothie called Theosophy - a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3987/theosop.html
philosophy religion science : each would eat the other if it could.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
Thank you Unregistered #30. I could eat you!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
Dear All,
All very interesting. However:
So, through careful (re?)-interpretation of the bible, you say that evolution is compatible with bible writings. Could we not say that the bible is compatible with evolution, and discard it as a source of knowledge, using instead the readily available, written in English (with easily traceable provenance) scientific works of the modern era?
I am not saying get rid of the bible, I just want to reduce people's reliance on it as a source of knowledge. What does it contain that is not more easily available elsewhere? Why is it of importance to anyone except historians? There are millions of words written of a similar age which don't get half the attention, and are just as worthy of study - from a historical standpoint.
For rules on how to live - we have society for that, with it's parents, teachers and peers for training, and law courts for repremanding those who step out of line. I am certain we are capable of writing a book on etiquette and basic morality that is far easier to read, and more relevant to our society as it currently stands. In fact, such books do exist - why don't we use thm to teach our children rather than the strange and unusual stories from the biible?
For one thing, it would save on paper - the bible is a big book, for all the useful day-to-day information it may contain.
Regards,
Andrew J Cochran
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
The people who use the bible as a source of KNOWLEDGE are beyond help in some respects
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I meant for free of course!
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
interesting point, but why pick one man and not lots of men from different parts of the world? people in tibet and britain wouldn’t know anything about abraham until much later. secondly, are you saying that the tribes of israel came directly from abraham?
i thought jewish religion was, hmm but the tree of life etc was later for sure.
to be honest i don’t study it much as i don’t see israel as the centre of the world, and i think the truth is different to what the bible or any other religious text says. i have gone through them all lols.
there may well be more to the story about man coming from africa, but it makes no difference to the idea outlined.
in genetics there is always an original parent which underwent the genetic changes, so if that parent was in china africa or america it is still true that there is only one human race.
god a symptom? hmm well awareness is fundamental as it is ‘now’ where all ‘phenomena’ are historical, in terms of time. this being so, surely the most fundamental entity would be infinite + aware + being + intellect. i would say then that god is not a condition, but as a symptom he would be... ‘symptom; anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X’s existence’, ~ amongst existence yet that is exactly what we and nature are.
if we associate god as existent with/as nature we end up with paganism, which is why i have been a pagan for quite some time. if we don’t then we have to describe god as external to existence, which provides is with only a duplicity of spiritual entity.
.
.
.
y’ lost me sorry.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
According to the writings, God and Abraham were friends. How much, as it's in your power to do, would you do for a good friend?
Israel's mandate from God was to demonstrate his love to other people, but Israel became self-centered, assuming they were the center of God's universe.
You're right and I'm not discounting the present evidence, in fact I'm convinced of it, as far as we know the story.
true - I know I'm trying to make the pattern fit something else but is it absolutely certain that was the 'original' parent?
God isn't nature, he simply created the process whereby nature came into being.
I should have been more clear, 'book' as in the translation of the Greek Biblos (Bible).
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
While I know the present evidence is conclusive, still, science bases this on present 'known' evidence. I still think there's more to the story.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
Agreed !
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I agree that science doesn't need analogies, I was just surprised to learn that Bible writings are compatible with it. But then, religions are not Biblical.
Re: neo-Darwinian Evolution compatible with Bible writings
I'm down (to use the vernacular) with that.
...but don't give me my strarving, crying children, famine and a gun on the same day