184 replies to this topic

[Ives]

I was recently reading on a religious debate board the question of intelligent design vs evolution. By two pages into it, they began to argue about genesis. A young man named Miles Serizaki posted the following concepted draft of evolution with creationism, including Genesis.

I am a Creationist who believes in evolution.

Now, that looks like a total contradiction, doesn't it? Believe it or not, there are other Christians that share the same view that I am about to impart. I believe that the better part of Genesis refers not to a 7-day creation of the Earth, as many modern Christians do, but instead to the 7-day repair of the Earth after the War of Angels, when Lucifer was cast from Heaven (the texts of which are excluded for the most part from modern Bibles). The time before hand, sometimes referred to by some modern ministers as the First World Age, is the time between the Creation of the planet and the recent era, and in that time, everything from trilobites, to dinosaurs, to early animals of every type were allowed to change and develop.

The Bible reveals the time of the Second World Age (the range of years from which it started can be debated), the time specifically of humans, after the repair of the planet from the wrath of Lucifer, who wished to be the Messiah and rebelled against God. On the 6th day, humans were created around the world, and it was good. Some time after the 7th day, God created Adam and Eve to tend the garden, but Satan led them astray. Outside of the garden is where Adam and Eve and their descendents (Able, Cain, and Seth) met the other humans who were either created earlier on the 6th day of the Earth's repair... and this was the modern age.

As far as the "humans" (as scientists calls them) who existed in the First World Age are concerned (your Homo erectus and all varieties of upright great apes), it would appear as though they are likely advanced species of animals. Why do they look similar to us? Here's an example: a tasmanian tiger (believed extinct, although modern sightings persist) and a dingo may look similar, but their evolutionary differences are extreme (I.e. placenta vs. no placenta). Scientists presently consider an elephant more similar to a dingo than a tasmanian tiger, simply because of these evolutionary differences. Get the picture? Marsupial vs. placental mammal. Now, how does this prove my point. It means that two creatures, with two very different lineages, can in time, look similar.

Of course, scientists don't realize how often they prove the Bible right. If you want to learn something interesting, look up Mitochondrial Eve . Some scientists place the date of every human's female ancestor at 250,000 years, others at a more shocking (to evolutionists, at least) 6,000 years.

In conclusion, I'm a Creationist who believes in evolution. To sum up, the differences I share with the traditional evolutionist are:

A. a belief in God, the Messiah, and the powers of Heaven, and the influence they have had on humankind throughout history.
B. a belief that modern humans were created separate from all other animals, even those apelike creatures that sorta look like us (remember my tasmanian tiger/dingo analogy, because if anyone plans to turn this into a debate, I plan to repeat it ).

What would you think of this thought? I actually believe it would make reasonable sense into the creationism idea. I don't quite agree with the humans part, but I do believe this could very well be true.

[Will]

That makes sense I guess but I have a different idea. Although I don't technically believe in god, if there were a god I'd believe that rather than create the world in seven exact days that seven days was figurative speech for, say, 1 day=.75ish billion years. I can't bring myself to not believe evolution but I could see god creating creatures with the intent of evolution. Blegh I don't know if that made any sense.

[Warlord]

The sega genesis was the best system of the early 90's and probably the pinnacle of sega's hardware line

damn, I should dig mine out and fire up sonic the hedgehog and street fighter 2

[Ives]

The sega genesis was the best system of the early 90's and probably the pinnacle of sega's hardware line

damn, I should dig mine out and fire up sonic the hedgehog and street fighter 2

Relevance to the book in the bible?

[pyke]

Warlord try reading through the posts xD

[Warlord]

Warlord try reading through the posts xD

I know, but I am a Joke Maker

God took a pile of ooze millions of years ago and set into motion the process of life we live now

That's what I believe anyway

[Magma]

The sega genesis was the best system of the early 90's and probably the pinnacle of sega's hardware line

damn, I should dig mine out and fire up sonic the hedgehog and street fighter 2

haha, it was a good game system but back to the topic of the post haha

I think it is reasonable. Whoever wrote this wrote it well and backed it up with some facts. But its what you believe in. I mean if someone proved the bible was all real events that happened, it wouldnt matter to some people only because of beliefs. I strickly believe in science but you never know what happened before recorded history. There very well could have been a race of animal in which looked like humans and had wings or w/e. Again, its all beliefs, and this guy backed his belief up very well. Although I do not believe in what he has said, this was very well done.

[Hawk]

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

I think that kinda blows his theory up in his face. It makes NO mention of the creation of humans ouside of the Garden prior to the creation of Adam. I think thats what the dude was saying, Im too lazy to reread it.

Too bad we will never know what really happened, if anything, till after we die

Edit: Also, if anyone can find a reference to the war of angels or whatever in the regular 66 books I may consider it. I doubt it though. I kinda stick to the main 66 because the never contradict eachother.

Edited by hawk117, 21 April 2006 - 04:29 PM.

[Ives]

I think that kinda blows his theory up in his face. It makes NO mention of the creation of humans ouside of the Garden prior to the creation of Adam. I think thats what the dude was saying, Im too lazy to reread it.

Too bad we will never know what really happened, if anything, till after we die

Edit: Also, if anyone can find a reference to the war of angels or whatever in the regular 66 books I may consider it. I doubt it though. I kinda stick to the main 66 because the never contradict eachother.

He isn't.

[Hawk]

He isn't.

What is he getting at then?

[Will]

What is he getting at then? wacko.gif

Dude just read it. It's a good read.

Well, I failed miserably to understand anything he said, so I wouldn't be surprised. He should have been alot more brieft, expecially on a subject like this. Anyways, so where is he saying man came from? He is completely agreeting with evolution that man came from monkey's? Because that has to be the stupidest idea that has ever crossed my mind about evolution and christian beliefs. Mainly because creatures don't just grow souls.

So first, is he saying that the first humans were ones God created, or that we came from monkey's. Because if he agress with the adam and eve thing, my argument is still valid.

Creatures don't grow souls but soul (in my opinion anyway) is really only heightened self awareness IE more brainpower which according to evolution we did evolve.

[redlion]

Dude just read it. It's a good read.
Creatures don't grow souls but soul (in my opinion anyway) is really only heightened self awareness IE more brainpower which according to evolution we did evolve.

*Doubletake* Huh-wha? Soul is brainpower? Some of the dumbest people I know have more heart(metaphoric heart, not cardio tissue) and soul than Albert Einstein ever could.

Soul has nothing to do with the brain, or any other physical shape, except to be interpreted through them (I.e. love may be the communing of souls, but it happens though the physical interaction of people in the physical world).

If you want the definition, American Heritage (the most complete dictionary under the sun) says:

#1 The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
#2 The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
#3 The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
#4 A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
#5 The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
#6 A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
#7 A person's emotional or moral nature: “An actor is... often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).
#8 A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music.
#9 A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist.

Take a good look at the first, second and third ones. "...separable from the body at death..." I'm pretty well convinced that no matter what philosophy you belive in, be it christianity (because it is considered a philosophy), Jung, or Nhilist, you've pretty much got to admit that soul is different than simply more self awareness.

[Waser Lave]

Because animals do not have souls like a human, and an animal could never "evolve" a soul.

Erm, how do you know that humans even have souls? (preferably without some religious crap)

[Waser Lave]

... This debate has been on the fact that you believe God is real.

So we hell-bound non-believers cant join in the fun? pity

[redlion]

Hold on, I 've not said one word about me believing in God.

And Ailas, did you even answer his question? I believe you just responded to his comment at the end.

[redlion]

...

I think every single one of our debates ends in Alias saying that exact same thing. Its impossible to debate with someone that is so set in their beliefs that they aren't even willing to be logical with opposing factions.

[amyjia]

Edit: Also, if anyone can find a reference to the war of angels or whatever in the regular 66 books I may consider it. I doubt it though. I kinda stick to the main 66 because the never contradict eachother.

Got it.. starting at Revelation ch. 12 starting at verse 7 (12:7) I will post what it says.. (from translated King James study Bible) through to (12:13)

"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time."


well that's what it says

[Sweeney]

Alias, do you believe that the Earth was created literally, in six days?

Also, in order to claim that a creature cannot evolve a soul, you must know precisely what a soul is. Care to explain it to me?

[Ives]

I believe the soul is more or less metaphorical, in description of a persons thoughts and their functioning based off of the nervous system. Which I think reasonable enough as.

[Stryyp]

That's preety much what all non-religious people think. Some religions the soul is like that, but im reffering to like christianity, mormonism, etc.

That we believe a soul is like Reeshu explained, or your religious explanation?

I have my own views on the earths creation, along with the whole dinosaur's being older than the earth is supposed to be, blah blah blah. I will gather up all the info for it and whatnot and post it later, just don't feel like doing it right now

[Stryyp]

Well, logically if I said that it was most likely in my view. And you can go ahead and post that stuff, but I have answered before that I can't argue with theories, just like you can't argue with my religion.

I wasn't asking about your point of view on your religion, but your point of view on my religion, Mormonism. I have already read through past posts and you don't think of much of us, but was just curious as to if you believe we think of souls in the same religious way you do.

[Sweeney]

I can't answer that first question because I don't know, nor do I care. All you need to know is that God created the earth, the servant should never question his mater. Keep that in mind. And I won't explain the soul because my view is religious, and it would only further create problems to explain it because I have seen the way you act towards my religion, and it's very very negative, so I won't waste my time.

I asked what you believe, not what you know. Different things, no?
Also, I take offence to being called a servant, no matter who the "master" may be. Please refrain from that in future.

I asked you to explain the soul to validate your previous remarks, which you are unfortunately unwilling to do. I am therefore forced to disregard your previous statements about the evolution of a soul.

[Sweeney]

Um, I just explained my view on the soul in my last post, please pay attention. And when I said servant/master, that was a verse I was quoting.

Your only statement about the soul was: "The soul is 'you'"
I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem like a tremendously clear explanation.

And I don't give a toss if you were quoting the Pope, please don't call me a servant.

[Sweeney]

I dont have a problem with you bringing your religion in here, since this is a topic about your religion's hloy book.
I would, however, prefer if you could phrase it in your own words, to demonstrate, if you will, that it is also your own opinion.