Evolution and Creationism

[Earthling]

Hello everyone this is my first post so please be kind ;)

This subject seem to be a favorite source of contention for politicians, school boards and courts. In reality, there is no conflict. Evolution and creation are one in the same. Creation is the very source and essence of evolution. Evolution is the process by which creation becomes manifest. The physical world is a world of effects and has no power of causality within it.

From paleontology, we can see that species and life forms have changed over millions of years. Likewise, the early versions and forms of mankind which are available for study demonstrate a progression of form.

Evolution occurs as a progression within consciousness itself to form through greater adaptability to the enviroment. This evolution occurs on the plane of consciousness, which includes intelligence and intention as well as aesthetic awarness. Thus, evolution occurs within the domain of infinite potentiality and then becomes manifest as the consequence of creation, which is intrinsic to the essence of the universe itself, and which is continuous and ongoing.

If creation were a solitary act by God at some point in the distant past, then all living things would be exactly as they were millions of years ago. Inasmuch as neither God nor Reality has any beginning or end and exists outside time, no single act of God is tenable. Continuous creation by an ongoing and ever-present God does fit with what is apparent. Basically, there is no conflict between evolution and creation as one is merely an expression of the other in the visible domain. Evolution does not negate God but reflects Gods presence as ever present in everything that exists. Because of creation, all that exists takes joy from it's existance because of it's innate divinity, which is the consciousness of God.

Peace :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

[Craig]

It is true that creation and evolution do not necessarily have to be in conflict. The conflicts that arise between the two most commonly appear from those who read Genesis as a literal, inerrant account of creation, and thus insist that evolution must be false. The other time that a conflict occurs is when a secular person with knowledge of evolution claims that God does not exist, insisting that the creation part must be false. Neither theory is mutually exclusive, but rather both need to be modified somewhat in order to coexist (namely creationism acknowledging that evolution does occur and evolution acknowledging that life is divine in origin).

However Earthling, two parts of your discussion do not appear to be consistent. At first you state "[f]rom paleontology, we can see that species and life forms have changed over millions of years. Likewise, the early versions and forms of mankind which are available for study demonstrate a progression of form," but then you claim that "[e]volution occurs as a progression within consciousness itself to form through greater adaptability to the enviroment." First you assert that evolution is physical in nature due to changes in species notable from the fossil record, but then you claim that evolution is a progression within consciousness, or the mind, rather than the body. So, which is the case? Or do you mean to say that both evolve? And if so, what constitutes the "evolution of the mind"?

[platinum angel]

then do you still think that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. because if you do then i think your wrong because in the bible it says that he made us out of the image of him.

i not a scholar or anything on this subject

[xexon]

The bible is not in reference to the physical image, but rather the spiritual one.

This is a common misconception.



x

[platinum angel]

so what what you guys are saying is that adam and eve could've have been monkeys.?

[xexon]

I believe humans were created apart from other primates.

One could put the shoe on the other foot and say apes evolved from us. Wouldn't that cause sleepless nights in some people ? :)



x

[Fasdf]

I believe humans were created apart from other primates.

One could put the shoe on the other foot and say apes evolved from us. Wouldn't that cause sleepless nights in some people ? :)



x
No other animal has as an advanced prefrontal cortex as we do. Unlikely.

Apes would need to somehow get dumber... Natural selection would have to deem speech a detrimental trait.

We didn't evolve from apes at all, we're just in the same family tree. You're related to your cousin, right? But he's not your father is he? I hope not.

[Earthling]

craig wrote:

"First you assert that evolution is physical in nature due to changes in species notable from the fossil record, but then you claim that evolution is a progression within consciousness, or the mind, rather than the body. So, which is the case?"

You see duality where none exists. They work together through intention. Our bodies are vessels that carry our spirit, soul or whatever you wish to call it so that we may exist and interact in the physical world. Because of this “agreement” we are subject to all the laws in the physical world like adapting to changes in our surroundings.

platinum angel wrote:

"then do you still think that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. because if you do then i think your wrong because in the bible it says that he made us out of the image of him."

This reference is to our spirit not our physical form. Our spirit is the image of God. Our physical form is irrelevent and used only so that we may interact in the physical world. One of the biggest misinterpretations in evolution is that we used to be apes. The actual reference was "ape-like" not actual apes.

I agree 100% with xexon in that we were created apart from other primates.


Peace :angel: :angel: :angel:

[Fasdf]

craig wrote:

"First you assert that evolution is physical in nature due to changes in species notable from the fossil record, but then you claim that evolution is a progression within consciousness, or the mind, rather than the body. So, which is the case?"

You see duality where none exists. They work together through intention. Our bodies are vessels that carry our spirit, soul or whatever you wish to call it so that we may exist and interact in the physical world. Because of this “agreement” we are subject to all the laws in the physical world like adapting to changes in our surroundings.

platinum angel wrote:

"then do you still think that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. because if you do then i think your wrong because in the bible it says that he made us out of the image of him."

This reference is to our spirit not our physical form. Our spirit is the image of God. Our physical form is irrelevent and used only so that we may interact in the physical world. One of the biggest misinterpretations in evolution is that we used to be apes. The actual reference was "ape-like" not actual apes.

I agree 100% with xexon in that we were created apart from other primates.


Peace :angel: :angel: :angel:
First of all, you messed up the quotes you silly WS newbie.

Second, if we can just start reinterpreting the bible any way we want it becomes totally meaningless.

[xexon]

Thats why messiahs come into the world. We tend to drift of course and get confused. Messiahs come here with the sole intention of putting us back on the straight and narrow.


x

[Gale_Force15]

Thats why messiahs come into the world. We tend to drift of course and get confused. Messiahs come here with the sole intention of putting us back on the straight and narrow.


x

You don't read or watch "Shaman King" do you?

[crawfish]

No other animal has as an advanced prefrontal cortex as we do. Unlikely.

Apes would need to somehow get dumber... Natural selection would have to deem speech a detrimental trait.


Perhaps natural selection read this message board and realized that communcation was getting us nowhere... :D

[xexon]

You don't read or watch "Shaman King" do you?


Never heard of it.



x

[Craig]

You see duality where none exists. They work together through intention. Our bodies are vessels that carry our spirit, soul or whatever you wish to call it so that we may exist and interact in the physical world. Because of this “agreement” we are subject to all the laws in the physical world like adapting to changes in our surroundings.

Are you stating that you believe in the Dual Aspect response to the mind/body or body/soul problem, whereby the mind/body is analagous to two sides of the same coin and are essentially one thing?

[Nasaki601]

Well, you all certainly have your points. :) I'm actually not quite sure where to lean towards. I'm pretty sure I'm atheist, if not agnostic and I was always in favor of the evolution theory. However, we had this speaker come in today for my Religion class (where we are introduced to all sorts of different religious views) and he made this interesting point.

I probably won't say it as well as him, but he drew two separate circles on the board. One he labeled as "God" and the other he labeled as "Evolution." Then he wrote "person" right under "God" and wrote "thing" right under "Evolution." He asked whether it seemed more likely that a person created people, rather than a thing creating people. He then continued to say that in all the videos he has watched, it described the beginnings of earth with volcanoes and lightning. And always, they basically just said that life was just created. He continued to say that we could recreate the conditions, yet still not get life (as exemplified by the likes of Urey and Miller). Which means something, or rather somebody, must have created life. Of course, you may see how this doesn't make sense if you say that God literally created life as an image of himself because then all the evidence supporting evolution wouldn't add up.

[Thermopylae]

Well, you all certainly have your points. :) I'm actually not quite sure where to lean towards. I'm pretty sure I'm atheist, if not agnostic and I was always in favor of the evolution theory. However, we had this speaker come in today for my Religion class (where we are introduced to all sorts of different religious views) and he made this interesting point.

I probably won't say it as well as him, but he drew two separate circles on the board. One he labeled as "God" and the other he labeled as "Evolution." Then he wrote "person" right under "God" and wrote "thing" right under "Evolution." He asked whether it seemed more likely that a person created people, rather than a thing creating people. He then continued to say that in all the videos he has watched, it described the beginnings of earth with volcanoes and lightning. And always, they basically just said that life was just created. He continued to say that we could recreate the conditions, yet still not get life (as exemplified by the likes of Urey and Miller). Which means something, or rather somebody, must have created life. Of course, you may see how this doesn't make sense if you say that God literally created life as an image of himself because then all the evidence supporting evolution wouldn't add up.

...too bad humans have created life.

Religious zealots prey on stupid people, and likewise, they're unintelligent themselves. If you had someone like Duo ask him some questions, that would make for a pretty funny class.

What kind of school do you go to anyway?

[Craig]

I probably won't say it as well as him, but he drew two separate circle on the board. One he labeled as "God" and the other he labeled as "Evolution." Then he wrote "person" right under "God" and wrote "thing" right under "Evolution." He asked whether it seemed more likely that a person created people, rather than a thing creating people. He then continued to say that in all the videos he has watched, it described the beginnings of earth with volcanoes and lightning. And always, they basically just said that life was just created. He continued to say that we could recreate the conditions, yet still not get life (as exemplified by the likes of Urey and Miller). Which means something, or rather somebody, must have created life. Of course, you may see how this doesn't make sense if you say that God literally created life as an image of himself because then all the evidence supporting evolution wouldn't add up.

One of the problems with guest speaker is that he is using an appeal to that which people can understand more easily as evidence of creation being more probable. The problem with this is that most everything known in our universe cannot be explained if we simply appeal to that which people find most probable. For instance, it appears to be most probable that the Earth is flat; however, there is irrefutably good evidence against this position, yet this was not immediately apparent to many people throughout the ages. Likewise, the fact that all matter is composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are in turn composed of subatomic particles is not readily apparent and does not appear to be most probable, despite the fact that there is no doubt these things exist. So while people might find it more probable that we were made by God, rather than merely by forces in the physical universe, that doesn't mean that we were necessarily created by God.

While biologists have not created life per se, they have systematically constructed artificial viruses that functioned all on their own. The issue is whether or not viruses constitute life; as you may know, they have a number of characteristics that are similarly to living organisms, while on the other hand, they also have a number of traits that are radically different. Certainly, the fact that viruses cannot exist on their own certainly casts doubt upon their status as possible living organisms. Still, they are an organic entity of some sort, and it may be only a matter of time before life is created in a laboratory situation. We will have to wait and see.

[Craig]

...too bad humans have created life.

Oh? When did this happen? I am surprised it did not make front page headlines all over the world, as such an event is truly monumentous in the history of human progress. Where, praytell, can I find more information?

[Thermopylae]

Oh? When did this happen? I am surprised it did not make front page headlines all over the world, as such an event is truly monumentous in the history of human progress. Where, praytell, can I find more information?

In my basement.

[Nasaki601]

:p lol! In your basement, eh?

Well, as far as I know...I don't think that humans have created life, at least not from other life. Or let me make it more clear. I don't think humans have created life from nonlife. And yes, this is if we consider viruses as nonlife. Then again, this is from what I know (your basement not included).

[Thermopylae]

I'll ellaborate on this later, but it is important to know that I did not suggest we snapped our fingers and out came a dragon, or anything like that. But humans have created life where, by nature, it is not meant to be. We have played 'god' before.

[Duo_Maxwell]

then do you still think that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. because if you do then i think your wrong because in the bible it says that he made us out of the image of him.

i not a scholar or anything on this subject

It rarely suprises me that people who support creationism make comments like that. Often it is easier to criticize something without any real knowledge of it and hope that your "faith" holds strong. However, thank you for noting that you are not a scholar on this subject. it's refreshing to be told that, and not that "i know everything about evolution and it's wrong" kind of attiude.

Humans didn't evolve from apes or monkeys. Humans, monkeys (technically apes as well) and apes evolved from a common species which no longer exists for obvious reasons.

If God made mankind out of a image of himself, he is therefore imperfect. Perfect creates perfection, imperfect creates imperfection. I'm not sure many religious folk hold a belief that God is imperfect.

As for Therms' comment, he's a bit off the mark. We created the building blocks of life from non-life.

[heel31ok]

Duo,according to the Bible, God did create man perfect and in His own image. What we see man as now is not that state , but is a fallen state caused by sin which brings death. That perfection though was not divinity if we want to split hairs.

[Craig]

Duo,according to the Bible, God did create man perfect and in His own image. What we see man as now is not that state , but is a fallen state caused by sin which brings death. That perfection though was not divinity if we want to split hairs.

Ah, but if God really did create man "perfect" as you say, man would not have chosen to sin against God. One cannot be perfect if one freely chooses to sin, can one? Therefore, man is an imperfect creation by a supposedly perfect God.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Adding to Craig's imperfect theory, millions of species, God's creations have perished. Perfection does not perish, imperfection does. Yet God is supposively Perfect, and imperfect comes from imperfect, and perfection from perfection. So how can the creations of god fail, and be imperfect when God is perfect? Also, If man was created from a perfect being, why are newborn humans, innocent in all degrees, born with imperfections? How can perfection create imperfection and still retain its imborn qualities?

[Craig]

Adding to Craig's imperfect theory, millions of species, God's creations have perished. Perfection does not perish, imperfection does. Yet God is supposively Perfect, and imperfect comes from imperfect, and perfection from perfection. So how can the creations of god fail, and be imperfect when God is perfect? Also, If man was created from a perfect being, why are newborn humans, innocent in all degrees, born with imperfections? How can perfection create imperfection and still retain its imborn qualities?

My question to you Duo is what makes it necessary for a perfect God to only create perfect beings and perfect things?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Necessary? The only thing I can think of is to retain perfection. Creation is a extension of one's self. If the creator is perfect, the creation must be perfect. If the creator is imperfect, then the creation must be imperfect.

[Craig]

Creation is a extension of one's self. If the creator is perfect, the creation must be perfect.

Do you have a logical justification to support both of these premises, or not?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Creation is putting the will of the creator into the creation. It is shaping the creation into what the creator wants it to be. If God is perfect, and perfection is the absence of imperfection, the will of God is perfect, the use of that will into creating will produce something that is likewise perfect.

[Craig]

Creation is putting the will of the creator into the creation. It is shaping the creation into what the creator wants it to be. If God is perfect, and perfection is the absence of imperfection, the will of God is perfect, the use of that will into creating will produce something that is likewise perfect.

But it is possible for an perfect being to deliberately create something imperfect, is it not? As an analogy, I can have perfect knowledge of all the answers on an exam, but deliberately select the wrong answer which results in an imperfect exam mark. This choice, however, does not negate the fact that I had perfect knowledge of the exam in the first place.

[Duo_Maxwell]

The difference between you and God is that you aren't perfect. ;)

A perfect being COULD concievably create imperfect creations, but that would be the WILL to create imperfect creations. If the will of a perfect being is now tainted by imperfection, is the being perfect anymore?

[heel31ok]

In Christ we are made perfect.Colossians 1:28. God made us originally throughAdam and Eve as free moral agents able to choose.We are made perfect when we choose to follow Him.This is the only true way we can be perfect and it is a perfect plan by a perfect God. He could not make us divine only God is divine but He still made a way for our perfection. That is what being made Holy as He is Holy is."because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made Holy."

[Duo_Maxwell]

....
Heel31ok, that argument is simply a "because I said so."

At least me and Craig attempt to offer a logical thought path.

How can a perfect creation willfully practice imperfection?

[Craig]

The difference between you and God is that you aren't perfect. ;)

A perfect being COULD concievably create imperfect creations, but that would be the WILL to create imperfect creations. If the will of a perfect being is now tainted by imperfection, is the being perfect anymore?

You're presupposing that the will to create imperfect beings renders God imperfect. That may be true, but you'll need a better justification to convince me it is so.

Now Duo, have you ever considered that a perfect being may need to necessarily create imperfect beings in order to be perfect? After all, perfection really refers to "most complete" and to be the most complete, one would necessarily need to create perfect and imperfect things.

[heel31ok]

[QUOTE=Duo_Maxwell]The difference between you and God is that you aren't perfect. ;)
This is why He is God and we are not!

[Duo_Maxwell]

You're presupposing that the will to create imperfect beings renders God imperfect. That may be true, but you'll need a better justification to convince me it is so.

This is all hypotheical of course, due to the fact that we really can't prove anything. Anyways, this will of course have to be based in the imperfect world. Suppose a chemical plant, brand new, clean, very spiffy :D starts going into action. It produces polluting chemicals, many of them cancerious, corrosive, and detremential to the plant. Is the plant still in its origianal state (for this example, the state of perfection in cleanliness) after it has created the chemicals? Even if it is scrubbed clean, signs of chemicals and the damage that has occured are still traceble.


Now Duo, have you ever considered that a perfect being may need to necessarily create imperfect beings in order to be perfect? After all, perfection really refers to "most complete" and to be the most complete, one would necessarily need to create perfect and imperfect things.

Yes I have, perfection cannot be measured or understood unless one understands and see imperfection. Perfect is defined as "being entirely without fault or defect." But then again the english language is a creation of the imperfect human species, who errors constantly. ;) However, using that imperfect definition (hence why I cannot prove anything), the will of the "perfect" God would no longer be perfect if it intentionally created imperfection. The will of this God is part of the god, and perfection can only be achieved if the being in its entirety is without fault. The idea that perfection may in reality be relative may be a truth. I see you are using the evolutionary definition of perfect. That's not exactly correct though, given that evolution cannot fashion the perfect organism, just create the most fit from the parts it has been given. Have you entertained the notion that God may be perfect, but it was not God who created man?