Re: Adam and eve or evolution
Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.
Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.
theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.
Originally posted by P23
theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.
Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.
like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.
Originally posted by P23
like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.
Considering how well the world has bounced back from "shit in the mid east" through out history I can't see the slightest reason for concern.
Re: Re: Adam and eve or evolution
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.
quite possibly but the only place I have ever seen the story of Adam and Eve was in the old Testament and it was offered up as the literal origins of human beings along with the creation of the rest of the universe as told in Genesis.
In this story Eve is created by a magical/invisible diety from Adam's rib. A rib who's cells contain the exact same DNA sequence as every other cell in Adam's body. Ofcourse, today we know that this could only result in a clone, a genetic duplicate of the source (Adam). The story is as such because the primitive man who concocted it had no idea what DNA was or that it existed. He just looked at the world around him wondering how things work and why things are the way they are. The only answer his knowledge deprived brain could arrive at was " a magical, invisible man is responsible for it all so this is how he did it".
If there is an older version, please inform me.....no sarcasm intended.
Well there are Gnostic versions. One may be The Book of Adam, I believe.
Some Gnostics adopted a pattern of interpretation similar to Philo's but changed the content. Instead of characterizing human psychodynamics, as Philo had, in terms of an interaction between mind and sensation, Gnostics pictured it in terms of the interaction of soul and spirit, that is, between the psyche (ordinary consciousness, understood to include both mind and sensation) and the spirit, the potential for a higher, spiritual consciousness. Many Gnostics read the story of Adam and Eve, consequently, as an account of what takes place within a person who is engaged in the process of spiritual self-discovery.
Good point also. If the DNA was identical, then Eve was a man or am I wrong.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Well there are Gnostic versions. One may be The Book of Adam, I believe.
Some Gnostics adopted a pattern of interpretation similar to Philo's but changed the content. Instead of characterizing human psychodynamics, as Philo had, in terms of an interaction between mind and sensation, Gnostics pictured it in terms of the interaction of soul and spirit, that is, between the psyche (ordinary consciousness, understood to include both mind and sensation) and the spirit, the potential for a higher, spiritual consciousness. Many Gnostics read the story of Adam and Eve, consequently, as an account of what takes place within a person who is engaged in the process of spiritual self-discovery.Good point also. If the DNA was identical, then Eve was a man or am I wrong.
I understand completely about interpretation. Many Christians today even choose to interpret most of the bible as metaphors instead of casting aside thier belief structure that is based on a book they know to be completely wrong. Anybody can interpret any piece of written material in ways never intended.
that was really my point. The story, as written was not done so to be interpretated. It was the 100% literal account of the origins of man and our universe. Any interpretations of it are done only after it was all debunked. Is it really fair to go back to a primitive story known to be wrong and ouright silly, after the fact, and try to impose other meanings onto it grasping at some hope of validity? I mean....if someone writes down an account of how things happened, only to be proven false.........why go back and try to interpretate the false information in such a way as to try to lend it creedence and/or merit? what does that accomplish? Surely any ideology that could arise from it could be easily duplicated with that person writing their own story, one that it actually meant to be interpretated on different levels.
Re: Re: Re: Adam and eve or evolution
Originally posted by Evil Dead
quite possibly but the only place I have ever seen the story of Adam and Eve was in the old Testament and it was offered up as the literal origins of human beings along with the creation of the rest of the universe as told in Genesis.In this story Eve is created by a magical/invisible diety from Adam's rib. A rib who's cells contain the exact same DNA sequence as every other cell in Adam's body. Ofcourse, today we know that this could only result in a clone, a genetic duplicate of the source (Adam). The story is as such because the primitive man who concocted it had no idea what DNA was or that it existed. He just looked at the world around him wondering how things work and why things are the way they are. The only answer his knowledge deprived brain could arrive at was " a magical, invisible man is responsible for it all so this is how he did it".
If there is an older version, please inform me.....no sarcasm intended.
I don't understand why the whole rib thing is in there. If God really exists and that is really what happened, then it is utterly absurd to think it is beyond God's ability to alter the DNA of the incoming tissues to form a female.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Adam and eve or evolution
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand why the whole rib thing is in there. If God really exists and that is really what happened, then it is utterly absurd to think it is beyond God's ability to alter the DNA of the incoming tissues to form a female.
then it would also be absurd to think he would need to use a rib in the first place, or dirt for Adam. Why not just a blink of the eyes and nod of the head, I Dream of Jeanie style?
because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy, he was then bound by the laws of physics also created by his god. He didn't say god took adam's rib and manipulated it into something else, then made Eve. He strictly said Adam's rib. We know what a rib is. Unfortunately for the author, we know more what a rib is then he did. We know what comprises a rib where he did not. If his god didn't want the physical laws pertaining to the rib and the DNA included therein to exist, he wouldn't have made them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Adam and eve or evolution
Originally posted by Evil Dead
then it would also be absurd to think he would need to use a rib in the first place, or dirt for Adam. Why not just a blink of the eyes and nod of the head, I Dream of Jeanie style?because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy, he was then bound by the laws of physics also created by his god. He didn't say god took adam's rib and manipulated it into something else, then made Eve. He strictly said Adam's rib. We know what a rib is. Unfortunately for the author, we know more what a rib is then he did. We know what comprises a rib where he did not. If his god didn't want the physical laws pertaining to the rib and the DNA included therein to exist, he wouldn't have made them.
I agree with you much more than you think. That's why I said I don't get the need for the rib portion of the story. Also, you bring up an even better point about the "poof" thing. (making Eve out of nothing with a "poof".)
God subjected himself to the Laws of the Universe when he created it. I don't believe that God does "poof" with anything...and if he does, it is less "poof" and more "science" than we know.
I think that evolution fits much better into the type of uber intelligent God that people believe in. Having a "poof" God makes him immature, restricted, and less intelligent.
I see no need for a god at all anymore. Sure, it served a purpose at one time. There were so many questions, no answers.....god filled the need. Necissity is the mother of invention. They needed answers, they invented one.
Thousands of years later, not only have we provided answers for most questions they had at the time......eliminating the need they had created a god to fill, we have answered so many more questions then they could have ever imagined asking.
It now seems as though people forget why a god was concieved of in the first place. A god isn't about going to a building every sunday for 2 hours or donating 10% of your income to an organization. It never was. It wasn't 3,000 years ago.....even 2,000 years ago. It seems as though that's the only purpose a god fills these days, filling pockets and strength in numbers for a ruling corporation.
I'm sorry about this post diverting off-topic. I thought it relevant to dadudemon's last post but realize it is indeed off-topic. However, I'll be damned if I'm not going to go ahead and post it after typing it out so accept my apologies.
Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.
i will only say this once. the bible is actually a misinterpretation of the actual story of the creeation and evolution of mankind. the different languages and cultures, as stated in the bible, happened when "god" made everyone on earth speak a different language when they were attempting to build a "tower" to the heavens so that they would not bbe able to work together.
(all words in quotations are misinterpretations.)
Originally posted by Evil Dead
because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy
Originally posted by Evil Dead
The story, as written was not done so to be interpretated. It was the 100% literal account of the origins of man and our universe.
But how do you know that? Were you there looking over the guy's shoulder as it was being transcribed? No, so you don't know how it was meant to be taken.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Any interpretations of it are done only after it was all debunked. Is it really fair to go back to a primitive story known to be wrong and ouright silly, after the fact, and try to impose other meanings onto it grasping at some hope of validity?
Yes. And its not only "fair", but its the correct thing to do. When some one tells you that its raining cats and dogs, do you really think that a dalmatian might fall on the hood of your car? Of course not. There's no "debunking" necessary, you know its scientifically unsound and therefore a metaphor when you hear it. "When pigs fly"; same thing, now just apply that to Biblical teachings.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I see no need for a god at all anymore. Sure, it served a purpose at one time. There were so many questions, no answers.....god filled the need. Necissity is the mother of invention. They needed answers, they invented one.Thousands of years later, not only have we provided answers for most questions they had at the time......eliminating the need they had created a god to fill, we have answered so many more questions then they could have ever imagined asking.
It now seems as though people forget why a god was concieved of in the first place. A god isn't about going to a building every sunday for 2 hours or donating 10% of your income to an organization. It never was. It wasn't 3,000 years ago.....even 2,000 years ago. It seems as though that's the only purpose a god fills these days, filling pockets and strength in numbers for a ruling corporation.
I'm sorry about this post diverting off-topic. I thought it relevant to dadudemon's last post but realize it is indeed off-topic. However, I'll be damned if I'm not going to go ahead and post it after typing it out so accept my apologies.
I agree with you post, for the most part. However, it is arrogant to think that we have eliminated questions by answering other ones. We have actually created more questions by answering old ones. It is almost like a Geometric function: the more we discover, the more unknowns we can explore from the new knowledge. This does not apply to ever little piece of information as some new information is absolute and all encompassing for its application or use but even then, some of that very same information can be used to answer other questions that lead to more questions. (Here's an example: the freezing point of water at STP is discovered through measurement and quantification...that leads to many many many new questions such as properties of polar molecules, why electrons have affinities for specific electron orbitals in a stable and bonded yet polar molecule,volumetric properties of polar molecules in their different states, etc. Do you see how that works? One can understand most of the available information on current information on quantum physics, but that doesn't mean he or she knows the precise moment and location a microscopic singularity will appear and then disappear.
Yes. And its not only "fair", but its the correct thing to do. When some one tells you that its raining cats and dogs, do you really think that a dalmatian might fall on the hood of your car? Of course not. There's no "debunking" necessary, you know its scientifically unsound and therefore a metaphor when you hear it. "When pigs fly"; same thing, now just apply that to Biblical teachings.
nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the bible is it stated that anything contained within the pages of both testaments are less than 100% literal. If you are saying that these people knew these things were absurd when they were written and were meant to not be taken seriously as the author was just pulling their legs, you open up another can of worms. Invisible/magical dieties wouldn't exist so there goes the Old Testament. We know it doesn't rain cats (not really know, but know it's not plausible) because it has never been proven to do so. People do not resurrect from the dead so there goes the New Testament. If your implication is that the authors of the Holy Bible intended to take all of the outlandish stories as nothing more than metaphors because the audience should have automatically known these things don't happen because it is scientificly unsound.....there is no bible. No god makes for a boring first chapter and no Jesus makes for a less than spectacular sequel. So what was the point, a very very long winded bedtime story?