How does creationism answer this? It's the scientific consensus that modern birds evolved directly from theropod dinosaurs. [Spirituality & Religion]
We even know now that many or even most theropod dinosaurs had some form of feathers. What they also had were clawed forearms, some of which turned into wings.
We see those same forearm/wing claws on some modern birds like the emu, the cassowary and the hoatzin.
This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective since modern birds evolved from dinosaurs but how does creation explain it? Why did god make two different "kinds" of animal with such startlingly similar anatomy when some of them don't even use that anatomy?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
I attended a debate yrs ago between a creationist biologist (based at UC/Berkeley at the time), and a non-creationist (based at Stanford). The creationist raised serious points which were never addressed by the non-creationist, but only scoffed, as though *that* constituted "debate".
The main point which the creationist made was that, though he accepted the obvious progression of forms, he--as a creationist--said that he believed that the mechanism of introduction of new forms was via a direct act of creation. Further, he mentioned
A) the lack of the predicted "intermediate forms" in the fossil record, pointing to fish, in particular, due to their smaller sizes, great numbers, ubiquity in the fossil record, and short life cycles; and
B ) the inability of gradual accretions of random changes to explain whole systems which require parts which work together to make sense, suggesting a more fully-formed assemblage.
That was a while ago, and the theory of evolution, itself, has evolved a lot from its inception, under pressures placed upon it by facts. It seems to me--as an admitted non-biologist, even a person pretty disinterested in biology--that the two most noteworthy of these might be
1) the abandonment of the idea of the accretion of gradual, random changes in favor of punctuated equilibrium;
2) the abandonment of any single line of support in favor of consilience, the converging of various lines of evidence toward a common conclusion.
I have heard it said that objection A is incorrect, tgat intermediate forms are found, but I do not know if this has ever been answered adequately/satisfactorily. I am not sure if objection B can ever be answered adequately/satisfactorily.
However, consilience means that the argument, as a whole, does not rest upon only one leg, and I accept that.
Fot my own part, I believe in God, and the common thread of the 2 creation stories in Genesis is that God is responsible for all of creation. I can accept that without needing Him to be forced into any particular actions other than having created the framework within which Life would inevitably arise. I see no conflict between science and a rational look at Scripture and the New Testament.
Yup. There's absolutely no reason god couldn't have created using evolution. The only problem arises when one interprets the bible as the literal history of how life came to be.
[quote] the inability of gradual accretions of random changes to explain whole systems which require parts which work together to make sense, suggesting a more fully-formed assemblage.[/quote]
This sort of sounds like irreducible complexity which now appears to occupy the same space as the god of the gaps.
@SomeMichGuy Very interesting, thank you!. I live close to Berkley, good place for concerts when young ha ha, the grateful dead, the who, Jefferson Starship, Rolling stones, etc. Did you go to any concerts or just the lectures?
1) The oldest parts are Genesis ch's 1-11 and Job. Where are mythic elements most likely to be found?
2) If the first story of creation is a revelation given to Moses around 1850 BC/BCE, his take on it us bound to be different from, say Stephen Hawking in 2010 AD/CE. The viewer of the vision has certain capabilities and limitations which shape his/her view of what he/she was shown.
3) There is no book of the Bible which claims to be a scientific text.
4) Biblical scholars say that the ancient Hebrews didn't think about things/express themselves the way Greeks did, or the way we moderns do. So there is that barrier to even getting to "what is said/claimed" in the proper fashion.
5) "Inspiration" creates a few major problems:
a) it flies in the face of the biblical record, itself: the 2 stories of creation are 2 different stories of what seems to be the same event. Attempts to read them as 2 different events require other words/contexts to be inserted and lands you siding with the KKK (this is why they call non-whites the "mud people", ppl "without souls", ppl of the 2nd creation).
It ignores the fact that the two lists of the order of creation differ...does this mean the Spirit is confused? No, it means you have to keep the common elements (God is responsible for all creation) and throw out the inconsistent ones, including "inspiration".
b) It attempts to flatten out the various voices, making the testimony of the Gospels, from the disciples who walked with Jesus for three years, on the same par as the obviously erotic poetry of the Song of Solomon (and forces apologists to try desperately to fit the Song into a nobler framework, making it about Christ marrying the Church, etc.).
Can't we say that, for Christians, the Gospels clearly have a precedence which supercedes other books? How can the Song of Solomon be on a par with them? How can the records of the court scribes of the two kingdoms be on the same level as the Gospels?
So much agree lol. This is what i've learned by listening to people who really study the bible and ancient culture. You have to respect the genre and style of the writing that you're reading. You can't just put your modern cultural view on it and expect it to make sense.
And when we take the whole of the bible as the word of god then we get exactly what you pointed out: Words that are meant to actually be the word of god held on the same level as books about having a midlife crisis.
@Pikachu A ministerial student I knew once said that a modern perspective which he found useful was that the Bible is the Word of God, but not the *words* of God...
And even reading the words, we have to be careful to not enhance the context. This happens a lot when, e.g., Jesus' remarks are made overly broad by ignoring the plain meaning of the words as reported.
@SomeMichGuy The whole Bible is a story about Jesus who loves us and died for us, so all the stories have more than one meaning. The stories are complicated, not simple, but have a spiritual meanings. Just because there are 2 accounts in Genesis of creation doesn't mean that they are contradictions. One is a detail, the other a summary. As a Christian, The Song of Solomon is just as important as The Gospels. All of it is the word of God.
[quote]The whole Bible is a story about Jesus who loves us and died for us, [/quote]
Actually, no. The story of Job isn't about that. The story of Elijah in his hurt vanity calling upon God because 42 children taunted him about being bald and a she-bear coming out and tearing them up isn't. The song of solomon is erotic poetry which people have tried to shoehorn into something else. The story of David's treatment of Uriah tbe Hittite isn't about that. Lot's wife isn't about that.
[quote]so all the stories have more than one meaning. The stories are complicated, not simple, but have a spiritual meanings.[/quote]
If you cannot get the clear meaning of a text correct, you have no business hunting for "other" meanings, whether typological, etc.
[quote]Just because there are 2 accounts in Genesis of creation doesn't mean that they are contradictions.[/quote]
Well, take out 2 clean sheets of paper. On the first one, write down the order of creation in the first story. On the second, write down the order of creation in the second story.
Now compare the two lists.
The fact is that [b]the two lists contradict each other[/b] in specific order...so, while you are correct in a general proposition that just because there are 2 stories, it does not immediately folliw that they must conflict, it turns out that THESE 2 stories DO contradict each other.
This is a serious blow.
The Timothy statement about all Scripture can be edifying does not say that all Scripture is of the same weight. As Christians, the Gospels have to rule all, or their testimony is relegated to having to be the same as the song of solomon or the court recorders...
@SomeMichGuy I disagree. You are not reading with spiritual eyes. The book of Job is a beautiful story of good and evil and why we are experiencing warfare. God is counting on Job to show angels that he will trust in God even in bad times. Because of his faith God gives him back all his wealth and a beautiful new family. It has gotten me through many sleepless nights. Jesus made the universe John 1:1, and he talked with Job. He asked him why are you doubting me. I got this.
We read the Bible the way God wants us to read it, spiritually. We have to understand who He is and who we are, and why he is telling us a particular story. The story is a love letter to us from God over, and over, and over.
Hosea is a good example of how God pursues us, who are slutting around and doesn't love Him. Hosea finds his bride prostituting and he buys her back. Jesus bought us back. We are purchased back.
Passover is another example of how the Jews had to slaughter a ram and put a cross on the door and the angel of death pass over Gods people, pointing to Easter. Jesus IS the lamb who was slain for us so we can pass over to heaven.
If you miss the reason why God inspired men to write these stories we don't understand how much He loves us.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not die, but have everlasting life"
[quote] Because of his faith God gives him back all his wealth and a beautiful new family[/quote]
I've often wondered why this is meant to be a good thing instead of a horrifying one. Speaking for myself, if my entire family was slaughtered and my life destroyed, i wouldn't not be happy or thankful if god gave me a brand new family as a replacement. Would you? You mother and father and spouse and children all butchered and then replaced with new people? How is that anything other than repugnant?
And that's aside from the fact that it appears to be the result of a wager god made. Seems kinda messed up to me.
@Pikachu That's because you don't see sin the way God sees sin. Looking at Gods Holiness with "spiritual" eyes we see how we fall short. If we don't see God the way He [i]is[/i] we don't quite understand any of the stories spiritually. I was on my knees at the age of 7 crying to God for 2 days to tell me what is he trying to say in the Bible. I get it. I completely understand how sinful I am. I have been humbled. The only thing I care about is helping people any way I can. That's all that matters. People are not really understanding God at all. They say, isn't he mean to kill people. Why would God do that? We al have to die some day, all of us. Poor Job was on his knees days and night praying for them. They might have been very evil who knows.
The point of Job's suffering was bigger than the family. Life is a drop in the bucket compare to eternity. God used Job's witness to show the universe his love. There are 1 billion angels watching us right now. Are we on the side of good, or evil? God says "there is none good." God has a reason if people die. We know very little about Jobs family but the real story took place in heaven. That's where the action is.
"All sin leads to death"
"You don't wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities in heavenly places." God says.
@Pikachu Glad you asked, because I think Maturity is giving your kids, your mate, and your life to God. That [i]is[/i] maturity.
When my kids were sick, I asked "Your will be done God" Had he taken them I know He knows best, and I would see them in heaven. He has saved my kids on many occasions though so I am grateful.
He can take them away, that is His privilege. It is not too much for God to ask us to love Him more than anything.
He asks us to love Him more than our families for our sake. Because we will be happier then. Loving God more than our families is Necessary for a happy family. If my family craps on me, its ok, I will still love them. They are not as important to me as God is. I don't run out and get a divorce at a drop of a hat. People expect their families to make them happy.
A family will be very irritating if we don't have our priorities straight.
And that's very devout answer to a [i]hypothetical[/i] scenario ( although i hope in addition to saying "thy will be done" you also tried to make them better). But i think you didn't actually answer the question i asked.
Is the slaughter and replacement of your spouse and children something you would be happy about?
It's a direct question, carazaa. Whatever else you add to it, i do expect a yes or a no.
@SomeMichGuy Well there is one problem with that, if God just put things into creation then who created God? Christians say he was always there but that's the equivalent of nothing creating God. If nothing can create God, why can't we just come from nothing instead of God? Both theories are plausible but it's likely if God was just always hanging out somewhere outside of time and space, then we could have just popped in the universe by accident without any help either.
@Pikachu answer yes or no? You crack me up with your demands, please accept the answers people give you. You are not the lawyer, nor I on trial. I did answer but you didn't quite understand the answer so I will put it another way. If you asked questions of Jesus you would have been very frustrated because his answers were very in depth with stories that had a spiritual meaning. He spoke in parables.
If someone came and slaughtered my kids, or burned their houses down, I would be angry and feel sad. That is normal but I would forgive the person who did it. And I would vist the guy in prison if I knew who did it and tell him I forgive him. My goal would be to witness the love of Jesus to him, or her.
You ask about "happiness," like that is the highest purpose! The short answer is no I would not be "happy," but this life is not about happiness, as much as it is about growth, I believe. When bad things happen we become stronger and more loving, more mature. And that is a higher purpose for us, than happiness! This life is not about me and my happiness. I don't think I am super religious just trust in God for my life. He knows best.
