Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Creation V Evolution Debate

  • 16-03-2005 12:46PM
    #1
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944

    Just spent the last week or so following this thread. It really gets going on page 3.

    I think that it is a very good read.

    Your thoughts... :rolleyes:


«134567…11

Comments

  • #2
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    It is a topic of particular interest to me. I am an orthodox Christian who could easily be classified as straight down the line evangelical. Yet I accept the fact of evolution as the process of change within species and I firmly believe the modern theory of evolution (a genetics-based theory amalgamating Darwin's Natural Selection with Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium and many other contributions from a vast number of fields) to be (while still a work in progress) an accurate account of how the world works.

    Genesis 1 does not contradict this. It is written as an allegory for an unscientific age. It is, I believe, foolishness to pass it off as empirical fact. It is ignorance, I believe, that leads people on the opposite side of the fence to discard it as effectively worthless because it does not claim to be a scientific description of the world.

    In terms of the thread, I am saddened by Creationists who so often seem to be withdrawing from non-Scriptural Truth. I believe (and feel I am supported in Scripture both in the Psalms and in Romans 1) that all truth is a gift from God and that a Christian is called to hunger and thirst for truth.

    Equally, I am saddened by many of the skeptics who seem to confuse skepticism with cockiness and who display an alarming ignorance of Christian theology, biblical criticism and the history of ideas. If I had a euro for everytime someone discarded Scripture with "half of it contradicts the other half" or "the church rewrote it whenever it suited them".

    I might shut this thread down Danno since I don't know how much relevance it has. If people don't take your bait and express opinions, would you mind me putting it out of its misery? :)


  • #3
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    Oh please don't shut this thread down!!!

    It is a fundamental issue to everybody, whether we were created or whether we evolved.

    If you accept "evolve" then in effect one is dismissing God and calling him a liar.

    If you accept "created" then one is accepting God as creator, and calling him a truthful source.


  • #4
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    Carried on from, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658
    Danno wrote:
    And dearest "Bus77" I find the evolutionsist concept of Ape to Man equally offensive!
    "Life to/in/around Man" would be my general assesment of the various evoulutionary studies. ''Ape to man'' is the poster on the wall. I may be nit-picking your words here, but this seems to be one of the main sticking points. You may think of other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life. This to me is offensive.

    Danno wrote:
    For a body of study that teaches Apes (Animals) and Man as equals is de-meaning and goes against the Bible teachings.
    I can sort of get my head around this, if the point behind it is "I dont want posters on the wall, or proposed theorys, interfearing with my childs chance of "wonder" about the world and preparation of faith for life".
    For me, I was left out of any sort of religion. I would however, call myself a ''faithfull'' man. I also heard the word evolution, but never took it to meen any sort of explanation of "creation". In all honesty, It seems that some people arguing about this issue, did. And are ascribing their mistake to others.


  • #5
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&version=31&context=verse

    Genesis 1:26 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    I take the above passage as being over animals on the scheme of things! Evolution IMO teaches that animals (apes) being our ancestors therefore being equal.


  • #6
    fradiavolo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭fradiavolo


    Bus77,
    You call yourself a "faithful" man. Faithful to what/whom? As regards Danno regarding other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life...well I agree with him in total. Are you going to tell me that a spider is as important as a human being??? What about a dog? Is a dog as important as a human being? I for one say no way...yet I love dogs and believe that they should be treated with kindness. If you want to know what would happen to a nation that decides to give equal importance to animals then just go to India. The sacred "Cow" seemingly has more rights there that a human...and look at their economy?
    Me personally, I believe in God (note...not a God). I believe that the bible is his word. I also believe that evolution is a blooming joke!!! I have read so much about evolution these last 12 years...it is rubbish. I have also read so much on creation and the proofs of a literal 6-day creation...that I believe it to be true. I have listened to numerous debates between "creationists" and "evolutionists". There is only one winner...period ;) .

    Life did not happen by chance and one day everyone will find out the truth. It will be horrible if one finds oneself on the wrong side of the cross for eternity :eek: .

    Fradiavolo.




    bus77 wrote:
    Carried on from, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658

    "Life to/in/around Man" would be my general assesment of the various evoulutionary studies. ''Ape to man'' is the poster on the wall. I may be nit-picking your words here, but this seems to be one of the main sticking points. You may think of other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life. This to me is offensive.



    I can sort of get my head around this, if the point behind it is "I dont want posters on the wall, or proposed theorys, interfearing with my childs chance of "wonder" about the world and preparation of faith for life".
    For me, I was left out of any sort of religion. I would however, call myself a ''faithfull'' man. I also heard the word evolution, but never took it to meen any sort of explanation of "creation". In all honesty, It seems that some people arguing about this issue, did. And are ascribing their mistake to others.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    Danno wrote:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&version=31&context=verse

    Genesis 1:26 (New International Version)
    New International Version (NIV)
    Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    I take the above passage as being over animals on the scheme of things!
    That seems to be the plan alright. He dos'nt say "turn your nose up at my creatures though"
    Danno wrote:
    Evolution IMO teaches that animals (apes) being our ancestors therefore being equal.
    I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future.


  • #8
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    Of course, being masters of the animal kingdom means that we are kind compassionate to them, just like an employee of a company, care of goods, other workers etc...!

    QUOTE: "I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future."

    That is vague! Can you elaborate further!


  • #9
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    fradiavolo wrote:
    Bus77,
    You call yourself a "faithful" man.
    I say it, and I meen it.
    fradiavolo wrote:
    Faithful to what/whom?
    Faithfull in spirit.
    fradiavolo wrote:
    As regards Danno regarding other creatures as being lower on the scale of importance in life...well I agree with him in total. Are you going to tell me that a spider is as important as a human being??? What about a dog? Is a dog as important as a human being?
    In life everything is important. Try removing plants from life and see how far you get. Try removing other creatures from fertalising the plants. Try removing dogs and see how lonely youd get.
    fradiavolo wrote:
    I for one say no way...yet I love dogs and believe that they should be treated with kindness. If you want to know what would happen to a nation that decides to give equal importance to animals then just go to India. The sacred "Cow" seemingly has more rights there that a human...and look at their economy?
    Your trying to tell me how nations work now is it?
    fradiavolo wrote:
    Me personally, I believe in God (note...not a God). I believe that the bible is his word. I also believe that evolution is a blooming joke!!! I have read so much about evolution these last 12 years...it is rubbish. I have also read so much on creation and the proofs of a literal 6-day creation...that I believe it to be true. I have listened to numerous debates between "creationists" and "evolutionists". There is only one winner...period ;) .
    Life did not happen by chance and one day everyone will find out the truth. It will be horrible if one finds oneself on the wrong side of the cross for eternity :eek: .

    Fradiavolo.
    I belive in God aswell. I however belive he is "on my side". Not "On my back".


  • #10
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    Danno wrote:
    Of course, being masters of the animal kingdom means that we are kind compassionate to them, just like an employee of a company, care of goods, other workers etc...!
    In all the companys I've worked in. The boss was useually related to a fair number of the employees ;)

    QUOTE: "I just look at it as life is our ancestor, our present, and our future."
    Danno wrote:
    That is vague! Can you elaborate further!
    If I tried to elaborate futher, I would be an ''evolutionist" in your eyes.:rolleyes:


  • #11
    Poisonwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Poisonwood


    Danno wrote:
    If you accept "evolve" then in effect one is dismissing God and calling him a liar.

    If you accept "created" then one is accepting God as creator, and calling him a truthful source.

    Excuse me? Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution as outlined by this forum's moderator? Don't tar all Christians with your particular fundamentalist brush please!! :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    Poisonwood wrote:
    Excuse me? Have you never heard of Theistic Evolution as outlined by this forum's moderator? Don't tar all Christians with your particular fundamentalist brush please!! :mad:

    Show me where the Thestic Evolution fits in perfectly with the Bible??? ;)


  • #13
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Danno, my good man, you will surely agree that while Scripture was divinely inspired as originally given and is of supreme authority (for Christians), your interpretation is neither infallible, inerrant or perfect.

    Your literalist inrepretation was not shared by church fathers, who long before the rise of empiricism, never mind the modern theory of evolution, believed Genesis 1 & 2 to be allegorical myth. These are the church fathers who can cite actual apostolic succession. Their testimony cannot be discarded.

    The general thrust of their testimony supports the fact that your interpretation of Geneis is a modern phenomenon. Creation science owes a lot more to the Scopes Trial than it does to a serious engagement with Scripture.

    Genesis 1 is not meant as a scientific account of creation. It is allegory. This does not in any way make it less true. There are a great deal of ways to represent truth besides the scientific method. As such, and with the citation I already gave from Romans 1 and the many words in the Psalms that relate to this issue, I believe that the position:
    "God is the Creator. Evolution is a method He used."
    is perfectly "Biblical" (to use a meaninglessly vague term).


  • #14
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    Excelsior wrote:
    "God is the Creator. Evolution is a method He used."
    is perfectly "Biblical" (to use a meaninglessly vague term).

    Show me where it is perfectly Biblical to take this stance...


  • #15
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Romans 1:19&20- "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

    We are sanctioned to study and examine and observe for all truth is a gift of grace from God. To deny this would take some dogmatism since you are making an idol that isn't even attractive.

    The creation tale in Genesis 1, as I have already said elsewhere in this thread, is a poem. This does not in any way make it less true. It just means that the truth comes in a different form than you, as a result of nothing more than your place in time and civilisation, would like it to be.

    The early Christians did not hold to it as either literally true or otherwise false. They took a middle line that held that regardless of its literal worth, Genesis 1 does not intend to tell us about the mechanism of creation but about the over-arching source behind creation.

    The structure of the chapter is clearly poetic. Sources suggest that it was around as a verbal tradition up to 3000 years before it was written down. Its phrasing is poetic not literal. There can be no day without light and yet the term day is used before light...

    Look, all the mainline Protestant traditions, the RC Church and a great deal more Christians; evangelicals, orthodox, traditional and liberal hold the view of a Creating God who utilises evolution. There is nothing contradictory whatsoever in this view.


  • #16
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    Apologies to EXCELSIOR:

    I only have the time to log in every now and again, so please forgive me for dragging this debate out over a substantial time, and also to those others who read and contribute to this thread in any way.


    In response to the last post:

    While you have quoted Romans 1:19 and 1:20, it might be worth while to add the directly following pieces:

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles

    Again, I ask, where would Thestic Evolution fit in perfectly with the Bible?

    There are many people who are "sitting on the fence" quite litterally, those of which accept Evolution and The Bible - may I point them to the following:

    Revelations 3:15 to 3:22:
    15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

    QUOTE: "There can be no day without light and yet the term day is used before light...
    "
    God himself is the light... therefore stating that he is eternal!

    You say that Genesis is merely the poem! It certainly doesn't sound or read like a poem, especially for such a fundemental part of the Bible, heck, why is it at the beginning, the first page in all fairness!!!

    QUOTE: "Look, all the mainline Protestant traditions, the RC Church and a great deal more Christians; evangelicals, orthodox, traditional and liberal hold the view of a Creating God who utilises evolution. There is nothing contradictory whatsoever in this view"

    Look, while I may rub alot of feathers the totally wrong way in this: I refer you to the Revelations 3:15 to 3:22 passage above.


  • #17
    JustHalf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Danno wrote:
    While you have quoted Romans 1:19 and 1:20, it might be worth while to add the directly following pieces:

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles
    How you think this has to do with evolution is beyond me, particularly considering what Romans 1 says. It seems pretty clear that Paul is talking about idolatry.

    Now you can claim that believe that evolution is how human beings came around is the same as idolatry, but it's a bit of a stretch and is not something you have yet supported.
    Danno wrote:
    Look, while I may rub alot of feathers the totally wrong way in this: I refer you to the Revelations 3:15 to 3:22 passage above.
    I don't see how that applies at all.

    You ask us to reject science and embrace God, but this is a false dicothomy. It is possible to love God and be a scientist. It is possible to believe that evolution is how God brought human kind about.

    Most Christians don't see a conflict between the two, and I've yet to meet a European Christian who insists that evolution is the rejection of God.


  • #18
    pauldeehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 544 ✭✭✭pauldeehan


    I always remember something my biology teacher told me, that for life to evolve from a primordial soup is akin to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and randomly creating a 747.

    Being both a religous person and a believer in science, that stuck with me.


  • #19
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Your biology teacher was being very inaccurate but was getting at an important point:

    Evolution still, I think, calls out for a creator.

    Revelation is perhaps, after Genesis, the most misunderstood book in the Bible. Whatever else it certainly isn't about, it isn't about Evolution. Anywhere.

    Let me quote Rev 3:22 back at you and ask you to consider that the vast majority of Christians outside of the USA see no difficulty in believing in the scientific fact of Evolution as the cause of the development of the species, evolutionary theory as the process that guides that and the fact the the Christian God of the Bible is the sole and soverign Creator.

    Genesis 1 & 2 read totally like a poem. Especially in the Hebrew in which it was written!

    Danno, you are straying dangerously close at times to suggesting that evolution is a primary matter for Christians. That, I think we can all agree, is crazy.


  • #20
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Paul -

    > I always remember something my biology teacher told me,
    > that for life to evolve from a primordial soup is akin to a
    > tornado sweeping through a junkyard and randomly creating
    > a 747.

    Your teacher should have told you that he wasn't teaching biology but instead, teaching fundamentalist religious dogma.

    This well-known, infamous, and *utterly* preposterous comparison, between the arising of life and the construction of a 747 by tornado first appeared, I believe, in the writings of the astronomer Fred Holye and is a standard, and very tired, piece of creationist claptrap.

    The study of abiogenesis is dealt with briefly at this page and, if you've not read this before, is worth a few minutes of your time, so that you can become familar with science's view of a scientific topic, rather than religion's view of a scientific topic.

    - robin.


  • #21
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Excelsior -

    > If I had a euro for everytime someone discarded Scripture with
    > "half of it contradicts the other half"

    If I had a euro for every time that I'd pointed out any of the large, gaping contradictions present in every part of the bible, and in reply to which I'd received a mealy-mouthed or contradictory or just plain useless, answer, then I'd be a lot richer than you :)

    - robin.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    If that was on topic, I will post you a euro. :)

    Feel free to bring up the gaping holes as you see fit in new threads.


  • #23
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > If that was on topic, I will post you a euro.

    If your original comment, to which I was replying, was on-topic, then I would venture to suggest that mine was too and you therefore owe me a euro :)

    > Feel free to bring up the gaping holes as you see
    > fit in new threads.

    Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother -- as I've said, considerable past experience shows that I just don't get any answers that are worth listening to. It seems that as soon as religion comes up, people's critical faculties seem to wilt and die with remarkable speed, and defence of the religion becomes more important than being either logical or honest. It's depressingly like asking some minor politician some mighty Party question or other, and rather than an answer, yiz just a tedious repetition of the Party line and I've heard *that* a thousand times before.

    FWIW, and because you did ask me, the nasty and vindictive Matthew 10:34-35 (replicated almost verbatim in Luke 12:51-53) is a wonderful verse [one of hundreds, I need hardly add] to ask biblically inclined folk to explain in the light of their endlessly-repeated contention that universal peace and love might somehow be on the christians' agenda. Do feel free to split the thread here if you reckon it's worthwhile.

    - robin.


  • #24
    Excelsior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    robindch wrote:

    If your original comment, to which I was replying, was on-topic, then I would venture to suggest that mine was too and you therefore owe me a euro :)

    Venture away, but to no avail. I was performing my moderatorly duties. Don't you know that when you put Christians in positions of any power they hold themselves unaccountable and act like tyrants? Therefore, I state with infallibility, that I cannot be off-topic. ;) (Should I add <irony> tags here to ensure that no one gets the wrong idea and thinks I am being serious?)

    Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother...

    Grand so.

    Back on topic with creationism/evolution we go...


    Edited for clarity


  • #25
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭zod


    The title of this thread is "creation versus evolution", I assume that means arguments supporting one OR the other.

    Am I mistaken is assuming that that has now changed insofar as everyone has accepted evolution as fact but now some say that evolution is the work of the creator.

    It seems to me that there is therefore no possible argument that can be made against "creationism" whereby the goal posts wont change and a retort made "ah yes but the creator did that"

    Leads us to the premise - If man could create life from lifeless materials and show that this could take place on a early earth would this be the utimate proof?


  • #26
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > > Am finding it difficult to be sufficiently interested to bother...
    > Grand so.

    Ah, a fine example of not getting...

    > [...] any answers that are worth listening to.

    <sigh>

    > Am I mistaken is assuming that that has now changed insofar
    > as everyone has accepted evolution as fact but now some
    > say that evolution is the work of the creator.

    No, I'm afraid not. See this thread and this one for evidence of the opposite in the recent debate on the Skeptics board, where a couple of creationists turned up and got roasted.

    Belief in some kind of godly involvement in humanity's development is almost universal in the US (around 85% believe so), and it is common here too, though I've yet to see any firm stats (putting my finger in the air, I would suspect that around half of the population subscribe).

    > If man could create life from lifeless materials and show
    > that this could take place on a early earth would this be
    > the utimate proof?

    Again, no. See some of the references in the Skeptic's threads to the scientific philosophers (Popper and the rest of them), which point out why doing this is not useful, and why the use of the word 'proof' is avoided.

    - robin.


  • #27
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Danno


    robindch wrote:
    The study of abiogenesis is dealt with briefly at this page and, if you've not read this before, is worth a few minutes of your time, so that you can become familar with science's view of a scientific topic, rather than religion's view of a scientific topic.

    - robin.

    Robin,

    The link above provides us with this in it's early text:

    "The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]."

    This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD is on that page sixteen times...


  • #28
    gizzymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭gizzymo


    I myself am christian - yet i have no problem accepting evolution as i see it as a system designed by God. As for whether Genesis is a literal account - i see it as an abstration of the actual way it happened , an abstraction that puts across gods love and purposes so clearly without getting stuck in detail that does not effect he message. God wants his message to be clear and simple, faith does not quire a huge IQ. My couisn died last year in a car crash, he had special needs, yet he had a cast iron faith in jesus that was not limited in anyway by his mental ability. Hence in the same way jesus used parables to explain concepts int he NT, I believe God the father used this same teaching method to show us how much he loves us and how we came to be.

    Finally as we christians know that what is eternal after our death is not our body, but our spirit that is imparted to us by god, why then must we get so caught up in how the "bit that gets left behind" formed, when the bit that makes us different, the bit that has nothing to do with evolution, that which god imparts to us in the womb, is the "us" that counts in the end of time.

    Pete


  • #29
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD is on that page sixteen times...

    This is the same tired God of the Gaps argument over 'n' over again.

    Just because there is not a generally agreed scientific explanation for something doesn't necessarily mean than 'God done it'.
    but our spirit that is imparted to us by god, why then must we get so caught up in how the "bit that gets left behind" formed, when the bit that makes us different, the bit that has nothing to do with evolution

    Maybe you don't understand evolution. Man (Homo sapiens) was not created intact with a soul but evolved from a common ancestor. At no stage did man appear fully formed with a soul on the earth.

    Your new Religous dogma (Let's call it Gizzymoism because it's not Christianity) requires that at some point God reached into the womb of at least 2 women, found children (who were destined to breed in the future) and injected a soul into them. Now you have human (with souls) children whose parents are animals (withou souls).

    Unless perhaps you're suggesting that the soul is common to all life?


  • #30
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    pH if you recognise the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium then you'd accept that the possibility of a consciousness/mind/soul "appearing" at some random point is not at all that unlikely.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > This to me is VERY vague. Also, running a word count: COULD
    > is on that page sixteen times...

    Yes, and commendably honest of them too. There was nobody around at the time to see if this was what was actually happening which means that nobody can't be *sure* that it was happening, so -- instead of doing what less careful people might do, and declare that something definitely happened because it fits some dictated belief system -- more careful types instead tend to use the conditional in English to express uncertainty regarding the nature of the existence of some event which goes some way towards explaing some subsequent observation (such as the existence of life). When the event's existence is sufficiently generally agreed, an observation is declared to be a fact, subject to later revision in the light of new observations.

    - robin.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement