You go that backwards:
Every man creates God in his own image
Posted on 11/19/2004 10:40:08 AM PST by jcsmonogram
It's faithful people who are in a position to say that the exact details of HOW God created the world are not central to their belief. The Pope has seen the logic of that and stopped the damage done to the church by such arguments.
Much as Creationists like to think they are "fighting" evil Darwinists, the fact is that science pays the argument no mind. The fight does not damage science, only faith in God.
And it IS a big deal to a lot of people, the belief that God created humans directly, in his own image, and therefore they are special to him.
And it is especially a big deal that God took several billion years of hard work and patience to do it. Science describes that process as "Evolution", and I encurage you mightily to call that same action "miraculous". But the simple fact is that there is no difference between the two.
I believe that Evolution was God's first Creation. Species may have evolved by "chance", but it was God who created the very existence of "chance" in the first place.
And how can you or anyone deny that there are few scientists who are very religious yet also believe our very existence is random and our origins undirected?
I was taught by a church deacon, of one of the largest Christian denominations on the planet, that Evolution and Genesis did not conflict. That church deacon was also a science professor. I don't know the statistics on how many scientists are religious, but that's my experience.
That was back in the 70's, about 10 years before the "Creation Science" issue was brought up by a few folks who I'm sure were more interested in selling books than helping bring people to God.
Mainline churches fought this fight in the 30's and lost it and decided as my church deacon did that the conflict itself was more harmful than any specific interpretation on the few hundred words in the first two chapters in Genesis. I'm sure this episode of the Creationism fight that started in the 80's will die away eventually. I just hope it doesn't do much damage in the mean time.
This is a new one. Any sources for this? Could make for something more interesting than the usual.
Possibly. The word "science" is much abused and its misuse is one of my pet peeves.
Con jobs have some kind of point. Taking someone's money, whatever. Why would science con you? What's the point?
If you bring up government funding, I don't think that governments paid scientists much in Darwin's day.
And the idea that there would be some kind of "con job" that takes place over a hundred years by generations of scientists in many countries is pretty silly. Imagine keeping *that* conspiracy together.
Well I must have misunderstood you. You said that ring species provide a window on how the process occured. Are you now saying the ring theory is not how it occurred?
If not, then how did it occur? That is what I originally asked.
If you define species in such a way that two separate species cannot breed, then the two forms of salamanders cited in the article you provided are the same species, because they can and do breed (albeit rarely). And thus, they are not what I was asking you about.
Are you arguing that 67 million species came about because at some point, one group would be separated from another group? And this is how it happened each and every time (and if not, then HOW did it happen I ask again)?
Dataman really loves these Crevo threads. He'll lead you all over the map just to see you squirm. He's so damn smart that he can act dumb and get away with it.
1. math is not science.
2. 2+2 could be lots of things depending on how you define your number system. At the cash register it is 4 or someone may get shot.
Science is the search for truth. A good scientist knows that the best he can do is approach "truth" asymptotically, but there is always some wiggle room for new ideas. Thus Newton's Laws had to give way, but not at the billiard table.
Why are creationists more responsible for this "lack of faith" than the scientists who teach that believing in God is irrational, that naturalism is superior, that our very existence is due to some random circumstances, we are not special to God or anyone else, we are just another group of animals that will die out eventually, and throughout the duration of our existence, our only aim will be to fight for survival.
In your belief, how are humans created in God's image if they are really in the image of the apes who came before them? And were these ancestors also created in God's image? How is it logical to say that they were not? How could something made in God's image come directly and solely from something that was not?
It is your opinion that beliving God created us with a special purpose and plan in mind, and we are one step below angels, this is dangerous.
It is my opinion that believing we're just another group of animals fighting to be the "fittest" and survive is much, much more dangerous.
That would be your side.
The athletes foot between my toes is evolving right as we speak. Hurt's too.
Give it a few million years and it'll grow up to be a worm or something.
Check out some of the links around here. There's demonstrated evolution in both the lab and nature. And work the numbers for how many years we've been here and Evolution works out fine.
From my own Old Testament fundamentalist perspective however, Man is Man. I would tend to think about it scientifically, based upon my 21st century worldview. Though I wouldn't argue it over what I see as The Hebrew Bible's deeper truth.
I said it is one way speciation occurs, and it allows scientists to see speciation in progress.
This is not a good example, as it is simply a matter of reference. Seeing as why do not to know the entire bounds of the universe it is possible that the Earth is at the center of gravity. In that case the Sun would in fact revolve around the Earth. The fact that we say the Earth revolves around the Sun makes the math easier for us from a astrological point of view.
No.
You go that backwards:
Ho then, Senor Balrog
You must then have an answer to the question "If there were no men would there still be a God?"
So you weren't actually trying to answer my question.
I am asking for one species popping out a new one, and they cannot interbreed.
And for the purposes of evolution, the new species is more complex than the ancestor.
I didn't say anything about speciation never being observed. But what I just described has NOT been observed.
It's not an on/off switch. The withdrawal of two species from each other is gradual, like when horses and zebras, or lions and tigers produce offspring that are either sterile, or not particular well suited to either the lion's or the tiger's means of existence. Speciation is an arbitrary choice made by humans as to where to draw the line. Lions and Tigers produce viable offspring--do you think they are of the same species? If so, you had better alert the Smithsonian, because they will be awfully surprised to hear it.
You are making rules for an oversimplified model of the world we've developed for cataloging purposes, and demanding that they obey natural laws of your own devising. Better be prepared to wait for a while.
Where did I say anything that could be interpreted like that? Where did I use the word "angels" or refer to any other super being or spirit? Much less put Man in that place. You just pulled that out of thin air.
All I'm saying is that God worked on Man for billions of years, and one day He said "there ... done, I've created Man in my image". Exactly how He did that, and the fact that He used earlier versions of "pre-humans" to do His work is irrelevant. The fact that He did it at all is what IS important. Not HOW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.