Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
"I think the sticking point is when a virus becomes something that is not a virus."
Oh, actually, that has probably happened many times. We carry what are probably ancient viruses in every one of our cells. It's amazing.
You know, it's precisely because the book was written so long ago--and stands the test of time and very closely parallels the scientific account of Earth's creation and evolution (yes, I used the "E" word!)--that I believe in it.
The Bible does not exclude evolution. It does not exclude even abiogenesis (life creating itself spontaneously). Cf. Genesis 1:11-12, which says outright that the EARTH brought forth life (in response to a Divine command to do so).
Remember, Genesis ain't a science text. It was never written to be one--merely a (greatly) condensed, easy-to-understand version answering how the world came to be, written for nomadic shepherds.
How does the Judeo-Christian creation account fare vs. other creation accounts?
It fare far better than other creation myths where the world springs, fully formed, from an egg.
Better than Atlas holding the world on his shoulders.
Better than a great celestial snake barfed up the world, then the stars, etc.
Better than any other creation account, Genesis basically gets things in close to the right order.
Not bad for a buncha dumb shepherds, huh? ;)
Sauron (But then, some think it was an inspired writing. Of course, you know they're wrong, dontcha?)
It is turtles all the way down only so long as the last turtle, the one on the bottom, is metaphysical.
"I hate to tell you this but people have known how for millennia. Men seem to enjoy it more than women, and both seem to enjoy it more than animals, but we have all understood the process pretty well.
"
An excellent point. Sexual reproduction is a good teacher regarding evolutionary changes. We see it in small ways every time we reproduce. The new human being created by two people is never identical to its parents. That's the amazing thing about sexual reproduction. It enables changes in each new organism.
Sometimes those changes are benificial to the survival of the new organism. Such changes are passed along, genetically, to its offspring. These changes are cumulative.
Go in a time machine to the land of your ancestors, about 1000 years ago. Stand in a crowd there. You will find, if you are typical, that you are head and shoulders above that crowd. Height is a positive attribute. It is selected for by the environment. In just 1000 years, the average human being is considerably taller than its ancestors. Remarkable.
And that's just 1000 years. Imagine what can happen in millions of years.
Yes, sexual reproduction is very important in evolutionary theory. Things moved much more slowly before sexual reproduction evolved. Sharing of the genetic code of two different individuals was a great accelerant for the process.
"It is turtles all the way down only so long as the last turtle, the one on the bottom, is metaphysical."
There is no last turtle. Even metaphysical turtles need a place to stand. Once you move into the metaphysical realm, it's just one metaphysical turtle standing on the back of the one below. There is no bottom turtle. It is turtles all the way down.
You then responded: Only two that you can think of. To close the door on there being a third is unscientific, even if nobody can think of another at the moment. At one time, people only saw one possible theory: that some supernatural force created life.
The problem is, you read something between the lines that is not there when you suggest that I am closing the door. I used present, not future, tense. My statement is correct. It may not be correct at some future date, but it is correct NOW and stands on it’s own.. Your follow up comment implying that since we used to have only one theory, but since we now have two, we may someday have three is one I strongly agree with, although I doubt it so far. But it is, as yet, speculation about an as yet unknown future..
Also, to say that any ID is by definition a supernatural force and then throw out as “unscientific” any theory that involves a supernatural force is not only disingenuous, but unscientific itself. After all, scientists have discussed the concept of actually creating a “parallel” universe. Anything the scientist then did within that contained “natural” universe would be, by definition, supernatural. Yet the man who created that universe is deity only to those who live in the universe he created. That fact does not instantly cause him to “disappear in a puff of logic” (1)
And heaven help the men who live in such a universe that I, a seriously flawed man, created and controlled. I would have a hard time being as free with "grace" as our Father is.
FWIW, I firmly believe that if the Lord waits long enough, we will actually achieve that ability, or one like it.
(1): “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” – Douglas Adams
BINGO!
(I'll bet you'll get no answer to this one. They'll ignore it. Call it an inconvenient truth.)
Which reminds me: We see no evidence of abiogenesis in action on this very richly warm, wet world. WHY IS THAT?
Shouldn't life still be--always be--forever be!!!--in the process of creating itself? And if not, why not?
Sauron
I agree that there's no particular bar to evolution in the Genesis account. An awful lot of Jewish and Christian scholars believe as you do, and with good reason. They understand the primitive nature of the Genesis account and accept that human beings are capable of figuring out the details.
That said, the same can be said about some of the other creation myths. It's just a matter of explaining their allegories in a way that works.
The general order of things is:
1. There was nothing. (a blank slate on which to write)
2. The deity (of whatever nature) appears or already exists
3. The deity speaks or waves or whatever, and things appear, although the order is sometimes different. Earth, Sun, Moon, Water, etc.
4. Somewhere in the process, human beings appear, generally after the animals, because there has to be something for the humans to eat.
That pretty much covers most creation stories. And that's natural. Humans had logical powers quite early, or they wouldn't have been human.
The order above is logical, with each thing appearing before the thing that requires it appears. Not too complex, really.
If you look at the various creation stories in their basic foundations, they are all pretty much the same. Some are animistic, with players like the Crow and the Coyote. Others are more oriented toward invisible beings. But the order is essentially the same.
Yes, I've noticed that, and to your credit.
But I don't agree with how there came to be so many religions on the planet. I believe that it is possible to lay them out, side-by-side in a chart, and discard some in favor of others, using a logical process to arrive at the truth.
Sauron
Because the laws of our universe are founded in space time (the physical universe), prior to space and time is a metaphysical reality, thus the whole thing depends upon a metaphysical basis ... your stack of physical turtles will have a metaphysical turtle on the bottom, or, your stack of metaphysical turtles supports we physical turtles, if you prefer.
It's that probably that you stuck in there that trashes everything else you said.
From a scientific viewpoint, that is.
From a philosophical point of view I'd be very interested in discussing the suggestion.
Shalom.
bump
First off God would not be "supernatural" in that by definition, would be the same as a physical laws, a non created non destroyable, omnipresent & unchanging constant in all time and place...
It is a true to say that sum total of logic interaction physical laws is ultimately responsible for all (Creation as is a physic question staring with what physical laws created the Universe)
The other question is what is self aware intelligence... it seem man is intelligently self aware so being self aware intelligence does exist (I think therefor I am?)... but what is it...logic interaction? (is the mind a giant logic processor that at some point hit critical mass and be comes "self aware" like some sic fi computer?)
So do the total logic interaction physical laws act self aware & intelligence? (the Great I Am)...we can't even define how self aware intelligence exited in finite man
Their mommy and daddy SNAKES gave them to them?
How does a duckbill platypus have a bill and lay eggs. It seems reasonable to decide that a duckbill platypus is a transitional form between a bird and a mammal.
Except I have been assured from my high-school biology on to the present day that no biologist considers it so. It's just a mammal that has a duck's bill and lays eggs.
I believe the problem that keeps these threads alive is how the duck-billed platypus came to be a duck-billed platypus.
And the same would be true of snakes with legs.
Shalom.
"But I don't agree with how there came to be so many religions on the planet. I believe that it is possible to lay them out, side-by-side in a chart, and discard some in favor of others, using a logical process to arrive at the truth. "
I wonder. You might logically discard a different set of religions than might the follower of a religion different from yours.
Logic is a funny thing when it comes to religion. Since the existence of supernatural entities is, essentially, illogical, the religion in which you believe sort of dictates the logic of that religion.
I expect the Hindus would discard Christianity as a religion of shortcuts, since Christianity believes that a single action of a man can guarantee him salvation. For a Hindu, that is silliness. Logically (to a Hindu), a man can only improve his lot through his actions, being reincarnated at various levels depending on the karma of each incarnation.
Religion, in the final analysis is based not on logic, but on something else. Call it faith. Call it fear. Call it wonder. Each religion has its own logic of the supernatural.
The common ground is belief. For the Christian, the Hindu, the Jain, the Zoroastrian, belief in a particular set of supernatural "truths" is the source of the logic of that religion.
Most religions are logical within their own belief sets. If you accept the opening premise, then the religion follows.
It's fascinating, but it's difficult to stand outside of your own culture and education to look at the various world religions with an unbiased mind.
I suppose that most of us, had we been born in southern India, would be Hindus or atheists, for there are atheists with a Hindu tradition. It's a matter of culture. Yes, some convert to other religions, even as they do here in the United States. The bulk, however, retain the dominant religion of their native culture.
Basic myth sets are very powerful.
Not the ones that keep these threads alive. The dog breeders create a fascinating variety of dogs. But they always get dogs. Everyone knows this and NOBODY is arguing about it.
As you said, things change.
The sticking point is where the dogs came from, what mechanism introduced the change from what they were to dogs, and where the long series of proto-dogs is that connects dogs to slime.
Shalom.
Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
Shalom.
"From a philosophical point of view I'd be very interested in discussing the suggestion."
I'm afraid that my knowledge of viral remnants in evolutionary history is too small to take on the discussion.
You can Google it, though. Google "viral remnants evolution" (no quotes). That will bring up a number of sites which get into this area of evolutionary research. It's quite fascinating, and is growing as a sub-discipline.
I'm afraid that any attempt I might make to go much deeper into it would lead to errors on my part, so I'll leave it to you to investigate for yourself.
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.