Philosophy Now Forum

I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

I agree. Richard Dawkins argues this fairly well.

But do you know the logic that lead Darwin initially to the theory?

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I KNOW the two are compatible. In fact 'evolution' AND 'creation' are INSEPARABLE.

Also, what is the 'literal interpretation' of the bible, to you?

When LOOKED INTO FULLY what is a, so called, "literal interpretation", to one, is NOT even an 'interpretation' AT ALL to "another".

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism).

Will you provide ANY examples of how, to you, a, so called, "literal interpretation" of the bible is 'irreconcilable' with 'evolution'?

If you will, then we can take a LOOK and SEE just how many people have the same 'literal interpretation' of what you have. We will also be able to LOOK AT and SEE WHY there are SO MANY Wrong and Incorrect 'interpretations' made on MANY things.

Then, will you provide ANY examples of what, you call, "non-literal" or "figurative interpretation" you have of the bible?

If you will, then we will have MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of WHY so MANY people SEE so MANY DIFFERENT things, in the EXACT SAME words.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Now that is a GREAT POINT, which I had NOT noticed before. Although, to me, creation AND evolution have been INSEPARABLE for a while now, and thus also had ALREADY been RECONCILED.

Just like EVERY other, perceived, 'one or the other' topics conversed about during philosophical discussions have ALREADY been reconciled, completely and perfectly.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

Who cares what some human beings BELIEVE?

What human beings BELIEVE NEVER makes the BELIEF true, right, NOR correct.

What is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct I found is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

And, to find out what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct is UNCOVERED, far more quickly, when people express what words mean, or refer to, to them. Like, for example, what does the word "creationist" mean, or refer to, to you?

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

Telling 'us', what most of 'us' ALREADY are aware of, does NOT speed the process up of what 'it' is that you ACTUALLY want HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD, here.

Does ANY human being think the process of 'evolution' was started and directed by someone?

If yes, then WHAT could that 'one' be?

Now, if ANY one says, "God", then what is 'God', EXACTLY?

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished. But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event. Those are the elements that theologically matter.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:28 pm

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished. But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event. Those are the elements that theologically matter.

I love the way this clown knows the mind of god

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

If the divine is intervening, then the divine must be a bloody moron.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

Yes evolution is irreconcilable with not only the Bible, but with the concept of god too.
What's your point?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm
The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

Creationists don't think.

''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:28 pm

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution.

This is the key point.

The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished. But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event. Those are the elements that theologically matter.

I suppose wooden heads don't feel very much.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:09 am I think evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In case of non-literal or figurative interpretation, evolution is reconcilable with creation (not creationism). in the first place, there should be no conflict between creation and evolution because creation is an act, while evolution is a process.

Creationists believe that God created humans, but not through evolution. Some evolutionists think that humans came to being through evolution, but no one started and directed the process.

The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

If the divine is intervening, then the divine must be a bloody moron.

They are good and evil.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm
The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

Creationists don't think.

''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means that we cannot tell what happened to species with good precision. We have different fossils but we don't know what is their exact age so we cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:07 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm
The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

Creationists don't think.

''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means that we cannot tell what happened to species with good precision. We have different fossils but we don't know what is their exact age so we cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not.

It's worse than that, for the fossil record. One much bigger problem (and one recognized by Evolutionists, who keep trying to explain it) is the lack of the literally billions of transitional forms that ought to be present.

Think about it this way: evolution is a wasteful process. For every organism that proves "adaptive," there have to be billions of chance mutations that result, not in advantage but in survival-disadvantage or no survival relevance at all (like, say, an extra finger or toe, let us imagine). All organisms that have a survival disadvantage should die; and those with survival-neutral mutations must likewise die at some point. And all should be represented in the fossil record, statistically: for there ought to be literally billions and billions of them, so chance mutation can be the process implicated in producing the occasional survival advantage.

Now, Darwin said that survival of the fittest cannot select for anything that does not immediately present a survival advantage. So even the animals that would eventually have a survival advantage, but don't have one right away, cannot be selected-for. So again, that means that there should be billions more animals represented in the fossil record that have mutations of no consequence...like a bump where an extra finger would eventually appear, but is not now.

The question, then, is "Where are they?" Why are only specific species, complete in their own forms, represented in the fossil record, and none of these billions of transitional forms that the theory assumes must have once existed? We should be snowed under with countless such forms, for every one complete specimen we have, if random mutation plus time are the mechanisms that produce evolution.

Something's really missing from that theory. Rather, billions of things are.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:01 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:50 pm
The evolution theory is not very precise. You cannot deny the existence of divine intervention. Even human is able to intervene in evolution.

If the divine is intervening, then the divine must be a bloody moron.

They are good and evil.

Good and evil are just adjectiival.
What is good for you is evil for another and Vice Versa.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:28 pm The rest of the natural world is of no consequence in the equation. God may have chosen to use any process He wished. But humans are a unique and deliberate creation of God, and the Fall is a literal event. Those are the elements that theologically matter.

I love the way this clown knows the mind of god

Indeed! He continually represents god in small, dense terms that reflect himself... thereby perfectly demonstrating the god created by man... through which, man can claim to know god and act/speak on behalf of god.

My question is... is I.C. aware of the sham he's wrapped himself up in? His obvious use of deceptions/distortions delivered with theatrical flair, say that he does! His commitment to nonsense, however, says that he doesn't! Either way, he's doing a great job of revealing the falseness and absurdity that support self-righteous theist delusions and stories -- which is in noticeable contrast to Christians who actually demonstrate Christ-like behavior.