Evolution/natural selection. Yes or no?

[Bombadil]

"Chimps etc. along with early "humans" had no trouble giving birth, yet over X00,000 or even a couple of Million years the cranium has grown to help contain the brain that grew as humans capacity of thought grew. The human pelvis did not, this meant that during childbirth the baby has to be turned to exit the birth canal, causing not just pain but deaths in some cases. Why did the cranium evolve and not the pelvis?"

 

I don't understand? The pelvis, also grows throughout development. Biological inefficiencies aren't a sign that evolution is not correct. To the contrary, biological inefficiencies such as the appendix and the nature of random genetic variants which are a disadvantage are trademarks of evolution. The issue of people dying during childbirth is more damning to the theory of a loving god then evolution.

 

"The problem is that ancient cultures, world wide, have a culture of handing down information by oral tradition and it is extremely accurate as I mentioned before the aboriginal Australians handed down many stories relating to 10K years ago about lower sea levels across the continent and even areas of the barrier reef exposed as dry land. The early Jewish traditions were for young boys to be able to recite word for word the Torah along with the hugely pedantic methods, when they moved to papyrus etc. of using several scribes to copy out the scriptures where one would write from start to finish, another from the end to the start another from the middle to the front and another from middle to end, the scriptures where counted letter for letter, iota for iota, and any scripture that did not conform was burned. Beats any proof reader of today by a light year."

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the account of the story in the first place was correct. Reality is very subjective, and without technology and a wider understanding on the world many eye witness accounts can be skewed by thoughts of the super-natural. What I am saying is a phenomena observed by someone in the bronze age could easily be attributed to god, because no other explanation makes sense with the knowledge they had at the time. Not only that but it doesn't stop people from just lying in the first place.

 

I don't know how anyone can believe it. The question any child asks, is if god is loving why does god allow people to suffer. It's explained away by saying we must learn to deal with our own problems, or that we would not be human if we did not have free will, but this is god, a man who can supposedly do anything. Why not make it so we are permanently content, happy and loving and have free will? He can do anything. Why not reduce deaths to 0 and make it so the world grows larger to accommodate the growing population and have everyone on earth be happy. Why does he create the pedophile rapist, allow him to commit evil then send him to hell? Rather then not creating him in the first place? To test people? Why would he create such a test, why would he make people suffer so unnecessarily?

[four-wheel-drive]

"Chimps etc. along with early "humans" had no trouble giving birth, yet over X00,000 or even a couple of Million years the cranium has grown to help contain the brain that grew as humans capacity of thought grew. The human pelvis did not, this meant that during childbirth the baby has to be turned to exit the birth canal, causing not just pain but deaths in some cases. Why did the cranium evolve and not the pelvis?"

 

I don't understand? The pelvis, also grows throughout development. Biological inefficiencies aren't a sign that evolution is not correct. To the contrary, biological inefficiencies such as the appendix and the nature of random genetic variants which are a disadvantage are trademarks of evolution. The issue of people dying during childbirth is more damning to the theory of a loving god then evolution.

 

"The problem is that ancient cultures, world wide, have a culture of handing down information by oral tradition and it is extremely accurate as I mentioned before the aboriginal Australians handed down many stories relating to 10K years ago about lower sea levels across the continent and even areas of the barrier reef exposed as dry land. The early Jewish traditions were for young boys to be able to recite word for word the Torah along with the hugely pedantic methods, when they moved to papyrus etc. of using several scribes to copy out the scriptures where one would write from start to finish, another from the end to the start another from the middle to the front and another from middle to end, the scriptures where counted letter for letter, iota for iota, and any scripture that did not conform was burned. Beats any proof reader of today by a light year."

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the account of the story in the first place was correct. Reality is very subjective, and without technology and a wider understanding on the world many eye witness accounts can be skewed by thoughts of the super-natural. What I am saying is a phenomena observed by someone in the bronze age could easily be attributed to god, because no other explanation makes sense with the knowledge they had at the time. Not only that but it doesn't stop people from just lying in the first place.

 

I don't know how anyone can believe it. The question any child asks, is if god is loving why does god allow people to suffer. It's explained away by saying we must learn to deal with our own problems, or that we would not be human if we did not have free will, but this is god, a man who can supposedly do anything. Why not make it so we are permanently content, happy and loving and have free will? He can do anything. Why not reduce deaths to 0 and make it so the world grows larger to accommodate the growing population and have everyone on earth be happy. Why does he create the pedophile rapist, allow him to commit evil then send him to hell? Rather then not creating him in the first place? To test people? Why would he create such a test, why would he make people suffer so unnecessarily?

One could always throw the cat among the pigeons and say perhaps he/she/it gets a kick out of seeing people suffer.

[Bombadil]

Well that would make sense. I don't rule out the possibility of a creator (though I find it as likely as the world secretly being a giant goose who only eats beans) but I do rule out many religions because they claim god is all loving.

 

There is a theory, which I can't remember the name of, which says that god can not be 1. all knowing 2. all powerful and 3. all loving. God can be two of those, but not all 3.

 

All knowing, all powerful, but not loving to stop evil.

All powerful, all loving, but does not know the evil going on.

All knowing, all loving, but not powerful enough to stop evil.

 

[Just as a side note I don't harbor any hostility to people base on the faith they choose, and I'm not trying to belittle anyone. Creationists have been some of the nicest most honest people I've ever come across].

Edited March 16, 2013 by Bombadil

[Greymaster]

 

The question any child asks, is if god is loving why does god allow people to suffer. It's explained away by saying we must learn to deal with our own problems, or that we would not be human if we did not have free will, but this is god, a man who can supposedly do anything. Why not make it so we are permanently content, happy and loving and have free will? He can do anything. Why not reduce deaths to 0 and make it so the world grows larger to accommodate the growing population and have everyone on earth be happy. Why does he create the pedophile rapist, allow him to commit evil then send him to hell? Rather then not creating him in the first place? To test people? Why would he create such a test, why would he make people suffer so unnecessarily?

 

 

God played a trick on humanity. The creature that is permanently happy are those hermaphrodite sea slugs with throwaway penises.

 

http://www.livescience.com/27065-sea-slug-uses-disposable-penis.html

[henry d]

Thanks Bombadil for some real thought into the matter, rather than throwaway comments and silly paradoxes, will try to comment fully at sometime but essay and rugby call strongly

 

**EDIT**

but this is god, a man who can supposedly do anything.

Probably a slip up but this is wrong/heretical, unless you are a Mormon. Edited March 16, 2013 by henry d

[Bombadil]

Thanks Bombadil for some real thought into the matter, rather than throwaway comments and silly paradoxes, will try to comment fully at sometime but essay and rugby call strongly

 

**EDIT**

Probably a slip up but this is wrong/heretical, unless you are a Mormon.

 

I look forward to it!

 

And yep that was a mistake, oops.

[Doc Holliday]

Well that would make sense. I don't rule out the possibility of a creator (though I find it as likely as the world secretly being a giant goose who only eats beans) but I do rule out many religions because they claim god is all loving.

 

There is a theory, which I can't remember the name of, which says that god can not be 1. all knowing 2. all powerful and 3. all loving. God can be two of those, but not all 3.

 

All knowing, all powerful, but not loving to stop evil.

All powerful, all loving, but does not know the evil going on.

All knowing, all loving, but not powerful enough to stop evil.

 

[Just as a side note I don't harbor any hostility to people base on the faith they choose, and I'm not trying to belittle anyone. Creationists have been some of the nicest most honest people I've ever come across].

 

Interesting take on it. I've not come across that before. Maybe God is all powerful and knowing but knows that evil has to exist to create a balance. That said then how would it be possible for Heaven to exist if it is what we believe it to be? I can't see sense in the second point as God banished Lucifer and the other fallen angels for rebelling/uprising against him. The third point fails on the scenario that if God created Lucifer and latterly banished him for sinning/rebelling then he could, effectively, stop him. So why doesn't he? Maybe, as previously mentioned, to create a balance. Without evil to tempt mankind here on earth then there would nothing to aspire to then heaven wouldn't have the need to exist. Maybe. Who knows?

 

I don't really believe in all the bible's teaching but there is a part of me that thinks we can learn to live better if we follow what it says in essence. A friend of mine has a friend who is a very annoying christian. She wholly believes that God made the earth 6500 years ago and adam & eve were the first people, etc. When I asked her how she can ignore evidence like fossils she says that they are fake as a fossil of a battery and light bulb have been found. Good grief. Thank God for the blind faithful, I think.

[Bombadil]

Interesting take on it. I've not come across that before. Maybe God is all powerful and knowing but knows that evil has to exist to create a balance. That said then how would it be possible for Heaven to exist if it is what we believe it to be? I can't see sense in the second point as God banished Lucifer and the other fallen angels for rebelling/uprising against him. The third point fails on the scenario that if God created Lucifer and latterly banished him for sinning/rebelling then he could, effectively, stop him. So why doesn't he? Maybe, as previously mentioned, to create a balance. Without evil to tempt mankind here on earth then there would nothing to aspire to then heaven wouldn't have the need to exist. Maybe. Who knows?

 

I don't really believe in all the bible's teaching but there is a part of me that thinks we can learn to live better if we follow what it says in essence. A friend of mine has a friend who is a very annoying christian. She wholly believes that God made the earth 6500 years ago and adam & eve were the first people, etc. When I asked her how she can ignore evidence like fossils she says that they are fake as a fossil of a battery and light bulb have been found. Good grief. Thank God for the blind faithful, I think.

 

Well even if there does have to be a balance then god being all powerful could just change it so there doesn't need to be a balance! God could make it so there never was a Lucifer, god could make it so that evil simply doesn't exist or need to exist.

[FalconFN]

In the Bible Lucifer is just a rougue angel, a trickster and a wind-up merchant with very little in the way of power, and not the opposite force to God. The 'evil' Anti-Christ devil was created by the imaginations of the powers that be in the medieval church for their own reasons. In the other religions that share the same books (Islam and Judaism) he is still seen as an annoying interference and not a powerful hell-dwelling torturer.

[overandunder2012]

why do they call a church congregation a flock?

[henry d]

...because of a great shepherd!

 

Cu all later this afternoon for fun and games

Edited March 17, 2013 by henry d

[Vince Green]

In the Bible Lucifer is just a rougue angel, a trickster and a wind-up merchant with very little in the way of power, and not the opposite force to God. The 'evil' Anti-Christ devil was created by the imaginations of the powers that be in the medieval church for their own reasons. In the other religions that share the same books (Islam and Judaism) he is still seen as an annoying interference and not a powerful hell-dwelling torturer.

 

thats pretty much right, the early church did a lot of things to build up some parts of the story and play down other parts in order to make it more commercial because by then thats what the church was, a commercial organisation. Thats why they over emphasised the teachings of Paul over many of the other gospels, Paul was good for business. There has been much discussion of late, not least because of the Dan Brown book The Da Vinci code about the role of Mary Magdalene and about the role of James.

Satanists believe that Jesus was Lucifer, gods favourite angel in the old scriptures.

[henry d]

thats pretty much right, the early church did a lot of things to build up some parts of the story and play down other parts in order to make it more commercial because by then thats what the church was, a commercial organisation.

How could the early church do that when stories concerning Satan already existed before them?

Thats why they over emphasised the teachings of Paul over many of the other gospels(Paul wrote letters, he didn`t write the Gospels), Paul was good for business. There has been much discussion of late, not least because of the Dan Brown book The Da Vinci code about the role of Mary Magdalene and about the role of James.

Satanists believe that Jesus was Lucifer, gods favourite angel in the old scriptures. Good for them

[henry d]

Concerning evil mostly....

 

The pelvis, also grows throughout development. Biological inefficiencies aren't a sign that evolution is not correct. To the contrary, biological inefficiencies such as the appendix and the nature of random genetic variants which are a disadvantage are trademarks of evolution. The issue of people dying during childbirth is more damning to the theory of a loving god then evolution. It may seem odd, but it was due to Eve caving in to temptation that women would suffer during childbirth Gen. 3:16

Why not make it so we are permanently content, happy and loving and have free will? He can do anything. Why not reduce deaths to 0 and make it so the world grows larger to accommodate the growing population and have everyone on earth be happy. two things to consider

• If we were to have a world that was like that, why would we need to have a relationship with God at all?
  
• Eden was the first place that looked something like you mentioned here, God lived there with Adam and Eve and if they had not chosen to disobey, having been given free will, then they would still be there.
  

 

Why does he create the pedophile rapist, allow him to commit evil then send him to hell? He did not create the paedophile, he created the person who became a paedophile

Unfortunately we tend to think of God from the perspective of being a human and try to stick him in a box and by doing so we immediately limit him. Concerning omnipotence; God has the power to do anything that God wills to do as long as a logical contradiction is not involved such as the classic, Can God create a rock he cannot lift?

[Grandalf]

Yes, but as I have asked before, why would god go to all this effort just to judge the good guys and the bad guys that he has just created?.

Why not make them all good (or bad)?

What is the point in the whole thing?

Is it just some vast experiment?

The whole thing just seems a pointless waste of time if you are omnipotent.

The universe, physics, life - fantastic. Can quite understand why some super being would want to make all that.

But all this good, bad, evil, satan - why would god want to create all that - there is no point.

[Kes]

Why would anyone want to explain Gods purpose - wouldnt that be a little unnecessary and like assuming the mantle?

Far better perhaps to keep one's own Counsel and beliefs and rather than tell others, simply live by your own 'understanding'.

 

It seems to me that the imperative in religeon to expand the 'one true faith' whatever that may be this week, is anything but 'Godly', or therefore acceptable.

 

Perhaps to expand ones understanding of virtues is to be 'right thinking' and maybe godly enough for a lifetime?

 

No reply needed or expected.

[henry d]

Yes, but as I have asked before, why would god go to all this effort just to judge the good guys and the bad guys that he has just created?. Dunno, I`ll ask when I see him.

Why not make them all good (or bad)? He did.

What is the point in the whole thing? See first answer.

Is it just some vast experiment? No

The whole thing just seems a pointless waste of time if you are omnipotent.

The universe, physics, life - fantastic. Can quite understand why some super being would want to make all that.

But all this good, bad, evil, satan - why would god want to create all that - there is no point. Did God create evil?

 

Why would anyone want to explain Gods purpose - wouldnt that be a little unnecessary and like assuming the mantle?

Far better perhaps to keep one's own Counsel and beliefs and rather than tell others, simply live by your own 'understanding'.

 

It seems to me that the imperative in religeon to expand the 'one true faith' whatever that may be this week, is anything but 'Godly', or therefore acceptable.

 

Perhaps to expand ones understanding of virtues is to be 'right thinking' and maybe godly enough for a lifetime?

 

No reply needed or expected.

Just rhetoric then?

[gazzthompson]

God creates man.

"Follow me and my rules or ill burn you in hell for ever"

 

Nope. Just can't accept it, doesn't make sense to me and I've never seen a good argument for it.

[Kes]

Just rhetoric then?

Beneath you Henry, perhaps your halo is slipping ?

[henry d]

God creates man.

"Follow me and my rules or ill burn you in hell for ever"

 

Nope. Just can't accept it, doesn't make sense to me and I've never seen a good argument for it.

 

That is because you have it wrong, there was one rule, the penalty for that was removal from God`s presence and a mortal life.

 

Beneath you Henry, perhaps your halo is slipping ?

No I don`t have one, I`m fallen. You posed two questions, then said no reply was required, were the Q`s just rhetoric ?

[paulos]

Do I take it from the last few posts, Henry, that you believe Genesis literally?

[henry d]

No, I believe some of it is analogy, however the theology behind it underpins later theology and does not contradict it.

[Blunderbuss]

If you don't accept that every word of the bible is literally true, how do you decide which bits are, and which bits aren't? Once you start cherry picking the bits you believe, doesn't the whole concept start unravelling a bit?

[gazzthompson]

That is because you have it wrong, there was one rule, the penalty for that was removal from God`s presence and a mortal life.

 

What's with all the hell business then?

[henry d]

If you don't accept that every word of the bible is literally true, how do you decide which bits are, and which bits aren't? Once you start cherry picking the bits you believe, doesn't the whole concept start unravelling a bit?

 

No, cf. Psalm 14:1 - ‘There is no God.’ , it is preceded by "The fool says in his heart," so some of the bible, if taken out of context are incorrect, the bible needs to be read with this in mind.

Another psalm states "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge."

They do not literally do this, does that make it untrue? No, not at all.

 

What's with all the hell business then?

 

...removal from God`s presence...

That is what hell is.