Pastor AIO:


I hope that you realise that my 'very good point' is the entire crux of the post I wrote. Because I am rather taken aback that you get that point but you have objections to the examples that I use to illustrate it.

Although you may consider that part the crux of your post, I see it as a point that doesn't embrace the whole of your post. For instance, in that point of your post, there is the allusion to the idea of a multiplicity of driving forces when it comes to humans. I feel that aspect was absent in the initial portion of your post.

For someone who claims to be an atheist you sure have some non atheistic opinions. Perhaps it's vestiges from a religious upbringing. I'll repeat my statement that Humans behave compulsively, according to programs neurally formed by genetic inheritance and circumstances.
Perhaps you'd find my applying this to all humans as broadstroking, yet the irony is that I'd expect this to be your stance and I to be the one with issues against it. Why? Because it is an accepted fact that human behaviour and thinking is a product of genes and environment (nature/nurture). This is the point where most atheist would stop and the point that I would expect you to be most comfortable with. I however would be more likely to postulate another influence on human behaviour which you are bound to hate. Namely that we have in us a divinity and God (supernatural) expresses himself through us thereby being an influence on our behaviour that is neither genetic or circumstantial.

I'll address as much as I can in this block. First, it's always startling to see someone refer to atheism as if it were philosophy containing well defined aspects of behaviour and ethics. Atheism isn't that. Atheists are so grouped because they don't believe in the existence of gods. Nothing more. Individual or group philosophies may stem from that non-belief, however.

Secondly, while a great deal of humyn beaviour is decided by social context and their genes, differing shades of experiences and variations in social conditions and genes help to create individual nuances. So, since those nuances can be characterised in many, many different ways, individual desires and motivations cannot be discounted.

Thirdly, it isn't so much your argument about humyn behaviour being caused by environment et al. that I was arguing against, as your blanket characterisation of the actions of both atheists and religious fanatics. Like I said, a caveat that broadbrushing has taken place has to be given for the blanket statement that started this discussion.

Finally, I don't hate your attribution of humyn characteristics to your god, I simpy disagree with it.

I never once suggested that the influences that drive human neuroses were anything but complex. I was merely furnishing you with single simplified examples of how they can influence thinking and behaviour.

Nor did I say that you said it was anything other than complex (I didn't mean to imply that), I was arguing, instead, that the aspect you mentioned constitutes only one part of the drives of many.

YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.
No matter how much a man tries to hide the truth, it will never work.
Don't ever forget this "everything was founded on creation".

Na wa O, Mr KAG!  I hope it is not that your particular neuroses is driving you to be a compulsive disagree-er.  Whether or not there is grounds for disagreement.  I'm so afraid to use an analogy on nairaland as I've seen the creative way members choose to miscontrue and distort them.  But I'll give it a go as I feel the situation is becoming that desperate.  
If in an attempt to demonstrate that movement is the result of forces that act on bodies I present a couple of examples.  e.g apples fall from trees because there  is a force called gravity that attracts them to earth.  Magnets attract each other because of the magnetic force, is another example of the force.  I thereby conclude that behaviour of bodies is due to forces that act upon them.  
Imagine now my consternation when some dude goes: 'yes, but there are a "multiplicity of driving forces" and you've only given the example of gravity earlier so that doesn't count.  What about the wind that was blowing when the apple fell.  That was applying force as well.'  How does the conclusion that forces determine behaviour "not embrace" the fact that Gravity is a force.  How does the fact that human behaviour is determined by a complexity of neuroses 'not embrace' the fact that some people are neurotically driven to disagree with everything whether it makes sense or not.

KAG:

I'll address as much as I can in this block. First, it's always startling to see someone refer to atheism as if it were philosophy containing well defined aspects of behaviour and ethics. Atheism isn't that. Atheists are so grouped because they don't believe in the existence of gods. Nothing more. Individual or group philosophies may stem from that non-belief, however.

Well you are right about that.  Atheism is not a philosophy and I would go further and say that no philosophy could ever stem from it.  Atheism is in fact a complex mess, but tied with it is not just the disbelief in a God or Gods, but also a denial of a supernatural world.  To accept that human behaviour can have a source beyond Neurology is to believe in a supernatural agent and thus is not a typically atheistic standpoint.  In fact you are the first self acclaimed 'atheist' that I know to take this stand.  

KAG:


Secondly, while a great deal of humyn beaviour is decided by[b] social context[/b] and their genes, differing shades of experiences and variations in social conditions and genes help to create individual nuances. So, since those nuances can be characterised in many, many different ways, individual desires and motivations cannot be discounted.

My brother please explain to me, what is the difference between Social Context and Social conditions with or without variations.  It seems to me that in your compulsive need to be contrary you have twisted and turned and squeezed until you end up making statements like that above.  Let me, bravely, atttempt another analogy which is closer to the topic of this thread.  Darwin postulates that there are certain basic laws and principles that determines the evolution of all the creatures on this planet.  You however point out that there is too much variation and individual nuance in species for them all to have been derived (at a broad stroke) from the very same laws and principles.  

"Individual desires and motivations" are products of those same laws of neurology that apply to absolutely everyone.  

KAG:


Thirdly, it isn't so much your argument about humyn behaviour being caused by environment et al. that I was arguing against, as your blanket characterisation of the actions of both atheists and religious fanatics. Like I said, a caveat that broadbrushing has taken place has to be given for the blanket statement that started this discussion.

Ah, I see.  You are just being snobbish.  Somehow you don't like being put in the same category with religionists.  Well I'm sorry but the fact is that your behaviour is determined by your neurology and so is theirs.  If I called you both humans would that also be broadbrushing.  I was making a reference to the human conditions which as it happens contains atheists and religionists.  And I'm sorry but I do not see the difference between you and them.  You are just difference manifestations of the same processes.   . . . and I certainly don't think you are smarter.  

KAG:

Finally, I don't hate your attribution of humyn characteristics to your god, I simpy disagree with it.

Dude what's wrong with you?  I never said God had human characteristics.  I said Humans potentially have divine characteristics.  There is a big difference.

Pastor AIO:

Na wa O, Mr KAG! I hope it is not that your particular neuroses is driving you to be a compulsive disagree-er.

If I were a "compulsive disagree-er" I would have disagreed with everything you wrote, no?

Whether or not there is grounds for disagreement. I'm so afraid to use an analogy on nairaland as I've seen the creative way members choose to miscontrue and distort them. But I'll give it a go as I feel the situation is becoming that desperate.
If in an attempt to demonstrate that movement is the result of forces that act on bodies I present a couple of examples. e.g apples fall from trees because there is a force called gravity that attracts them to earth. Magnets attract each other because of the magnetic force, is another example of the force. I thereby conclude that behaviour of bodies is due to forces that act upon them.
Imagine now my consternation when some dude goes: 'yes, but there are a "multiplicity of driving forces" and you've only given the example of gravity earlier so that doesn't count. What about the wind that was blowing when the apple fell. That was applying force as well.' How does the conclusion that forces determine behaviour "not embrace" the fact that Gravity is a force. How does the fact that human behaviour is determined by a complexity of neuroses 'not embrace' the fact that some people are neurotically driven to disagree with everything whether it makes sense or not.

I don't think you're getting my points. You seem to think that I'm arguing against the idea of the humyn brain directing humyn actions - at least, I get the impression that's what you're getting from my posts. Not so. My initial disagreement (which has spawned this debate) was more specific: I disagreed with the broadbrushing that was implied here: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

etc.

Well you are right about that. Atheism is not a philosophy and I would go further and say that no philosophy could ever stem from it.

That's wrong. Several humanistic and materialist philosophies have their roots in atheism.

Atheism is in fact a complex mess, but tied with it is not just the disbelief in a God or Gods, but also a denial of a supernatural world.

That's wrong too. Atheists can believe that superatural things exist. Not believing a god exists is all that is required to fall under the atheist label.

To accept that human behaviour can have a source beyond Neurology is to believe in a supernatural agent and thus is not a typically atheistic standpoint. In fact you are the first self acclaimed 'atheist' that I know to take this stand.

Um, that's not my stand. Now I know we were talking past each other.

My brother please explain to me, what is the difference between Social Context and Social conditions with or without variations.
It seems to me that in your compulsive need to be contrary you have twisted and turned and squeezed until you end up making statements like that above.

They can be pretty synonymous, but I'd say one is synchronous and the other is dichronous.

It seems to me that in your compulsive need to be contrary you have twisted and turned and squeezed until you end up making statements like that above. Let me, bravely, atttempt another analogy which is closer to the topic of this thread. Darwin postulates that there are certain basic laws and principles that determines the evolution of all the creatures on this planet. You however point out that there is too much variation and individual nuance in species for them all to have been derived (at a broad stroke) from the very same laws and principles.

"Individual desires and motivations" are products of those same laws of neurology that apply to absolutely everyone.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing anymore. We both seem to be arguing about different things.

Ah, I see. You are just being snobbish. Somehow you don't like being put in the same category with religionists.

Um, no. I have no problem being in the same category as a religious person.

Well I'm sorry but the fact is that your behaviour is determined by your neurology and so is theirs.

I agree. that was the idea implied in one of my points.

If I called you both humans would that also be broadbrushing.

No; however, if you precribed a particular type of acts of behaviours to wide group of people, then you'd be broadbrushing.

I was making a reference to the human conditions which as it happens contains atheists and religionists. And I'm sorry but I do not see the difference between you and them. You are just difference manifestations of the same processes. . . . and I certainly don't think you are smarter.

Okay.

Finally, I don't hate your attribution of humyn characteristics to your god, I simpy disagree with it.

Dude what's wrong with you? I never said God had human characteristics. I said Humans potentially have divine characteristics. There is a big difference.

You've misinterpreted my post again. What I mean was, contrary to your claim that I'd hate you giving your god credit for the characteristics humyns possess, I don't. I disagree with, not hate, the assertion. I thought that was clear, given the context.

KAG:

If I were a "compulsive disagree-er" I would have disagreed with everything you wrote, no?

I don't think you're getting my points. You seem to think that I'm arguing against the idea of the humyn brain directing humyn actions - at least, I get the impression that's what you're getting from my posts. Not so. My initial disagreement (which has spawned this debate) was more specific: I disagreed with the broadbrushing that was implied here: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

etc.

That's wrong. Several humanistic and materialist philosophies have their roots in atheism.

That's wrong too. Atheists can believe that superatural things exist. Not believing a god exists is all that is required to fall under the atheist label.

Um, that's not my stand. Now I know we were talking past each other.

They can be pretty synonymous, but I'd say one is synchronous and the other is dichronous.


I don't think we are talking about the same thing anymore. We both seem to be arguing about different things.

Um, no. I have no problem being in the same category as a religious person.

I agree. that was the idea implied in one of my points.

No; however, if you precribed a particular type of acts of behaviours to wide group of people, then you'd be broadbrushing.


Okay.
Dude what's wrong with you? I never said God had human characteristics. I said Humans potentially have divine characteristics. There is a big difference.

You've misinterpreted my post again. What I mean was, contrary to your claim that I'd hate you giving your god credit for the characteristics humyns possess, I don't. I disagree with, not hate, the assertion. I thought that was clear, given the context.

Actually I think that you are right in that we are talking past each other. I also think that the confusion is past unravelling. Perhaps it's best that we just leave it.

Although, I feel I must make one last attempt to defend (for the record) my statement that has caused your disagreement. I said: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

I was referring to s[b]ome people[/b] and not to absolutely everyone. I made no reference to just how many those 'some people' were. I just gave an example of how a neuroses can manifest in some people. That is not broad brushing. To mention the example of Gravity in a discussion about forces is not to imply that every force is gravity. That Atheists and religionists are included amongst these 'some people' does not mean that this is the case with every atheist and religionist.

Pastor AIO:

Actually I think that you are right in that we are talking past each other. I also think that the confusion is past unravelling. Perhaps it's best that we just leave it.

Although, I feel I must make one last attempt to defend (for the record) my statement that has caused your disagreement. I said: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

I was referring to s[b]ome people[/b] and not to absolutely everyone. I made no reference to just how many those 'some people' were. I just gave an example of how a neuroses can manifest in some people. That is not broad brushing. To mention the example of Gravity in a discussion about forces is not to imply that every force is gravity. That Atheists and religionists are included amongst these 'some people' does not mean that this is the case with every atheist and religionist.

Oops, then it was my mistake *doh!* My apologies. I somehow managed to mistake your statement as a broad generalisation. In that case, I agree with you.

Apology accepted. Misreadings can happen quite easily.

hmm, now thats what i call a mature way of settling differences. I really wwant to give kudos to you guys for being matured enough to recognise and deal and manage each other differences.thumbs up!!!

Evoultion is more or less a fact.
But God guided the creation of the universe and evoultion.
God's time is not measured by any standards we know.So even 1 day might mean 1 billion years for us.We should not rush to accept the 6 days creation literally.

@banni
no one is concluding the 6days as just 6 days and no one is concluding it as 6 million, its not the time line we are talking about, its the wonders of creation against the theory of evolution. and more like we just gave it conclusion, but you ca still raise it up.

It is a waste of time in my own view to discuss biological evolution with people who do not understand the basic scientific concepts or refuse to educate themselves on those issues. I am not sure that any sincere scientists will doubt the theory of biological evolution. This is because the scientific evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

I believe in creation

banni:

Evoultion is more or less a fact.
But God guided the creation of the universe and evoultion.
God's time is not measured by any standards we know.So even 1 day might mean 1 billion years for us.We should not rush to accept the 6 days creation literally.

Banni you are absolutely right.
According to the biblical account of creation God created man out of the dust of the earth and then gave unto man the breath of live.
From this we can deduce that man is made up of two parts:
1.) The part made out of the dust of the earth--- The physical body
2.) The breath of life given by God -- The spirit of man.
I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies. Only from this instance did we become humans. Our true self is the spirit inside us and not the physical body which is only a cloak.
Science can only investigate, analyse and discover the natural process(evolution) through which God made our physical bodies, but science cannot investigate, analyse and discover the spirit inside us because this is beyond physical. You can only use spiritual means to investigate, analyse and discover spiritual things, and you can only use physical things to investigate, analyse and discover physical things.
The fact that our bodies eveloved does not disprove that fact that God created us because all the natural process were set in-place and guided by the WILL of GOD.
With each birth today, the process of evolution is reflected. We all started with a single cell(zygote) which multiplied and evolved with time until we becomes babies. The fact that it takes a Child's body 9-10 months to develop in the womb does not contradict the fact that God created the child. The process of pregnancy is a natural process through which God makes our bodies, just like evolution is a natural process through which God allwed man to come into being on earth for the first time.

justcool:

Banni you are absolutely right.
According to the biblical account of creation God created man out of the dust of the earth and then gave unto man the breath of live.
From this we can deduce that man is made up of two parts:
1.) The part made out of the dust of the earth--- The physical body
2.) The breath of life given by God -- The spirit of man.
I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies. Only from this instance did we become humans. Our true self is the spirit inside us and not the physical body which is only a cloak.
Science can only investigate, analyse and discover the natural process(evolution) through which God made our physical bodies, but science cannot investigate, analyse and discover the spirit inside us because this is beyond physical. You can only use spiritual means to investigate, analyse and discover spiritual things, and you can only use physical things to investigate, analyse and discover physical things.
The fact that our bodies eveloved does not disprove that fact that God created us because all the natural process were set in-place and guided by the WILL of GOD.
With each birth today, the process of evolution is reflected. We all started with a single cell(zygote) which multiplied and evolved with time until we becomes babies. The fact that it takes a Child's body 9-10 months to develop in the womb does not contradict the fact that God created the child. The process of pregnancy is a natural process through which God makes our bodies, just like evolution is a natural process through which God allwed man to come into being on earth for the first time.

So why does the theory scare creationists soo much?

Pastor AIO:


So why does the theory scare creationists soo much?

I think it is because so many creationists take the Biblical story of creation very literally. And at the same time, some of the creationists don't understand evolution. If you understand Genesis and evolution, you will see that they don't oppose each other, they are like the two sides of the same coin.
In Genesis the story was told in a pictorial and metaphorical manner because men of that time cannot understand the language of science which developed much later. If one reads the creation story in Genesis with an alert spirit, he/she will see that it's true and does not disagree with evolution. Infact it confirms the authenticity of evolution, i.e. "out of the dust of the earth God made man, "
The Biblical story of creation explores the issue from a spiritual perspective and also deals with the spiritual significance; while in Evolution, scientists explore the issue from the physical perspective only.
One who knows the spiritual laws knows that in the spiritual, time is much faster. i.e. "a thousand years are as one" The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what took milloins of years in only six days. One must understand that the six days mentioned in the Bible is six spiritual days; each day might be thousands, millions of earth years.

@justtocool
i would like to think you are educated on both sides of this issue, now you know this but how many others do,and besides what most people try to do is to prove the irrelevance of the opposing party, now from the illustration you gave,it pretty simple to understand when you have the conciousness of the fact that there is always two sides to a coin.and besides as one who believes in creation, and also a scientist, i would say i thank you for the wisdom of that illustration. and besides to add to it,God is the creator and he himself even instigated science and evolution.i wont say that this or that is how God created everything he created, but lets be sincere to ourselves, the entire issue is deep, but one link i see in both the evolution and creation theory is that they were both instigated by God,but as we both know "creationist" as you call them, and evolutionist are in a race to prove the other wrong, not realizing the fact that there is also a win- win principle, if only they could just put aside their difference and consider their similarities, they would realize the extent to which they are alike and that they have the same route and objective just different perspective.

lystola:

@justtocool
i would like to think you are educated on both sides of this issue, now you know this but how many others do,and besides what most people try to do is to prove the irrelevance of the opposing party, now from the illustration you gave,it pretty simple to understand when you have the conciousness of the fact that there is always two sides to a coin.and besides as one who believes in creation, and also a scientist, i would say i thank you for the wisdom of that illustration. and besides to add to it,God is the creator and he himself even instigated science and evolution.i wont say that this or that is how God created everything he created, but lets be sincere to ourselves, the entire issue is deep, but one link i see in both the evolution and creation theory is that they were both instigated by God,but as we both know "creationist" as you call them, and evolutionist are in a race to prove the other wrong, not realizing the fact that there is also a win- win principle, if only they could just put aside their difference and consider their similarities, they would realize the extent to which they are alike and that they have the same route and objective just different perspective.

But if they set aside their differences then how the hell are they supposed to demonstrate their intellectual superiority over each other which it is so important for them to demonstrate. How else are they supposed to vent their frustrations at their inadequacies?

PastOR AIO
What Superiority?, to who? to gain what?,see thats the problem, looking to prove the other person wrong. when will you understand that you can never bring the two sides of a coin to face each other, but you just have to realise that even though they back each other, they are one and the same? or let me put it this way. i am wearing a pants, the right side is coloured black, the left side is coloured white. now if you were to as a man sitting on my right side the colour of my trouser, he would tell you black because that is what he sees, and if you asks the one my left he would tell you white, because thats what he sees, but you have to realize that i am one person wearing one trousers but two people with two different ideas and perspective about me.Now theses two people are both right from their own perspective,and none of them can be right with his own idea on the other persons plain and terrain,so they are both right, but different perspectives.

@lystola
Thank you. I think your right. Your analogy about wearing black and white colored pants is wonderful and also very interesting.  I think is completely captures the situation of creationists and evolutionist.  Each one is seeing from his own perspective.

@PastorAIO
I think both you and lystola are saying the same thing about the fight for superiority. Most of the opponents of evolution don't even understand evolution, they only oppose it in other to demonstrate how knowledgeable they are about life and God. On the other hand some of the opponents of creation don't even know what creation is, some of them have not studied the story of creation in Genesis very well to see it makes sense; they only oppose it in-order to demonstrate their scientific knowledge and prove that the believers are fools.
It all boils down to pride.
One thing I have noticed it that these extremist are never fully knowledgeable in either field. For example, most atheists use science to disprove God but when you go with them deeply into science you'll find out they don't know science deeply. The same thing is applicable with extremist on the religious side who always tries to disprove every scientific discovery with the bible; and when you go deeply into spiritual knowledge with them you will find out that they don't know spirituality very well.
The greatest scientists in history -- Isac newton, Albert Einstein, etc-- are hardly atheists. They use their scientific knowledge to better our lives and understanding of science, they don't use it to fight God or prove that their is no God. Even, they acknowlege spirituality and the need for it.
At the same time, real priests use their spiritual knowledge to better our lives and understanding of spirituality; they hardly fight science or compete with scientist over knowledge, or use the bible to discredit scientific discoveries. They acknowlege and respect science. The real priests and true scientists know that their are two sides to every coin and they don't see each other as opponents.
Extramists on both sides are always people with pseudo knowledge or half knowledge.

@justcool

justcool:


Extramists on both sides are always people with pseudo knowledge or half knowledge.

now thats something i totally agree with, anyway, i pray God help people on both sides to see.

Hello all,

It's interesting to see the turn of events in this discussion. However, it seems rather curious that recently, some discussants have sought to marry both ideas of creation and evolution to arrive at a compromise. Please correct me where I might be mistaken, but between times as I tried to follow the discussions, here is one point I came across that highlighted the point in my query:

justcool:

According to the biblical account of creation God created man out of the dust of the earth and then gave unto man the breath of live.
From this we can deduce that man is made up of two parts:
1.) The part made out of the dust of the earth--- The physical body
2.) The breath of life given by God -- The spirit of man.
I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies.

This actually leaves a few disturbing questions unanswered. The two standard positions held by those investigating the question of evolution are:

(a) Evolution does not smuggle in the idea of God in the equation
(b) Creation does not suppose the idea of "physical bodies evolving" by theories of darwinism.

I think those who are espousing the middle course should seek to calmly go back to the fundamentals of evolutionary postulations before subscribing to their ideas of "creation by evolution". So far, there doesn't seem to be a slice rational thought in the middle course.

syrup:


(a) Evolution does not smuggle in the idea of God in the equation
(b) Creation does not suppose the idea of "physical bodies evolving" by theories of darwinism.

The history of the rise and fall of empires over time does not 'smuggle in the idea of God in the equation. Afterall it does not require God for the King of Bablylon to decide to go and conquer Israel. However the bible states explicitly that the babylonians were used by God as a punishment for israel. So why was Israel conquered? Due to Political forces that we can study in history or due to the Will of God?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

The history of the rise and fall of empires over time does not 'smuggle in the idea of God in the equation.

If only you could show me the correlation between "history of the rise and fall of empires over time" and "evolution & creation". That is why I made a simple request:

syrup:

I think those who are espousing the middle course should seek to calmly go back to the fundamentals of evolutionary postulations before subscribing to their ideas of "creation by evolution".

My point being that you can have a perfectly feasible theory, biological or political or in any discipline for that matter, which in itself makes no mention of God but yet there are many who will see the hand of God in it. There is no contradiction.

Pastor AIO:

My point being that you can have a perfectly feasible theory, biological or political or in any discipline for that matter, which in itself makes no mention of God but yet there are many who will see the hand of God in it. There is no contradiction.

In simple words: evolution is a theory that makes no mention of "GOD"

That is what I wanted to point out to those who are assuming "creation by evolution" - that is a muddled idea that is quite disconnected.

but dear, if you go to the library and pick up any book on the history of the middle east you will see many accounts that make no mention of God. Yet the bible clearly states that God was behind a lot of the events told in the history books. Including famines which scientists will tell you are due to meteorological events.

Would you say that Persia conquered Babylon because of militaristic factors or would you say that it happened because the Lord gave babylon onto Persia.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

but dear, if you go to the library and pick up any book on the history of the middle east you will see many accounts that make no mention of God.

That is true - and it all depends on what perspective the authors were penning their accounts. Certainly, a political historian may not be interested in the mention of 'God' in such accounts; an economist also. But if the author was trying to render an account of the "religious history of the Middle East", would we bet our boots that he would be passionately against mentioning 'God'?

The point again is simple - the topic is between two theories seeking to account for the "origin" of the world.

- For some, it is purely by (a) evolution with no "God" in the equation;
- for others, it is by (b) creation without darwinian evolution;
- yet for others, it is a middle course that says as far as the question of "origins" go, it has to be "creation by evolution" [that is, (a) + (b)] See? It does not even merit a (c)!

Pastor AIO:

Yet the bible clearly states that God was behind a lot of the events told in the history books. Including famines which scientists will tell you are due to meteorological events.

Okay. Here again are 3 things

(a) the Bible is a book based on theism - it is not a meteorological manual
(b) scientist may speak of famines with meteorological indices rather than with theistic vocabs
(c) yet, not many meteorists discuss effects of famine by the theory of evolution.

Pastor AIO:

Would you say that Persia conquered Babylon because of militaristic factors or would you say that it happened because the Lord gave babylon onto Persia.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? If you assume my answer purely on theistic basis, I should simply say that both factors were involved.

However, if you assumed my answer to be based on evolutionary postulations, then how does that square with "militaristic factors"? From what did "militaristic factors" evolve?

Pastor AIO:

The history of the rise and fall of empires over time does not 'smuggle in the idea of God in the equation. Afterall it does not require God for the King of Bablylon to decide to go and conquer Israel. However the bible states explicitly that the babylonians were used by God as a punishment for israel. So why was Israel conquered? Due to Political forces that we can study in history or due to the Will of God?

@Pastor AIO
You couldn't have said it better. Honestly I didn't know how to reply to syrup, but many thanks to you for coming up with that wonderfull analogy which answered his question.

@syrup
Science does not mention God because science deals with the physical only. God is beyond physical therefore science cannot investigate God with scientific means. I have already said earlier that you can only use physical means to investigate physical things; also, you can only use spiritual means to investigate spiritual things. Science does not deal with God, science deals with physical things. No scientific theory go beyond physical.

I will give you an analogy:
A man wakes up one morning and drives to his girlfriend's house with the intention of breaking up with his girlfriend.

Now if science analyzes this scenario, all science can explain is that biological process in waking up and getting into a car, also, the mechanical processes involved in the movement of the car; and finally the direction, speed and the distance that the man drove. All these science can investigate and confirm based on the evidences that they see. But science cannot tell you the mans intention for driving to the girls house unless the man reveals it. Because at the present science does not read minds.
So if this guy tells his story, he will mostly tell you his mind frame, and mostly what was going on in his mind while he drove to his girlfriend's house.
This guys story and the scientific story will not be the same. Because the guy will tell it from the human perspective while science will only analyze the physical means through which the guy got his destination.

Apply the same with the issue. Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man. Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

Both stories remain like the two sides of the same coin.

To further clarify myself.
If you ask the guy the reason for being at his girlfriend's house he will probably tell you this:
"I found out that that girl cheated on me and I went there to break up with her."

If you ask science the guy's reason for being at his girlfriend's, You'll get mechanical theories involved like:
He applied the force of 50 Newtons to the accelerator of his car and move 45 degrees north, then stopped after 25 kilometers which is his girlfriend's house.

One tells you that it was the guy's car, speed and direction that got him to where he was. The other tells you that it was due to the guy's intention to brake up with his girlfriend.
These are two different stories, and both of them are true.
Only a fool will reject the guy's story because science cannot investigate the guy's intentions.

Hi Justcool,

Thanks for sharing. Here are a few things that seem to require further queries:

justcool:

@Pastor AIO
You couldn't have said it better. Honestly I didn't know how to reply to syrup, but many thanks to you for coming up with that wonderfull analogy which answered his question.

I actually don't see how my question has been answered. Plase share more than tersely saying so.

justcool:

@syrup
Science does not mention God because science deals with the physical only. God is beyond physical therefore science cannot investigate God with scientific means. I have already said earlier that you can only use physical means to investigate physical things; also, you can only use spiritual means to investigate spiritual things. Science does not deal with God, science deals with physical things. No scientific theory go beyond physical.

Okay. I shall tuck this neatly away for future reference. . . I believe something might prompt me to remind you of this quote/assumption.

justcool:

This guys story and the scientific story will not be the same. Because the guy will tell it from the human perspective while science will only analyze the physical means through which the guy got his destination.

Apply the same with the issue. Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man. Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

Both stories remain like the two sides of the same coin.

Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation". The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Infact, when one tries to assume a middle compromise to marry both concepts/theories together (something I might call "crevolution", it will be a very strange soup to serve indeed! WHY? Because those who are passionate about (darwinian) evolution have often said clearly that there is NO PURPOSE or MEANING to life - which immediately stands in stark contrast to what you stated for creation:

justcool:

Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man.

Can I ask this question: when was the last time you heard neo-darwinist speak of "purpose" and "the meaning" of life for the coming into being of man?

One more point:

justcool:
Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:

(a) man was not created as "man" - for evolution says we evolved from apes into man. Does the Bible teach that?

(b) man was evolved without purpose or meaning - the very essentials held by evolutionists. Does the Bible teach that?

Is there something I am still missing in your premise?

syrup:

Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation". The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes. It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator. Simply put, Evolution does not equal atheism.

How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Ignoring the label, many scientists that accept the theory of evolution actually believe a god was the ultimate creator. Francis Collins, Ken Miller are two famous examples of theistic evolutionists. even Darwin believed in a creator when he formulated the theory of evolution.

Infact, when one tries to assume a middle compromise to marry both concepts/theories together (something I might call "crevolution", it will be a very strange soup to serve indeed! WHY? Because those who are passionate about (darwinian) evolution have often said clearly that there is NO PURPOSE or MEANING to life - which immediately stands in stark contrast to what you stated for creation:

Yeah, that's wrong.

Can I ask this question: when was the last time you heard neo-darwinist speak of "purpose" and "the meaning" of life for the coming into being of man?

Today.

Hi KAG,

KAG:

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes.

Okay. Do natural causes (as far as "origin" of the world go) assume a "Creator" in the theory of evolution?

KAG:

It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator.

I'd like to see some pointers that it does.

KAG:

Simply put, Evolution does not equal atheism.

That's true - and I don't think I have made them quite the same (even with references to "no god".

KAG:

Ignoring the label, many scientists that accept the theory of evolution actually believe a god was the ultimate creator. Francis Collins, Ken Miller are two famous examples of theistic evolutionists.

I understand that - and that is why I was trying to very carefully note that I was referring to those who are passionately describing themselves as "darwinists" (and thus ascring to the "darwinist evolution" concept). There are as many who are non-theistic evolutionists who rule out "God" in their postulations, though.

KAG:

even Darwin believed in a creator when he formulated the theory of evolution.

But he didn't quite hold that view throughout. I may be wrong - and possibly so; but that would be because his thesis do not seem to lean towards that position later on.

KAG:

Yeah, that's wrong.

That is what has held my attention so far - the "crevolution" thingy. It's hard for me to see where they play the romance there.

KAG:

Today.

Lol. . . _{your sense of humour disarms me often times}.