God is fond of the seed. All life starts off from a single microscopic cell, no matter how large or small. Everything to form the final plant or animal is enfolded in the genes of that microscopic first cell. The same is true of the universe. Everything from stars to man was enfolded in seed form, perfectly and exactly, in the initial conditions of the singularity before the Big Bang. When God said Let there be light, the creation was complete, all that was left was for it to unfold into the Universe we see now. Evolution is just part of that unfolding. Evolution is the way God made all life.

Creationists get too serious about their own faulty logic. Take Genesis 3:19 for example: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Everyone understands this but they should also understand that it is not scientifically accurate, it is a metaphor. First off we're 70% water, 26% hydrocarbons, and only 4% dust. The water came as rain from the air, carbon came from the air as carbon dioxide that plants fixed into hydrocarbons, and the nitrogen in our protein came from the air, fixed by bacteria or lightning and finally made into protein by plants. All told we're 96% air and only 4% dust. But if God went for scientific accuracy he would have confused almost everyone. None of the creation story was meant to be scientifically accurate. But it fits nicely if given some poetic license.

<<When God said Let there be light, the creation was complete, all that was left was for it to unfold into the Universe we see now.>>

The critical problem with that line of thinking is that in attempting to explain the origin of the universe and life - a very complex question - you are assuming the existence of an abstract being which is even more complex than the original question itself. Therefore, this reasoning does not help to illuminate either question of the origin of the universe and/or life.

<<Evolution is the way God made all life. >>

There's no real need for God to be in the picture.

On another front, following the article I posted in my previous post in this thread, about evolution being observed in the lab in bacterial cultures, there's been a little "discussion" between the Professor that conducted the experiments and some conservative creationists over at Conservapedia. It is instructive to read through their brief correspondence, I think it is fairly obvious what the outcome of their dispute illustrates. It would be of most interest to those that believe in creationism/intelligent design I think.

Here's the correspondence [www.conservapedia.com]

Cheers,
J

Sure postulating God only seems to make the whole mix more complex. You're then left with the question of where God came from; perhaps an even greater more wondrous super-God created him? A more quantum mechanical view of God is provided by Lao Tsu in the Tao Te Ching, translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

The live food system lends itself to one experimental technique: fasting in the wilderness for visions. The Indians did a 4 day quest for visions: read Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions.

Also Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras (Rammurti S Mishra does a good translation) provides techniques to take one beyond the realm of physics.

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in the sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

If you go into religion and scripture expecting that much of it is wrong from centuries of man handling, keeping just that that rings true, it can be a valuable resource though. For example the last pages of Revelation reestablish the Tree of Life for fruitarian eating with leaves for healing. I think this is the transition diet. Forget all the seeds, nuts, cooked transition food, etc. Go straight to all fruit with grass juice as medicine to tide you through. And wild sprouting grasses growing in the wilderness are a very tasty way to go.

One thing that should be humbling for anyone of scientific bearing is the total failure of science in understanding anything whatsoever about consciousness. Take vision for example. Science does great with the optics of the eye and the biochemistry of transmission into precise nerve impulses that travel to a precise set of brain cells. But then what? How does the big conscious picture arise? Science is at a loss.

<<One thing that should be humbling for anyone of scientific bearing is the total failure of science in understanding anything whatsoever about consciousness. Take vision for example. Science does great with the optics of the eye and the biochemistry of transmission into precise nerve impulses that travel to a precise set of brain cells. But then what? How does the big conscious picture arise? Science is at a loss.>>

Patience my friend, reason and evidence have revealed an enormous amount about the world, and many more things yet to come. In ages past people considered fire to be a miracle, and now we understand combustion quite well. More complex questions will take a longer time to answer.

Cheers,
J

A pure veiw of creationism disproves Biblical Creationism.

-The creator should know what diet he designed man to eat - we are his creation.
-If the creator wrote the Bible, it should tell man what the best diet is.
-The Bible, with a few exceptions The Garden of Eden, Daniel and the Essenes, is a meat-eating book - not the best diet - Noah, Moses and Paul gave commandments promoting meat.
-Conclusion: God is not the creator


The churches looked around in the 1800's and saw a huge influx of educated people who were going to learn about nutrition, and once they did, they would start questioning why God didn't know about nutrition. They forsaw that the foundations of the church would be undermined by a debate they couldn't win. The solution was to make the great controversy Creation v Evolution rather than a debate over diet and the promotion of the idea that we were created by something other than God. They are safe with the Creation v Evolution debate, anyone who wants to, can see through that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2008 04:11PM by Lillianswan.

IMHO a good church leader will not insist on blind devotion to creationism. I recently spoke with one of the elders in a nondenominational church. His position is that he does not press any controversial views or issues--that is not what it's all about to him. He wants to welcome as many people as possible into the fold. And he believes in evolution.

Pretty reasonable to me.