Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
Taking it as a metaphor leaves me wondering, a metaphor for what? As a creation story, eve in metaphor form it simply falls flat ad just plain get's things wrong.
Some claim that each day is a time interval of some unknown amount, or the relatively small numbers are just there to show the atemporality of the one doing the creating. That, or it's one of the other inconsistencies or problems that get perpetually brought up
Since the story is intended for humans to understand it makes no sense for it to refer to an expanse of time that we are unfamiliar with. If it did this would just be a flaw on Gods part for being a poor communicator. The last one of it being just an inconsistency us the most likely, however this is admitting that it's flawed and as such we should dismiss it for better information anyway.
These stories up til the 18th century were very much treated as being 100% real events. This "it's only a metaphor" is nothing but a retreat of religion in light of scientific advancement. I see no reason to treat it as anything but.
it then becomes easier to see how the older versions that are left behind could then be left to their own devices and randomness of "natural selection."
I'm only guessing this is the reason why you put them in scare quotes, but natural selection isn't a random process.
Evolution is mutation of the DNA.
Mutation is one mechanism in evolution but not the only driving force and it may not even be entirely that important of one either.
I don't use scare quotes. They may come across as that. I just end up doing things with quotes sometimes when it just happens to feel right. I pay more attention to what I'm saying than I end up doing for how it comes across with how I've called attention to it. I put emphasis on it in my mind when I was saying it in my head as I was typing... and the quotes just kind of happened. Call it a random error in the transcription of my message. I advocate it just as readily as anything else.
Some see the Adam story as just a figure for every man (woman too). In that we all do things we probably shouldn't have done. It's saying that we all inevitably come up short in some area. Some would claim that is a cynical perspective and therefore a bad one... I'm not sure it's not true, tho. But, then comes the argument over what IS and ISN'T right and all that stuff... I'm sure atheists with their own moral codes breach those codes from time to time. (unless you just don't have one and are just out for yourself and yourself alone... I'm sure I can think lots of religious people like that too, so I'm not trying to single people out)... things like hate, greed, lust, stuff like that.. (I mean in the right contexts)... even the atheists I know view infidelity (w/o a mutual understanding) as a bad thing. I'm sure we could have a mutual agreement on at least some of the things we view as wrong. Maybe murder?
Some argue that sin had to "come into the world," when others just say that the story means that we're prone to error and lapses in judgement.
Another point... Is it error of communication on one parties behalf if it was done on purpose? If such a being does exist, then does said being HAVE TO phrase things in specific ways? One would wonder why the entity would choose to be vague, but does he have to not be vague to exist? For something that can supposedly do whatever it wants, that severely limits the possibilities. seemingly limitless on one end... yet limited in one of the most trivial ways on another
One would wonder why the entity would choose to be vague, but does he have to not be vague to exist?
There's being vague, and then there's being misleading. I'd say the Genesis story (or, really, any creation story) is entirely the latter. There are still so many people who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And there are also plenty of people who think that males have 1 fewer rib than females. Both of these false claims they use as evidence to support their story of creation, no less. Some people think there's something to be said for an almighty god wanting a simple story for simple humans to understand. But if god wanted a story we could understand, why base it entirely on falsehoods?
I'm sure we could have a mutual agreement on at least some of the things we view as wrong. Maybe murder?
The term 'murder' already carries with it the notion of an ethical violation. That's why we differentiate between 'killing' someone and 'murdering' them. There can be a just killing, but there is no such thing with murder. But more to the point - do we really need a story to tell us that we screw up sometimes? Again, if that's all there is to the Book of Genesis, then god wasted a ton of time by divinely inspiring someone to write down a bunch of useless allegory. If we view Genesis as literal, then it's completely false. If we view it as figurative, then it's completely useless. In the end, the story does not help us gain any understanding of ourselves or the world around that we wouldn't be able to figure out with a few moments of quiet meditation.
But if god wanted a story we could understand, why base it entirely on falsehoods?
Also, if there was a being who'd want us to revere it, who'd want to be known and worshipped, it might want us to believe in it, by contemplating the world. That's an assumption since there can be other ways, but I think it's the simplest assumption. Yet this simplest assumption can't be true, because why then, by contemplating and analyzing our world with a clear mind, do we start to doubt the intervention of a creator instead of start believing in one? It is not always the case but it is often the case, too often for the assumption to be correct.
-
On an unrelated note, has anyone of you already heard of the Russian Antarctica base at Lake Vostok? they've drilled through the ice and hope to find some interesting stuff, after all this water body has been isolated under ice for so long.. National Geographic article
Some see the Adam story as just a figure for every man (woman too). In that we all do things we probably shouldn't have done. It's saying that we all inevitably come up short in some area.
If it is just a story to say we fall short of our own expectations sometimes, then it has no baring as a creation story. In such light it would still seem to fall short given the set up of events.
As Moegreche pointed out, as a creation story it's simply wrong and can not align with reality even on a metaphorical level.
Another point... Is it error of communication on one parties behalf if it was done on purpose?
If it fails to convey the intended message then yes, yes it is.
Here's a link to an article on the news. See, Richard Dawkins doesn't know his stuff! http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science/45324/oh-god-dawkins-forgets-name-evolutions-bible
We're all guilty of brain farts, that doesn't mean the man doesn't know what he's talking about. And besides, Dawkins is not the pope of evolutionary theory. Whether or not he knows the full subtitle to Darwin's book is not even remotely relevant to the facts supporting evolution.
I doubt many christians know the full name of the original KJV:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment."
Evolution is a stupid, unscientific guess about creation. Sure, everything is going from simple to complex. everything is getting better, not worse. This is just like my homework doing itself, or our house repairing itself. Charled Darwin was probably in the head of his boat, retching his guts out, drunk, and thought "Evolution".
Evolution is a stupid, unscientific guess about creation.
How is it unscientific? It's based on observed events and has been tested and observed numerous times. The is exactly scientific.
It's about change in a species from one generation to the next, not exactly creations.
Sure, everything is going from simple to complex. everything is getting better, not worse.
That's not quite how it works. Evolution isn't the continuous progression from worse to better, it's more dynamic then that. A species can actually become to specialized and end up extinct since it becomes unable to cope with a change to it's environment.
This is just like my homework doing itself, or our house repairing itself.
Not even close. Your homework and your house don't self replicate nor do they have any of the other properties that allow for evolution to take place.
Charled Darwin was probably in the head of his boat, retching his guts out, drunk, and thought "Evolution".
he came up with one of the main mechanisms for evolution. The basic concept had been around for quite some time prior to Darwin. But even if this was thought up during a drunken spew fest, it doesn't destroy it's validity any.
he came up with one of the main mechanisms for evolution. The basic concept had been around for quite some time prior to Darwin. But even if this was thought up during a drunken spew fest, it doesn't destroy it's validity any.
And if it didn't make any sense then why hasn't his theory been disproved, because more evidence is being found in contrariety to people who try to disprove of his theory of evolution.
