I am going to post three মতামত as one big soapbox and if this discussion ever comes up again, I will just relate people here because I am tired of repeating myself when no one listens.
I accept that people can disagree with me-- when they disagree with me. But I feel that these words are being ignored, particularly দ্বারা the creationists who FOR SOME REASON STILL THINK WE CAME FROM MONKEYS!
-------
[DISCLAIMER: This very basic theoretical proposal was created not দ্বারা a Christian, but দ্বারা an agnostic with respect for the Christian beliefs.]
Misinterpreted points of evolution:
FALSE: That humans evolved from monkeys.
FALSE: That humans are the pinnacle of evolution.
FALSE: That human beings are no longer evolving.
FALSE: That the only force of evolution is genetic mutation.
FALSE: That a new species can evolve after a single generation.
TRUE: That humans and other apes share a common ancestor, who was neither a human অথবা a monkey.
TRUE: That we are constantly evolving. Most of our evolution these days is psycho-social, as medical advances and globalization have hampered some other classic evolutionary traits, আরো to our detriment than our benefit, interestingly enough. (IE: We tend to keep those alive with genetic diseases long enough for them to reach reproductive age, which only propagates their genes... Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, just wanted to point it out.)
TRUE: There are four forces of evolution: Mutation, Natural Selection, Gene Flow, and Genetic Drift.
TRUE: It takes several generations with these four forces in play in order to create a new species.
Misinterpreted points about creationism:
FALSE: That since it is faith-based, it must conflict with science.
FALSE: That everything in the Bible must be interpreted literally.
TRUE: Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
TRUE: Many devout and respected theologians have chosen to take a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, which allows for several scientific theories, including the Big Bang and evolution.
PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT: Every woman on the planet can trace her mitochondial DNA to one of eight women, known as the "Mitochondrial Eve," suggesting that we did evolve from a small group of anthropods in Africa, which may অথবা may not have migrated to ইউরোপ (that's a long story I don't want to get into.)
THEOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY: If God is so wise and all-knowing, and we aren't, consider explaining the history of the world from His position. It's like explaining elementary physics to a two বছর old. Which provides support to the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.
Therefore, we are left with two assumptions for this proof:
GIVEN: That the Bible is a metaphor.
GIVEN: That humans evolved from a small group of anthropods.
THEN: It is logical to conclude that "Adam and Eve" is a metaphor for the first known species of the homo genus to resemble the sapien species.
THEREFORE: The Adam and Eve story is the metaphor, and evolution is how God's will was carried out.
As a logical and open-minded individual, I have accepted plenty of assumed truths based on Biblical beliefs. It is these accepted truths that allow me to speak with Christians openly and with respect. These truths are as follows:
That the Bible is the Word of God transcribed দ্বারা human sources, who were divinely inspired.
That the Bible cannot be wrong.
There was a heap of theological support for both of these truths until I accepted them for my discussions. If আপনি want me to go into them, then I will.
What I feel is necessary for an open discussion between the religious and the nonreligious is a mutual respect for both schools of thought. This requires a few things. As the one who is not religious, it requires a little faith in the logic of religion. As the religious one, it requires a little logical reasoning in the scientific faith.
Though both equal in importance, religious and scientific theory are not necessarily on the same plane of thought. One is philosophical and the other is empirical. In order for a truly beneficial discussion on the matter, one has to understand that neither is "more right" than the other, they are simply different theories.
That said, let us tackle some of the repetitive arguments here.
ACCEPTED: That the Bible is the Word of God transcribed দ্বারা divine inspiration.
ACCEPTED: That God is infallible.
ACCEPTED: Scientific fact.
When one takes into consideration the language of the Creation Myth-- Seven Days, Eve being born of Adam's rib, the snake, the apple-- any literary scholar recognizes allegories and symbols when she sees them. Which is why to the Theologian I propose the metaphor solution.
GIVEN: That God is infallible.
GIVEN: That we do not understand Him completely.
THEREFORE: The Bible is multi-layered, the best allegorical novel of all time, with overlapping symbols to explain things so we may remotely understand it (as well as a human brain can understand such divinities).
GIVEN: That it is impossible to know all that God knows.
THEREFORE: We will never understand the depths of the stories within the Bible.
THEREFORE: One of the levels of meaning could very well be a scientific explanation of the world. IE, Adam and Eve representative of the first of the Sapien species, the snake representative of survival instincts, and the আপেল representative of tools, intellect, and wisdom. Intelligence brings self-awareness, from self-awareness rises the concept of morals, and from morality arises sin.
In order to get anywhere close to a compromise, the nonbeliever has to have some faith in what the believer believes.
Theological evidence to support that the Bible is God's word is evident within the Bible itself, as well as plenty of theologians who preach this. While I myself do not believe this, I can respect it in this argument, and therefore I accept it. To them, it is truth. To me, it is a necessary assumption in order to get somewhere in the conversation. Whether অথবা not the Bible is the word of God is really a whole other can of worms. The nonbeliever will always insist that it isn't, whereas the believer will insist that it is. As there is no determinable proof either way cementing one fact over the other, this is an endless debate. If we want to tackle larger issues, such as the validity of the Adam and Eve story, we must assume that certain things are true, অথবা else we will never get past them.
Theology is a tricky subject. Religion relies on faith, and believing in things that have no empirical evidence. A similar thing can be ব্যক্ত of philosophy. Descartes was the one who told us that we only exist because we believe we exist. Religion is as complex as philosophy.
It is my belief that religion is often deminished into black and white territory দ্বারা the devout and the secular alike. People respect philosophy as being complex and intellectual, and yet turn their noses down at theology saying that it is a bunch of people believing in magic tricks and the supernatural. But religious texts, just like with religious theory, are far আরো complicated than the average person gives them credit for. Often times, even those who claim to be very devoutly religious do not understand the complexity of the faith they claim to ascribe to.
Take, for example, the two posts above me: jacob4ever57 and rose2. They simply claim that they are Christian, and therefor believe in the Adam and Eve story whole-heartedly. (Do not take offense, but) This gives the impression that they do not appreciate অথবা understand the symbolism within the Adam and Eve story that লিঙ্ক it to other mythologies and creation stories. The truly devout will understand that there are much deeper things at work than we can fully appreciate, in the literature of the Bible, as well as in nature.
It is this understanding that allows room for evolution.
-------
NOTE: This is copy-pasted from link.
I accept that people can disagree with me-- when they disagree with me. But I feel that these words are being ignored, particularly দ্বারা the creationists who FOR SOME REASON STILL THINK WE CAME FROM MONKEYS!
-------
[DISCLAIMER: This very basic theoretical proposal was created not দ্বারা a Christian, but দ্বারা an agnostic with respect for the Christian beliefs.]
Misinterpreted points of evolution:
FALSE: That humans evolved from monkeys.
FALSE: That humans are the pinnacle of evolution.
FALSE: That human beings are no longer evolving.
FALSE: That the only force of evolution is genetic mutation.
FALSE: That a new species can evolve after a single generation.
TRUE: That humans and other apes share a common ancestor, who was neither a human অথবা a monkey.
TRUE: That we are constantly evolving. Most of our evolution these days is psycho-social, as medical advances and globalization have hampered some other classic evolutionary traits, আরো to our detriment than our benefit, interestingly enough. (IE: We tend to keep those alive with genetic diseases long enough for them to reach reproductive age, which only propagates their genes... Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, just wanted to point it out.)
TRUE: There are four forces of evolution: Mutation, Natural Selection, Gene Flow, and Genetic Drift.
TRUE: It takes several generations with these four forces in play in order to create a new species.
Misinterpreted points about creationism:
FALSE: That since it is faith-based, it must conflict with science.
FALSE: That everything in the Bible must be interpreted literally.
TRUE: Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
TRUE: Many devout and respected theologians have chosen to take a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, which allows for several scientific theories, including the Big Bang and evolution.
PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT: Every woman on the planet can trace her mitochondial DNA to one of eight women, known as the "Mitochondrial Eve," suggesting that we did evolve from a small group of anthropods in Africa, which may অথবা may not have migrated to ইউরোপ (that's a long story I don't want to get into.)
THEOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY: If God is so wise and all-knowing, and we aren't, consider explaining the history of the world from His position. It's like explaining elementary physics to a two বছর old. Which provides support to the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.
Therefore, we are left with two assumptions for this proof:
GIVEN: That the Bible is a metaphor.
GIVEN: That humans evolved from a small group of anthropods.
THEN: It is logical to conclude that "Adam and Eve" is a metaphor for the first known species of the homo genus to resemble the sapien species.
THEREFORE: The Adam and Eve story is the metaphor, and evolution is how God's will was carried out.
As a logical and open-minded individual, I have accepted plenty of assumed truths based on Biblical beliefs. It is these accepted truths that allow me to speak with Christians openly and with respect. These truths are as follows:
That the Bible is the Word of God transcribed দ্বারা human sources, who were divinely inspired.
That the Bible cannot be wrong.
There was a heap of theological support for both of these truths until I accepted them for my discussions. If আপনি want me to go into them, then I will.
What I feel is necessary for an open discussion between the religious and the nonreligious is a mutual respect for both schools of thought. This requires a few things. As the one who is not religious, it requires a little faith in the logic of religion. As the religious one, it requires a little logical reasoning in the scientific faith.
Though both equal in importance, religious and scientific theory are not necessarily on the same plane of thought. One is philosophical and the other is empirical. In order for a truly beneficial discussion on the matter, one has to understand that neither is "more right" than the other, they are simply different theories.
That said, let us tackle some of the repetitive arguments here.
ACCEPTED: That the Bible is the Word of God transcribed দ্বারা divine inspiration.
ACCEPTED: That God is infallible.
ACCEPTED: Scientific fact.
When one takes into consideration the language of the Creation Myth-- Seven Days, Eve being born of Adam's rib, the snake, the apple-- any literary scholar recognizes allegories and symbols when she sees them. Which is why to the Theologian I propose the metaphor solution.
GIVEN: That God is infallible.
GIVEN: That we do not understand Him completely.
THEREFORE: The Bible is multi-layered, the best allegorical novel of all time, with overlapping symbols to explain things so we may remotely understand it (as well as a human brain can understand such divinities).
GIVEN: That it is impossible to know all that God knows.
THEREFORE: We will never understand the depths of the stories within the Bible.
THEREFORE: One of the levels of meaning could very well be a scientific explanation of the world. IE, Adam and Eve representative of the first of the Sapien species, the snake representative of survival instincts, and the আপেল representative of tools, intellect, and wisdom. Intelligence brings self-awareness, from self-awareness rises the concept of morals, and from morality arises sin.
In order to get anywhere close to a compromise, the nonbeliever has to have some faith in what the believer believes.
Theological evidence to support that the Bible is God's word is evident within the Bible itself, as well as plenty of theologians who preach this. While I myself do not believe this, I can respect it in this argument, and therefore I accept it. To them, it is truth. To me, it is a necessary assumption in order to get somewhere in the conversation. Whether অথবা not the Bible is the word of God is really a whole other can of worms. The nonbeliever will always insist that it isn't, whereas the believer will insist that it is. As there is no determinable proof either way cementing one fact over the other, this is an endless debate. If we want to tackle larger issues, such as the validity of the Adam and Eve story, we must assume that certain things are true, অথবা else we will never get past them.
Theology is a tricky subject. Religion relies on faith, and believing in things that have no empirical evidence. A similar thing can be ব্যক্ত of philosophy. Descartes was the one who told us that we only exist because we believe we exist. Religion is as complex as philosophy.
It is my belief that religion is often deminished into black and white territory দ্বারা the devout and the secular alike. People respect philosophy as being complex and intellectual, and yet turn their noses down at theology saying that it is a bunch of people believing in magic tricks and the supernatural. But religious texts, just like with religious theory, are far আরো complicated than the average person gives them credit for. Often times, even those who claim to be very devoutly religious do not understand the complexity of the faith they claim to ascribe to.
Take, for example, the two posts above me: jacob4ever57 and rose2. They simply claim that they are Christian, and therefor believe in the Adam and Eve story whole-heartedly. (Do not take offense, but) This gives the impression that they do not appreciate অথবা understand the symbolism within the Adam and Eve story that লিঙ্ক it to other mythologies and creation stories. The truly devout will understand that there are much deeper things at work than we can fully appreciate, in the literature of the Bible, as well as in nature.
It is this understanding that allows room for evolution.
-------
NOTE: This is copy-pasted from link.
Guy Moquet, resistant during World War Two in occupied France
