Let us look at man's origin from a more enlightened point of view, one that observes the evolutionary process of having
been triggered by a falling away from a higher order of existence ?
If that is the case, we might expect a devolutionary process to claim us, a sort of "devolving" evolution of earthly compensations, accompanied by inner and outer conflict. The only way we would know how to treat one another would be as animals, rather than as people . As a result, we would come to need some kind of order, and it would have to be imposed on us from the outside, right ?
In other words, we would come to need the kind of law (the law written in our heart - the true religion really) that we left behind when we fell from the Inner Ground of Reality.
Now, if that be the case, where would you think the answer should logically come - from fallen men or The One Who Create Us ?
Who knows better?
Evolutionist's father or the creature's Father-God?
What say you all?
2007-12-17 02:52:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Amen...
2007-12-17 02:57:08 · answer #1 · answered by wordman 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would have to say that your conclusion is based on a very false premise, and is trying to relate a different definition of the word evolution to create sympathy for creationism.
Uninformed people need to stop thinking evolution has a goal. It does not, its merely adaptation to changing conditions, therefore you arguement of reverse evolution makes no difference, as such that evolution has no goal... as well as no direction, there can be no opposite. Even if life evolved back to single cell dominance, it would still be evolution.
Now, to address the falling from a higher existence... it becomes very hard to make claims based on scientific processes mixed with religion. While not mutually exclusive (in practice or idea), it tends to be illogical to blend one and the other for purposes of argueing. Religion = faith, science = evidence.
Also, you are using the arguement that we cannot be logical as "fallen" people enough to know that there isn't a god because there is a god by your arguement. This is circular logic at its finest. Per your arguement, you need a god to create an individual who then falls from grace and disbelieves in a god because he was created and fell. Now, if there was no god, then there would be no "fallen" and the whole arguement goes right out the window.
2007-12-17 10:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thats a very complicated statement you made there. Are you sure you aren't trying to start up your own religion?
Your making an assumption that we started at a "higher order of existence." People that believe in evolution don't believe that. And its a little presumptuous to call your idea a more enlightened point of view don't you think?
2007-12-17 14:56:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
:) you know that there are 513,654,984 known galaxies that we now of. that "we" know of. each with stars, planets and of course there have to be life in some of them. this planet is small, and we are out growing it. do you have to believe in something so great, so you don't feel so little? i'm going to put it plain for you. we are one planet in a galaxy that has billions, one galaxy in a universe that has billions. so you can think of it as if it were a body, and in the this body it has organs, and in this organ it is made up of cells, and on this cell there is a one life form unlike all the others, it seems to suck the life out of this cell, it's energy. now let yourself imagine if you can that you are looking at this through a microscope, what would you call this life form? cancer, a virus maybe. all the nasty things we try and "treat" (kill). now ask yourself what are we, we do the same thing as this virus, this cancer? we are not special.. quit looking to the heavens instead of the science book, quit praying from the answers and just figure them out. get off the soap box and grow up...
2007-12-17 11:14:27 · answer #4 · answered by RuG™ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your entire basis for your premise is that the creation story of the bible is fact. We know it is merely another parable in a collection of parables called the bible. There is no basis in fact for the story of creation, there is no basis in science for the story of creation, there is no basis in reality for the story of creation. Therefore your lame attempt at putting some kind of scientific relevance to a fictional story fails horribly.
2007-12-17 11:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would this be a "more enlightened point of view"? My contention is that there would be empirical evidence of this happening.
2007-12-17 11:02:57 · answer #6 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False from the basic premise.
2007-12-17 10:56:46 · answer #7 · answered by Der Lange 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say you've been thoroughly brainwashed by a fable, but that's just my opinion.....
2007-12-17 10:57:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about you consider this?
"Evolutionist(s)" isn't a word.
2007-12-17 10:56:47 · answer #9 · answered by Skalite 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋