Evolution or God?

Yeah, he is a good read; I actually saw him lecture once back in college, he was an excellent speaker as well.

 

That's cool. I've seen him interviewed on television. I would have liked the opportunity to see him live.

 

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

the rib thing is is chapter 2. where does it say in chapter 1 about them being made seperately? you would think that would be mentioned. but fine i'll give that to you if you can explain why chapter 1 says god made man last (the day after animals) but
in chapter 2 it says god made man then animals then woman (i guess god didn't like seeing adam trying to get it on with the the sheep and cattle).

 

here's man -> animals -> woman from Chapter 2.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

so how can you put your complete trust in a document that you admit is inconsistent or mistranslated (that's convenient). Maybe the whole thing was mistranslated?

Shanshu

 

Well, one of the big points of Genesis was that originally, everything was perfect, until Adam and Eve disobeyed and screwed it up for the rest of us.

There was to be no sickness in the Garden of Eden.

 

Golly, I think I'll take my child-like children tomorrow to the Salt Lick and have some ribs. It will be a lot more productive than reading LooneyToon be LooneyToon about LooneyToon for LooneyToon and of LooneyToon. A LooneyToon in heaven on earth, getting rational people to argue with him like he's a real person instead of a cartoon character.

 

The new testament and anything that Jesus said would be written in Greek or Aramaic. If you are reading that part in hebrew, then that too is a translation and subject to error.

 

Could you please clarify your point? I really don't get it. (Don't mess with The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it is one of my best friends.)

Buddha's last words: "Decay is inherent in all compounded things. Strive unceasingly."


http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismCosmology.htm

What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence implies that the elements of the conventional reality we are all familiar with do not possess an existence that is permanent and autonomous. This thing exists because something else exists, that happens because this has occurred. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause.

Everything depends on everything else. Suppose that there is an entity that exists independently of all the others. This implies that it is not produced by a cause, that is, either it has always existed or it does not exist at all. Such an entity will be unchanging since it cannot act on others and others cannot act on it. The world of phenomena could not function. Thus interdependence is essential for phenomena to manifest themselves.

Because the concept of interdependence implies that nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause, it goes against the idea of a creative principle, a First Cause or a God that is permanent, all-powerful, that has no other cause than itself, and which created the universe. In the same vein, Buddhism rejects the idea that the universe can be born out of nothing - a creation ex-nihilo - because the universe has to depend on something else to emerge. If the universe was created, it is because there was a potentiality already present. The coming into being of the universe is merely the realization of that potentiality.

One can thus interpret the Big Bang as the manifestation of the phenomenal world emerging from an infinite potentiality already in existence. In a poetic language, Buddhism speaks about of "particles of space" which carry in them the potentiality of matter. This is strongly reminiscent of the vacuum filled with energy that is thought to have given birth the material content of the universe in the modern Big Bang theory.

Material phenomenon and things are not "created" in the sense that they go from a state of non-existence to one of existence. Rather they go from an unrealized state to a realized state. Once it has come into existence, the universe goes through a series of cycles, each composed of 4 stages: birth, evolution, death and a state where the universe is pure potentiality but has not manifested yet itself. This cyclic universe has no beginning nor an end.

 

I think nothing comes from nothing, including the forces of physics.

I just don't get what you are driving at.