seeknulfind
New member
From what I can see, there are at least two topics here lately that have nothing to do with the OT - “predestination” and “evolution”. Note, I am just saying these two deserve their own threads. That said, I'll chime in a bit on both.
On predestination, it seems to me that a) yes, there is scriptural basis for this concept and b) we have little understanding of it.
Before I delve into any of my own ideas about the scriptural aspects, bear with me while I venture a bit into the secular, science fiction treatment. (Note, I have yet to see any actual science here save some theories such as quantum theory that speculate about the possibilities.) Is not predestination and time travel somewhat related? Science fiction often grapples with the paradox that should someone travel back in time, could they then affect events to the point where they, themselves, would cease to exist? Is not the concept of parallel universes at least loosely based on the idea that different events cause different results? Both concepts tend to lend credence to the idea of some sort of “set” time line. This does not prove nor disprove any notions of predestination but it does provide some food for thought.
How many of us have thought “If I had to do THAT all over again!” or “If I only knew then what I know now...”? Looking back on my own life and some of the decisions I have made, while I might have acted differently with different information, I'd say if I COULD go back, I would do everything exactly the same. Why? I would be acting on the same knowledge. Only a change of information/circumstances would allow for a change in outcome. My point being is we all make choices not through some mystical concept of this is the path I must follow but based on the information we have. Most of us make rational choices most of the time and those choices are based on what we know.
Now... back to “predestination”. The idea, as presented here, suggests that no matter what I do, the outcome will be the same. This is so very illogical. Suppose you are traveling north and come to a "T". Turn left and you head to California. Turn right and you head to New York. Do you really think you'll end up in the same place no matter what decision you make here? Of course not, well, most of you anyway ;-). What direction you take depends on where you want go and that decision is based on much of what has happened to you and where you are right now in your life. Much depends on decisions you made earlier in life. Yes, circumstances and decisions others made come into play. However nothing, absolutely nothing, will prevent you from turning in one direction or the other under normal circumstances. (This statement precludes the idea the there is a major accident or some other extenuating circumstance blocking one's path.) So, one indeed has the free will to make choices that determine the direction of one's life. Now, let me ask you...
If you skip to the end of a book, does that change how it ends? Does it change what happens from the first page to the last? All but the most cantankerous will recognize these questions as rhetorical. Thus I suggest that a superior being (evolution) could possibly see forward in time (quantum theory) and “know how the book ends”. For those of you who love to dismiss such ideas as “superstition” and “magic' (neither of which I myself believe in, by the way), I've added secular scientific theories that one would have to deny in order to refute my supposition.
So “predestination”, does not have have to mean our lives are written in stone but the choices we will freely make are already known. This satisfies both scripture and logic for me.
As far as the theory of evolution is concerned I'll start with two notes. First, it is called the “theory” of evolution for a reason and that reason is, it has yet to be elevated to the status of scientific law. Second, even so, said theory offers some concepts that are accurate. I do not dispute evolution entirely but I am convinced it entirely fails as an explanation of the origin of life.
Swampwalker, you have demonstrated a studious knowledge of the subject and a far greater understanding than many I have encountered so I'll pose a some questions to you.
How long is the accepted average time period of evolution from one genus to another?
Is such an evolution expected to vary in the time it takes to occur depending on the complexity of the genus?
How many different genera have been identified?
Are we done with kingdoms are can we expect more, evolutionary-wise?
How does the math work? Starting with the first organism to man with an average time for each genus to evolve, can they really fit everything into a timeline?
What about the dinosaurs? Science tells us they lived from 66 million years ago to 231 million years ago. What other genera existed at that time? Which of those exist today? Why do you suppose no creatures the size of the large dinosaurs have evolved since they died out?
Is the occurrence of evolutionary events strictly sequential or concurrent? If concurrent, then wouldn't the chances of a new evolutionary event increase exponentially over time and the number of genera increase? Thus shouldn't we expect to see something actually evolve? What is man expected to evolve into? Is a new genus expected to evolve from just man? In other words, does a new genus evolve from one genus or two genera?
Here is another problem that bothers me. In order for most genera to procreate, a male and a female need to join to produce an offspring. Should said offspring be a new genus, there would have to be a male and a female, also able to procreate. The genders would therefore either have to come from the same parents or different parents. If they come from different parents then another pair would need to procreate to generate a genetic combination compatible to the first and of the opposite gender within a time frame and geographic proximity so the two evolved mates can also procreate.
In order for the above to happen successfully, it would seem hundreds, if not thousands, of failures would also need to happen. Somehow this seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also, if someone could explain how any of this could actually happen, such a scenario would seem to dictate that every single genus is derived some one or two sets of parents... interesting. It would also suggest every set of parents would likely be capable of producing a new genus. It would seem this would be absolutely necessary for an evolutionary system to thrive. Again, as the population of any one genus increases, so would the chance of such an evolutionary event occurring increase.
Maybe someone can enlighten me about all of this as I simply cannot seem to get past some of these nagging ideas. Maybe if I just had faith in the scientists (who we all know are never wrong) or could embrace the magical soup from which we all evolved?
God bless
On predestination, it seems to me that a) yes, there is scriptural basis for this concept and b) we have little understanding of it.
Before I delve into any of my own ideas about the scriptural aspects, bear with me while I venture a bit into the secular, science fiction treatment. (Note, I have yet to see any actual science here save some theories such as quantum theory that speculate about the possibilities.) Is not predestination and time travel somewhat related? Science fiction often grapples with the paradox that should someone travel back in time, could they then affect events to the point where they, themselves, would cease to exist? Is not the concept of parallel universes at least loosely based on the idea that different events cause different results? Both concepts tend to lend credence to the idea of some sort of “set” time line. This does not prove nor disprove any notions of predestination but it does provide some food for thought.
How many of us have thought “If I had to do THAT all over again!” or “If I only knew then what I know now...”? Looking back on my own life and some of the decisions I have made, while I might have acted differently with different information, I'd say if I COULD go back, I would do everything exactly the same. Why? I would be acting on the same knowledge. Only a change of information/circumstances would allow for a change in outcome. My point being is we all make choices not through some mystical concept of this is the path I must follow but based on the information we have. Most of us make rational choices most of the time and those choices are based on what we know.
Now... back to “predestination”. The idea, as presented here, suggests that no matter what I do, the outcome will be the same. This is so very illogical. Suppose you are traveling north and come to a "T". Turn left and you head to California. Turn right and you head to New York. Do you really think you'll end up in the same place no matter what decision you make here? Of course not, well, most of you anyway ;-). What direction you take depends on where you want go and that decision is based on much of what has happened to you and where you are right now in your life. Much depends on decisions you made earlier in life. Yes, circumstances and decisions others made come into play. However nothing, absolutely nothing, will prevent you from turning in one direction or the other under normal circumstances. (This statement precludes the idea the there is a major accident or some other extenuating circumstance blocking one's path.) So, one indeed has the free will to make choices that determine the direction of one's life. Now, let me ask you...
If you skip to the end of a book, does that change how it ends? Does it change what happens from the first page to the last? All but the most cantankerous will recognize these questions as rhetorical. Thus I suggest that a superior being (evolution) could possibly see forward in time (quantum theory) and “know how the book ends”. For those of you who love to dismiss such ideas as “superstition” and “magic' (neither of which I myself believe in, by the way), I've added secular scientific theories that one would have to deny in order to refute my supposition.
So “predestination”, does not have have to mean our lives are written in stone but the choices we will freely make are already known. This satisfies both scripture and logic for me.
As far as the theory of evolution is concerned I'll start with two notes. First, it is called the “theory” of evolution for a reason and that reason is, it has yet to be elevated to the status of scientific law. Second, even so, said theory offers some concepts that are accurate. I do not dispute evolution entirely but I am convinced it entirely fails as an explanation of the origin of life.
Swampwalker, you have demonstrated a studious knowledge of the subject and a far greater understanding than many I have encountered so I'll pose a some questions to you.
How long is the accepted average time period of evolution from one genus to another?
Is such an evolution expected to vary in the time it takes to occur depending on the complexity of the genus?
How many different genera have been identified?
Are we done with kingdoms are can we expect more, evolutionary-wise?
How does the math work? Starting with the first organism to man with an average time for each genus to evolve, can they really fit everything into a timeline?
What about the dinosaurs? Science tells us they lived from 66 million years ago to 231 million years ago. What other genera existed at that time? Which of those exist today? Why do you suppose no creatures the size of the large dinosaurs have evolved since they died out?
Is the occurrence of evolutionary events strictly sequential or concurrent? If concurrent, then wouldn't the chances of a new evolutionary event increase exponentially over time and the number of genera increase? Thus shouldn't we expect to see something actually evolve? What is man expected to evolve into? Is a new genus expected to evolve from just man? In other words, does a new genus evolve from one genus or two genera?
Here is another problem that bothers me. In order for most genera to procreate, a male and a female need to join to produce an offspring. Should said offspring be a new genus, there would have to be a male and a female, also able to procreate. The genders would therefore either have to come from the same parents or different parents. If they come from different parents then another pair would need to procreate to generate a genetic combination compatible to the first and of the opposite gender within a time frame and geographic proximity so the two evolved mates can also procreate.
In order for the above to happen successfully, it would seem hundreds, if not thousands, of failures would also need to happen. Somehow this seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also, if someone could explain how any of this could actually happen, such a scenario would seem to dictate that every single genus is derived some one or two sets of parents... interesting. It would also suggest every set of parents would likely be capable of producing a new genus. It would seem this would be absolutely necessary for an evolutionary system to thrive. Again, as the population of any one genus increases, so would the chance of such an evolutionary event occurring increase.
Maybe someone can enlighten me about all of this as I simply cannot seem to get past some of these nagging ideas. Maybe if I just had faith in the scientists (who we all know are never wrong) or could embrace the magical soup from which we all evolved?
God bless
