Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creationism and the Naked Body

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creationism and the Naked Body

    In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

    I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that. Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

    Any observations????

    Stu

  • #2
    In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

    I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that. Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

    Any observations????

    Stu

    Comment


    • #3
      I wouldn't go so far as to say "Everbody I know takes it for granted...." as I woudn't presume to know what everbody I know thinks on the subject. Although I broadly agree with you.

      I too take the view that the evidence we have suggests that the human body evolved without any divine intervention but I suspect that when people talk about the body being created they don't actually believe that the human form suddenly appeared but rather that the human form was created on a evolutionary basis. (If that makes sense [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] )

      Rik

      Comment


      • #4
        Which ever theory one believes, the human body works as intended.

        In creationism, we were created in God's image. Point blank. What could be more perfect? ( well, I guess our knees could bend the other way when we need them to.)

        In evolution, an imperfect design was either wiped out, evolved further to accept climate conditions,or cross breeded enough to survive.

        I am not an expert on either and will admitt it now.

        Does anyone believe in "Evolution: The Process Of Creation!"

        Comment


        • #5
          quote:
          Originally posted by stu2630:
          [qb] Everybody I know takes it for granted that the human form is a product of evolution, and that the creationist theory is something that was believed by our ancestors before Mr Darwin's theories were understood.

          Any observations????

          Stu [/qb]
          Actually, yes. Darwin's theories of evolution were NEVER originally applied to humans. His initial theories dealt with MICRO-evolution of various species that were essentially separated from the rest of the world on islands too far for animal migration to have occured. He latered developed a theory of MACRO-evolution as an explanation of species who were totally indigionous to specific islands throughout the Pacific Ocean. It was actually Professor Leaky who applied evolution to humankind...and later "proved" his theory with Lucy-the missing link. Lucy was later proven to be a ape's skull with the rib cage of a wild boar. Leaky was eventually completely discredited and cast out of the scientific community. Unfortunately, it was too late as his theories were by then being preached in public school science classes as factual. The theory of human evolution has actually been disproven, as mummified remains from the ice age have had the same skeletal structure as modern man! Neandertals and Cromagnan men have yet to be actually identified by complete skeletal remains. So...what's easier to believe...a concocted a THEORY of man's evolution...or a belief that has been widely believed for thousands of years that men were created by a higher being?

          Comment


          • #6
            TXK

            If faced with a choice between believing an imperfect but compelling scientific theory or a totally unfounded story in an ancient book full of magic and myths, I know which I would prefer.

            There is not a jot of hard evidence to support creationist theories whereas evolutionary theory fits in beautifully with our own understanding and observations about how species evolve over time, either selectively through breeding by human beings, or by the actions of nature.

            Stu

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
              [qb] Darwin's theories of evolution were NEVER originally applied to humans. [/qb]
              It was there from the beginning, just not out in the open.

              Darwin's first book The Voyage of the Beagle laid out the case for natural selection. His second book The Origin of Species expanded that to a full blown Evolutionary Theory. Darwin purposely did not expound upon human origins in that book due to religious sensitivities (aka fear). But in his third book on evolution he did indeed take that subject head on with The Descent of Man. Read them here.

              My own views? I don't believe in a prankster God who created a universe scattered with false evidence of evolution. I don't believe in a satanic or gnostic second god with the power of creation and the desire to deceive. I believe the evidence of science -including evolution- is nothing less than the fingerprints of God in a continuing act of creation.

              Comment


              • #8
                quote:
                Originally posted by stu2630:
                [qb] If faced with a choice between believing an imperfect but compelling scientific theory or a totally unfounded story in an ancient book full of magic and myths, I know which I would prefer.
                [/qb]
                You mean you prefer logic over irrational culture? Surely not.

                Rik

                Comment


                • #9
                  Mankind has believed in our creation by a God for thousands of years, but have only been looking for evidence of evolution for, what? 150yrs? Give it time. For all we know, the missing link could be buried beneath a city like Paris or Rome and may be centuries before discovered, or a link has already been found and reburied by the church.
                  OOH! I love a conspirocy theory!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rik

                    "You mean you prefer logic over irrational culture? Surely not."

                    I trained as a lawyer. If I am to believe something to be fact then I will look for evidence. When I find evidence I will apply logic to it in the hope of making sense of it thus giving me an accurate assessment of the truth of something.

                    That doesn't stop me feeling things nor reacting to stimuli with emotion. My dislike of seeing nudity IS emotion - just as I don't want to see animals being slaughtered in an abbatoir or my elderly neighbours having sexual intercourse or some poor soul being beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

                    Logic is a tool for man to use to solve problems. It should not become the sole controller of our thoughts, actions and feelings.

                    Stu

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:
                      Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
                      [qb]For all we know, the missing link could be buried beneath a city like Paris or Rome[/qb]
                      Missing link to what?

                      There is ample evidence of early hominids who were more apelike than human, and later ones who were nearly within the normal range of modern human variation (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The action in the search for human origins is in discovering which hominds are on the branch of evolution that led to us, and which were twigs that shot off that branch. The existance of the branch is not in doubt -except to those who doubt evolution on non-scientific grounds.

                      -Mark

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:
                        Originally posted by stu2630:
                        [qb] Logic is a tool for man to use to solve problems. [/qb]
                        You seem to use your tool inconsistently.

                        Rik

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There is a theory that may be of interest to Stu that I ran across in an article about why humans are naked apes.

                          The question is why humans have just light body hair rather than the fur coat all other primates have. Among the theories are the Aquatic Ape idea, the louse theory, and the illustrated man theory (my name for it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

                          Scientist Terrence Kealey believes humans selected for less body hair in order to expose the skin for decoration -painting, tattooing, accessorizing with the latest Gucci fashions. He then says:
                          quote:
                          And incidentally, this has one very interesting side effect, which is that I think the whole naturalist, nudist movement is an evolutionary error, we were never meant to be naked.
                          Needless to say I think that may be taking the theory too far. After all clothing would defeat the purpose by covering up the canvas.

                          But here's evidence for Stu's argument that clothes are natural. Have fun Stu!

                          -Mark

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am among the apparent few(?) who believe in the creation account brought forth in the book of Genesis (I know there are at least a couple more of you out there [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ).

                            For those interested in learning more about creationism...check here.


                            Although I do believe in micro-evolution, I cannot believe that our universe just came together from nothing without a Creator. I cannot believe that life just happened, and that a brainless blob of protoplasm (no hw, I am not referring to you!!) figured out that it was better to be a fish than a, well, brainless blob of protoplasm...


                            quote:
                            Originally posted by stu2630:
                            [qb] In some other threads I have been staggered at how many people, when referring to the naked human form, seem to believe that it was designed by 'God'.

                            I can say that I don't know anybody among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances who actually believes that.
                            Stu [/qb]
                            Well Stu, apparently there are no Christians (or Muslims or Jews or...) in your circle of friends, family or aquaintances. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by gamblefish:
                              [qb] I cannot believe that our universe just came together from nothing without a Creator. I cannot believe that life just happened[/qb]
                              Evolutionists do not necessarily believe that life 'just happened'.

                              Many, if not most evolutionists believe in God. Many, if not most Christians also accept evolution as God's plan.

                              A very good book that examines the place of God in evolution is Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

                              An excerpt:
                              quote:

                              Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.

                              A nonbeliever, of course, puts his or her trust in science and finds no value in faith. And I certainly agree that science allows believer and nonbeliever alike to investigate the natural world through a common lens of observation, experiment, and theory. The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.

                              As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. Their God fashioned a material world in which truly free and independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.

                              To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable branchings of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a deity determined to establish a world that was truly independent of his whims, a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material reality and then let his creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different - the strength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as his creatures.

                              Science has not evicted God. For some of us it Illuminates.

                              -Mark

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X