[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolutionists? Please teach me.

[rmills]

Newbie here sticks out the feelers.

I have studied Evolution vs. Creation for about 12 years now as a matter of interest rather than a professional field of study. My immediate family includes scientists that have driven deep into the bowels of this issue for a collected 300+ years and they always have front line arguments both for and against Evolutionary theories. I love to talk about this stuff but have little desire to get into a “who is smarter†or “who is more credible†argument. I have read quite a few posts here, even before I became a member, and have discovered a common trend towards scientific evidences or lacks therein in these discussions. The reason that this bothers me is because I have learned that Theistic Evolution is in fact a Theological issue at its core. I desire to learn about where the Theistic Evolutionist’s core belief stems from Biblically. I am familiar with the common arguments, such as the supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 3. I have found that these common arguments give life to a whole different interpretation of the Bible that redefines the entire book of Genesis as a figurative or allegorical statement riddled with speculation and principle, written by inferior minds in a vain attempt to answer the “How we came to be?†question rather than a historical account. This of course sets the stage for a reinterpretation of the entire Bible as a figurative or allegorical statement. Thus, Theistic Evolution is a Theological debate that can redefine systematic theology from the first verse of the Bible to the last.

I should explain a small amount of what I believe. I do not necessarily believe that the 7 days of creation are a literal 7 24 hour periods. There is evidence scripturally that could point either way. This statement is not what I believe to be a Biblical contradiction by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a literal interpretation issue. I do not believe that Creationists must be Biblical literalists to be Creationists. I believe that the 7 days of creation could be 7,000 years, but not 7 million years. This is an evidence based conclusion. This is about as far as I can go with Theistic Evolutionary trains of thought. I believe that man was created as man, animals were created as animals, and any form of variable, (genetic mutation, environmental adaptation, etc.) over the course of billions of years could result in what we have today either scientifically or statistically. But this is not a scientific question.

So, Hello to all Theistic Evolutionists here! Please explain the Biblical foundation for your belief and how this effects your overall intrpretation of the Bible. Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

I have found that these common arguments give life to a whole different interpretation of the Bible that redefines the entire book of Genesis as a figurative or allegorical statement riddled with speculation and principle, written by inferior minds in a vain attempt to answer the “How we came to be?†question rather than a historical account.[/'quote]

Um, Genesis is figurative, because imposing a literal interpretation on it leads to logical inconsistencies. You should let the text speak for itself, before anything else. And I have no idea where you got the "riddled with speculation and principle, written by inferior minds in a vain attempt" thing. That is not what Christians believe.

[quote:44ccc]This of course sets the stage for a reinterpretation of the entire Bible as a figurative or allegorical statement.

A sensible understanding of scripture shows that some of it is figurative, and some of it is literal. I don't know any Christian who thinks it has to be all one or all the other, unless you do.

Thus, Theistic Evolution is a Theological debate that can redefine systematic theology from the first verse of the Bible to the last.

Not for a Christian, at least. Theistic evolutionists who are Christians take the position that the Bible is not a science text, and cannot be read that way.

I should explain a small amount of what I believe. I do not necessarily believe that the 7 days of creation are a literal 7 24 hour periods. There is evidence scripturally that could point either way. This statement is not what I believe to be a Biblical contradiction by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a literal interpretation issue. I do not believe that Creationists must be Biblical literalists to be Creationists. I believe that the 7 days of creation could be 7,000 years, but not 7 million years.

One way earlier Christians avoided the conflict between reality and a literal Genesis was to imagine that there had been earlier creations, and that the one in Genesis was just the latest one.

This is an evidence based conclusion. This is about as far as I can go with Theistic Evolutionary trains of thought. I believe that man was created as man, animals were created as animals, and any form of variable, (genetic mutation, environmental adaptation, etc.) over the course of billions of years could result in what we have today either scientifically or statistically. But this is not a scientific question.

No, it isn't. But there's nothing wrong with being unscientific when it comes to religion. In fact, you have to be unscientific in your faith. Even scientists are not religious when they worship. We don't have to be scientific all the time.

So, Hello to all Theistic Evolutionists here! Please explain the Biblical foundation for your belief and how this effects your overall intrpretation of the Bible. Thanks.

[/quote:44ccc]

That would be like asking me the Biblical foundation for superconductivity.

The Bible doesn't talk about evoution. It does talk about the origin of life, which is another issue. And in Genesis, God explains that the earth and waters brought forth life, which is what science is beginning to understand.

 

[rmills]

Um, Genesis is figurative, because imposing a literal interpretation on it leads to logical inconsistencies. You should let the text speak for itself, before anything else.

I choose to let the text be spoken to be by the Holy Spirit, but your first statement answers alot of questions allready. The "text" is either The Word Of God, breathed by his spirit for our understanding, or it is "text" written by man for the purpose of... what?

And I have no idea where you got the "riddled with speculation and principle, written by inferior minds in a vain attempt" thing. That is not what Christians believe.

I do not believe this either, as a Christian no less! 8-) This shows that you have obviously not run into a vast majority of the Thesitic Evolutionists that I have. They believe without question that Genesis and its account of Creation is in fact a very botched rendition of reality, figurative in its nature and to be taken only as principle, or, "God made it happen, but it happened the way we said it did!".

A sensible understanding of scripture shows that some of it is figurative, and some of it is literal. I don't know any Christian who thinks it has to be all one or all the other, unless you do.

Define "sensible understanding". I dont disagree at all with what you state here but I think you may have a different motive behind that statement than I do.

Not for a Christian, at least. Theistic evolutionists who are Christians take the position that the Bible is not a science text, and cannot be read that way.

Once again, this shows that you have obviously not run into a vast majority of the Thesitic Evolutionists that I have. This is not a bad thing by any means, but if you are a Theistic Evolutionist, you allready stand on a better foundation Theologically than most TEs I have ever run into. I would state to the contrary though, the Bible has wonderfull science in it, we just have to look at it from that perspective. I will post scriptures to support this statement later.

One way earlier Christians avoided the conflict between reality and a literal Genesis was to imagine that there had been earlier creations, and that the one in Genesis was just the latest one.

By this, you are eluding to accounts of sun god and earth god and so on from texts that are claimed to be older than the Genesis account?

No, it isn't. But there's nothing wrong with being unscientific when it comes to religion. In fact, you have to be unscientific in your faith. Even scientists are not religious when they worship. We don't have to be scientific all the time.

I agree with the latter statements. Once again, thus a Theological debate rather than a Scientific debate.

That would be like asking me the Biblical foundation for superconductivity.

ok? Some believe that parts of the Bible may be valid but others are obviously not because of their "logical and scientific contradictions". That may tend to put a whole new spin in the Bible. I figured it was a simple question. I will think of a better way to ask. 8-)

The Bible doesn't talk about evoution. It does talk about the origin of life, which is another issue. And in Genesis, God explains that the earth and waters brought forth life, which is what science is beginning to understand.

So the implication here is that the water, (not God) brought forth life? But it was orchestrated by God? We know one thing to be scientifically observed fact, that without water, we can not sustain life. Does it mean more than that?

I do not desire to sound defensive. I genuinly desire to know your thoughts, so thanks for posting!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Um, Genesis is figurative, because imposing a literal interpretation on it leads to logical inconsistencies. You should let the text speak for itself, before anything else.

I choose to let the text be spoken to be by the Holy Spirit, but your first statement answers alot of questions allready.

Of course. If a literal reading causes a logical contradiction, then the text itself tells us that a literal reading is wrong.

The "text" is either The Word Of God, breathed by his spirit for our understanding,

Of course. Sometimes we don't get it right, and sometimes errors in translation, creep in, but the truth remains. I suppose that at this point I should ask if you think the Bible is inerrant, and on what authority, if you do.

or it is "text" written by man for the purpose of... what?

Well men wrote it, of course, under God's inspiration.

Barbarian observes:
And I have no idea where you got the "riddled with speculation and principle, written by inferior minds in a vain attempt" thing. That is not what Christians believe.

I do not believe this either, as a Christian no less! This shows that you have obviously not run into a vast majority of the Thesitic Evolutionists that I have.

In my lifetime, I've talked to a lot of them, but since there are at well over a billion of them, I certainly can't say that I've talked to a majority. Nevertheless, I do have a pretty good idea of what most of them believe.

They believe without question that Genesis and its account of Creation is in fact a very botched rendition of reality, figurative in its nature and to be taken only as principle, or, "God made it happen, but it happened the way we said it did!".

Hmmm.... nope. None of the writings of theistic evolutoinists come even close to that.

Barbarian observes:
A sensible understanding of scripture shows that some of it is figurative, and some of it is literal. I don't know any Christian who thinks it has to be all one or all the other, unless you do.

Define "sensible understanding". I dont disagree at all with what you state here but I think you may have a different motive behind that statement than I do.

I wish to let the text speak for itself. My concern is that, in recent years, many Christians have been seduced by the modern doctrine of creationism, to add things to the text that are not there.

Barbarian observes:
Not for a Christian, at least. Theistic evolutionists who are Christians take the position that the Bible is not a science text, and cannot be read that way.

Once again, this shows that you have obviously not run into a vast majority of the Thesitic Evolutionists that I have.

I've spent more decades studying this and talking to people about it than I care to admit. Your experience seems unique.

This is not a bad thing by any means, but if you are a Theistic Evolutionist, you allready stand on a better foundation Theologically than most TEs I have ever run into. I would state to the contrary though, the Bible has wonderfull science in it, we just have to look at it from that perspective. I will post scriptures to support this statement later.

I think I know what's coming. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. The "science" in the Bible is just wishful thinking on the part of people who want it to be something other than it is.

Barbarian observes:
One way earlier Christians avoided the conflict between reality and a literal Genesis was to imagine that there had been earlier creations, and that the one in Genesis was just the latest one.

By this, you are eluding to accounts of sun god and earth god and so on from texts that are claimed to be older than the Genesis account?

Alluding? No. I'm referring to the creationists of the 17th and 18th centuries, who seeing that the Earth was obviously very much older than a few thousand years, imagined that Genesis was the latest of several creations.

Barbarian observes:
No, it isn't. But there's nothing wrong with being unscientific when it comes to religion. In fact, you have to be unscientific in your faith. Even scientists are not religious when they worship. We don't have to be scientific all the time.

I agree with the latter statements. Once again, thus a Theological debate rather than a Scientific debate.

Well, the Bible, as I pointed out is a religious document, not a scientific one.

Barbarian on why the Bible doesn't mention many scientific theories:
That would be like asking me the Biblical foundation for superconductivity.

ok? Some believe that parts of the Bible may be valid but others are obviously not because of their "logical and scientific contradictions".

It's all true. Some people just try to impose other issues on it. And that is a mistake. The Bible doesn't speak to many natural phenomena, because God is not talking about them. He is telling us what we need to know for our salvation, and superconductivity or evolution are not required for that.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't talk about evoution. It does talk about the origin of life, which is another issue. And in Genesis, God explains that the earth and waters brought forth life, which is what science is beginning to understand.

So the implication here is that the water, (not God) brought forth life? But it was orchestrated by God? We know one thing to be scientifically observed fact, that without water, we can not sustain life. Does it mean more than that?

God says the Earth and waters brought forth life. What He's telling you is that he created life by natural means. It's O.K. He can do that. He created you by natural means, for example.

I do not desire to sound defensive. I genuinly desire to know your thoughts, so thanks for posting!

There's a lot to cover. This was a good start.

 

[Quath]

Most of the Old Earth research was done by Christians. They sought many ways to explain how science and religion could both be right. Some came up with the idea of many creations. Some by redefining words in Genesis. Some just accepted it and just figured it would all be reconciled later.

Quath

 

[flinx]

You theistic evolutionists may be able to reconcile your belief in evolution with your Christian faith but I know I never could. If evolution were actually true what would it tell us about God? The fossil record is a record of death, disease, parasitic infections, and “nature red in tooth and claw.†If God directed the whole evolutionary process then we would have to conclude that it has always been God’s intention that man and animal should live lives of suffering and pain. If millions die from AIDS and millions more live debilitated lives because their bodies are invaded by parasitic worms or malaria, well, that’s just the way God wants it to be. After all He’s been overseeing the course of evolution for hundreds of millions of years and He’s made sure that this is how it all turned out. This is the “very good†creation that God has always planned for us.

But that is not what the Bible teaches us about God and His plan for mankind. It was never God’s intention for the world to be a place of suffering. God created a paradise for man to live in where “survival of the fittest†would not exist. Man and animals were created as vegetarians. God never intended for there to be carnivores, or disease, or parasites, or death in the world. All of nature was to live in harmony in God’s original plan. It was man’s sin that brought suffering into the world. Adam’s sin caused God to curse the world. We have been living under God’s judgment ever since Adam’s fall from grace and God does not judge sin lightly. That is why there is suffering and pain in our world, not because God planned it that way through an evolutionary process, but because God has cursed creation for our sin. One day, when all sin in removed, God will lift the curse from the world and restore it to paradise. The Bible teaches that in that day “there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed awayâ€Â, (Rev 21:4).

Your belief in evolution also implies that God is a deceiver. For more than 3000 years God has been deceiving mankind with the creation account that is given in Genesis. He deceived us with a story that had no basis in reality, according to your belief. And Jesus deceived us as well. He told us that from “the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female’â€Â, (Mark 10:6). He referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event that occurred at the beginning of creation. But that just isn’t true according to your belief. So Christ, who is the creator of all things, was deceiving us. If Christ were a deceiver then He could not be God in the flesh because the Bible teaches us that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

And the apostles deceived us as well. Paul told us in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.†So Paul told us that men have been able to see God’s attributes since the creation of the world, which clearly implies that man has been around since the creation of the world. Or you could look at 1 Timothy 2:13-14 where Paul says, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.†Once again Paul refers to the Genesis account of man’s creation and subsequent fall from grace as a true historical events. And Peter told us in 2 Peter 3:5-6, “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.†So Peter also referred to the Genesis account of creation and the flood as true historical events. There isn’t a single writer in the Bible who refers to Genesis as anything other than true history. But, according to your belief, the writers of the Bible didn’t know what they were talking about. You must believe that the Holy Spirit could not have directly inspired them when they were writing.

You have chosen to treat the Bible as a smorgasbord. Instead of taking the plain meaning of the each passage, you pick and choose what is figurative and what is plainly stated. If a passage agrees with what you want to believe then you are willing to accept its plain meaning. But if a passage disagrees with what you want to believe then you just call it figurative and shrug it off.

Jesus and the apostles all referred to Genesis as true history. If we cannot trust what they told us then we cannot trust the Bible. Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:12, “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?†If we cannot trust what Jesus told us about earthly things then how can we trust Him about what He told us of salvation.

The theory of evolution was created and propagated by atheists and god-haters. It has caused millions to turn away from the faith of their youth and millions more to reject the reality of God’s love for them. But that doesn’t seem to be of concern to you. You value the teachings of evolution more highly than the word of God. An evolutionist tells you his interpretation of unobserved events in the past and you go to the Bible and change its interpretation to match what the evolutionist has told you. The word of man has more weight and authority to you than the word of God. You have elevated the word of man above the word of God.

 

[mh13]

Here's the deal, plain and simple. There is no possible way to read the Bible and in any way believe that God created using evolution. Impossible. You have to already believe evolution is a proven fact and twist and contort the scriptures to accomodate your pet theory.

The is also no way to believe in an old earth unless you already believe the earth is old.

So it all comes down to where you put your faith. None of this can be proven. Origins is outside of the realm of science. It all took place in the unobserved past. All we can do is gather data and interpret it according to our assumptions. If you believe the Bible, the evidence points to a young earth. If you believe in evolution, well the evidence will point in that direction.

The question is -- Do you believe in God and the Bible or man and his textbooks?

In light of no concrete evidence to make me question God's word, I'll take HIS side

 

[Quath]

But that is not what the Bible teaches us about God and His plan for mankind. It was never God’s intention for the world to be a place of suffering. God created a paradise for man to live in where “survival of the fittest†would not exist. Man and animals were created as vegetarians. God never intended for there to be carnivores, or disease, or parasites, or death in the world. All of nature was to live in harmony in God’s original plan. It was man’s sin that brought suffering into the world. Adam’s sin caused God to curse the world.

Here is the problem with this. If God is omnipotent and knew the future, then He knew the world would turn out like this. Therefore, He could have designed the world so it was ready when this fall took place. After all, did God redesign animals to eat meat and rend flesh with their teeth after Adam sinned?

This also implies that God has no free will since He could not have chosen to bless instead of curse Adam. It implies that sin is more powerful than God as well. God could have made Adam with free will and no desire to sin. After all, God is suppose to have free will and also not sin.

Quath

 

[Wertbag]

There seem to be two sides to the same coin that alot of Christians can't see. On one hand you say "I won't believe science as its based on ancient history and no first hand accounts" then in the next breath say "I believe in the Bible" which is ancient history and not based on first hand accounts.
Adam didn't write Genesis, it was probably Moses some 4-5 thousand years later. Room for error? Add to that the authors bias, writing style, numerous translations and possible errors... the whole story was written in the ancient past when very little knowledge of the universe, physics, science and life were known. To consider it a historical account of the start of the world is a pretty big ask.
Then to turn around and say the people who study for a lifetime, compare all the data and research every angle to come to a logical conclusion should be ignored because they don't exactly match one of the many religious texts seems very short sighted.

Theres a story I've heard which makes a good example.
An Inca tribe had suffered under a terrible thunder storm that lasted for weeks. Finally in desperation they turned to the priest and said "why do the storms prevail upon us?". The preist meditated and came to the conclusion that the Gods were angry, and only a daily human sacrifice would calm them. They took one of their prisoners upto the top of the temple and cut his heart out. Sure enough the following day the storm broke. They continued to sacrifice a man a day for a couple of months until they ran out of prisoners. It was decided that maybe enough blood had been split to make the Gods happy, so no sacrifice was made. The next day the rains fell again. The tribes people began their sacrifices again, killing their own people when prisoners were not available.
Finally Spanish explorers came across this grusome sight, and guns in hand put a stop to the sacrifices. The tribes people wailed and screamed "you will bring down the wrath of the Gods, we have seen the anger, it is beyond doubt, please let us do what we must". But the Spanish held firm, and as the new day rose the sun came up just like it always would. Only then did the tribes people realise the horror that they had committed.

Don't just disregard logic, knowledge and research because they don't agree with your prior teachings. Confirm your teachings, question the things that don't make sense and base your conclusions on what you know to be true not simply on what you've been told.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's the deal, plain and simple. There is no possible way to read the Bible and in any way believe that God created using evolution.

Most Christians disagree with you. But it's not a salvation issue, so you won't go to hell for rejecting the way He managed creation.

You have to already believe evolution is a proven fact and twist and contort the scriptures to accomodate your pet theory.

In fact, the very early Christians like Augustine knew better. Augustine admitted that Scripture was consistent with beasts developing from simpler organisms. Creationism is recent invention.

The is also no way to believe in an old earth unless you already believe the earth is old.

If so, then no one would believe it was old today, since scientists before 1700 thought it was a few thousand years old.

So it all comes down to where you put your faith.

You'll keep running into posts if you try to approach science by faith. Evidence is what counts.

Origins is outside of the realm of science.

If so, forensics, geology, archaeology, etc. are not sciences. That seems absurd.

It all took place in the unobserved past.

It turns out that we can accurately infer what happened in the past by examining evidence.

All we can do is gather data and interpret it according to our assumptions.

Or we can do it the scientific way, and actually test hypotheses to see if the evidence supports them. That way is much better.

If you believe the Bible, the evidence points to a young earth.

Not for most Christians.

If you believe in evolution, well the evidence will point in that direction.

In fact, Kurt Wise, a PhD young earth creationist, admits that the evidence favors evolution. He quite openly admits that his religious faith trumps the evidence as far as he's concerned. Most knowledgable creationists, like Wise and Harold Coffin freely admit that.

The question is -- Do you believe in God and the Bible or man and his textbooks?

It turns out that science and God's creation are quite compatible.

 

[Barbarian]

You theistic evolutionists may be able to reconcile your belief in evolution with your Christian faith but I know I never could.

When reality and Scripture seem to conflict, is is because you have misunderstood one or both of them. Perhaps it's just a matter of learning more about it.

If evolution were actually true what would it tell us about God?

It would tell us that He was a lot more intelligent and capable than creationists suppose.

The fossil record is a record of death, disease, parasitic infections, and “nature red in tooth and claw.†If God directed the whole evolutionary process then we would have to conclude that it has always been God’s intention that man and animal should live lives of suffering and pain.

God, if He chose could have created a universe in which this does not happen. He chose to do it this way. I trust Him.

If millions die from AIDS and millions more live debilitated lives because their bodies are invaded by parasitic worms or malaria, well, that’s just the way God wants it to be. After all He’s been overseeing the course of evolution for hundreds of millions of years and He’s made sure that this is how it all turned out. This is the “very good†creation that God has always planned for us.

God could have placed you in a perfect world, with no temptations, or pain or suffering of any kind. Do you know what happens to children when you try to shield them from all pain and suffering?

It was never God’s intention for the world to be a place of suffering.

Hmm... that seems to by your addition to Scripture. Where would you like to put it?

Man and animals were created as vegetarians.

Spiders are incapable of being vegetarians. So are snakes.

God never intended for there to be carnivores, or disease, or parasites, or death in the world.

So why did He create organisms like tapeworms, which can be nothing but parasites?

All of nature was to live in harmony in God’s original plan. It was man’s sin that brought suffering into the world. Adam’s sin caused God to curse the world.

If you are right, then what are we to say of a God who visits hideous agonies on innocent animals, who are entirely blameless in man's fall? You have converted Him into some kind of monster.

Your belief in evolution also implies that God is a deceiver. For more than 3000 years God has been deceiving mankind with the creation account that is given in Genesis.

It's very true. Notice that God says that the Earth brought forth living things, as He intended. If God's word really did contradict nature, then He would be a deceiver. But it does not.

And Jesus deceived us as well. He told us that from “the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female’â€Â, (Mark 10:6).

And yet, Genesis 1 tells us what was there at the beginning, and there was neither male nor female. You've confused what Jesus is talking about here.

He referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event that occurred at the beginning of creation.

But Genesis doesn't say it happened at the beginning of creation. In fact, it says woman came after it ended. Do you have a verse that says if Jesus repeats an allegory, it changes it to a literal account?

But that just isn’t true according to your belief.

It isn't true in Scripture, either.

So Christ, who is the creator of all things, was deceiving us.

Nope. You've just misunderstood what He was saying.

And the apostles deceived us as well. Paul told us in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.â€Â

It hardly needs to be pointed out that it is logically impossible for anything to be both invisible and clearly seen. Paul is speaking figuratively here.

You have chosen to treat the Bible as a smorgasbord. Instead of taking the plain meaning of the each passage, you pick and choose what is figurative and what is plainly stated.

When you read Scripture, you must let the text tell you what it says. When forcing a literal interpretation causes logical contradictions, as it does in Genesis, then you know it is not literal.
You can't pick and chose what you want to believe. You have to accept it for what it is.

Jesus and the apostles all referred to Genesis as true history.

Really? Could you cite the verse in which He said that? Keep in mind, if you want to argue that citing a passage means He regarded it as literal, you will have to substantiate that.

The theory of evolution was created and propagated by atheists and god-haters.

I'm afraid you've been lied to about that. Both Darwin and Wallace were Christians when they discovered natural selection, and published their findings. Can you find even one atheist/God hater among the early evolutionists?

It has caused millions to turn away from the faith of their youth and millions more to reject the reality of God’s love for them.

That seems unlikely, since most Christians understand that evoulution is compatible with their faith. There are a good number of Christians who were raised to believe that Creationism is a Christian doctrine, and when they discovered it to be false, lost their faith. Here is the testimony of one such person, who very nearly left Christianity over it:

"...But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. .."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

It's worth reading to learn what pulled him back from the brink. Others were not so lucky. YE creationism has a lot of lost souls to answer for.

But that doesn’t seem to be of concern to you.

It concerns me intensely. I want no more people leaving Christianity over a doctrine that has nothing whatever to do with salvation.

You value the teachings of evolution more highly than the word of God.

You don't know me, and so I will excuse your false witness. The answer for all of your concerns is to learn more about it. Let's talk about the science, or about the nature of Christianity and nature's place in God's creation.

 

[rmills]

Barbarian,

First I want to say that I am sorry that this went a little south. I did not intend to have Creationists jump on you, but I am sure that you are used to it. Second, flinx and mhess13, be of good chill bros. A discussion about this matter or any matter must be conducted with some level of peace or it will never be constructive. I agree with a lot of what both of you have to say but even I cannot take it off the end of a fire hose.

Quath,

Here is the problem with this. If God is omnipotent and knew the future, then He knew the world would turn out like this. Therefore, He could have designed the world so it was ready when this fall took place. After all, did God redesign animals to eat meat and rend flesh with their teeth after Adam sinned?

This also implies that God has no free will since He could not have chosen to bless instead of curse Adam. It implies that sin is more powerful than God as well. God could have made Adam with free will and no desire to sin. After all, God is suppose to have free will and also not sin.

There is another way to look at this problem you propose. If you are 3 years old and Mom tells you to not touch the stove because it will burn you, how will you know if that is true unless you touch the stove?

I believe that God is everywhere, and there at all times, and that he is all of space-time. Thus, God was able to create space-time based on the simple conclusion that space-time cannot be created from the construct or confines of space-time. If God created space-time, we know that he transcends space-time and knew not only that we would fall, but why we would fall. It was his intention to create humanity with the ability to choose, and choose humanity did! We would not know what was right or wrong if God had not told us to not touch the stove.

Barbarian

God, if He chose could have created a universe in which this does not happen. He chose to do it this way. I trust Him.

That is one of the most profound statements I have ever heard a TE make! He could have chosen to create a universe that was roses and daises, but he did not. The real question is why. Like I just explained to Quath, the reason is obvious! God in his infinite wisdom knew we would chose, and that choice inevitably leads to the need for the death on the cross, the resurrection, and the countless opportunities every human has to make that choice. His design was flawless, and only became flawless because he knew from before there was time what we as humanity would choose.

I have more questions but I dont get to stop long enough tonight to post them all. Stay tuned...

 

[Barbarian]

First I want to say that I am sorry that this went a little south. I did not intend to have Creationists jump on you, but I am sure that you are used to it.

Of course. Christians are called upon to be patient. I've a very patient guy. I appreciate you call for peace between Christians.

Here is the problem with this. If God is omnipotent and knew the future, then He knew the world would turn out like this. Therefore, He could have designed the world so it was ready when this fall took place. After all, did God redesign animals to eat meat and rend flesh with their teeth after Adam sinned?

This also implies that God has no free will since He could not have chosen to bless instead of curse Adam. It implies that sin is more powerful than God as well. God could have made Adam with free will and no desire to sin. After all, God is suppose to have free will and also not sin.

It's a difficult problem. But unless you want to limit God's free will, you have to concede that He is powerful enough to make a world in which man could be good. And if He knowingly did not, then it was His will that man fall. I happen to believe that is so, because God desires fellowship with us, and wants us to be happy with Him in Heaven. This would not have been possible without the fall, given man's nature prior to the fall.

There is another way to look at this problem you propose. If you are 3 years old and Mom tells you to not touch the stove because it will burn you, how will you know if that is true unless you touch the stove?

You are close to an important truth here. If you are three years old, and you mom puts a brightly colored whatchamacallit on the coffee table, and says "You must never, never touch that, because if you do, something awful will happen", and leaves the area, what do you think would happen?

What would you think of such a Mom? And yet God says: "The Garden is yours to enjoy, Adam. Take what you like, but never, never eat from that tree over there. No, not that one, that one over there. Don't eat from it, or you'll die the day you do."

You don't have to be God to figure out what was going to happen next.

I believe that God is everywhere, and there at all times, and that he is all of space-time. Thus, God was able to create space-time based on the simple conclusion that space-time cannot be created from the construct or confines of space-time.

I have no idea, except that it is not a certainty that our particular universe must have been directly created by God.

Barbarian observers:
God, if He chose could have created a universe in which this does not happen. He chose to do it this way. I trust Him.

That is one of the most profound statements I have ever heard a TE make!

Far as I know, all Christians feel this way.

He could have chosen to create a universe that was roses and daises, but he did not. The real question is why. Like I just explained to Quath, the reason is obvious! God in his infinite wisdom knew we would chose, and that choice inevitably leads to the need for the death on the cross, the resurrection, and the countless opportunities every human has to make that choice. His design was flawless, and only became flawless because he knew from before there was time what we as humanity would choose.

If He knew this, He could also have made a universe in which such things were not required. As I said, I trust that He did the best thing. The key is the serpent's statement. "You will become as Gods." What do you think about that?

 

[rmills]

If He knew this, He could also have made a universe in which such things were not required. As I said, I trust that He did the best thing. The key is the serpent's statement. "You will become as Gods." What do you think about that?

I have given this some thought in the past.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


gods in the strongs...

H430

el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Obviously we know that the serpents purpose in this context was to lie, thus making Eve believe that the consequences for her actions were not what God said they would be. (She didnt seem to care about that as much as the fact that the fruit looked good to eat. : )

The serpent was right about a thing or two in his statements to Eve. She saw that she was naked, and soon there was a profound understanding that she had done something wrong. Did this make her like God? Of course not. She had not gained any ability but to see her sin and nakedness at this point. The point is that knowledge of good and evil does not create a supreme being. The serpent lied, as we should expect.

This was an obvious step backwards in understanding. I dont blame Eve for the demise of the world, nor Adam, because soon, someone somewhere would have done something quite the same. It is in our nature to think we are smarter than we are. This is an issue addressed various times throughout scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

In fact, gaining the knowledge of good and evil made Adam and Eve like God, as the Serpent said. But they were only potientially able to be with Him, because, although they understood good and evil, they were unable to be truly good. (this is the allegorical meaning of "nakedness"). Before, they were naked, but not ashamed, because they were innocent like the other animals.

So they are left in between. Unable to truly have fellowship with God, and yet aware of His goodness and yearning for it.

This is why He sent his only Son to die for us and make it possible for us to be with Him forever.

This was His intention from the first. He created things precisely, knowing that it would turn out this way.

 

[rmills]

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

In fact, gaining the knowledge of good and evil made Adam and Eve like God, as the Serpent said.

I don’t know if I understand your interpretation. They became like God in the sense that they could differentiate bad from good, but what does that weigh on the scale of man vs. God?

But they were only potientially able to be with Him, because, although they understood good and evil, they were unable to be truly good. (this is the allegorical meaning of "nakedness"). Before, they were naked, but not ashamed, because they were innocent like the other animals.

I agree.

So they are left in between. Unable to truly have fellowship with God, and yet aware of His goodness and yearning for it.

This is why He sent his only Son to die for us and make it possible for us to be with Him forever.

I agree again to an extent. We have fellowship with God now through our salvation. I think that is what you are saying.

This was His intention from the first. He created things precisely, knowing that it would turn out this way.

I agree again! We actually seem to agree on a lot of stuff here. This is uncommon compared to conversations I have had with TEs in the past. But back to the subject, how does this build a scriptural foundation for Theistic Evolution? May it possibly tie back to a previous question?

You are close to an important truth here. If you are three years old, and you mom puts a brightly colored whatchamacallit on the coffee table, and says "You must never, never touch that, because if you do, something awful will happen", and leaves the area, what do you think would happen?

 

[Barbarian]

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Barbarian observes:
In fact, gaining the knowledge of good and evil made Adam and Eve like God, as the Serpent said.

I don’t know if I understand your interpretation. They became like God in the sense that they could differentiate bad from good, but what does that weigh on the scale of man vs. God?

It makes us moral beings, like God. Aware of good and evil. Such beings have the potential to have fellowship with Him. It was critical for us to become moral beings. Otherwise, we would be innocent as the animals, and unable to have a relationship with God.

Barbarian observes:
But they were only potientially able to be with Him, because, although they understood good and evil, they were unable to be truly good. (this is the allegorical meaning of "nakedness"). Before, they were naked, but not ashamed, because they were innocent like the other animals.

I agree.

Barbarian observes:
So they are left in between. Unable to truly have fellowship with God, and yet aware of His goodness and yearning for it.

This is why He sent his only Son to die for us and make it possible for us to be with Him forever.

I agree again to an extent. We have fellowship with God now through our salvation. I think that is what you are saying.

Yes. Two things had to happen. We had to become moral beings, to know good and evil. And then, we had to be somehow justified in God. This, we cannot do for ourselves, and so God offered His son to do it for us. We can thereby accept His sacrifice for us, and enter into God's kingdom.

Barbarian observes:
This was His intention from the first. He created things precisely, knowing that it would turn out this way.

I agree again! We actually seem to agree on a lot of stuff here. This is uncommon compared to conversations I have had with TEs in the past. But back to the subject, how does this build a scriptural foundation for Theistic Evolution? May it possibly tie back to a previous question?

There is no scriptural foundation for evoluton at all. However, it is consistent with evolution. God chose not to tell us much about the details of his natural creation in the Bible; it's about more important things.

However, we can see that man's evolution from other primates became signifcant at the point where self-awareness and empathy made it possible for us to have a moral sense.

It would be possible for beings to have a moral sense, and still not have an immortal soul, of course. God decided to do that. At what point he did do it, and exactly who first got it and became fully human in a spiritual sense, I do not know. There is no reason why Adam and Eve could not have been real people in this process, the first two who were so gifted by God. There have been a number of species of humans, and it seems unlikely that H. sapiens was the first to be given God's gift. If we had never progressed much from H. erectus, I suspect that God would have loved us no less than He does now.

None of this really matters to one's salvation, and science can't deal with the supernatural, so we have little but speculation to go on here. However, it's clear that the account of Genesis is an accurate, if figurative explanation of man becoming capable of a relationship with God, as He intended, as well as completely compatible with what we know of human evolution.

Barbarian observes:
You are close to an important truth here. If you are three years old, and you mom puts a brightly colored whatchamacallit on the coffee table, and says "You must never, never touch that, because if you do, something awful will happen", and leaves the area, what do you think would happen?

 

[rmills]

However, we can see that man's evolution from other primates became signifcant at the point where self-awareness and empathy made it possible for us to have a moral sense.

This is where the debate turns scientific. Man’s evolution from primate may be a decent argument to start evolution with but the problems I have with this argument are many. When it is universally acknowledged that Piltdown man is a hoax, Louis Leakey wrecks a lousy rendition of parts from a jaw and teeth to make Ramapithecus theories until the lower jaw was found, Nebraska man built on a tooth, Java man who in fact turns out to be a monkey, other Leakey messes like Australopithecines, and weirder mistakes like Cro-Magnon man, Heidelberg man, Lucy based on a knee joint? If anything, I think that there may be vague evidence to support the existence of another larger ape in history that is now extinct, but certainly not transitional creatures that eventually became the Adam that God removed the rib from to create Eve. The more reports that I read about transitional primates and how they tend to lean towards the sick (skeletal diseases in humans that have been well documented even to toady’s common examples) or towards obvious primates, the more I become skeptical of any factually based transitional fossils in existence. This does not even begin to approach the galactic sized void between a typical DNA sample from humans and primates. DNA studies using cytochrome c show that a rattlesnake is the closest chemically signed being to a human rather than a rattlesnake being closest to another reptile.

"[T]here are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." [F. Hoyle & C. Wickramasinghe (1981), "Evolution From Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London p:24]

It would be possible for beings to have a moral sense, and still not have an immortal soul, of course. God decided to do that. At what point he did do it, and exactly who first got it and became fully human in a spiritual sense, I do not know.

Why not Adam and Eve? Reply…

There is no reason why Adam and Eve could not have been real people in this process, the first two who were so gifted by God. There have been a number of species of humans, and it seems unlikely that H. sapiens was the first to be given God's gift. If we had never progressed much from H. erectus, I suspect that God would have loved us no less than He does now.

I agree that God loves his creation, no mater how insignificant we may view it to be. If we were any less of an “evolved†creature than we are now, in linguistics, reasoning, intelligence, and so on, would we be capable of making the same decisions?

None of this really matters to one's salvation, and science can't deal with the supernatural, so we have little but speculation to go on here. However, it's clear that the account of Genesis is an accurate, if figurative explanation of man becoming capable of a relationship with God, as He intended, as well as completely compatible with what we know of human evolution.

I would guess that the only way this could matter to one’s salvation directly is if their decision on how Genesis is to be taken directly reflects on how one takes the rest of the Bible. I know an awful lot of folks that see the whole of the Bible as figurative, lacking in fact based reporting of historical events to the point that the stories are essentially bias-based opinions. These Biblically-figurative arguments typically start with Genesis being a scientific disaster and not to be taken literally by any means.

When I read Genesis, I see how the foundation for the whole Bible is built. Events just in the development of the twelve tribes of Judah were crafted by God to show both literally and figuratively the need for a savior. The linking span of Genesis through the Bible would indicate that God has the book there to show that even from the beginning, Genesis creates the foundation for all that we as Christians believe. This is why I say that C vs. TE is a theological debate at its core. I dont believe that a TE has to be questioning their salvation, but what happens when a TE takes the figurative to the extent of the whole Bible?

…and science can't deal with the supernatural, so we have little but speculation to go on here…

I agree, but there is abundant evidence to support many of the literal events described in Genesis, so I don’t see the point just yet. I bet you can help me though!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
However, we can see that man's evolution from other primates became signifcant at the point where self-awareness and empathy made it possible for us to have a moral sense.

This is where the debate turns scientific. Man’s evolution from primate may be a decent argument to start evolution with but the problems I have with this argument are many. When it is universally acknowledged that Piltdown man is a hoax,

It was rarely mentioned in any detail on books on primate evolution, because it was a problem for the theory. You see, theoretcially, the enlarged skull should have developed after a more human face and jaw.
(which is what we later found to be true) Consequently, when scientists finally were able to obtain the actual specimen and look it over, everyone was relieved that it turned out to be a fraud.

Louis Leakey wrecks a lousy rendition of parts from a jaw and teeth to make Ramapithecus theories until the lower jaw was found,

I'm not sure what you mean.

Nebraska man built on a tooth,

However, "Nebraska man" never made to to scientific acceptance. The find was published in a newspaper, and when a paleontologist familiar with mammals took a look at it, he quickly showed that it was the tooth of a javelina, worn down in a way that somewhat resembled a human tooth.

Java man who in fact turns out to be a monkey,

Java man is now known to be an example of H. erectus. Here's a site that discusses some of the erroneous stories about the find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html

other Leakey messes like Australopithecines, and weirder mistakes like Cro-Magnon man,

Cro-magnon man was anatomically indistinguishable from modern man, although his average height was a bit greater than modern average. If you could bring one to the present, teach him English, and dress him in modern clothes, no one would know he was different.

Heidelberg man,

Heidelberg man is also H. sapiens, but somewhat intermediate between H. erectus and our own species.

Lucy based on a knee joint?

We are lucky to have an almost complete skeleton, called "Lucy." The important thing about the knee joint is that the condyles are arranged as in humans, indicating (along with the angle of the femur at the hip) that she walked upright,as we do.

If anything, I think that there may be vague evidence to support the existence of another larger ape in history that is now extinct,

Gigantopithecus. There are abundant teeth and other remains to be found. Apparently, the Chinese collected them as sold them as "dragons teeth" to pharmacies where they were powdered for some sort of remedy. This was the largest known primate, and somewhat gorilla-like. Not a human ancestor.

but certainly not transitional creatures that eventually became the Adam that God removed the rib from to create Eve.

We have an embarassment of riches when it comes to hominine fossils. At some points in human evolution, there were many different linages, and the relationships are still being worked out. However, we do know that H. erectus or a closely related species was our immediate ancestor. H. erectus was essentially like modern humans, except for the skull, and as noted above, there are transistionals from earliest H. erectus to modern humans.

The more reports that I read about transitional primates and how they tend to lean towards the sick (skeletal diseases in humans that have been well documented even to toady’s common examples)

Quite a number of them seem to have had infections, but others were quite healthy as far as we can tell. You are perhaps thinking of one creationsist who argued that Neandertals were just normal humans with rickets? He infers this from the fact that Neandertal legs are slightly bowed. People with rickets also frequently have bowed legs, because the deficiency causes a fragile skeleton. However, Neandertal legs bow the other way, and they had much more robust skeletons than we do. So no one takes that theory seriously now.

or towards obvious primates, the more I become skeptical of any factually based transitional fossils in existence. This does not even begin to approach the galactic sized void between a typical DNA sample from humans and primates. [quote:04ed7]

Actually, the DNA hybridization studies show that there is often more variation within many animal species than exists between humans and chimpanzees. Even more compelling the chromosomes seem to line up exactly. Humans have one less chromosome than chimps, but one human chromosome looks exactly like two chimp chromosomes linked together. The human chromosome even has traces of telemeres where the junction should be.

[quote:04ed7]DNA studies using cytochrome c show that a rattlesnake is the closest chemically signed being to a human rather than a rattlesnake being closest to another reptile.

You are perhaps referring to Walt Brown's claim that his son's science fair project showed this to be the case.

Here's a listing of the actual sequences. You might want to print it out and check it out.
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/seq.html

Human and chimps differ by no amino acids at all. I invite you to print out the human/rattlesnake sequences, match them up and see how close they come to human/chimp cytochrome c.

"[T]here are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." [F. Hoyle & C. Wickramasinghe (1981), "Evolution From Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London p:24]

Let's take a look at that idea. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, then deal out the cards, noting the order in which they were dealt. The order you just got has a likelihood of 1/52!, which is about...

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000081

An extremely tiny number. Do it again. You get another result with an equally astounding improbabilty. Hoyle found an arrow in a tree and drew a bulls-eye around it.

Barbarian observes:
It would be possible for beings to have a moral sense, and still not have an immortal soul, of course. God decided to do that. At what point he did do it, and exactly who first got it and became fully human in a spiritual sense, I do not know.

Why not Adam and Eve?

I believe it was Adam and Eve.

Barbarian observes:
There is no reason why Adam and Eve could not have been real people in this process, the first two who were so gifted by God. There have been a number of species of humans, and it seems unlikely that H. sapiens was the first to be given God's gift. If we had never progressed much from H. erectus, I suspect that God would have loved us no less than He does now.

I agree that God loves his creation, no mater how insignificant we may view it to be. If we were any less of an “evolved†creature than we are now, in linguistics, reasoning, intelligence, and so on, would we be capable of making the same decisions?

I think so. The evidence is that H. erectus, for example, was a competent toolmaker. Chimps are just barely able to make some primitive tools on their own, and have been taught to knap flints to make tools (although they almost certainly wouldn't have come up with this on their own)

Chimps and Gorillas, through signing, indicate a crude idea of right and wrong. They are also capable of empathy, inferring mental states in others (something only apes and humans can do) And this is an essential part of any notion of good and evil.

So it seems to me almost certain that H. erectus was capable of knowing right and wrong, and in making moral decisions.

Barbarian observes:
None of this really matters to one's salvation, and science can't deal with the supernatural, so we have little but speculation to go on here. However, it's clear that the account of Genesis is an accurate, if figurative explanation of man becoming capable of a relationship with God, as He intended, as well as completely compatible with what we know of human evolution.

I would guess that the only way this could matter to one’s salvation directly is if their decision on how Genesis is to be taken directly reflects on how one takes the rest of the Bible.

That would be a mistake that few people make. I know of no one who thinks that the Bible is either all literal or all figurative.

I know an awful lot of folks that see the whole of the Bible as figurative, lacking in fact based reporting of historical events to the point that the stories are essentially bias-based opinions.

That is different. Obviously, the historical books are intended to be literal history, although some might call it biased. That would not change the fact that it was intended to be literal history.

These Biblically-figurative arguments typically start with Genesis being a scientific disaster and not to be taken literally by any means.

It's not a scientific disaster. It's not scientific at all. That would be like criticizing poetry for using metaphors that were not literally true.

When I read Genesis, I see how the foundation for the whole Bible is built. Events just in the development of the twelve tribes of Judah were crafted by God to show both literally and figuratively the need for a savior. The linking span of Genesis through the Bible would indicate that God has the book there to show that even from the beginning, Genesis creates the foundation for all that we as Christians believe. This is why I say that C vs. TE is a theological debate at its core. I dont believe that a TE has to be questioning their salvation, but what happens when a TE takes the figurative to the extent of the whole Bible?

I don't know any who do. And if some do, it really doesn't change the truth.

Barbarian observes:
…and science can't deal with the supernatural, so we have little but speculation to go on here…

I agree, but there is abundant evidence to support many of the literal events described in Genesis, so I don’t see the point just yet. I bet you can help me though!

[/quote:04ed7][/quote:04ed7]

I'd be willing to look at your examples.

 

[Quath]

I just want to make a comment on some probabilities of life just forming. It is usually made with the assumption that you have to have all the right atoms or molecules hit at just the right spot and it is usually a complex arrangement.

However, this is not the viewpoint of the origin of life. The basic idea is that there is some very simple structure that self replicates in the right environment. Once you get this and add in a few mistakes in the replication process you get the process of evolution. So scientists are looking to see what processes could happen naturally that would tend to lower the odds of creating this first self-replicating set of molecules.

For example, a cell wall is a great thing to have to start off a cell. Currently they are organic structures. However, it could have started off as inorganic such as bubbles or porous chambers in rocks.

However, say that all of this turns out to be impossible. What is the probability of life? You can come up with any probability you like. Say you determine that life has a 1 in 100000000^1000000000 chance per planet. Now you multiply this by the number of planets.

How many planets are there? We have the observable universe we can see. However, there are parts of the universe we can't see. So far the Big Bang theory has the universe being flat (not like a balloon). It also says that we see no edge effects so the universe could be infinite. (Energy density is the measurement of the Big Bang theory, not total energy.) So it seems like there is a good chance that there are an infinite number of planets.

So multiply any finite probability by infinity and you get an infinite number of times life exists in the universe. Now here is where it gets weird. Come up with the probability for human type of life to evolve. Say also come up the probability that this life experiences history just like our world. Say you also come up with the probability that another life form has your exact DNA. If it is finite and the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of clones of you in the universe.

Fun with infinity!

Quath