That is all fine and well, but it doesn't give you the right to "combine" these two ideas when talking about evolution.

Belief in a Creator creating the universe and life is something that both Creationists and scientists can believe in. And atheism is also something that both supporters of "Intelligent Design" and scientists can believe in.

They are not two positions (atheism and evolution vs theism and Creationism) but four:

1. G-d created the universe and all species (Creationism).

2. G-d created the universe and (possibly) life but species exist because of evolution (Catholicism/Judaism/all rational religions).

3. There is no god or it doesn't matter and some entity created all species (Creationism/"Intelligent Design").

4. There is no god or it doesn't matter and life started somehow but species exist because of evolution (Dawkins).

The battle between Creationism and science is not a battle between religion and atheism, even though and if Creationists and Dawkins want to make it into one.

Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and the most arrogant and ignorant idiot when it comes to theology and tolerance. His statements backed by research about evolution are correct and we should all learn from him and understand his points; but his statements about religion/morality/theology/philosophy are those of a complete amateur in those areas and those of an arrogant know-it-all whom people shouldn't listen to.

Dawkins: scientist, NOT a religious/philosophical/moral authority.

Genesis in the Bible is the shortest version of the Semitic legend of Creation. It doesn't say anything about physical events. The evidence for Genesis being about spiritual is in the words used. The word game between the words surrounding the root DM (examples below) works only in Hebrew (and presumably Aramaic) but not in all languages that myths were known in before Moses' time.

The Tora's Genesis story was a summary of Semitic legends. It was NOT new. The legends were already known and earlier versions went into more detail (and contradicted each other). The Tora's version took out most of the contradicting stuff (which was also scientifically wrong) and concentrated only on the spiritual. It does NOT contradict evolution or the theory that the earth is much older than 7000 years.

Relevant words:

'DVM ("adom") = "red"

'DMH ("adama") = "red earth" (the material)

'DM ("adam") = "human being" (i.e. "made of adama", just remove the Hey)

DM ("dam") = "blood" (i.e. the red stuff inside "adam", just remove the Alef)

These word games work only in Semitic versions of the story, but the story is older. IF the account of Creation was LITERALLY TRUE and described physics rather than spirituality, the word game would have appeared in an older language. Moses received the Tora 3200 years ago, the Hebrew words above are not older than 4000 or 5000 years. But the Creation legend is older than that.

Semitic gods, including YHVH, are the same as Sumerian gods, but the Sumerian culture is older than the Semitic cultures. The Creation account is Sumerian in origin (like most of the very ancient legends surrounding Semitic/Sumerian deities). The connection between "red" and "earth" (the material) is present in both Hebrew and Akkadian (the Semitic language spoken in Mesopotamia, i.e. in Iraq). I don't know if the word game works in Sumerian (I doubt it), but the legend of man being created from red earth is Sumerian in origin.

In fact the Sumerian name for the creator god is "Enki" which derives from the Sumerian words for "heaven and earth" = "anu na ki". I don't think "ki" could be used as a base for the same word game.

But here's the most surprising part, at least for me. The word for "I" used in the Tora when referring to G-d is not Hebrew "ani" (Alef Nun Yud), but "anoki" (Alef Nun Kaf Yud, that's how the word "I" appears in the first commandment). This seems to be a remnant of the relationship between Tora and Sumerian legends that referred to the creator god by that same word.

Either way, if Genesis describes physical creation, it means, theologically, that (I) the Sumerians were the people told by G-d, not the Israelites, and (II) the Israelites had a funnier version of the story. And that would contradict both the premise that the Israelites were the chosen people and the premise that Tora is a serious book.

If on the other hand the Tora's version of Genesis is about the spiritual values that can be deduced from a version of the story without the details (as the Tora's version of the legend is a summary as I said before), the Israelites are indeed the first people told by G-d (about the spiritual relevance of the legend) and the Tora is indeed a serious book as befits holy scripture.

(Note that I cannot figure out why the word game would already work in the Akkadian version of the legend. I assume that the word "adam" is an Akkadian invention based on the Sumerian legend.)

_Heavens_, not "heaven". It's important. Plus the word for "heaven" derives from a root that means "water". Also, the word translated as "earth" actually means "land" (which is also what the English word "earth" meant back when the translations were made, plus the Latin translation translates the word as "land" rather than "planet earth").

Yes, and evolution makes no claim to the contrary. If G-d created the universe in which evolution happens, He certainly created everything created in or by that universe too.

The word for "image" used is "tzelem", which is related to the word "tzel" ("shadow"). Plus G-d is incorporeal and "in His image" doesn't refer to the body but to those attributes which man and G-d actually do have in common. It's a spiritual thing, it refers to free will and such things.

The Hebrew word for "created" is "bara" (Beth Resh Alef). It appears three times in 1.27 alone. A quick look at Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and 5 shows me that the word BR' appears many times, certainly more often than three. "Created" is past tense third person singular, which is exactly the root of the word plus /a/ vowels. Those same three letters appear in every form of the word "create", including adjectives, nouns, other verb forms etc..

I don't know if Taltamir is an atheist, but if I recall correctly he does understand Hebrew, probably better than I do.

This is true Leauki.  Did you know that scripture speaks of three heavens? 

We like to say we see the first heaven by day, the second heaven by night and the third heaven by faith. 

Yes.

While there is another number of heavens, seven, that derives from Jewish mysticism, the number three is one I am familiar with.

Apparently the first, the one we see by day, is the blue heaven, i.e. the skies. The second, the one we see by night, is space. And the third, G-d's dwelling place is the one we see by faith.

It is quite possible that Genesis refers to these three.

But we would have to figure out what this has to do with water, a word that also appears in plural in Hebrew.

That is not Google's definition of evolution nor of Darwin's Theory

For those interested, check out the 'about us' section from that link and the creators of that information Lula just posted.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/common/aboutus.htm

Wow...

DAIWA POSTS #133

lULA POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS #135

DAIWA AND LEAUKI,

When rightly and correctly understood, Evolution is Godless and don't take my word for it, take the word of the makers and shakers of Evolution and Darwin's Evolution Theory.

For the first 240 years of the beginning of modern science, from 1600-1800s, the belief in the Creation of the world and all that's in it was the dominant view in the scientific community. Virtually, every founder believed in Creation, from Keplar, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mendel, and Kelvin, to name a few. Just to illustrate this, Newton said, "This most beautfiul system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel  and dominion of an intellignet and powerful Being."

 What happened in the 1800s? God was pronounced dead by many in the scientific establishment.

In 1859, Darwin wrote his first famous book which theorized all animals evolved from a common ancestor through purposeless forces over millions of years. 12 years later, he asserted in his  Descent of Man, that humans arose from the same common ancestor as well. Darwin provided the "scientific" theory which included a process called Natural Selection" and Evolution gained scientific legitimacy. This was the time that the world experienced a turning point in history. Darwin referred to natural selection as "my deity" and defended it as "a active power or deity".

The co-founder of Natural Theory, ALfred Wallace went one step further in replacing God with Evolution, He said, "Natural Selection is supreme and not only adequate to regulate and direct all the forces at work in living organisms, but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe."

Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's bulldog, showed to what extent Evolution had replaced God,  "i SEE NO REASON FOR DOUBTING THAT ALL ARE COORdinate terms of nature's great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will. " So, it's Huxley himself who believed in force directed the evolutionary process from the non-living to the living, and from the non-intelligent to intelligent beings.

Herbert Spencer went one step further, by asserting that evolution was a Cosmic process that explained not only biology but also astronomy, geology, and psychology. Spencer believed and taught that everything is evolving. This led German philosopher and biologist Earnest Haeckel to conclude, "with this simple argument the mysteryof the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in. " No longer did finite man need an infinite God....They said, Science would bring man infinite knowledge.

Karl Marx already a convinced atheist, rejoiced in Darwin's ET. His wirtings are of course the foundation of Communism.

Just 7 years after Darwin announced that man descended from a brute ape-like ancestor, Charles Hodge, a Princeton scholar, summed up the heart of evolution ideology..."What is Darwinism? It is Atheism." This doesn't mean that all who believe it are atheists, but it means that Darwin's ET is atheistic....that the exclusion of Creator God is tantamount to atheism.

So, the fundamental differences between Darwin's Evolution Theory and the Christian belief in the account of Genesis should be clear....if the occurence of the world and all that's in it can be expalined in terms of long periods of time, chance, natural selection, and survvial pressure, then it would seem there's no justification for God's power at work in Creation. Richard Dawkins, zoologist and famous apologist for Darwinism put it this way, "Darwin's theory finally made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Well, is Darwinism self-satisfied atheism well placed? How can it be....it's been long known it doesn't pass any true scientific tests and so must be bellieved as a matter of non-rational faith.

So, we know now the whole point of the 19th century push to justify Darwinian Evolution and Evolution Theory...it isn't becasue they are true science and have been proven....it was then and still is to enable a naturalistic explanaton of our Origins without the need for a trancendent Creator. That's the reason behind the push to not teach both sides of the debate in public educational settings.  

Exactly, but just because it hits on Google doesn't make it any more credible than a science project by a first grader.  Google is not an Encyclopedia, nor is it even a tool for hard, discrete research.  The search follows Boolean Logic; it's not 'truth powered.'  Did you read that 'about us' section derived from that site that I posted?  Basically, they state that they use the internet to get their facts and research, and they're, according to the parent site, "allaboutGOD."  That sounds a little fishy to me when coming down entirely on the work of Charles Darwin and any scientific discoveries into evolution since.  Apparently, and this has been discussed in public schools and universities across the country, we've come to an age where people find something on the internet and deduce that it must be true.  Then of course, the cycle proceeds as people like you go and post others' nonsense as evidence for your claims.  It's the 'Trickle-Down Theory' of misinformation.

Leauki posts #135

 It's no a Creationist lie.

If you'll pay close attention to my post # 162 you'll see that it's actually the Evolutionist followers of Darwin who first identified atheism with Darwinian Evolution and  Evolutionary theory.   It's their own words.  

LEAUKI POSTS: #143

#144

Daiwa posts #146

KFC POSTS: #147

Yes, KFC, of course the evolutionists followers threw our origins in the mix....we have it in their own words what they thought and what they taught....

KFC POSTS:

Absolutely true. Again, Darwin's followers pick Darwin's ball and run with it....they further develop his initial theory...

Again, my post # 162 addresses this. Darwin's true blue evolutionist followers tried to explain how life came from non-life.

According to an Evolutionist by the name of Bur quoted in Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity 1972, pg. 98,

The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:

Nothing, plus time plus chance equals simple cell and one cell plus time plus chance equals man. The randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced...and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."

According to the Evolution, the origin of life by random means  began some 5 billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of 5 stages....

Stage 1... In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere of earth, Evolutionists imagine that the atmosphere of the early earth was a rdeucing one made up mostly of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vaper.

Stage 2....which was the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids and nucleotiides came about becasue of ultraviolet light, electric discharge and high energy particle bambardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere.

Stage 3...billions of years later, it's imagined that combinations of stage 2 molecules resulted in the formation of larger polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

Stage 4... These large molecules supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob call ed coacervates or microspheres which developed into new stucutres called protocells,

Stage 5... Evolutionists believe that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules can be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells comsumed molecules left over from earlier states but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the 5 of oxygen increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Becasue of the presence of oxygen these early forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages and no more chemical evolution was possible.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, developed a team who mathematically determined that the liklihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment given 4.6 billion years in which to do it, was one chance in 10 to the 40000 power ...that is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it. On top of that everything would suddenly have to be there all at once, it would have to work perfectly and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately and reproduce offspring quickly. Of course, it would have to be alive.

Living forms even the most simple cells are too awesome to relagate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took God's special Creation and special power to make all things, including the incredible complexity of DNA and the impossibility of making itself out of chance, gravel, mud and water.     

Mathematics is kinda my thing.  While his math is more than likely correct on the inferences he made, one should question whether or not they were properly made.  Take a look at Ian Musgrave's interpretation of why Hoyle should be considered wrong with his interpretations.  Do you see how we could dance around this all day?

Once again, allow me to emphasize, IT IS NOT GOOGLE'S DEFINITION!  Get that through your head.

Oh google, snoogle, yahoo, bahoo.....so what? It's a current working definition and one that school textbooks use.

After being accused of not knowing or understanding Evolution or Darwin's ET, I provided a rebuttal in post 159...

I anticipated that you might refuse that definition and asked

Defend your position, Kurtin....describe the process....how does your definition of Evolution and ET work?

It's not natural selection, it's not intermediate transitional forms, it's not mutations, ....c'mon, smarty pants, what is it?   

I don't know where you got your copy from, but that's not the full title.

The full title is

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12human.htm

The "false opinions" referred to are not the theory of evolution but its application to human souls. Darwinists do not make claims about evolution of souls.

It looks to me like you got your copy from a place that changed the title to make it look as if the treatise spoke up against evolution.

And he was. Which is why Cardinal Ratzinger made statements further explaining the Catholic Church's position on evolution, and which is why evolution is taught in Catholic schools.