So, one of the biggest stories of the day is that the Church of England is to pay a formal apology to Darwin on his 200th birthday, which also coincides with the 150 year anniversary of the Origin of the Species. Which brought up this question in my mind.
So, all my life I've been hearing about the 'feud' between Creationists and Evolutionists. It seems that they both can't exist, just one or the other. Which leads me to the question... Why?
One of the biggest arguments I've heard on the side of the Creationists is that 'God made man in his image, man is perfect, and cannot get better'. Thus, Evolution (which -generally- makes a species better as a whole) can't exist. But... Even in the Bible is a statement that humanity is flawed. We believed the snake and all that jazz. Supposedly we were tricked, but we still believed it all the same.
Now, what I'm curious about...
Why on Earth can't both exist at the same time, with some minor 'edits' to both? That is, Creationism. Okay, so God creates Heaven and Earth. Fantastic. Seven days? I can live with that. So the edit comes in that God didn't make Man outright. He made single celled organisms that would -evolve- into Man. Thus, in a way, God creates Man. And we don't have any history dating back to the actual day monkeys become man. For all we know, there -was- Eden, there -was- an apple, and so on.
Why is this in the debate forum? As far as I'm concerned, it is against the rules to make an argument that isn't supported by facts or even evidence, and creationism lacks both of those. If Creationists want any respect from the intelligent community they should be eager to release their ignorant philosophies of the past and adapt to science without any sort of compromise. The fact that this argument is even being brought up is not only primitive and childish, it is down right degrading to the hard-working scientific community that dedicate their lives to finding answers that you people seem to not give a rat's ass about, because you'd rather have all the answers than some of the proven answers.
I don't really care what sort of ******** you want to allow to run your lives and control your beliefs, but don't expect respect when you come trying to debate something you can't back up with an ounce of factual evidence.
So, one of the biggest stories of the day is that the Church of England is to pay a formal apology to Darwin on his 200th birthday, which also coincides with the 150 year anniversary of the Origin of the Species. Which brought up this question in my mind.
So, all my life I've been hearing about the 'feud' between Creationists and Evolutionists. It seems that they both can't exist, just one or the other. Which leads me to the question... Why?
One of the biggest arguments I've heard on the side of the Creationists is that 'God made man in his image, man is perfect, and cannot get better'. Thus, Evolution (which -generally- makes a species better as a whole) can't exist. But... Even in the Bible is a statement that humanity is flawed. We believed the snake and all that jazz. Supposedly we were tricked, but we still believed it all the same.
Now, what I'm curious about...
Why on Earth can't both exist at the same time, with some minor 'edits' to both? That is, Creationism. Okay, so God creates Heaven and Earth. Fantastic. Seven days? I can live with that. So the edit comes in that God didn't make Man outright. He made single celled organisms that would -evolve- into Man. Thus, in a way, God creates Man. And we don't have any history dating back to the actual day monkeys become man. For all we know, there -was- Eden, there -was- an apple, and so on.
In the end, why can't a theory like this work?
Most Christian denominations in fact believe something more or less like this. The anti-evolutionists you hear so much about are a vocal minority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why on Earth can't both exist at the same time, with some minor 'edits' to both? That is, Creationism. Okay, so God creates Heaven and Earth. Fantastic. Seven days? I can live with that. So the edit comes in that God didn't make Man outright. He made single celled organisms that would -evolve- into Man. Thus, in a way, God creates Man. And we don't have any history dating back to the actual day monkeys become man. For all we know, there -was- Eden, there -was- an apple, and so on.
In the end, why can't a theory like this work?
Well, you're free to believe whatever you want, and I imagine most non-radical Christians believe something similar to that. Speaking as an atheist who believes in the verity of the theory of evolution, I don't have a problem with that.
But the crux of the evolution/creationism debate is education and whether God should be mentioned in science classes. Until you come up with hard proof that God exists and had a hand in the evolutionary process, there's no way you can teach that in science class, because that's what science is: Observing hard facts and drawing conclusions or educated guesses based on them.
So, all my life I've been hearing about the 'feud' between Creationists and Evolutionists. It seems that they both can't exist, just one or the other. Which leads me to the question... Why?
Each idea proposes that the other one is impossible. Creation says God made everything as is. Evolution says everything is in constant change(albeit over large periods of time).
I think the reason the debate has grown so heated lately is that Science is moving hard into Religion's territory. Claiming to have all the answers without any evidence may work when there's no alternative, but when physicists and archeologists can found logical theories backed up with evidence on how everything came to be, religious people are losing credibility fast.
For the clergy, admitting the truth of religion would ruin the basis of their beliefs
For scientists, to admit the possibility of creation ruins the whole basis of science.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
@Tarmogoyf
You want facts? Look at all the scientific facts that proves Creationalism. Adam and Eve were perfect. Then sin occurred and our bodies are as they are now (prone to disease). Looking back at their genetics, they were perfect. Looking at ours, well, let's just say, we are screwed up. We are getting worse and worse and go by generation (genetically). Now if Evolution was true, "only the strong survive" and thus the families with weaker genes would be dying off and eventually, there would be none left. But this isn't true. We are living and reproducing regardless of our gene structure breaking down. We will never be stronger as each time we reproduce, it's adding more defects to our genes.
The Big Bang Theory-even scientists themselves KNOW by FACTS that you have to have more "faith" in the Big Bang Theory than in God because it's completely impossible for something like Earth to occur randomly (from an explosion). Truth is the stories in the Bible are proven by archealogical excavations year after year and the miracles that happened, are proved as well. Not only in the past, but also in the present have miracles occurred (I've experienced some myself and one instance I contracted a disease that doctors said they could only treat the symptoms and gave me two different prescriptions that either didn't help or made the symptoms worse. Finally I gave it to God, not sure why I went through all that and waited so long, but I believed he would heal me and so I let go of my struggles. Within a week my symptoms were gone and to this day I haven't had symptoms of that disease and haven't seen that specialist since he said I was free of it-think how amazed he was! Anyway, I believe in God, His wonderous works, creating the universe and us, and He knows us and all he wants is a relationship with us.)
So, all my life I've been hearing about the 'feud' between Creationists and Evolutionists. It seems that they both can't exist, just one or the other. Which leads me to the question... Why?
They can technically reconcile with each other. The only thing is that there is a vocal minority that believes in the Bible in its literal sense, citing that evolution can't happen in 7 days.
One of the biggest arguments I've heard on the side of the Creationists is that 'God made man in his image, man is perfect, and cannot get better'. Thus, Evolution (which -generally- makes a species better as a whole) can't exist. But... Even in the Bible is a statement that humanity is flawed. We believed the snake and all that jazz. Supposedly we were tricked, but we still believed it all the same.
Evolution never makes a species better as a whole because it is entirely directionless. This is a general misconception of evolution amongst even scientists about evolution itself. We observe evolution, but theorize on why this is the case. The best answer that we've come up with so far is still genetic drift and natural selection. Our interpretations of evolution gave it an illusion of direction, not evolution itself.
Why on Earth can't both exist at the same time, with some minor 'edits' to both? That is, Creationism. Okay, so God creates Heaven and Earth. Fantastic. Seven days? I can live with that. So the edit comes in that God didn't make Man outright. He made single celled organisms that would -evolve- into Man. Thus, in a way, God creates Man. And we don't have any history dating back to the actual day monkeys become man. For all we know, there -was- Eden, there -was- an apple, and so on.
In the end, why can't a theory like this work?
It's perfectly fine. Many reconcile the problem with this theory.
@Tarmogoyf
You want facts? Look at all the scientific facts that proves Creationalism. Adam and Eve were perfect. Then sin occurred and our bodies are as they are now (prone to disease). Looking back at their genetics, they were perfect.
Put up some genetic evidence and I'll have more, ahem, faith in your premise.
Looking at ours, well, let's just say, we are screwed up. We are getting worse and worse and go by generation (genetically).
Not quite. In certain areas such as eyesight our triumph over natural selection has made some of our genes worse than our forefathers but others better. We are taller on average than our ancestors which has its advantages.
Now if Evolution was true, "only the strong survive" and thus the families with weaker genes would be dying off and eventually, there would be none left.
That's a severe misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution says nothing of the sort about the attributes of who survives, only that those attributes are passed on. Natural selection dictates that the "strongest" will be the ones to pass on their genes but that's just a vehicle for evolution. Look at us: natural selection says that because of a "bad" gene like poor eyesight those with good eyesight are more likely to pass on their genes. However, if you can circumvent natural selection or mitigate a "bad" gene's impact, like giving people with poor eyesight glasses, then that gene will be passed on.
it's completely impossible for something like Earth to occur randomly (from an explosion).
Why not? Just because something appears to be unlikely doesn't make it impossible. Shuffle a deck of cards long enough and you will eventually end up with all the ranks together (4 aces, 4 deuces, etc.).
Each idea proposes that the other one is impossible. Creation says God made everything as is. Evolution says everything is in constant change(albeit over large periods of time).
I think the reason the debate has grown so heated lately is that Science is moving hard into Religion's territory. Claiming to have all the answers without any evidence may work when there's no alternative, but when physicists and archeologists can found logical theories backed up with evidence on how everything came to be, religious people are losing credibility fast.
For the clergy, admitting the truth of religion would ruin the basis of their beliefs
For scientists, to admit the possibility of creation ruins the whole basis of science.
That is only true for a very narrow group of people on both sides. Plenty of religious people have no problem with Evolution and plenty of scientific people have no problem with Divine Creation. It is the extreme groups in both camps who believe that even acknowleding the otehr side's views will completely destroy their own worldview who are creating this debate.
Quote from jokalhaups »
@Tarmogoyf
You want facts? Look at all the scientific facts that proves Creationalism. Adam and Eve were perfect. Then sin occurred and our bodies are as they are now (prone to disease). Looking back at their genetics, they were perfect. Looking at ours, well, let's just say, we are screwed up. We are getting worse and worse and go by generation (genetically). Now if Evolution was true, "only the strong survive" and thus the families with weaker genes would be dying off and eventually, there would be none left. But this isn't true. We are living and reproducing regardless of our gene structure breaking down. We will never be stronger as each time we reproduce, it's adding more defects to our genes.
The Big Bang Theory-even scientists themselves KNOW by FACTS that you have to have more "faith" in the Big Bang Theory than in God because it's completely impossible for something like Earth to occur randomly (from an explosion). Truth is the stories in the Bible are proven by archealogical excavations year after year and the miracles that happened, are proved as well. Not only in the past, but also in the present have miracles occurred (I've experienced some myself and one instance I contracted a disease that doctors said they could only treat the symptoms and gave me two different prescriptions that either didn't help or made the symptoms worse. Finally I gave it to God, not sure why I went through all that and waited so long, but I believed he would heal me and so I let go of my struggles. Within a week my symptoms were gone and to this day I haven't had symptoms of that disease and haven't seen that specialist since he said I was free of it-think how amazed he was! Anyway, I believe in God, His wonderous works, creating the universe and us, and He knows us and all he wants is a relationship with us.)
Even Darwin himself denounced Evolution.
What the heck are you talking about? This tirade really does not make sese. Do you all of a sudden have a genetic sample of Adam and Eve's DNA?
I am not a scientist, but scientists have proven that human genetics have deteriorated through the generations. This evidence supports the fact that Adam and Eve were perfect (which the Bible states) and that's proof that evolution did not occur. I'm am speaking from faith, but using FACTS to back up my statement of faith.
If I was a scientist, I could convey better the explanations that prove my faith, but since I am a live by faith, not by sight kind of person, I'm confusing you by mixing the two. Regardless, I took a class where the statements had support and basically that the scientists through all their infinite wisdom came up with an explanation of how the world started that was a far stretch from the truth that is so easily laid upon us in the Bible. It was in this class I heard that Darwin did denounce evolution before he died. Saying it's a total fabrication doesn't make it anymore false than it does by me saying it's true. I wish I had a reference to show you, but obviously it's something I heard, not something I read. The teacher that taught the class is now retired and moved away. Again, I wish I could provide proof to you, but I don't have that source handy. But the truth is out there (no, I'm not talking about X-Files) and sometimes you have to close your eyes and humble yourself to see.
I am not a scientist, but scientists have proven that human genetics have deteriorated through the generations. This evidence supports the fact that Adam and Eve were perfect (which the Bible states) and that's proof that evolution did not occur. I'm am speaking from faith, but using FACTS to back up my statement of faith.
This evidence supports the fact that Adam and Eve were perfect (which the Bible states) and that's proof that evolution did not occur. I'm am speaking from faith, but using FACTS to back up my statement of faith.
What evidence? I could say I'm a genetically perfect being (whatever that means) but without a layout of my genes then my words mean nothing.
Regardless, I took a class where the statements had support and basically that the scientists through all their infinite wisdom came up with an explanation of how the world started that was a far stretch from the truth that is so easily laid upon us in the Bible.
Science is not about saying what the truth is. Science is about making observations about how the world works and then laying forth theories that explain those observations. Science can change: theories are often replaced by others that more accurately explain the observations of reality. See the plum-pudding model vs. the current atomic model.
Saying it's a total fabrication doesn't make it anymore false than it does by me saying it's true. I wish I had a reference to show you, but obviously it's something I heard, not something I read. The teacher that taught the class is now retired and moved away. Again, I wish I could provide proof to you, but I don't have that source handy. But the truth is out there (no, I'm not talking about X-Files) and sometimes you have to close your eyes and humble yourself to see.
How about we look for first- or second-hand sources that will clear up any confusion?
Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so."
That's from Darwin's son.
I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. ... ...The whole story has no foundation what-so-ever."
science can disprove god in the world of science because the scientific theory is about using assumptions based on observations and evidence that you know of, and experimenting to see if those hypothesese (sp?) are true.
therefore, because you can't see God, or credit anything to His works unless he writes His name on it or something of the sort, then the concept of god to scientists is unthinkable.
religion is based on faith in the unseen,
almost the virtual opposite of the scientific theory.
so faith can disprove science in the world of faith.
this means that people who do have true faith in whatever they have it in are the same as scientists in the fact that they totally trust in their truth.
If a man was to see God, because the instance of the man seeing God could not be widespread and replicated for all to see (another part of the scientific theory) then fellow scientists would scoff. (unless of course God willed it.)
but also, there are people who have unstable faith in their religion or science who think that one could have caused the other. most times these people either don't know what they believe, don't care enough about it, bend to the will of others, or haven't been truly 'enlightened' in their faith of any religion or science.
sorry if i offend.
also, evidence for creation is everything that God made,meaning the whole natural world, the beauty of all of it, and the bible. this is my view, and i know that this evidence may seem invalid to others.
so evolution and creation are like two sides of a coin, whose faces will never see the other side.
lind of like red elemental blast and blue elemental blast.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the shadowplay, acting out your
own death, knowing no more
As the assassins all grouped
in four lines,
Dancing on the floor,
And with cold steel, odour on their bodies,
made a move to connect
I could only stare in disbelief
as the crowds all left
Genetically perfect is what we will be Heaven-no cancer, no sickness, no illness. It's perfect. And it's being offered to every single person on this Earth. At one time, mankind was perfect, but this was a short lived avenue. To say that you're genetically perfect doesn't mean anything to you, as you said, because you don't know what it means. Ever have a cold? The flu? Worse illness? I have. We're NOT perfect. And we're NOT getting better. We're prone to more diseases than ever before. Cancer is spreading in forms we've never seen before. I long for the day where I will have a perfect body.
It's funny how you say Scientists don't talk about the truth. How they make observations and change their theories. And yet the Bible is same it's been, and so is God ever since the beginning of time. I'd rather put my faith in a consistent foundation than an ever changing, not sure of the truth, human speculation.
Why do you not believe in the Bible and God?
Basically, there is historic evidence and scientific evidence that proves the stories in the Bible. Now, I don't need that proof to believe, I believe in faith. But if you can't, and you need proof, there it is for the taking.
I'm not sure why I post on this forum because I AM NOT DEBATING. I believe whatI believe that's NOT going to change. Obviously this is the opposite of debating. I may or may not post again. And don't say that believing in God or the Bible has nothing to do with this thread because if you do, then you have the answers (or at least the answers are offered freely to you) and you wouldn't have to speculate or be confused.
The only reason that creationism can't coexist with evolution is that creationism can't exist in science because it pretty much fails the match with reality and observation. Creationism isn't an alternative to evolution, but an alternative to science. People who follow creationism and denounce science have such a poor understanding of how science works it's humorous. (ie; jokulhaups)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI MAGIC RULES ADVISOR
(not really an accomplishment, but I've seen other people here with it in their sig)
Ever have a cold? The flu? Worse illness? I have. We're NOT perfect. And we're NOT getting better. We're prone to more diseases than ever before. Cancer is spreading in forms we've never seen before.
The spread of cancer could be related to many things: better diagnosis, larger population, evolution of viruses that can cause cancer. Bacteria are getting more resistant to antibiotics precisely because of evolution; are bacteria becoming closer to this perfect being?
It's funny how you say Scientists don't talk about the truth. How they make observations and change their theories. And yet the Bible is same it's been, and so is God ever since the beginning of time.
Leviticus 11:22-23 states that grasshoppers and locusts have four legs. It has stated such since the beginning and by your word will always state as such. Maybe back when it was written grasshoppers and locusts did have four legs (not likely but let's go with it), but would it be bad to at least note that things have changed?
I'd rather put my faith in a consistent foundation than an ever changing, not sure of the truth, human speculation.
So you'd rather believe what was written thousands of years ago than what has been studied and tested now? Science doesn't get everything right (and nor does it claim to) but at least it acknowledges when it is wrong.
I used to. Then I had some believers of your type try to actively teach ignorance instead of accepting that true faith doesn't require blind fanaticism towards a book. If your god really did want you to use your brain I think he'd be quite upset at the determined push to stay stupid when it comes to our world.
Basically, there is historic evidence and scientific evidence that proves the stories in the Bible. Now, I don't need that proof to believe, I believe in faith. But if you can't, and you need proof, there it is for the taking.
Some things in the Bible have been historically proven. Others have not and probably won't be. Now that doesn't mean the entire book is wrong, but to claim it's right in it's entirety is worrisome.
Basically, there is historic evidence and scientific evidence that proves the stories in the Bible. Now, I don't need that proof to believe, I believe in faith. But if you can't, and you need proof, there it is for the taking.
Show me any evidence of stories in the bible, anything. You keep repeating how your beliefs are backup up by facts and how all these "scientists" have "proven" your points of view. Show me evidence, a link, a source.
And there's the core of the dilemma. Creationists present an idea, but give no evidence and expect the world to accept it as a scientific theory just because they believe in it really hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
there are two types of evolution; micro- and macro-. micro evolution is about one type of organism adapting to its evironment. notice in leviticus it says grasshoppers have four legs. now they have six. they are still a grasshopper, who have adapted into growing six legs. they are not a beetle or a rhinocerous or anything other than which they were created, but they have adapted to their environment. also in genesis, i think it is in that book, it said god limited man's years to 120. adaptation, and one made by god.
darwin found his original evidence in different regional finches in the galapagos islands. he saw that finches on one side of the island had large, broad beaks on one side of the island, and smaller, thinner beaks on the other so the finches could pick worms out of wood to eat. this only proves micro-evolution, because the finches were not marine iguanas, and the iguanas were not tortoises.
macro evolution is the theory that man came from ape, and ape from other mammals, and mammals from reptiles, and reptiles from amphibians, and amphibians from fishes, and fishes from insects, and insects from single-cells, and single cells from a bolt of lightning. (i'm sorry if i butchered the theory, but i think it's somewhat accurate. birds from reptiles.)
also, if it says in leviticus that the grasshoppers had four legs, and they have six now, then how could it be possible for completely different organisms to have made the same exact evolution? insects have six legs. and in leviticus it didnt say bugs had four legs, but grasshoppers had four legs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the shadowplay, acting out your
own death, knowing no more
As the assassins all grouped
in four lines,
Dancing on the floor,
And with cold steel, odour on their bodies,
made a move to connect
I could only stare in disbelief
as the crowds all left
It's funny how you say Scientists don't talk about the truth. How they make observations and change their theories. And yet the Bible is same it's been, and so is God ever since the beginning of time. I'd rather put my faith in a consistent foundation than an ever changing, not sure of the truth, human speculation.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the bible is not the same. The Old Testament was not written down right away, in some cases not until centuries after the events would have happened. You also have to keep in mind that unless you are fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic you are reading something that has been translated at least once and is therefore not necessarily what was intended.
Even if the Bible had remained unchanged since whenever that still proves nothing. On the Origins of Species is the same as it ever was, yet you don't seem terribly eager to accept what it says.
As far as reconciling creation and evolution, it can be done in a philisophical sense. Before God created the Universe there would have been no time. Time passing in God's eyes would not necessarily be the same as time passing in the sense we understand it. So each "day" mentioned in Genesis could in fact be an age. This still has no place in a science class because it is religion/philosophy.
@Darklightz
The walls of Jericho came crashing down inward, instead of outward. This would normally not happen as walls were designed to fall outward so that it destroyed invading forces. When the walls fall inward, it destroys the inhabitants. God gave Joshua's army Jericho by making the falls down inward. This was proven when the city of Jericho was discovered and the inward fallen walls were confirmed.
The Creation account is apocalyptic literature, which means it is an allegorical expression of fundamental religious truths. It's mean to reveal key elements of divine expression in a form meaningful to those of whom it was originally intended.
The Creation days, for example, aren't in linear chronological sequence. They are in a meaningful, numerological "sequence," as a way to express to us how God lays the foundations and then procedurally fills them up:
{Day 1 - Light} => {Day 4 - Luminaries}
{Day 2 - Sky and sea} => {Day 5 - Birds and fish}
{Day 3 - Dry ground} => {Day 6 - Land animals, including man}
They are "out of order" precisely because the "order" is not intended to be a timeline - it's meant to be symbolic.
The Creation account is a song of sorts to express why God creates (to lovingly interact with his creation) and how God creates (by establishing the fundaments, then "filling them up").
Macroevolution and microevolution are rubbish nomenclature. There is no crisp difference except "We'll call everything we've directly observed microevolution, and everything else macroevolution." It's a moving target. Every time you directly observe something that would otherwise be called macroevolution (speciation, for instance), they then claim "that's microevolution -- because we are directly observing it!"
@Darklightz
The walls of Jericho came crashing down inward, instead of outward. This would normally not happen as walls were designed to fall outward so that it destroyed invading forces. When the walls fall inward, it destroys the inhabitants. God gave Joshua's army Jericho by making the falls down inward. This was proven when the city of Jericho was discovered and the inward fallen walls were confirmed.
Jericho was one of the first walled cities ever. I suppose you're going to tell us that the science of engineering started out perfect and degenerated from there, too? That it would take divine intervention to get those walls not to do what they were designed to do? Come to think of it, how do we know what they were designed to do, anyway? Or that it was the Hebrews who were besieging the city? If I recall my archeology correctly, the timeline doesn't work; the walls of Jericho fell thousands of years before the era in which the Exodus supposedly occurred.
So, all my life I've been hearing about the 'feud' between Creationists and Evolutionists. It seems that they both can't exist, just one or the other. Which leads me to the question... Why?
One of the biggest arguments I've heard on the side of the Creationists is that 'God made man in his image, man is perfect, and cannot get better'. Thus, Evolution (which -generally- makes a species better as a whole) can't exist. But... Even in the Bible is a statement that humanity is flawed. We believed the snake and all that jazz. Supposedly we were tricked, but we still believed it all the same.
Now, what I'm curious about...
Why on Earth can't both exist at the same time, with some minor 'edits' to both? That is, Creationism. Okay, so God creates Heaven and Earth. Fantastic. Seven days? I can live with that. So the edit comes in that God didn't make Man outright. He made single celled organisms that would -evolve- into Man. Thus, in a way, God creates Man. And we don't have any history dating back to the actual day monkeys become man. For all we know, there -was- Eden, there -was- an apple, and so on.
In the end, why can't a theory like this work?
My helpdesk should you need me.
I don't really care what sort of ******** you want to allow to run your lives and control your beliefs, but don't expect respect when you come trying to debate something you can't back up with an ounce of factual evidence.
techoverrated.Most Christian denominations in fact believe something more or less like this. The anti-evolutionists you hear so much about are a vocal minority.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, you're free to believe whatever you want, and I imagine most non-radical Christians believe something similar to that. Speaking as an atheist who believes in the verity of the theory of evolution, I don't have a problem with that.
But the crux of the evolution/creationism debate is education and whether God should be mentioned in science classes. Until you come up with hard proof that God exists and had a hand in the evolutionary process, there's no way you can teach that in science class, because that's what science is: Observing hard facts and drawing conclusions or educated guesses based on them.
Each idea proposes that the other one is impossible. Creation says God made everything as is. Evolution says everything is in constant change(albeit over large periods of time).
I think the reason the debate has grown so heated lately is that Science is moving hard into Religion's territory. Claiming to have all the answers without any evidence may work when there's no alternative, but when physicists and archeologists can found logical theories backed up with evidence on how everything came to be, religious people are losing credibility fast.
For the clergy, admitting the truth of religion would ruin the basis of their beliefs
For scientists, to admit the possibility of creation ruins the whole basis of science.
You want facts? Look at all the scientific facts that proves Creationalism. Adam and Eve were perfect. Then sin occurred and our bodies are as they are now (prone to disease). Looking back at their genetics, they were perfect. Looking at ours, well, let's just say, we are screwed up. We are getting worse and worse and go by generation (genetically). Now if Evolution was true, "only the strong survive" and thus the families with weaker genes would be dying off and eventually, there would be none left. But this isn't true. We are living and reproducing regardless of our gene structure breaking down. We will never be stronger as each time we reproduce, it's adding more defects to our genes.
The Big Bang Theory-even scientists themselves KNOW by FACTS that you have to have more "faith" in the Big Bang Theory than in God because it's completely impossible for something like Earth to occur randomly (from an explosion). Truth is the stories in the Bible are proven by archealogical excavations year after year and the miracles that happened, are proved as well. Not only in the past, but also in the present have miracles occurred (I've experienced some myself and one instance I contracted a disease that doctors said they could only treat the symptoms and gave me two different prescriptions that either didn't help or made the symptoms worse. Finally I gave it to God, not sure why I went through all that and waited so long, but I believed he would heal me and so I let go of my struggles. Within a week my symptoms were gone and to this day I haven't had symptoms of that disease and haven't seen that specialist since he said I was free of it-think how amazed he was! Anyway, I believe in God, His wonderous works, creating the universe and us, and He knows us and all he wants is a relationship with us.)
Even Darwin himself denounced Evolution.
*Mayreturn*
I have some EDH cards and rare Magic basic lands (APAC, EURO, ARENA, etc) so message me if you're looking.
Number of members banned after I posted a BTR: 7
Looking for honest buyers, sellers, and traders.
They can technically reconcile with each other. The only thing is that there is a vocal minority that believes in the Bible in its literal sense, citing that evolution can't happen in 7 days.
Evolution never makes a species better as a whole because it is entirely directionless. This is a general misconception of evolution amongst even scientists about evolution itself. We observe evolution, but theorize on why this is the case. The best answer that we've come up with so far is still genetic drift and natural selection. Our interpretations of evolution gave it an illusion of direction, not evolution itself.
It's perfectly fine. Many reconcile the problem with this theory.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
Put up some genetic evidence and I'll have more, ahem, faith in your premise.
Not quite. In certain areas such as eyesight our triumph over natural selection has made some of our genes worse than our forefathers but others better. We are taller on average than our ancestors which has its advantages.
That's a severe misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution says nothing of the sort about the attributes of who survives, only that those attributes are passed on. Natural selection dictates that the "strongest" will be the ones to pass on their genes but that's just a vehicle for evolution. Look at us: natural selection says that because of a "bad" gene like poor eyesight those with good eyesight are more likely to pass on their genes. However, if you can circumvent natural selection or mitigate a "bad" gene's impact, like giving people with poor eyesight glasses, then that gene will be passed on.
Why not? Just because something appears to be unlikely doesn't make it impossible. Shuffle a deck of cards long enough and you will eventually end up with all the ranks together (4 aces, 4 deuces, etc.).
Which is fine. Ignoring evidence of reality, however, does not mean reality is wrong.
This is a total fabrication.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
That is only true for a very narrow group of people on both sides. Plenty of religious people have no problem with Evolution and plenty of scientific people have no problem with Divine Creation. It is the extreme groups in both camps who believe that even acknowleding the otehr side's views will completely destroy their own worldview who are creating this debate.
What the heck are you talking about? This tirade really does not make sese. Do you all of a sudden have a genetic sample of Adam and Eve's DNA?
If I was a scientist, I could convey better the explanations that prove my faith, but since I am a live by faith, not by sight kind of person, I'm confusing you by mixing the two. Regardless, I took a class where the statements had support and basically that the scientists through all their infinite wisdom came up with an explanation of how the world started that was a far stretch from the truth that is so easily laid upon us in the Bible. It was in this class I heard that Darwin did denounce evolution before he died. Saying it's a total fabrication doesn't make it anymore false than it does by me saying it's true. I wish I had a reference to show you, but obviously it's something I heard, not something I read. The teacher that taught the class is now retired and moved away. Again, I wish I could provide proof to you, but I don't have that source handy. But the truth is out there (no, I'm not talking about X-Files) and sometimes you have to close your eyes and humble yourself to see.
*Mayreturn*
I have some EDH cards and rare Magic basic lands (APAC, EURO, ARENA, etc) so message me if you're looking.
Number of members banned after I posted a BTR: 7
Looking for honest buyers, sellers, and traders.
No, scientists have not, in fact, proven that.
Then why have we gotten taller? Why are our brains larger?
What evidence? I could say I'm a genetically perfect being (whatever that means) but without a layout of my genes then my words mean nothing.
Science is not about saying what the truth is. Science is about making observations about how the world works and then laying forth theories that explain those observations. Science can change: theories are often replaced by others that more accurately explain the observations of reality. See the plum-pudding model vs. the current atomic model.
And I was in a class that said that Darwin loved Bubbalicious.
How about we look for first- or second-hand sources that will clear up any confusion?
That's from Darwin's son.
Darwin's daughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope#The_Lady_Hope_story
Even most credible historians dismiss the Lady Hope story completely.
http://web.archive.org/web/19980119234102/natcenscied.org/PADREV.HTM
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
therefore, because you can't see God, or credit anything to His works unless he writes His name on it or something of the sort, then the concept of god to scientists is unthinkable.
religion is based on faith in the unseen,
almost the virtual opposite of the scientific theory.
so faith can disprove science in the world of faith.
this means that people who do have true faith in whatever they have it in are the same as scientists in the fact that they totally trust in their truth.
If a man was to see God, because the instance of the man seeing God could not be widespread and replicated for all to see (another part of the scientific theory) then fellow scientists would scoff. (unless of course God willed it.)
but also, there are people who have unstable faith in their religion or science who think that one could have caused the other. most times these people either don't know what they believe, don't care enough about it, bend to the will of others, or haven't been truly 'enlightened' in their faith of any religion or science.
sorry if i offend.
also, evidence for creation is everything that God made,meaning the whole natural world, the beauty of all of it, and the bible. this is my view, and i know that this evidence may seem invalid to others.
so evolution and creation are like two sides of a coin, whose faces will never see the other side.
lind of like red elemental blast and blue elemental blast.
own death, knowing no more
As the assassins all grouped
in four lines,
Dancing on the floor,
And with cold steel, odour on their bodies,
made a move to connect
I could only stare in disbelief
as the crowds all left
It's funny how you say Scientists don't talk about the truth. How they make observations and change their theories. And yet the Bible is same it's been, and so is God ever since the beginning of time. I'd rather put my faith in a consistent foundation than an ever changing, not sure of the truth, human speculation.
Why do you not believe in the Bible and God?
Basically, there is historic evidence and scientific evidence that proves the stories in the Bible. Now, I don't need that proof to believe, I believe in faith. But if you can't, and you need proof, there it is for the taking.
I'm not sure why I post on this forum because I AM NOT DEBATING. I believe whatI believe that's NOT going to change. Obviously this is the opposite of debating. I may or may not post again. And don't say that believing in God or the Bible has nothing to do with this thread because if you do, then you have the answers (or at least the answers are offered freely to you) and you wouldn't have to speculate or be confused.
*Mayreturn*
I have some EDH cards and rare Magic basic lands (APAC, EURO, ARENA, etc) so message me if you're looking.
Number of members banned after I posted a BTR: 7
Looking for honest buyers, sellers, and traders.
So now we have a definition. While it might not be perfect it will do.
The spread of cancer could be related to many things: better diagnosis, larger population, evolution of viruses that can cause cancer. Bacteria are getting more resistant to antibiotics precisely because of evolution; are bacteria becoming closer to this perfect being?
Leviticus 11:22-23 states that grasshoppers and locusts have four legs. It has stated such since the beginning and by your word will always state as such. Maybe back when it was written grasshoppers and locusts did have four legs (not likely but let's go with it), but would it be bad to at least note that things have changed?
So you'd rather believe what was written thousands of years ago than what has been studied and tested now? Science doesn't get everything right (and nor does it claim to) but at least it acknowledges when it is wrong.
I used to. Then I had some believers of your type try to actively teach ignorance instead of accepting that true faith doesn't require blind fanaticism towards a book. If your god really did want you to use your brain I think he'd be quite upset at the determined push to stay stupid when it comes to our world.
Some things in the Bible have been historically proven. Others have not and probably won't be. Now that doesn't mean the entire book is wrong, but to claim it's right in it's entirety is worrisome.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Show me any evidence of stories in the bible, anything. You keep repeating how your beliefs are backup up by facts and how all these "scientists" have "proven" your points of view. Show me evidence, a link, a source.
And there's the core of the dilemma. Creationists present an idea, but give no evidence and expect the world to accept it as a scientific theory just because they believe in it really hard.
The more important question is why don't YOU believe in the Bible and God?
darwin found his original evidence in different regional finches in the galapagos islands. he saw that finches on one side of the island had large, broad beaks on one side of the island, and smaller, thinner beaks on the other so the finches could pick worms out of wood to eat. this only proves micro-evolution, because the finches were not marine iguanas, and the iguanas were not tortoises.
macro evolution is the theory that man came from ape, and ape from other mammals, and mammals from reptiles, and reptiles from amphibians, and amphibians from fishes, and fishes from insects, and insects from single-cells, and single cells from a bolt of lightning. (i'm sorry if i butchered the theory, but i think it's somewhat accurate. birds from reptiles.)
also, if it says in leviticus that the grasshoppers had four legs, and they have six now, then how could it be possible for completely different organisms to have made the same exact evolution? insects have six legs. and in leviticus it didnt say bugs had four legs, but grasshoppers had four legs.
own death, knowing no more
As the assassins all grouped
in four lines,
Dancing on the floor,
And with cold steel, odour on their bodies,
made a move to connect
I could only stare in disbelief
as the crowds all left
Even if the Bible had remained unchanged since whenever that still proves nothing. On the Origins of Species is the same as it ever was, yet you don't seem terribly eager to accept what it says.
As far as reconciling creation and evolution, it can be done in a philisophical sense. Before God created the Universe there would have been no time. Time passing in God's eyes would not necessarily be the same as time passing in the sense we understand it. So each "day" mentioned in Genesis could in fact be an age. This still has no place in a science class because it is religion/philosophy.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
The walls of Jericho came crashing down inward, instead of outward. This would normally not happen as walls were designed to fall outward so that it destroyed invading forces. When the walls fall inward, it destroys the inhabitants. God gave Joshua's army Jericho by making the falls down inward. This was proven when the city of Jericho was discovered and the inward fallen walls were confirmed.
@azmod
You are funny, and weird.
*Mayreturn*
I have some EDH cards and rare Magic basic lands (APAC, EURO, ARENA, etc) so message me if you're looking.
Number of members banned after I posted a BTR: 7
Looking for honest buyers, sellers, and traders.
The Creation days, for example, aren't in linear chronological sequence. They are in a meaningful, numerological "sequence," as a way to express to us how God lays the foundations and then procedurally fills them up:
{Day 1 - Light} => {Day 4 - Luminaries}
{Day 2 - Sky and sea} => {Day 5 - Birds and fish}
{Day 3 - Dry ground} => {Day 6 - Land animals, including man}
They are "out of order" precisely because the "order" is not intended to be a timeline - it's meant to be symbolic.
The Creation account is a song of sorts to express why God creates (to lovingly interact with his creation) and how God creates (by establishing the fundaments, then "filling them up").
By the time of the Councils of Carthage, all of the stories had been written down. Please stop propagating falsehood.
QED
Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a large period of time.
- Enslaught
It's a circus.
Jericho was one of the first walled cities ever. I suppose you're going to tell us that the science of engineering started out perfect and degenerated from there, too? That it would take divine intervention to get those walls not to do what they were designed to do? Come to think of it, how do we know what they were designed to do, anyway? Or that it was the Hebrews who were besieging the city? If I recall my archeology correctly, the timeline doesn't work; the walls of Jericho fell thousands of years before the era in which the Exodus supposedly occurred.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.