Evolution.. fact or not?

[owheelj]

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

I don't know about mutually exclusive, but aren't you just re-interpreting the Bible so that it's consistent with the facts? When new facts appear you'll need to change your understanding of the Bible again. Why not look for evidence that the Bible is true, and if you can't find any then don't believe it until (if) that evidence appears. I don't just mean evidence that some of the public figures actually existed. I mean evidence that God actually exists, that the first humans were named Adam and Eve, that they had children named Cain and Able, one of which killed the other, that there was a giant flood that killed everybody except for Noah and his children, that there was a guy named Jonah who was swallowed by a giant fish and survived inside it for a few days etc. I think it's possible some parts of the Bible are true, but I find other parts very difficult to believe without evidence.

[PLAYER57832]

Taking the most important first:

When millions of people worship the anti-Christ saying that he is God, I pray you don't find me following suit. Even though the majority will say that he (anti-Christ) is god, he is NOT! So, I will leave YOU to question whether he is god or not because of the multitudes who say that he is.

Quit with the "you believe Evolution, you are going to hell" already! You sound like a kindergartener going "nyah nyah", not an intelligent human being entering into debate.

I pray that you will some day come to see the full truth instead of the misguided half truths you seem to have been taught, are putting forth here. I pray that the impact of such lies will go no further. My son, his fellows have already been harmed by this nonsense. It needs to stop!

Evolution does not make sense. You can't buy chromosomes deep in the rain forests. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed". (except in the case of God doing it) "Life cannot come from non-life".... Science itself disputes evolution! I have laid out the evidence against evolution throughout the "Logic dictates" thread. I can't be held accountable if you didn't read it.

Science itself does not dispute evolution, sorry.

Matter can be converted to energy, etc. Science leaves God entirely out of it, since God cannot be proven or disproven. That old "life begets life" has been modified in recent years. It is generally true for higher lifeforms, but was never the absolute you Creationists try to put forth. See, conclusions like you put forth are what happens when you pick apart ideas simply to find pieces of evidence you think might possibly support your claim instead of sitting down and really trying to understand the issues.

I will go back over the "logic dictates" thread, but most of what I saw I have already refuted.

[PLAYER57832]

I can help there.

http://www.icr.org

I clicked on the link and couldn't help noticing that Neanderthal man isn't following homo sapien because homo sapien seems to have the worst case of piles ever, and he should in fact be walking with a less advanced hunch than Neanderthal man to lessen the pain of those bum grapes.

humor always helps Thanks!

[captain.crazy]

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

I don't know about mutually exclusive, but aren't you just re-interpreting the Bible so that it's consistent with the facts? When new facts appear you'll need to change your understanding of the Bible again. Why not look for evidence that the Bible is true, and if you can't find any then don't believe it until (if) that evidence appears. I don't just mean evidence that some of the public figures actually existed. I mean evidence that God actually exists, that the first humans were named Adam and Eve, that they had children named Cain and Able, one of which killed the other, that there was a giant flood that killed everybody except for Noah and his children, that there was a guy named Jonah who was swallowed by a giant fish and survived inside it for a few days etc. I think it's possible some parts of the Bible are true, but I find other parts very difficult to believe without evidence.

The first 5 books of the bible are metaphors, as is the last book. I don't have to change my belief in the bible to accept that these are metaphors that represent the creation of life on this planet. Even as the last days play out, things in the book of Revelations are becoming clearer to me by the day, even as pure evil manifest itself in the form of a total and oppressive dictatorship over the whole of humanity. By belief in God comes not from the creation so much as it does in the death and resurrection of Christ, which was witnessed by those that died professing their belief. So strong was their belief, that even those that they shared the Gospel with, were crucified and burned alive professing their belief in the resurrection of the Son of Man. You can quibble over details surrounding creation vs evolution, to me it is a non issue.

[PLAYER57832]

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

I don't know about mutually exclusive, but aren't you just re-interpreting the Bible so that it's consistent with the facts? When new facts appear you'll need to change your understanding of the Bible again. Why not look for evidence that the Bible is true, and if you can't find any then don't believe it until (if) that evidence appears. I don't just mean evidence that some of the public figures actually existed. I mean evidence that God actually exists, that the first humans were named Adam and Eve, that they had children named Cain and Able, one of which killed the other, that there was a giant flood that killed everybody except for Noah and his children, that there was a guy named Jonah who was swallowed by a giant fish and survived inside it for a few days etc. I think it's possible some parts of the Bible are true, but I find other parts very difficult to believe without evidence.

The basic answer is that the Bible is not science and was never intended to be a scientific guidebook.

Look at it this way. Have you ever had to explain death to a young child? An older child? A teen or adult? How about a doctor?

When my son was about 5, he pointed to a picture and asked (wanted confirmation) that Great Grandma was "dead and gone to heaven". Last year, we had to tell him his Grandfather died. We talked about his grandfather having gotten weaker and weaker, not being able to do things and finally that a part of his brain broke and that the part that was him left and only his empty body remained. To the older kids, we talked about broken blood vessels, various other specifics. They already had their own religious faith answers. In this case, there was no real "why?" because the man they knew had really already left. Similarly, when we talked to various people we might mention his having been ill for some time, maybe some specifics or maybe we simply say "he passed".

Which of those is untrue? Are they all identical?

So it is with the Bible. God communicated to a people in a way that they could understand. It still does hold true, as others have explained. Yet, there are pieces missing. Most of us would say that it is those who try to pin down Genesis to a specific timeline that are in error, are misrepresenting the Bible.

And, here is the thing. If you look through ancient Jewish scholarship, you find that while some did basically assume the Earth was young, it was just that ..an assumption. It was always allowed that the Bible was not definit. The point of Genesis is that God created the Earth and all that is in it. God is all powerful and we should worship God. The point is not to say that that the Earth was made in 6 revolutions of the earth that, in fact, did not even exist through much of it.

[zebraman]

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

Going back to my sunday school days that just doesn't gel. I recall the Bible saying that animals were created on one day and man was created on a different day. They were two completely and uniquely different events. It was never described as human beings becoming developed from other created things. I also remember it saying that when God created something, whether it was animals or people, that he called it good. If he didn't create it perfectly or good then he wouldn't be perfect himself. He would be flawed.

I would need to re-read the Bible in order to see if I'm making sense here, but I was forced to go as a kid to church. That's how I know a few things. Evolution is more based on the scientific method. Darwin and others have observed changes and the fossil evidence, for the most part, backs up that species have evolved. That's how they are mutually exclusive.

Don't mean to come across as harsh, but as someone else here has already suggested it seems like you are trying to have it both ways and I would agree with that. But thanks for explaining. It's all one can ask.

[owheelj]

The first 5 books of the bible are metaphors, as is the last book.

How do you know this? Do they say that they are metaphors, or do you just assume that they are because they are obviously not literally true?

The basic answer is that the Bible is not science and was never intended to be a scientific guidebook.

Sure, we definitely agree on this, but what makes you think the Bible has any truth to it at all, and that it's not just a document written by people who were trying to understand how the world works and how they should behave, without any actual divine influence? What makes you think the Bible has any truth to it, but the beliefs of Buddhists or Hindus or Aboriginal Australians are false?

Doesn't it seem more likely that humans created religion to meet specific human needs, and that the actual literal teachings of religion have no supernatural basis or truth?

[PLAYER57832]

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

Going back to my sunday school days that just doesn't gel. I recall the Bible saying that animals were created on one day and man was created on a different day. They were two completely and uniquely different events.

As it says in the Bible, so says Evolution.

It was never described as human beings becoming developed from other created things.

The "how" was not specified at all. It simply says God did it.

I also remember it saying that when God created something, whether it was animals or people, that he called it good. If he didn't create it perfectly or good then he wouldn't be perfect himself. He would be flawed.

You are putting your assumptions onto the Bible. If God said it was good, it was good. If God then saw fit to change things.. that would, to my mind, be included in his original plan that he called "good". It is like the argument that the sun had to revolve around the Earth because Earth is where man lies, God's creation and therefore must be most important. It just is not so.

I would need to re-read the Bible in order to see if I'm making sense here, but I was forced to go as a kid to church. That's how I know a few things.

I do read the Bible. To answer specifically, I went through line by line and answered. It took several pages of post. I can refer anyone who wishes. I just don't feel like re-writing it all again.

Evolution is more based on the scientific method. Darwin and others have observed changes and the fossil evidence, for the most part, backs up that species have evolved. That's how they are mutually exclusive.

Except they are not. Genesis tells us "who". Evolution tells us "how". Human beings are constantly trying to put limits on God because we cannot understand his truth. God is not confined to what you or I can concieve. God simply is.

Science seeks and reveals truth through observation, testing, etc. Religion reveals truth through prayer, comtemplation, inspiration, belief and faith.

Science answers that which we can see, touch, feel, etc. Faith answers that in part, but mostly answers the rest, the intangible. It is only some human beings that try to put these things into mutually exclusive boxes. God never did.

[PLAYER57832]

The first 5 books of the bible are metaphors, as is the last book.

How do you know this? Do they say that they are metaphors, or do you just assume that they are because they are obviously not literally true?

I just want to clarify that I believe Genesis is more than metaphor (though this is the belief of many Jewish scholars).

The basic answer is that the Bible is not science and was never intended to be a scientific guidebook.

Sure, we definitely agree on this, but what makes you think the Bible has any truth to it at all, and that it's not just a document written by people who were trying to understand how the world works and how they should behave, without any actual divine influence? What makes you think the Bible has any truth to it, but the beliefs of Buddhists or Hindus or Aboriginal Australians are false?

Faith, personal experiences, some things that I know in my core to be true, but not something I can necessarily trot out and prove to you or anyone else. Faith is deeply personal and individual.

It is hard for someone who has no faith to understand what it is (not saying that's you). However, it is not hard at all for those of faith to understand and agree with science.

[b.k. barunt]

The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. .

Again, you have yet to reply to the fact that in Genesis 1 and 2 He specifically states after each of the 6 days that "the evening and the morning were the _ day".
There is only one evening and one morning in a 24 hr. day. How do you reconcile this with your statement that these were not 24 hr. days?

Also you have not replied to the question of the geneologies. You say there is no exact timeline given in the Bible - this is not true at all. He gives the names and ages of the descendents from Adam to Jesus, which you can use to easily determine a timeline to within a thousand years or less.

How do you reconcile these 2 facts with your statement that there is "no exact timeline" in the Bible? Please respond.


Honibaz

[owheelj]

Aren't we all hopeless that we discuss the truth of religion if a topic about evolution and the truth of evolution in the topic about religion?

It is hard for someone who has no faith to understand what it is (not saying that's you). However, it is not hard at all for those of faith to understand and agree with science.

This is definitely me. I don't understand how people can believe things without evidence and I don't understand how people can be so sure of themselves about anything as to not look for and need evidence. No doubt there are things I believe to be true that I have no actual good evidence for, and are wrong, but as soon as those are brought to my attention I start (rather obsessively) looking for as much information as I can. The things I'm wrong about (and I'm sure there are lots), I'm wrong about through ignorance and a lack of knowledge. Yet it seems that with religion and "faith" that many people are in a position to have that knowledge but choose not to either. It's not that they're ignorant, but that they actively reject the knowledge instead.

The arguments you've put forward for why you believe - faith, personal experience etc. are the same arguments put forward by people of all religions - Mormons, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindus, Cargo Cults etc. How do you explain that an reconcile it with your faith? Would you agree that it appears to be very strong evidence that religious belief is a human condition rather than influenced by anything supernatural?

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution my friend is an imposibility.... Science teaches the ability to SPEAK is a LEARNED behavior! Who then taught the apes to speak? and not just 1 language but hundreds of them????

Found the original post and see even less.

You think that it is learned actually proves anything? Speech is an ability that evolved over time. As for "who taught the apes"? Its experiences. One ape somehow needed to communicate something. It became an advantage and the "language" was passed on.

There was an interesting study I heard about a long time ago. Never saw the study, just heard the idea. (something to think about, not something I can say is definitely true). Anyway, this guys idea was that language evolved from children. A child first expresses love and need to its mother. But, to move on, when immigrants moved here (or other places where there were multiple immigrants), speaking different languages, the children often spoke a mixture of the various tongues. They would then teach their parents and communicate for the parents. This happens even today. Look at who originates slang. Is it the adults? Generally not, generally it is more the younger individuals.. the teens and kids. (this is not absolute, just general).

See, the problem here is that you have been taught that there must be limits ... that simply don't have to exist. It is as if, growing up in America, you see that car drive only on the right and then make the assumption that it is impossible or illogical that cars would ever drive on the left except in an emergency.

Furthermore if evolution is always happening WHY do we not see it all around us??? Perhaps a bird with gills or a lizard with feathers?? Even a single fossil of a gekko growing a wing bone! EVOLUTION IS A LIE.... much like the drivel you posted.

Actually, we do. The loganberry is an example of a triploid berry. As for a gecko growing a wing bone? That would only happen if geckos and birds were in the same line of evolution. They are not (at least until a good ways back... everything is, of course related to everything else at some point).

In fact, there ae fossils in china of lizard-like creatures that have protofeathers, etc. Later species show true feathers. This is partly why the theory that Dinosaurs gave rise to birds directly. See, again, you set up this pre-condition that is just not at all necessary.

If you want to look at the real connections that do exist, there are many. Transition fossils are spread throughout the fossil record. They absolutely exist. Do fossils exist for every transition? No. Given the extreme improbability of fossils forming at all, it is a wonder we have as many as we have. It is not in the least surprising that many transitions are missing. The point is that enough are found to give fairly clear pictures of some evolutionary lines.

[zebraman]

The "how" was not specified at all. It simply says God did it.

I messed up quoting between you and captain crazy.

Since you did respond to the point of his however, I did go back and look at the Bible verses online. It never says that God developed man from other created beings. It says that they were created as totally separate on different days.

You are putting your assumptions onto the Bible. If God said it was good, it was good. If God then saw fit to change things.. that would, to my mind, be included in his original plan that he called "good". It is like the argument that the sun had to revolve around the Earth because Earth is where man lies, God's creation and therefore must be most important. It just is not so.

I'm not trying to put assumptions into the Bible. Look, I remember these old ladies teaching us that God created the world and everything in it within 6 days and on the 7th he rested. It just stands to reason that if you believe this account, that if God called something good then it would be good. There would be no reason for him to create it flawed. What would be the logic in creating something flawed so that it would have to develop into something better when he could just create it good and perfect in the first place? And why wouldn't he have it written down that he was going to use evolution to make it better?

The fact is that you can't reconcile the Bible with evolution. One says that God specifically created things separately on different days and distinctly with purposes. The other says that it is the product of random chance or luck. It's the backbone of atheism and naturalism.

I do read the Bible. To answer specifically, I went through line by line and answered. It took several pages of post. I can refer anyone who wishes. I just don't feel like re-writing it all again.

I understand and I wouldn't ask you to do that all over again. Maybe you could just post a link.

The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. It was assumed the Earth was young for a long time, by most Europeans, because people just could not concieve of anything else. People thought the sun revolved around the earth, too. However, while the history books like to point to a few individuals who "discovered" and put forth the new theories, the truth is there were long individuals who thought this might be the case. They just did not have scientifically acceptable proof.

Someone else already beat me to the punch on this so I'll wait for you to answer him on timelines. But are you sure you're arguing against creationism, or just have an axe to grind against conservative christians? They bug the hell out of me too but that's not a good enough reason in my book.

[PLAYER57832]

It is hard for someone who has no faith to understand what it is (not saying that's you). However, it is not hard at all for those of faith to understand and agree with science.

This is definitely me. I don't understand how people can believe things without evidence and I don't understand how people can be so sure of themselves about anything as to not look for and need evidence.

I never said "no evidence". I said the evidence was not something I could show to someone else. It is deeply personal, experiences, etc.

[captain.crazy]

The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. .

Again, you have yet to reply to the fact that in Genesis 1 and 2 He specifically states after each of the 6 days that "the evening and the morning were the _ day".
There is only one evening and one morning in a 24 hr. day. How do you reconcile this with your statement that these were not 24 hr. days?

Also you have not replied to the question of the geneologies. You say there is no exact timeline given in the Bible - this is not true at all. He gives the names and ages of the descendents from Adam to Jesus, which you can use to easily determine a timeline to within a thousand years or less.

How do you reconcile these 2 facts with your statement that there is "no exact timeline" in the Bible? Please respond.



Honibaz

I find it odd that I am actually in agreement with PLAYER... its creepy... but, I can reconcile this with physics... Imagine, if you will, the physics that are involved with taking a mass of swirling and molten gas spiraling in space around a newly forming sun. do you think that that swirling mass would be revolving in 365 day years, and rotating in 24 hour days, or would this mass be doing these things much slower at first, speeding up as the laws of physics take effect, causing the mass to condense and cool? Is it then too far fetched to think that a day may have actually taken years in an newly forming solar system? To answer this, what is a day on mercury, Mars or Neptune? My guess is that they are not 24 hours.

[owheelj]

I never said "no evidence". I said the evidence was not something I could show to someone else. It is deeply personal, experiences, etc.

Ok sure, but how do you feel about Scientologists, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, animist Africans etc. making the exact same claims? Are you all right? Are you right and they're wrong? If the latter is the case, is God tricking them, or are they lying or what's going on?

[PLAYER57832]

The "how" was not specified at all. It simply says God did it.

I messed up quoting between you and captain crazy.

Since you did respond to the point of his however, I did go back and look at the Bible verses online. It never says that God developed man from other created beings. It says that they were created as totally separate on different days.

Yes. Your point? It does not say how, exactly he did this. It say he made Adam "from dust". So does evolution.

You are putting your assumptions onto the Bible. If God said it was good, it was good. If God then saw fit to change things.. that would, to my mind, be included in his original plan that he called "good". It is like the argument that the sun had to revolve around the Earth because Earth is where man lies, God's creation and therefore must be most important. It just is not so.

I'm not trying to put assumptions into the Bible. Look, I remember these old ladies teaching us that God created the world and everything in it within 6 days and on the 7th he rested. It just stands to reason that if you believe this account, that if God called something good then it would be good. There would be no reason for him to create it flawed.

Who says change means the original was flawed? That is a judgement you are making. I simply look at what the Bible says, what science says. It was. Plain and simple. Whether you understand or I understand or jay understands why is completely irrelevant ... it simply was.

A couple of answers. Firstly, the Bible is history of humankind and what affects us. All that existed before humans came into being is simply irrelevant. Dinosaurs did not cooexist with human beings (at least not T-Rex, etc...). So, they were simply not mentioned. Period.

As for this "flawed business". I would say that God's ultimate goal was to create human beings. Why did he need to create dinosaurs first? I don't know. I know he did. They were quite perfectly suited to their environment. Then the environment changed and most of them died off. Those few that remained had it pretty tough so that any little advantage was accentuated, meant increased survival and more progeny. In this way species rather "quickly diverged (still tens of thousands of years). Out of one of these strains eventually came all the life that you can see. It was perfection. It is perfection. Yet, species still die and still evolve. People change and learn and grow and spread. God's perfection is not the same as your or mine.. not at all!

The fact is that you can't reconcile the Bible with evolution. One says that God specifically created things separately on different days and distinctly with purposes. The other says that it is the product of random chance or luck. It's the backbone of atheism and naturalism.

No on two counts. First, the Bible says things were created on separate days. It does not specfically say how they were created. Second, science does not say it was produced by pure random chance. At least not in the way you wish to infer. Random and chance, in biology are used to mean essentially things that human beings cannot predict. Scientists will refer to "random" mutations. However, in fact those mutations follow some specific rules, fall within some narrow parameters, etc. It is not a truly random process in the mathematical sense of any outcome being more or less equally possible (subject to bell curves of frequency for various combinations). I believe it was Carl Sagan who pointed out the pure improbability of life being created in a fully and completely random process. To be quick, I will say that Biology has "intertia" or "structure", but understand those are inexact terms.

Secondly, science makes no inference AT ALL about whether God was there or not. It cannot. I would say that God was there "steering". But, it cannot be proven and is not a matter for science.

The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. It was assumed the Earth was young for a long time, by most Europeans, because people just could not concieve of anything else. People thought the sun revolved around the earth, too. However, while the history books like to point to a few individuals who "discovered" and put forth the new theories, the truth is there were long individuals who thought this might be the case. They just did not have scientifically acceptable proof.

Someone else already beat me to the punch on this so I'll wait for you to answer him on timelines. But are you sure you're arguing against creationism, or just have an axe to grind against conservative christians? They bug the hell out of me too but that's not a good enough reason in my book.

Firstly, in a true sense, I am a Creationist because I firmly believe that God created all. However, this group of conservative Christians, mainly with the lead of Dr Morris, have coopted the term to mean people who believe the Earth was created in6 24-hour periods and that it is between 6000 and 12000 years old.

As for the antagonism. I am not against anyone, but I am against putting forward false ideas, particularly when it is done in the name of Christ. That is plain blasphemy and I find it offensive. However, even setting that aside, I have come to realize that Creationists have a very active and definite agenda to see that their version of science is put forward, first along side and then to completely replace true science. This is not a matter of religious belief. It is a matter of preserving science. Plain and simply, for the Creationist view to be correct, whol swaths of many areas of science... virtually all of biology, most of geology, much of physics, chemistry, etc, etc. all would have to be completely wrong.

I am angry because I have a second grader who is currently not being taught science in school with any real measure. My taxes are going to support this garbage and my son is suffering as a result. I don't have another real option. The one private school is too expensive and would not be a good "fit" for my impulsive, ADHD son. Homeschooling would be isolating and very difficult given our family situation. I am working with the sane memebers of the school to try to bring better education and I am working through other organizations such as scouts. However, I can only fight so many battles. Biologists, people in general have been sleeping, thinking this is a quiet issue that will just "go away" I thought so for years. But, it keeps growing. It keeps growing because all you need to let lies flourish is to simply fail to teach difficult truths. Evolution, much of science is not intutively easy. It certainly can be made understandable, easy, but that takes dedication and work from local scientists and teachers. Too many scientists see teaching elementary kids... going in and giving talks, volunteering (to name examples) as "beneath" them. Scientists have too long been luading themselves in conferences and science journals and ignoring what average people think and understand. Now we are paying. ALL of us are paying, in small and in big ways.

Did you know that approximately 25% of the G.W. Bush administration believe Creationism? The administration that did more to put back science, ignore natural resource needs and deny scientific conclusions made by its own government scientists. This was no cooincidence. It affects us all. That is why it is important.

[karel]

(A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)

I'm no scientist. The evolutionary theory was taught to me throughout my school years and it makes more sense to me than any creationist set of talking points. Natural selection acts upon species and they evolve as a result. While I'm no expert, I do believe that a majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying species trust this to be a fact. It's not bullet proof and there have been people who have stretched it to fit how they want obviously, but overall it's a sound theory. That's the proof I'm talking about, and it came from my textbooks in high school.

But even more interesting is how you reconcile believing in the Bible and evolution at the same time. The two are incompatible. If you could be very specific in how you can believe in both I will honestly listen to you. I was always taught that they were directly opposed to each other.

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

First thing is.... god real....nope he is not..show me anything that is proof that someone made earth,humans(which so far has be proven false)animals...lol,what is god man or women? come on bible huggers....i'm sure they all will say man,who knows it could be a women...but who's to say everyone belives what the church says anyways..lmfao
I say that evolution should be thought in schools......don't you think religion has had there fingers in enough shit already,time for the ruthless church to face the facts ......evoultion is real

[PLAYER57832]

I find it odd that I am actually in agreement with PLAYER... its creepy...

I had a similar thought

Anyway, just goes to show you why its good to actually pay attention to what people say.

who knows, first Evolution, next ... ???

[PLAYER57832]

First thing is.... god real....nope he is not..show me anything that is proof that someone made earth,humans(which so far has be proven false)animals

God is outside the capacity of science to either prove or disprove. You cannot prove that God is not here. We cannot prove God is. It is a matter of belief.

I say that evolution should be thought in schools......don't you think religion has had there fingers in enough shit already,time for the ruthless church to face the facts ......evoultion is real

Evolution is science. Religion of any kind belongs in religious studies classes. I have no issue with kids being exposed to the ideas of Creationism, as long as they know Evolution (the truth, not Dr Morris' back-handed misinterpretations) and know that Creationism is belief that is not at all supported by science.

[captain.crazy]

I find it odd that I am actually in agreement with PLAYER... its creepy...

I had a similar thought

Anyway, just goes to show you why its good to actually pay attention to what people say.

who knows, first Evolution, next ... ???

I still kicked your tail in the games... rematch one day.

[captain.crazy]

(A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)

I'm no scientist. The evolutionary theory was taught to me throughout my school years and it makes more sense to me than any creationist set of talking points. Natural selection acts upon species and they evolve as a result. While I'm no expert, I do believe that a majority of people who have dedicated themselves to studying species trust this to be a fact. It's not bullet proof and there have been people who have stretched it to fit how they want obviously, but overall it's a sound theory. That's the proof I'm talking about, and it came from my textbooks in high school.

But even more interesting is how you reconcile believing in the Bible and evolution at the same time. The two are incompatible. If you could be very specific in how you can believe in both I will honestly listen to you. I was always taught that they were directly opposed to each other.

In the bible, God created all of the other animals. Which is suggestive that out of all of the development of these created came gods greatest creation, human beings. The story is even more descriptive in that God made Adam out of dust... which actually fits into the evolution theory that we came from some sort of primordial goop. There is nothing, to me that suggests that God made anything, much less everything, perfectly in the first iteration, and in fact, there is a lot that suggests that He is constantly at work in His attempt to bring all of creation to a state of perfection.

Care to tell me how they are mutually exclusive?

First thing is.... god real....nope he is not..show me anything that is proof that someone made earth,humans(which so far has be proven false)animals...lol,what is god man or women? come on bible huggers....i'm sure they all will say man,who knows it could be a women...but who's to say everyone belives what the church says anyways..lmfao
I say that evolution should be thought in schools......don't you think religion has had there fingers in enough shit already,time for the ruthless church to face the facts ......evoultion is real

you sure do come across as juvenile.

[PLAYER57832]

That said, given the rate that we've observed evolution occurring at, combined with the enormous physical evidence for the age of the Earth, it is very easy to extrapolate out that range of genetic change and genetic difference and see that it is easily possible that we've evolved all the way back from single celled life to where we are today.


Something I find interesting is that if you look at the details, the so called "micro evolution" of creationists is actually a lot faster than the "macro evolution" of rational people. Let me explain.

God created the first humans - Adam and Eve. Let's assume that God created them with 2 sets of genes like everybody else today, rather than one. From those two people we now have the genetic diversity we have today. Look at the height difference between essentially normal people. Look at the skin colour. It's definitely possible to tell somebodies racial background based on their genetics (although perhaps not in line with common perception of different races). Creationists call this change from 2 people to the massive genetic variety expressed through easily observable physical traits "micro evolution" but they also claim that it's occurred over about 6,000 years.

Scientists, on the other hand, claim that this amount of change has occurred over a few hundred thousands years at the very least.

If people could change from being racially identical to having a difference in pigment as marked as the difference between a Swede and a Zulu in only 6000 years, that's an incredible rate of evolution that's far faster than anything scientists think occurs. How do creationists reconcile this fact?

Pulled this from the god thread. I think it is pretty pertinent... and very true.

[PLAYER57832]

I find it odd that I am actually in agreement with PLAYER... its creepy...

I had a similar thought

Anyway, just goes to show you why its good to actually pay attention to what people say.

who knows, first Evolution, next ... ???

I still kicked your tail in the games... rematch one day.

Any time! (but this time, I choose the settings... lol)

[owheelj]

The fact is that you can't reconcile the Bible with evolution. One says that God specifically created things separately on different days and distinctly with purposes. The other says that it is the product of random chance or luck. It's the backbone of atheism and naturalism.

No on two counts. First, the Bible says things were created on separate days. It does not specfically say how they were created. Second, science does not say it was produced by pure random chance. At least not in the way you wish to infer. Random and chance, in biology are used to mean essentially things that human beings cannot predict. Scientists will refer to "random" mutations. However, in fact those mutations follow some specific rules, fall within some narrow parameters, etc. It is not a truly random process in the mathematical sense of any outcome being more or less equally possible (subject to bell curves of frequency for various combinations). I believe it was Carl Sagan who pointed out the pure improbability of life being created in a fully and completely random process. To be quick, I will say that Biology has "intertia" or "structure", but understand those are inexact terms.

Sorry, just a quick correction - I didn't write that quote, that was Zebraman. I agree with you about the randomness. Although I've read the Bible, I've never been given any reason to think any of it should be considered any more than a fictional book written by humans, so I don't know if you can reconcile the bible with evolution, or really care.