Evolution AND creation: reconciling the two

[water lily]

As Pendragon pointed out in the thread "Evolution vs. Creation". Throwing bits of evidence at each other was leading nowhere. Everyone seemed convinced of their stance. So rather than looking at Evolution VERUS Creation. Let's look at Evolution AND Creation. I know there are many out there who can reconcile the two, who believe in a god, or in a spiritual power and in evolution. What is it that you believe? How does this affect your views on the rest of the bible, or the quaran or whatever else?

-water lily

ps. can we try to stick to discussion rather than debate on this thread. I'm just so exhausted of all the arguing, and I want to get a better understanding of why some religous people don't see a disparity between their religion and evolution; whereas others see a disparity so broad that they're impossible to join. Let me know your thoughts.

[Whifflingpin]

I don't see any disparity because evolution is simply a mechanism. It is just one aspect of the created universe.

The "proof" of evolution does not depend, in my view, on fossil dating and the like, but on sex. If there is a Creator, then she created sexual reproduction of species. This shows that she intended that there should be change and development. Had that not been so, then reproduction of all species would be like that of the amoeba, where offspring are identical to parents. The universe was not created to be static and unchanging.

I think, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that the primary function of religion is to offer answers not to "How?" but to "Why?" type questions.

I guess, when the question is asked "Why is there evolution?" the religious people would answer "because God has such and such a purpose." I would expect the atheists to have greater difficulty in discussing evolution, because the very word has implications of order and progress from lower to higher forms. The discoverers of evolution were in no greater doubt than their religious contemporaries that man was at the pinnacle of evolution, but what they thought the purpose of it was I do not know.

Enquirer: "Why does evolution occur?"
Atheist: "There is no reason behind it at all."
Enquirer: "Oh, OK .... so why does it happen?"
.

[Green Lady]

That makes a lot of sense. If humans and even other species are evolving, wouldn't there be a purpose behind it all? Things don't just happen, there has to have been an action and then a reaction.

[jollyollie]

Evolution is a knee jerk response in nature to changes in biophysical conditions or availability of abiotic trace elements. It is the response of organelles, organised tissues, organ systems and organisms to adjust to life threatening challenges or changes. You either evolve or you are toast.
Babies stick things in thier mouths frequently as this is an evolutionary response to a highly developed immune system, to allow thier acquired immunity to visit the external universe. Human women are the only mammalian species that has pronounced mamaries from puberty on throughout life to increase thier chances of being selected as mates, so as to carry on thier genetics through progeny. I didnt make it up; its called sexual selection. Darwin studied finches that had many various different beak structures so that they could opportunise separate neiches, and not have to compete with other established sub species of finches.
Evolution is so reliable in nature that mathemeticians could almost predict it with the use of constants and other numerical achievements. Its why we are all here to enjoy this noncompetetive moment together, away from the tv.

[SirRupert]

Biblicaly speaking.....THEY DON'T MIX!!

[sdr4jc]

I believe in God and in the creation depicted in Genesis. I believe God spoke life into existence, and I accept that I do not have the capacity to fully understand that. I believe that God created animals and God created man. I do not believe that man evolved from apes, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

However, I also believe in evolution on a small scale. I think the term "adaptation" better describes it though. God equipped us (and by us, I refer to man and animals) with an instinct to survive, and subsequently we adapt to our environments.

I cannot soundly link evolution and creation. For me, the two cannot coexist, much in the same way as light and darkness. I'm interested to see other responses though.

[SirRupert]

" I think the term "adaptation" better describes it though. God equipped us (and by us, I refer to man and animals) with an instinct to survive, and subsequently we adapt to our environments. "

I second that!!!

[Virgil]

The "proof" of evolution does not depend, in my view, on fossil dating and the like, but on sex. If there is a Creator, then she created sexual reproduction of species. This shows that she intended that there should be change and development. Had that not been so, then reproduction of all species would be like that of the amoeba, where offspring are identical to parents. The universe was not created to be static and unchanging.

Hey Whiff, this is quite profound. I've heard this debate going on for as long as I've been conscious, and I think (or so I thought) heard all arguemnets, but I've never heard this angle to the arguement. Very interesting. Did you get this from somewhere else, or is this your original thought?

Edit: You know this could easily have been a corollary to D.H. Lawrence.

[Pendragon]

First, thank you Water Lily, for the opening statement.

Now: The reason I find no problem in believing in both evolution and creationism is that people get bogged down in Genesis with the time factor. I have always said that God cannot be placed into what humans recognize as time. A good reason for this is that the Bible records that "God would come down in the cool of the eve and walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden." So how long were they there? See? Who knows? The geneologies count time from the casting out from the Garden.

That man and beast and plant life have adapted or evolved is vastly obvious, since we are not all alike. So many animals and plants and things are very specialized, adapted to a specific purpose. This is working evolution, and quite undeniable.

But a birth can take place where there is nothing pysically wrong except that the person or animal is not alive. And nothing we can do will give that body life. There is where God comes into the picture. Something can be built to perfection, but something must fire the motor before it can work. Call me crazy, but in the beginning, God fired that motor, and it still runs-- but over the centuries it has had to change blueprints time after time after time.

Remember. all of this is one man's simplistic opinion. God bless. :angel: :wave: :)

[Whifflingpin]

"Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
The "proof" of evolution does not depend, in my view, on fossil dating and the like, but on sex. If there is a Creator, then she created sexual reproduction of species. This shows that she intended that there should be change and development. Had that not been so, then reproduction of all species would be like that of the amoeba, where offspring are identical to parents. The universe was not created to be static and unchanging.



Hey Whiff, this is quite profound. I've heard this debate going on for as long as I've been conscious, and I think (or so I thought) heard all arguemnets, but I've never heard this angle to the arguement. Very interesting. Did you get this from somewhere else, or is this your original thought?

Edit: You know this could easily have been a corollary to D.H. Lawrence."

As far as I can remember, it is my original thought - in so far as that is possible. I hereby assert my right etc etc

I've never thought of it as a corollary to DHL; what particular aspect of his thought does it relate to?

.

[jollyollie]

Many would agree that some people need a belief in life to direct them, as they are insecure with the idea that that they are actually alone in this reality and there isnt a supreme conciousness to tell them how to live thier lives. Some people do understand that if if you want to get a drivers licence, for instance, going to church and praying isnt going to teach you how to drive: you have to do it on your own.
Some people dont have to rely themselves for anything, and thus are accustomed to being directed and expect that being told what to do and what to believe in is the norm. Having faith in yourself is better than having faith in a televangelist. At least when you know that when you fail to pass your driving test you cant blame "god", just yourself for not boning up the material. This way you never have to slag Jesus when your whole belief system comes crumbling down: you can only blame yourself.
Darwin left nothing to chance, and relied on science to prove his point to a bunch of bigots, ignoramouses and imbeciles.
It would be ideal if we could all just believe that all of our problems would be solved by sending Reverend Big Hair some cash and hearing your name get read out on TV. Unfortunately, this is the route to hell on earth.

[Theshizznigg]

Does anyone remember Flesh Gordon? Oh well worth a try.

I have a question, how can you reconcile two totally different idealism?
Nobody want to accept the fact that they might be wrong, so they will stubbornly defend their ideals, even if it was that the earth is really a hot dog, and were all fungus that grows on it.

Trying to reconcile the two is a bit like you taking the place of Jerry Springer, I can see the show, now.
Christianity, and Evolution, fighting over who is their man, all the while he comes on stage goes, "I'm neither y'alls I'm his now." Evolution stands up, "Bubba my cousin!" the chair throwing ensues and in the end everyone has a good laugh and returns to reality at hand.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of the wits, but I don't face unarmed opponents."
- Guybrush Threepwood

[Pendragon]

Some people do understand that if if you want to get a drivers licence, for instance, going to church and praying isnt going to teach you how to drive: you have to do it on your own.

We could all just believe that all of our problems would be solved by sending Reverend Big Hair some cash and hearing your name get read out on TV. Unfortunately, this is the route to hell on earth.

Hi Jolly

May I say this here without hopefully being enflaming. Going to church and praying alone isn't going to get you to heaven either. You will have to sooner or later come to the conclusion that you ARE responsible for your actions, and must depend on a Higher Power for forgivness. Many people think a church is going to save them, but it will not. They remain the same old sinner they always were, nothing changed except now they occupy a pew a couple times a week.

And not all preachers are "Reverend Big Hair" and have TV shows. Some of us are poor as church mice and have very small congregations. What we do, not many would do.

[Stanislaw]

Flesh Gordon of the planet porno? That was a really really really bad movie.


Anywho, evolution could co-exist with creationism, The biblical account infact does mirror the evolutionary process (the steps of the evolution of life)

Also, maybe creationism is just creationism...when one is playing a video game for example: wolfenstine...one accepts that the characters were just created, not that the programmer programmed a pioxilated primordial soup that while the program is loading evolves into badly pixilated nazis. So maybe we are part of a grand program, written in perfect programming language by a divine programmer.


Does anyone remember Flesh Gordon? Oh well worth a try.

I have a question, how can you reconcile two totally different idealism?
Nobody want to accept the fact that they might be wrong, so they will stubbornly defend their ideals, even if it was that the earth is really a hot dog, and were all fungus that grows on it.

Trying to reconcile the two is a bit like you taking the place of Jerry Springer, I can see the show, now.
Christianity, and Evolution, fighting over who is their man, all the while he comes on stage goes, "I'm neither y'alls I'm his now." Evolution stands up, "Bubba my cousin!" the chair throwing ensues and in the end everyone has a good laugh and returns to reality at hand.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of the wits, but I don't face unarmed opponents."
- Guybrush Threepwood

[jollyollie]

Flesh Gordon of the planet porno? That was a really really really bad movie.


Anywho, evolution could co-exist with creationism, The biblical account infact does mirror the evolutionary process (the steps of the evolution of life)

Also, maybe creationism is just creationism...when one is playing a video game for example: wolfenstine...one accepts that the characters were just created, not that the programmer programmed a pioxilated primordial soup that while the program is loading evolves into badly pixilated nazis. So maybe we are part of a grand program, written in perfect programming language by a divine programmer.
SCientic method has been formulated to sort through the bullsh*t that people attempt to pass off as truth. It is a given that evolution is scientific truth, so it cannot ride along side IDers whims. The mere thought that ID is comparable to scientific thought is a pipe dream crafted by IDers to slip antiquated thought through the back door.
As for the character of other preachers, I dont htink that is what I was driving at, Pen.My point was that these are the representives of ID, like it or not. The ambassadors of Darwins theories are published University professors and multitudes of science students world wide. There is a bit of a difference.
ID and evolution cannot co exist and those who unhappy about this should realise the reality of the situation and adapt, as do midge flies, finches and sticklebacks.

[Pendragon]

SCientic method has been formulated to sort through the bullsh*t that people attempt to pass off as truth. It is a given that evolution is scientific truth, so it cannot ride along side IDers whims. The mere thought that ID is comparable to scientific thought is a pipe dream crafted by IDers to slip antiquated thought through the back door.
As for the character of other preachers, I dont htink that is what I was driving at, Pen.My point was that these are the representives of ID, like it or not. The ambassadors of Darwins theories are published University professors and multitudes of science students world wide. There is a bit of a difference.
ID and evolution cannot co exist and those who unhappy about this should realise the reality of the situation and adapt, as do midge flies, finches and sticklebacks.One thing I have always said, Jolly, is that everyman should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and that if one's convictions are not worth standing upon then we are not settled in our own minds. I respect your stand for what you believe, my friend, but recall that others have the same right to believe as they will. To them, what you believe may sound a little off, and the published Univeristy Professors are somewhat notorious for their disagreements with each other, indeed as are religious people. But what you believe, hold to, and allow me to hold to mine. I do not force my ideas upon anyone, I'm sure you would not appreciate that. Neither do I. Have a wonderful day and remember not every precher is out to get you! :nod:

[Stanislaw]

SCientic method has been formulated to sort through the bullsh*t that people attempt to pass off as truth. It is a given that evolution is scientific truth, so it cannot ride along side IDers whims. The mere thought that ID is comparable to scientific thought is a pipe dream crafted by IDers to slip antiquated thought through the back door.
As for the character of other preachers, I dont htink that is what I was driving at, Pen.My point was that these are the representives of ID, like it or not. The ambassadors of Darwins theories are published University professors and multitudes of science students world wide. There is a bit of a difference.
ID and evolution cannot co exist and those who unhappy about this should realise the reality of the situation and adapt, as do midge flies, finches and sticklebacks.

So you are saying that professors and science students are infaliable?
I do believe that is a very high pedastal that you are placing them on. Have you ever read the story in Genesis, and more importantly have you ever taken a biology course that deals with evolution, and evolution theory?

Intelligent design is comparable to science...both have blind followers, both have hipocrates in their masses, and both mirror eachother alligorically.

Also, scientific method has created alot of bull****, and has also passed it off as truth, unless you believe that your body is composed of mercury, sulpher and salt.

[woeful painter]

evolution *and* creation? makes quite some sense.

so we were created by a supernatural being, thus let us evolved in time, and here we are now. is that it? sorry, not being pushy and all, i'm just not really knowing in this kind of subject. :D

[jollyollie]

[QUOTE=Stanislaw]So you are saying that professors and science students are infaliable?
I do believe that is a very high pedastal that you are placing them on. Have you ever read the story in Genesis, and more importantly have you ever taken a biology course that deals with evolution, and evolution theory?

Intelligent design is comparable to science...both have blind followers, both have hipocrates in their masses, and both mirror eachother alligorically.

Also, scientific method has created alot of bull****, and has also passed it off as truth, unless you believe that your body is composed of mercury, sulpher and salt.[/QUO
Dont try putting words into my mouth, pal. Its obvious where you stand on this and I wasnt directing my comments at you, nor am i interested i your opinion. No offence.
Also, my educational backgfround is none of your business. And if you had a background in science youd know the answer to your question.

[jollyollie]

evolution *and* creation? makes quite some sense.

so we were created by a supernatural being, thus let us evolved in time, and here we are now. is that it? sorry, not being pushy and all, i'm just not really knowing in this kind of subject. :D
Dont apologise. At least you are polite.

[Pendragon]

Dont apologise. At least you are polite.And I was not? Jolly, you wound me! My friend, I said nothing as a discredit to you. If my stand is not the same as yours, I still allow your stand without trying to persuade you otherwise, or casting slurs upon you. Respect, freely given, is the least a polite person can do. PM me sometime and express yourself away from the forum where others do not get involved. Somewhere we may find common ground enough to carry on an intelligent conversation. Take care. :nod:

[Stanislaw]

Some people think that their idea is the only idea possible, and do not respect others opinions.

to Jollie:

I am a student of Science, and am currently enrolled as a bio major chem minor, I am switching to computer science, business minor. So, do not assume things pal.

Also, I know the answers to my questions, do you know the answers?

and, if you do not want to read my replies, put me on your ignore list, samething goes for pm.

And to clear things up, I did not say that God created evolution nor did I mention anything about ID in my previous post, I was saying if you read the account in genesis, of the 7 days, it mirrors the evolutionary theory (the stages of evolution, you know, the formation of the earth, single cells, creating atmosphere, complex and more complex organisms, the land mass splitting up, and dry land being formed, finally man.)

[woeful painter]

hmmm...i kind of had the same thoughts as that with the 7 days being like the scientific creation of the universe and thus the world...from Big Bang (king of like saying: "Let there be light!" and then Bang! there it was :D)...to waters, to small creatures, then big creatures, etc. etc...and at last MAN to govern them all. But those are just my thoughts :)

[Stanislaw]

hmmm...i kind of had the same thoughts as that with the 7 days being like the scientific creation of the universe and thus the world...from Big Bang (king of like saying: "Let there be light!" and then Bang! there it was :D)...to waters, to small creatures, then big creatures, etc. etc...and at last MAN to govern them all. But those are just my thoughts :)


I think it could be, I mean most of the bible has parables...and maybe people just couldn't understand this concept.

[Scheherazade]

I was saying if you read the account in genesis, of the 7 days, it mirrors the evolutionary theory (the stages of evolution, you know, the formation of the earth, single cells, creating atmosphere, complex and more complex organisms, the land mass splitting up, and dry land being formed, finally man.)But don't you think this is a later thought by the religious circles? They tried to resist the idea of Evolution till they could no more and now, it seems like, they are trying to blend it into their own account of things... In a way trying to reconcile with the scientific evidence.

Maybe they did realise that resistance is futile and that they have to be assimilated?

:D

[woeful painter]

am i sensing Borg invasions here too? :D I can't seem to find that in Darwin's and the Bible's articles :lol:

[Stanislaw]

But don't you think this is a later thought by the religious circles? They tried to resist the idea of Evolution till they could no more and now, it seems like, they are trying to blend it into their own account of things... In a way trying to reconcile with the scientific evidence.

Maybe they did realise that resistance is futile and that they have to be assimilated?

:D

Thought up by religious circles...no, squars maybe. :D

joke aside: by quite a few I am considered an odd duck fro drawing comparisons, but I doubt the religious folk had evolution in mind when they authored the tale of genisis, something BCE.

[atiguhya padma]

Stan,

Genesis says that God first made heaven and earth, then he made light. That's ridiculous isn't it? Earth was made before the sun? Then Genesis would have us believe that herbs, fruit trees and grasses were created before there were lights in the firmament. ?? Total rubbish. Sorry to step on the delicate little toes of believers, but that is total nonsense. As for the writers of Genesis being wise or knowing of the scientific account of our Universe, that is complete nonsense too. How can you credit a writer any sense if they say that the sun was created on the fourth day? Did that writer understand the definition of the word day?

So Stan, please don't try fooling us into thinking that the biblical account of creation gives us a complementary account of the history of the Universe that somehow fits in with science, cos that's plain hogwash.

AP

[Amra]

That's ridiculous isn't it? Earth was made before the sun? Then Genesis would have us believe that herbs, fruit trees and grasses were created before there were lights in the firmament. ?? Total rubbish. Sorry to step on the delicate little toes of believers, but that is total nonsense. As for the writers of Genesis being wise or knowing of the scientific account of our Universe, that is complete nonsense too. How can you credit a writer any sense if they say that the sun was created on the fourth day? Did that writer understand the definition of the word day?


Can you enlighten us on the science theory, and tell us how the first atom was created under the harshest circumstances that plagued the Earth at the time it supposedly appeared? And how it became a molecule, and a cell that started dividing, all by accident of course, and then evolved to become the first specie, that then, by DNA mutation, which turned out more complex and perfect each time, there came to be other species? :confused:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Can you enlighten us on the science theory, and tell us how the first atom was created under the harshest circumstances that plagued the Earth at the time it supposedly appeared? And how it became a molecule, and a cell that started dividing, all by accident of course, and then evolved to become the first specie, that then, by DNA mutation, which turned out more complex and perfect each time, there came to be other species? :confused:

Not precisely, but I can point you in the direction of plenty of scientific texts which can offer very precise and plausible explanations of exactly those points you raise. In fact, look in any college library. :nod:

All you have is a book that says that God 'spoke' it all into existence - forgive me for finding that somewhat less convincing. :confused:

[Amra]

Not precisely, but I can point you in the direction of plenty of scientific texts which can offer very precise and plausible explanations of exactly those points you raise. In fact, look in any college library.

Every source will speak in its own interest. If I point you to the nearest mosque, or to the nearest theology book (by the way, they are at a library as well; college or public), you will find evidence for the creationist view. It just a matter of what you find convincing and what not.


All you have is a book that says that God 'spoke' it all into existence - forgive me for finding that somewhat less convincing.

And all you have is an atom that appeared out of nowhere, waited there who knows how long under the worst temperatures, volcano eruptions and other natural occurences that plagued Earth billions of years ago, until another atom appeared out of nowhere, somehow at the same location; then they both, by accident, bumped into each other and formed a molecule, which then for no reason started dividing itself, and mutating to form other more perfect and complex species. :D Very convincing indeed. Let alone that there is nothing to prove this, scientific or otherwise, and that there have never been any fossils found that would substantiate transformation of one specie into another; the so called "intermediary" species have never been found, and there is always a missing link between one specie and the other which supposedly evolved from it.

[Gozeta]

Can't science just be a mere blue print to how God created things? Isn't science actually providing proof that God does exist? No one should have any reason to believe that science and God go hand in hand. In a world that is made everything of symmetry! Dark and light, ying and yang; matter and antimatter? lol It's too much for us to just be some accident! Science proves it!

[woeful painter]

same thoughts here.

[Stanislaw]

I believe that, that science is not a disproof of God...besides... no matter what is discovered the end result is something divine..."who created all of the atoms in the universe?" :D

[Stanislaw]

AP, the tale of Genesis states that God created night and day on the first day, light and dark...

Genesis

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


the sun and the moon were written in as after thoughts, people of that time had a shaky knowledge of the cosmos at best...

check for your self: Genesis (http://www.online-literature.com/bible/Genesis/)

[elpidi26]

I'm glad a previous entry lists the first chapter of Genesis. While many people find a problem with the fact that evolution couldn't occur because it violates the scriptures rendering of God's creative works being completed in seven days, I'd like to make a note on the word "day" and the implications it irrevocably intimates. There are seven days and God's early creative endeavors are complete (Of course, He rests on the seventh day).

It's interesting to note that the stars aren't created until the fourth day. Our sun is a star. What I am assuming here is that the light in "Let there be Light" isn't the sun. The sun is created along with the rest of the stars in day four. Now, if that is the case, and if we base our solar mean days on the spinning of the earth on its axis with the sun as a reference point(e.g., light-day/dark-night/back to light=1 day), how were the days prior to the sun being created (i.e., days 1-3) calculated? They couldn't be.

This poses an interesting question? What does the word "day" mean then. Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew word is "yom," which can be translated day (literal day). However, it can also be translated aeon, or age. Think about this. 7 yoms or 7 undisclosed periods of time through which God effects reality and everything in it (universe, space, time, light, etc.) Now we can go back to each day and surmise what is being said

[ASIDE: The Bible is neither a book of history nor science (though both can found therein), i.e., it was never intended to written as a scientific or historical work. According to Christians, it is the exhaustive story of the redemptive work of God for man. Also the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament is extremely poetic. These are writers writing with their own individual personalities emanating from their work.]

Day one-Darkness, emptiness, and a mysterious water (no one knows)

"Let there be light"-big bang perhaps?

The rest can be perceived as the story of evolution from the first forms of energy being converted into mass, according to Einstein's E=m(c squared). First formations of stars via interstellar media. Planets evolving from dead star matter...and then Darwinian evolution.

According to the Bible, the first organisms aren't created until the fifth day (yom). The first vegetation was created on the second day. Who knows how long this actually took and how it was effected. Note that the Bible never says. Why could God not have chosen to use evolution as His creative apparatus. And the rest of the story, all the way to the emergence of man in verse 27, follows the same train of thought.

I find this to be the most plausible theory in amalgamating the belief of the scientific erudites and the religious community that affirms creation.

[woeful painter]

Very, informative...So creation does coincide with evolution now? Almost everybody's explanation and/or outlook seems sensible, or more believable.

I usually co-relate science with religion whenever i found new information, I go say "Oh, so that's the scientific explanation of that story in the Bible" (i.e. Great Flood, Creation, Red Sea, etc.) I'm in no comment with evolution though, there wasn't enough text in the Bible to bridge the the thought. Those seven days were just enumerated. Or can it be that the translated word "day" could be imprecise? There was an argument once in my school whether our defined "day" is similar to God's defined "day", which my school Theoligists say no, God's "day" is like an "age", not just a single whole day like ours. So, it can come to explain the ages it took for the universe to reach its present state now, scientifically speaking. With these explanations from my instructors, my heart rests in clarity as I can nurture both my soul and my mind with religion and science altogether. Though plainly, instead of arguing whether we have gone through evolution or not I'd rather believe that when the Bible told of us being created by God in His image and likeness, it was something more spiritual than physical. His “breath of life” is something far more what I consider important than how He tried to form us physically in the start. It’s for me our real likeness with God, by being somewhat spiritual beings like Him as well, making us different from the rest of his creation, having a soul. Isn’t that what’s the Bible is all about? Our spirituality. As stated by elpidi26:


The Bible is neither a book of history nor science (though both can found therein), i.e., it was never intended to be written as a scientific or historical work. According to Christians, it is the exhaustive story of the redemptive work of God for man. Also the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament is extremely poetic. These are writers writing with their own individual personalities emanating from their work.

Besides, I never clearly found any context in the Bible pertaining to how we truly exactly looked (stood, walked etc.) at the beginning. I cannot argue about something I have not been previously informed about. So why not let the Bible teach the followers of spirituality and let science do its job to materialize these teachings, as everything is, as we all see it now. I’ve been told once that it’s ok to ask since the human faculty is always on the search for explanations for things that puzzle him, yet this “question” was for something more of scientifically based but never in the intention to deeply question one’s belief. But if one still chooses to do, he has all the freedom in the world. PEACE! LET US NOW RECONCILE THE TWO…:nod: :) :D

NOTE: I am not in argument to disprove everybody else’s enlightenment regarding the topic, nor do I challenge any other religion or beliefs all of you may hold, with all of what I have just stated. These are just my realizations; everybody is always welcome to have their own conclusion :)

[Gozeta]

I have reached the same conclusion myself Woeful Painter!

[Stanislaw]

I like the attitude of the old natural philosophers (well before they went occultic): science is a means by which people can learn about the wonders and the masterpiece that God has created.

[elpidi26]

The psalmist addresses God, "Lord,...You turn men back to dust, saying, 'Return to dust, O sons of men.' For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:1-4).

This may seem bizarre and fanciful language to some, but most theologians well affirm that God exists "out of time." That is, they believe that God is not bound by the constraints and confines that time exerts; as time is a creation of God, God necessarily remains unfettered by time's trappings. While this seems a bit mystical and speculative to some, self-avowed atheists who are thoroughly acquainted with the principles of Relativity would have no problem with this maxim of theology. For they note that if something can travel fast enough, space and time can be literally manipulated to any scale (Time dilation & length contraction for those that care).

Theoretically, if someone traveling in a space ship travels to a distant star 20-ly's away (ly-light year, where one light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year--approx. 6 trillion miles, i.e., 6x10^12 miles) with a velocity of 80% of the speed of light, by the time the person in the ship made the round trip, people on earth will have aged 50 yrs., whereas the crew aboard the space ship will have only aged 30 yrs. The math is simple algebra and the explanation is a bit technical, but the idea, famously called the twin paradox, denotes that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Again, theoretically if one could travel at the speed of light, time would cease to exist. This is what occurs at the event horizon of black holes (the beginning of curvature toward the black hole's singularity--the escape velocity to escape the pull [gravity] becomes so great that even light at an amazing speed of 186,282.860 miles per second (299,792.458 km/sec) can't escape it).

I have a point with the science lesson, I promise. Most, if not all Christians posit that God possesses attributes which separate Him completely from anyone/anything else. He is omniscient-knows all things. He is omnipresent-everywhere at all times. He is omnipotent-can do all things (ASIDE: all things that do not violate His moral/righteous nature, e.g., God cannot lie or do evil). The last point on His Omnipotence is important. If He can do all things, he can travel infinitely fast if need be to be everywhere always. While I am not stating that this is the case (Most theologians state God as spiritual and not corporeal---though if he wants, he can adopt a corporeal nature, e.g., Jesus Christ's kenosis), I am simply stating He could do this should He so choose. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that if He were bound to the constraints of time/space, He could break free and slow time, freeze time, and/or travel back in time (think about what might happen if, when traveling at the speed of light-time stops, what would happen if you traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the relativity learned atheist would tell you this kind of God could stop time. Then they would tell you He doesn't exist.

Conclusion. Of course a day in God's "time frame" is different from ours. Because God is not bound to time in the sense that we are, it is exactly possible, in fact, more plausible to believe that the enumerated days of the Genesis story are not literal 24-hour periods.

Further food for thought on the matter. Where did the moon come from? Do a little reading and you'll find that the leading theory promulgates that early Earth, in its early formative years some 4.5 billion yrs ago (at this stage, the smaller Earth is called a planetesimal), collided with another smaller planetesimal. Early Earth absorbs much of this colliding planetesimal's matter due to gravity (This augments Earth's mass to its current spherical size) but much of the debris from the collision flies off in all directions which eventually forms an orbiting ring reminiscent of Saturn's rings. Eventually the debris coalesces into a giant satellite we call the moon. At this time, the moon is so close to Earth (39,000 miles away) that the gravitational tidal forces (the same forces that create high/low tides in the ocean) literally squeeze the earth as it spins on its axis. This literally produces an effect like spinning a merry-go-round. Earth spins faster. At the arrival of the moon, the earth made one revolution in six hours. That's right. One day lasted six hours. The reason for our current 24-hour day (actually 23.93 hrs [called a sidereal day] as opposed to the solar mean day of 24.00 hrs) is because the moon has slowly drifted farther away from Earth. It is currently about 239,000 miles away (and drifts about 1.5 inches farther away every year) and therefore exerts less of a gravitational force than it did in the beginning. This means that our 24-hour day will eventually become a 25-hour day, a 26-, 27-, 28-, you get the point. Puts a new perspective on the Genesis story doesn't it? A literal 24-hour day? Not likely, but not a problem for the creationist argument.

[woeful painter]

Aye! Aye! Precisely drawn! Thank you! :nod:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Every source will speak in its own interest. If I point you to the nearest mosque, or to the nearest theology book (by the way, they are at a library as well; college or public), you will find evidence for the creationist view. It just a matter of what you find convincing and what not

Every source - you not least.


And all you have is an atom that appeared out of nowhere, waited there who knows how long under the worst temperatures, volcano eruptions and other natural occurences that plagued Earth billions of years ago, until another atom appeared out of nowhere, somehow at the same location; then they both, by accident, bumped into each other and formed a molecule, which then for no reason started dividing itself, and mutating to form other more perfect and complex species. :D Very convincing indeed. Let alone that there is nothing to prove this, scientific or otherwise, and that there have never been any fossils found that would substantiate transformation of one specie into another; the so called "intermediary" species have never been found, and there is always a missing link between one specie and the other which supposedly evolved from it.

A gross and inaccurate over simplification - if you wish to argue against scientific theories, please have the courtesy to read those 'interested' sources and argue against the theories themselves and not just your infantile opinion of what you think they sort of might be. And I am not calling you infantile, just the tripe you posted above.

Why am I bothering - you already know everything worth knowing because it's all in your book. :rage:

[guildsman]

For each individual who considers the seemingly apparent incompatibilities between religion and evolution, there always arise problems with reconciling the two. A lot of very good arguments have been made for both sides of the issue, and I wanted to address one or two of them and a few other points.

The first thing that I wanted to point out is that it is perfectly possible to equate the term “day” with whatever a person sees fit. If one was to (I’m not trying to be sacrilegious here) look at the Old testament from the perception of God (i.e. enlightened being) one would obviously realize that people who this work is being given to are in no condition to understand orders of magnitude on the billions of years. Even today we can’t begin to imagine things as small as atoms (at least the normal person would have problems) or as large as galaxies. Our brains simply cannot process that sort of size, which is logical since we don’t exactly exist on either of those scales. So I think that it is perfectly logical to say that the 6-day theory can be reconciled with whatever number you want. The problem, however, is not in the 6-day theory for genesis, but in the matter which it is told. Genesis, as has been previously stated, reverses the order for hypothetical creation into something that cannot be scientifically acceptable. Again we can assume that since we are dealing with primitive people, this subject was merely meant as a way to demonstrate the grandiosity and power of the universes creation. But seriously, from a modern perspective we know that earth could not possibly exist before light, or water before light, or anything of the above. Are we to assume now that this is a reference to God’s theoretical blueprint testing stage? Again this is possible. I’m sure that the list can go on forever, starting with the fact that light was there from the beginning and ending with the problems of there being no dinosaurs, explanations for the fossil record, and references to cattle, foul, and just about everything else that could not have possible existed within any relevant timeframe.

What I’m trying to say here is that we can take Genesis for a highly dramatized account designed for the uneducated and ignorant people of the time, which is logical. Any atheist will go on to say that the entire structure of genesis indicates the notion that it was written by uneducated priests (Jewish ones – no Christians yet) who had no concept of time and made it all up. A moderate or liberal religious person may take the allegorical argument, while the conservative may wish to view things as literal truth. But if one was to accept the allegory than evolution is no problem. Why? Well simply put evolution is scientific fact. I hope I’m not shocking people when I say this, and I assume anyone who has taken and introductory biology course (I think they teach this in the second term?) would know this. What isn’t fact (and has been stated above) is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. I.e. whether random chance threw the amino acids together to make proteins and RNA and then some membrane formed, etc., or divine will pushed these things along is the issue at hand. Science tries to come up with a natural explanation for the mechanism, and even if it shows that it happened as a – b – c – d and so forth, no logical scientist is ever going to go and say “Well this was definitely random chance or this shows god does not exist.” It will probably never be possible to tell if divine will or the chaos of the universe led to life. But it should not be a problem for most people to reconcile evolution with their religions. The only time this becomes a problem is when people are unable to accept that the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other text, however much insight and joy they brings into life and love and so forth they may bring to a persons life are not completely accurate renditions of fact. At the worst they are false; at the best they are an attempt by a being of incomprehensible knowledge to share information and insight with a race who could not possibly understand a trillionth of the universes mysteries.

I think that it is time for people to move beyond centuries of religious backwardness and stagnation and realize that whatever transgressions of the past may have occurred – no divine being would want people to support something that logic tells them is plainly wrong (i.e. the allegorical nature of the religious texts). As society progresses and we uncover the secrets of the universe we, perhaps, move closer to understanding god and being enlightened beings ourselves. By remaining close-minded and unwilling to change we only hamper ourselves.

Right, thanks for reading all of that and pardon any grammatical errors or syntax/style. I typed this up very quickly - Dr. Who is coming on :banana:

[woeful painter]

Uh-Oh...I think I see more coming up...

[The Unnamable]

A gross and inaccurate over simplification - if you wish to argue against scientific theories, please have the courtesy to read those 'interested' sources and argue against the theories themselves and not just your infantile opinion of what you think they sort of might be. And I am not calling you infantile, just the tripe you posted above.

Why am I bothering - you already know everything worth knowing because it's all in your book. :rage:
Xamonas,
While I fully understand your frustration, please don’t try to do anything to discourage the contributions that argue against scientific fact. Having occasionally dipped into these threads, I have found no more convincing argument against Creationism and religious faith than the recrementitious piffle disgorged by those who defend them. I am satisfied that nothing we say could persuade people of the disturbing nature of religious dogma even a quarter as well as the output of those who spout it. I have used a few of them in class to show students how such dogma is not only incoherent and arrogant but also extremely dangerous and menacing. What many (not all, I admit) of those who churn out this garbage fail to realise is that not everyone is as stupid as they are.

[tiny explorer]

um ah...just want to exist!!!sorry!!

[The Unnamable]

um ah...just want to exist!!!sorry!!
Is this in response to my last post? If so, could you please explain why you suggest that such views as mine are not permitting you to exist? I want to exist, too (most of the time). And I would like to exist in an environment that is free from all forms of religious dogma. I do not have any problem with faith. All I can really do is recognise it but when it is used as an ideological weapon, I think it requires very close scrutiny as much as respect.

Don’t forget that I am a non-believer who has been told precisely what will happen to me according to one of the religions represented above:


Those who die as kafir (people commiting shirk) will spend their eternity in hell.

[mrslizzydarcy]

I'm with you! But comments like those give people like us a bad name. Offering blanket statements with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.... If too many teachers were like that, no wonder they pulled creation out of schools. Of course, I've heard plenty of people from the other side make equally awful statements, but they have the advantage of having the majority of the scientific community agree with you!

[The Unnamable]

mrslizzydarcy,
Is this in response to my post? :confused:

[woeful painter]

Uh-Oh, I knew it, things are going to get more twisted :lol: What's a dogma anyway?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Uh-Oh, I knew it, things are going to get more twisted :lol: What's a dogma anyway?

A carniverous canine quadriped - and don't call me Ma - I'm not your mother - we've been through this before! ;)

[woeful painter]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Nice one! Nice one!

[Doctor Boogaloo]

Amra, if you point me to the nearest mosque -- for scientific truth no less -- I'd have to point you in any direction that doesn't encourage flight up one's own backside.

[Amra]

Unamable,

If you told me, based on your atheistic belief, that after I die, that would be the end of it all, should I get mad at you? :D I just don't understand why you are upset about my beliefs? Why do you care what I believe will happen to you after you die, when you yourself believe that death is the end of it all? I don't care what you believe will happen to me after I die, nor do I start pathetic "arguments" trying to portray myself as a victim of your belief. I could believe that you would be a tree after you die, why would you care?

[Amra]

xamonas chegwe,


All you have is a book that says that God 'spoke' it all into existence - forgive me for finding that somewhat less convincing.

You don't this is an infantile, simplified portrayal of religious beliefs? My post about evolution was simply an answer to this statement that, if we wanted be unfair, and stay ignorant, could use to portray evolution as a failed theory. I merely used the same principle that you used to prove that things are not that black and white, and that both theories/beliefs are much more complex than we have here portrayed. Neither science nor theology have ever proven or disproven God in the way that would make both sides satisfied, and you might claim that science will eventually be able to do just that, when the time comes, but that argumet can be used both ways as well. My only point was that you cannot oversimplify things, and that if you choose to do that for one side, than don't be suprised when the other side does the same thing. I read an article recently about the scientific research regarding creation of the universe, and how it confirmed the theory of the Big Bang, which would mean that the universe was created in a split of second. This finding is not aligned with evolution theachings, as evolution is a long-term process in which things adapt/change/happen over a period of time. Big Bang is more supportive of the creationist view in which the universe was created in one single moment...

[jollyollie]

Not sure exactly what it is that some of you IDers are trying to accomplish; either that or I am and I continue to be disgusted with the meager attempts of a callous few to flex thier biblical muscles in vain attempts to push aside any views incongruent with thier own. Not surprised, though.
Fact is, our dna is all really quite similar and some of you dont want to believe or dont want anyone else to. Too bad. You lose.
I find no reason on disgussing science with people who will never show any interest in entertaining ideas that dont support thier own sheltered belief systems. Some of you are blatantly attempting to mislead some of the "flock" so as to further your own selfish ambitions, and dont deserve to be recognised.
Ive made numerous statements that are scientific and emotional and are there for your review, should any of you be interested.
My main initiative here is to speak for those who cannot speak, either of a different species, or are dead.
ID has no place in science classes and fortunately has been demonstrated. There is no debate.
Erecting "man" at the top of the food chain in a position where all the earths precious resources are available only to man to use by theological right is as ridiculous as are statements that claim the earth to be of of devine creation as stated in the King James version.
What is really at issue is the responsibility of a few people (parents) to fight tooth and nail to prove a moot point while ignoring that the earth is being destroyed by greedy malcntents about the dangers of deforestations and proliferation of the combustion fuels to certain destruction of our envrionment that we all share. Those of you who dont have kids cant be expected to understand.
No jobs on a dead planet.
SO
if you want to read the bible, go ahead, but
if you want to try pushing antiquated thought on innocent children in science class,
youve got me to deal with.
and im not alone.
Fight global warming
not each other

[woeful painter]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[elpidi26]

Jollyollie, I have to say that you don't sound too jolly to me. Anyway, what would you have to say against Christian evolutionists who believe the same way you do with regard to science? There could be a God who uses evolution as His creative apparatus. What real argument do you have to present against this besides an ardent disagreement? Understand that I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I really want to know. My scientific beliefs are probably obviously the same as yours on many points. And while I also don't see man as the top of the food chain (aside: I'm at loss in knowing someone who does), man is the only intelligent species on earth (a fact all the scientific community concurs with). I even believe there may be other intelligent beings out in space (the Bible never makes mention of these, but the Bible wasn't intended to). I guess what I am trying to find out is whether you have a natural bias towards anyone who happens to believe in God and the Bible notwithstanding a belief system identical to yours (saving God and the Bible obviously). I don't see the two as irreconcilable. I too have also written my own expositions above if you would care to read them (these may even be the ones you're making an argumentative reference to above). I have a doctorate in Chemistry with an emphasis in physical chemistry (application of physics to chemistry on the atomic and subatomic level), have done post-doc work and research in cosmology and geology (the application of chemistry to both is crucial) and I must say, I have never run into any problem with what the Bible proposes provided that one reads it correctly (I can see you cringing at this sentence, but I would be more than happy to elucidate on the matter). Now, because I am a scientist, I would like to hear a substantiated argument based on logic and any works from the scientific enterprise (maybe I have missed something of note along the way). But please, please, please keep it free of barbs and heady invectives spawned from any natural aversion to Christendom and its practice. As a fellow servant of science, I think you will understand why.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

All you have is a book that says that God 'spoke' it all into existence - forgive me for finding that somewhat less convincing.



You don't this is an infantile, simplified portrayal of religious beliefs?

Amra,

I think you'll find that that is an extremely accurate summary of the biblical creation myth. If it is infantile and simplified then so are the statements from which it was summarised:
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
etc.

Your ridiculous allegation that the big bang theory contradicts evolution demonstrates that you have only the most rudimentary idea of scientific concepts. The big bang describes events over 13 billion years ago, before there was even matter let alone life.

As has been pointed out many times, you dismiss scientific thinking unless your dim grasp of it seems (to you) to back up your crackpot theories, in which case you vaunt it as 'evidence'.

Please keep your head buried in your book if you wish. I prefer to use mine to think with.

[elpidi26]

Amra, you read correctly but failed to interpret correctly. Xamanos (sorry if I misspelled) is trying to tell you that, yes the big bang was instantaneous and no everything wasn't created in the blink of an eye. This is a process. The Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago based on Doppler readings of the leftover energy (microwave/radio wave electromagnetic frequencies) from the Big Bang. Our planet wasn't "born" until about 4.5 billion years ago. If the story of the universe were formatted to a 24-hour day, we humans do not come on the scene until 30 seconds to midnight. We just got here. But I have no problem with this being a part of God's creative intentions.

[woeful painter]

So, it's all stated in the Bible, as per dictated by God, but since humans back then are less comprehensible than our present time, they of course couldn't narrate of the events correctly more over in exact detail. But there is science to verify the message and thus present the clear and detailed events of that very time. Thus they're just both going along together, is that it? :confused:

[Stanislaw]

Uh-Oh, I knew it, things are going to get more twisted :lol: What's a dogma anyway?


A movie with matt damon, featuring the character Jay and Silent Bob. :D

[Stanislaw]

Not sure exactly what it is that some of you IDers are trying to accomplish; either that or I am and I continue to be disgusted with the meager attempts of a callous few to flex thier biblical muscles in vain attempts to push aside any views incongruent with thier own. Not surprised, though.
Fact is, our dna is all really quite similar and some of you dont want to believe or dont want anyone else to. Too bad. You lose.
I find no reason on disgussing science with people who will never show any interest in entertaining ideas that dont support thier own sheltered belief systems. Some of you are blatantly attempting to mislead some of the "flock" so as to further your own selfish ambitions, and dont deserve to be recognised.
Ive made numerous statements that are scientific and emotional and are there for your review, should any of you be interested.
My main initiative here is to speak for those who cannot speak, either of a different species, or are dead.
ID has no place in science classes and fortunately has been demonstrated. There is no debate.
Erecting "man" at the top of the food chain in a position where all the earths precious resources are available only to man to use by theological right is as ridiculous as are statements that claim the earth to be of of devine creation as stated in the King James version.
What is really at issue is the responsibility of a few people (parents) to fight tooth and nail to prove a moot point while ignoring that the earth is being destroyed by greedy malcntents about the dangers of deforestations and proliferation of the combustion fuels to certain destruction of our envrionment that we all share. Those of you who dont have kids cant be expected to understand.
No jobs on a dead planet.
SO
if you want to read the bible, go ahead, but
if you want to try pushing antiquated thought on innocent children in science class,
youve got me to deal with.
and im not alone.
Fight global warming
not each other

what does DNA similarity prove or disprove?

You are also being hypocritical, why are you afraid to compare your precious science against a religious belief, or do you have so little confidence in your scientific faith?

Intelligent Design has not been proven, nor has it been disproven, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

Well, if the earth is not for the sentients to use, what would you suggest...mass suicide?

If you have ever taken the time to analyze anything christian, you will see that christianity preaches against the destruction of te earth, and preaches that man get along. Man is responsible for looking after the environment and eachother.

It appears to me that you are just a self righteous communist, who has nothing better to do than to attack something that you do not understand. I do not know why you ave such hatred for christians, certainly christians do not return that hatred to you.

And I would refrain from calling it a moot point, the issue has never been concreatly resolved, and biblical interpretation is just that, interpretation. I am suprised that you have so much hatred for the christian religions that you would not even care to see that perhaps the bible is an allegory of science, so that all people might understand it.

I hope that you will read, or do research, or something before posting again, because it seems to me that you read the word bible, and then froth at the mouth like you have rabies.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread has turned into a name calling session, it will be closed now.