And then God created...

littleFella · 08-30-2006, 08:12 AM

**South** · 08-31-2006, 06:03 AM

I had a high school biology teacher who was also a Baptist minister. He too offered the possibility of evolution being God's method of creation. I thought it was hogwash then as well.

Julie · 08-31-2006, 09:10 AM

I think the Protestant word-for-word/literal interpretation is ridiculous.

littleFella · 08-31-2006, 09:17 AM

OK, I may be using an oxymoron here. Not quite sure what words to use to replace the "literal interpretation", but IMO, literal interpretation of the Bible is not even possible. There are many different religious denominations claiming they take the Bible literally, but each of them is differently. Go figure.

Julie · 08-31-2006, 09:44 AM

By literal interpretation I mean those who believe only in the creationism theory...and completely discount the possibility that evolution played a role somewhere.

Make sense? I'm not good at explaining...

Louis · 08-31-2006, 09:56 AM

Literal interpretations are not a good thing I agree.

But on the other side, some people interpret too much as well so...

So on that note, let's go back to evolution... hold my nuts while I peel my banana...

Brian · 08-31-2006, 10:11 AM

Will I be lambasted if I say it's all a waste of time?

(no pun intended, of course)

**South** · 08-31-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

Will I be lambasted if I say it's all a waste of time?

(no pun intended, of course)

Spirited discussion is never a waste of time.

Evolution not only fails to stand by biblical standard (and not just using dogmatic literal interpretations) but becomes steadily less credible as new science emerges.

kristeejo · 08-31-2006, 10:32 AM

IMO it takes MORE faith to 'believe' in the evolution theory than it does to believe in God. Evolution is so far fetched -

littleFella · 08-31-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Spirited discussion is never a waste of time.

Evolution not only fails to stand by biblical standard (and not just using dogmatic literal interpretations) but becomes steadily less credible as new science emerges.

I disagree with your reference to the theory of evolution as a dogma. Religion however is a dogma or a set of them. I know of no dogmas in science that lie outside humanities. The term may be used sometimes in science in pejorative meaning, but science does not employ dogmas as religion does.

As for the credibility of evolution, the examples are right before out eyes. Well, maybe we can't always see them cuz they are tiny but... next time you or someone you know is prescribed antibiotics ask the doctor why is it important to finish up the whole prescribed quanity, even though the symptoms may disappear well before the pills do.

littleFella · 08-31-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Make sense? I'm not good at explaining...

I wasn't actually refering to your statements. I was kinda buying myself an insurance policy so others would have a harder time catching me on a technicality

Julie · 08-31-2006, 10:56 AM

You non-evolution believing types... do you deny that humans themselves have evolved over time?

Atom · 08-31-2006, 11:02 AM

The mechanics of some life forms are far too complex for evolution to sufficiently explain, IMO. I will admit that this does not make a case for "faith", but, I have always believed the fundamentals of the bible story, not all, but what I see as the basic important ones. I should however add that my actions have not always reflected this "belief".

littleFella · 08-31-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

The mechanics of some life forms are far too complex for evolution to sufficiently explain, IMO.

That's why the title I gave this thread is not necessarilly as frivolous as it may seem.

Julie · 08-31-2006, 11:11 AM

I don't believe in only evolution or only creationism, but rather, some combination of the two.

**South** · 08-31-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleFella

I disagree with your reference to the theory of evolution as a dogma. Religion however is a dogma or a set of them. I know of no dogmas in science that lie outside humanities. The term may be used sometimes in science in pejorative meaning, but science does not employ dogmas as religion does.

I was referring to dogmatic biblical interpretation, not evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleFella

As for the credibility of evolution, the examples are right before out eyes. Well, maybe we can't always see them cuz they are tiny but... next time you or someone you know is prescribed antibiotics ask the doctor why is it important to finish up the whole prescribed quanity, even though the symptoms may disappear well before the pills do.

Environmental adaptation for survival is a poor argument to support natural spontatious generation and the subsequent creation of hundreds of thousands of genetically differing species. I'm sorry, but the concept of evolution is ludacris. Evolution is a "scientific" theory that relies on an acception to the scientific fact that prohibits spontatious generation of life in nature.

Molecular biology is beginning to, and will eventually squash all hopes of evolutionists. The bonds we once thought were solid between ourselves and our supposed ansestors don't stand the test.

At one time we KNEW the earth was flat, we KNEW the sun revolved around the earth. What science "knows" changes as new information is found and new forms of aquiring it are discovered.

The only way I can see to accept the world as anything other than intelligent design is to specifically want to reject intelligent design, or take anything a person with a PHD tells you as fact. Evolution remains a theory because it cannot be proven.

Adaptation and evolution aren't the same thing. The ability for a being to adapt for survival in a changing environment is just one more point for intelligent design.

littleFella · 08-31-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

I was referring to dogmatic biblical interpretation, not evolution.

OK, my mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Environmental adaptation for survival is a poor argument to support natural spontatious generation and the subsequent creation of hundreds of thousands of genetically differing species. I'm sorry, but the concept of evolution is ludacris.

Why is it a poor argument if one of the essential elemets of evolution is the statement that species adapt to their environmet? That's not an argument, that is one of the propositions of the theory of evolution. The enviroments in which we find life are vastly different from one another so it seems logical that the species most adapted to their respective environments will be different than those living in other environments.

From Wikipedia:

"The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual and kin selection) and genetic drift[...]"

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Evolution is a "scientific" theory that relies on an acception to the scientific fact that prohibits spontatious generation of life in nature.

Never heard about that. Or perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "spontatious generation of life".

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Molecular biology is beginning to, and will eventually squash all hopes of evolutionists. The bonds we once thought were solid between ourselves and our supposed ansestors don't stand the test.

You can't mix the present and future tense like that. We don;t know what molecular biology will prove, hence as of today we can't say that something has or hasn't stood the test of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

At one time we KNEW the earth was flat, we KNEW the sun revolved around the earth. What science "knows" changes as new information is found and new forms of aquiring it are discovered.

Actually, the flatness of the Earth was a religious dogma defended fiercely by Churtch, and "scientists" of the time worked hard to keeop the dogma alive. True science abolished the dogma, and some were even burnt at the stake for the "blasphemy". Btw. the guy responsible for abolishing the Catholic dogma was himself a Catholic bishop. He conveniently died the same year when the result of his work were published.

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

The only way I can see to accept the world as anything other than intelligent design is to specifically want to reject intelligent design, or take anything a person with a PHD tells you as fact.

What if God set the evolution in motion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by South

Evolution remains a theory because it cannot be proven.

The word "theory" in this context doesn't men something unproven. Whether it can, or cannot be proven... I already mentioned we cannot really debate what will or will not happen in the future and expect to find the answer right now.

Trapper · 08-31-2006, 12:09 PM

Here is my eight year old daughter's take on the situation trying to convince her little sister and friend. She makes more sense than you guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epps9UU97mw