Evolution vs. Creation

[dinadan]

Dan_The_Man said:

This is a hard thing. I totally believe the Bible, but I will admit there are flaws in the translations. That doesn't stop me from believing in the inerrent Word of God. If you dwell on the problems of the translations too much, you might just miss the point of the Bible. I think some translations are better than others, and if it matters to you then do some research. But it does matter that Creation took just 6 days, and on the 7th he rested. It shows a powerful Creator. But he could have done it in 1 day, I believe. Why do it in 6 days?
More questions. In the first day, he created light and darkness, Day and Night. But he hadn't created the sun and moon yet. How do you get light without the sun? Maybe there's a purpose for that. Maybe He wants you to think about that. It doesn't mean that it's an old folk tale or that it's a false story. God can do amazing things! If creation took millions of years, then it would destroy so much meaning that God wants us to see.

And maybe the purpose is "hey, don't think so 3-demensionally you protoplasm creatures."

I mean, how do you apply a measurement of TIME to the activities of a being who is, by defintion, outside of time? Riddle me that, batman.

[twyrch]

JestersTear1 said:

Just for the record - I go with the Evolution theory.

I don't believe in 'God'. I don't ridicule people who do either.

I want proof before I can truly believe in something - blind faith just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

Before anyone tells me - I know Evolution hasn't been proven. I just think it's a more likely scenario.

True... Very True. Thank you for pointing that out. Evolution is a theory... just as Creation is. Granted, many Christians believe Creation to be fact, but facts can be scientifically proven.

Believing in Creaction requires faith, just as believing in Evolution. It just depends on what you put your faith in.... God or Science. I wish schools would teach both theories.

[dinadan]

I wish schools taught reasoning and logic first, then presented theories for people's evaluation later.

[dgan]

I agree 100% Dinadan, regarding the teaching of logic vs. theory. They definately have it backwards - although, on the flip side, if parents were more responsible, logic is best developed at home anyway. Such is our society, I guess.

Noting your love for animated movies, let me quote the highly regarded Mr. Incredible - "You keep trying to pick a fight, but I'm still just happy you're alive." I think we agree more than you like to believe, but that's OK. Keeps it interesting.

dinadan said:

dgan, if we're just going to concede points because it's not really a lot of fun to discuss this via discussion forum, then we might as well abandon bringing them up at all.

I don't believe I brought it up. I was just chiming in because I often can't help myself. And it certainly is fun, however I think, for various reasons, it may be counter-productive in this setting. Nevertheless, I enjoy your zeal so I'll continue.

dinadan said:

Here's what I think about your statement that not believing in biblical inerrancy=not belieing in the God of the Hebrew/Christian bible: you're entitled to your opinion on the matter, of course, but I think it's insane.

Do not think you are the first to have such strong feelings about my mental state of mind. ;D

dinadan said:

So, whose bible is inerrant? Obviously they all can't be, can they?

Good catch. I should be more careful with my wording. As I already conceded, there are translation difficulties aplenty. You also accurately point out that there is no consensus even on which works should or should not be included. The term I should have used was Scripture. Scripture, as defined as the Word of God, is not bound by man's works of accumulative writings. It is, put simply, God's message. Define that how you will.

Basically, this is the only point I am trying to raise - and only as food for thought. How can someone choose that the Scripture is not from God, and then believe in the character of God, which cannot be proved or disproved? Although they may have gained their definitions from Scripture, those words hold no validity. Therefore, the individual would be "creating" their own character of God, depending on what portions of Scripture they choose to believe. I understand that is not your belief (I would never accuse you of such illogical thinking ), which is why I am trying so hard to clarify my point. I don't disagree with your analysis. I just feel we must be extremely careful minimizing the importance of the fidelity of Scripture. It is not a light thing that we can simply pick and choose what is logical or reasonable. However, I completely agree our "version" of the written Scripture - the Bible - must be tested, tried, and corrected when necessary. (Please don't berate me for my use of "corrected" - I trust you know what I mean.)

I have proof-read this 3 times, so hopefully I said what I meant.

[pink3elephant]

dinadan said:

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes happen. The changes happen so gradually over many generations for a long time, so there would never be any point where something was half one thing and half another. Besides that, I don't believe in interspecies evolution, but I do belive in intraspecies evolution. As the example Twyrch pointed out, people with different skin colors is a great example.

But, back to the half-monkey, half human thing for a moment. Think about it this way...if you have a bucket of white paint, and you dropped drops of black paint in it, stirring it all the while, eventually, you'd have black paint (or paint so dark grey it would appear black to your eye)...but at which point does it become "black"? Or, thinking about it another way, say a man begins losing hair a single hair at a time; how many hairs must a man lose before he is "bald"? Where does that change occur? This is what is called the problem of vagueness. The same thing occurs with evolution.

When I said half monkey half human, I was giving an extreme and generalizing. Basically I meant that how come we don't see the 'slight changes' today? It seems that everyone looks the same, right? You'd think that we'd see a slight change over our recorded history.

[dinadan]

pink3elephant said:

When I said half monkey half human, I was giving an extreme and generalizing. Basically I meant that how come we don't see the 'slight changes' today? It seems that everyone looks the same, right? You'd think that we'd see a slight change over our recorded history.

Well, you're assuming that a change can occur in the 5000-6000 years of recorded history, which may or may not be long enough for there to be a huge change. Although, I would submit that we have seen lots of evolutionary changes in that amount of time; for example, there are lots more blood types than there were even a century ago. That's an evolutionary change.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

Well, you're assuming that a change can occur in the 5000-6000 years of recorded history, which may or may not be long enough for there to be a huge change. Although, I would submit that we have seen lots of evolutionary changes in that amount of time; for example, there are lots more blood types than there were even a century ago. That's an evolutionary change.

And people are taller too... I mean, look at the kids in high school these days. I was the one of the tallest kids in my class and I am 6' 0".

Now, most of these kids are 6' 3" at least.... What is it, vitamens?

[dinadan]

twyrch said:

And people are taller too... I mean, look at the kids in high school these days. I was the one of the tallest kids in my class and I am 6' 0".

Now, most of these kids are 6' 3" at least.... What is it, vitamens?

Actually, they're showing now that vitamins don't do a whole lot for people--at least, not the way most people take them. You could chalk up growth differences to hormones in the processed meats we eat--so that's not quite a differences. Blood types, though, there's something that can't be explained by things we eat that people didn't. To me, the fact that new ones has arisen is proof that we change due to mutation/evolution over time.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

As health care and medicine improve, it accelerates the rate of puberty. I look at pictures of my grandmother's generation, and when they are my age (16), they look like they are twelve or something. Evolution? It is probable. I do agree on the blood types...want proof of evolution? Look at the relation of disease causing bacteria and viruses to medicines/vaccinations/immune systems. Or any predator and their prey, for that matter. The competition for survival forces both sides to improve.

[dgan]

The main issue with this is that the term "evolution" is being defined differently by us in this forum than the people who commonly teach it. We're pretty much all in agreement about the changes that occur - I mean, you could say water "evolves" into ice in a cold climate. Change, or evolution, occurs in varying degrees of complexity. Obviously, the relatively simplistic examples we are discussing here are not the type of changes mainstream evolutionists are teaching. I'm not even 30 yet - when I was in grade school not that long ago, they were showing me absolutely decisive "proof" that the Neandrethal man existed. They have since changed their story.

About the blood types, I cautiously agree. I'm certainly no expert, but isn't there one blood type a person can have which would allow their offspring to develop any of the other blood types? If so, it could mean all blood types existed from the beginning, even if there was not necessarily a human that contained each blood type right away.

I could be wrong. Just a thought.

[dinadan]

dgan said:

The main issue with this is that the term "evolution" is being defined differently by us in this forum than the people who commonly teach it. We're pretty much all in agreement about the changes that occur - I mean, you could say water "evolves" into ice in a cold climate. Change, or evolution, occurs in varying degrees of complexity. Obviously, the relatively simplistic examples we are discussing here are not the type of changes mainstream evolutionists are teaching. I'm not even 30 yet - when I was in grade school not that long ago, they were showing me absolutely decisive "proof" that the Neandrethal man existed. They have since changed their story.

About the blood types, I cautiously agree. I'm certainly no expert, but isn't there one blood type a person can have which would allow their offspring to develop any of the other blood types? If so, it could mean all blood types existed from the beginning, even if there was not necessarily a human that contained each blood type right away.

I could be wrong. Just a thought.

About the water-->ice thing; that's not an evolutionary change. That's a property change based on condition. Totally not the same thing.

As for the bloodtype thing, the reason that this is fascinating to me is that from the time that we started identifyng types, we thought there were only 4 main ones, and 4 "rare" ones...now, for what you're saying to be true (and, I'm not expert either, but from what I know, there was not a grandfather blood type), then the people being born with new types would have to have parents that had the "universal" type. That just isn't so. We've discovered that the blood doesn't always play by the 4-possibility simple genetics rule. I find that fascinating.

[dgan]

You're right about the water, of course. And that is my point. The term "evolution" carries several meanings, one of which is the "continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another." Not at all the biological progression of which we are speaking. I'm just trying to point out what a vague term is used to encompass any theory that fits within that broad definition.

I'm intrigued by the blood type as well. I certainly see what you're saying - I wonder if it is something truly ever-changing or if it is something we don't completely understand. Are there any medical grads on this site?

[DanTheMan]

I don't know anything about the blood types changing. I don't see how that would be an evolution, though. It is interesting, but I don't see how that could be an improvement. Are these new blood types better somehow? Maybe it's a breakdown, or a devolution. Maybe it's getting worse and not better. Just guesses and questions.

[dinadan]

Dan_The_Man said:

I don't know anything about the blood types changing. I don't see how that would be an evolution, though. It is interesting, but I don't see how that could be an improvement. Are these new blood types better somehow? Maybe it's a breakdown, or a devolution. Maybe it's getting worse and not better. Just guesses and questions.

You can see it as an evolutionary change toward diversity; and if there is anything that nature teaches us, it's that diversity is always better than singularity. Think of it, what if there was only the standard 4 main blood types out there, and some disease developed that killed people with, say, A-. That would take out a quarter of the people of the earth; now, if MORE types to choose from, it's like the genetic pool is diversifying its assest.

Incidentally, this is the same problem that caused the potato famine in Ireland in the mid 1800s. They imported only one variety of potato, and then a blight hit which damaged that specific variety. If they had had more types, it wouldn't have been as bad. This is also the same reasoning behind the corn/cereals bank in Mexico, where they keep genetic records of all the varieties of corn in the world, so that if there's ever a catastrophe on the potato famine scale, we'd still have other types of corn/cereals to rely on.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

Another question...what do you define as "devolution?" Because I see all changes as being good overall...the ones that harm the individual will increase the chances of their being weeded out and help the species overall to grow and adapt.