A question about evolution (bible, quote, Biblical, God)

[Deguire]

I'm admittedly ignorant about the subject of evolution. I do not get into the creationism Vs evolution debates because I know too little about evolution. This in no way mean I believe in the biblical account of creation.

Well I have a question which I am not so sure I can formulate too well. I just hope it makes enough sense for you guys to understand.

Ok, the believer (as far as I can tell) believes God created everything in seven days AS IS. In other words, what we see today is what as created at the beginning of time and that's it.

Well do they take into account that geographically speaking, parts of the earth that may have once been fertile plains of green are now arid or frozen barren desert? In that case, what about the animals that at the beginning of creation (using their logic) that were supposedly created in an environment that was once green but is now desert brown? When and where did they develop new abilities to live within the new changes?

For example. There are elephants that actually live in the vast Namibian desert of southwest Africa. I believe that once upon a time that same desert was a verdant environment yet those same elephants are there. My question is, how did those elephants manage to adapt from living in a fertile environment to one that is now barren without changes in their anatomy to be able to survive? Another elephant from, say, the nearby plains of Botswana would not survive in that environment. Isn't this proof of some kind of evolution that took place over time to allow these animals to adapt to the changes?

[Roxolan]

I'm not a creationist, but I think the standard answer to your question is "we believe in micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution". I believe most creationists today admit that "small" evolution do occur (after all, that can be witnessed in laboratory conditions, so it's rather hard to deny).

They will tell you that, though your elephants did in fact evolve, they are still elephants, so it's not macro-evolution.

(depending on your definition of "still elephants", that's either a lie or a strawman, but of course that's science's biased opinion )

[little elmer]

I was looking for an appropriate place to post this joke, so here it is:

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books -- the Bible, and Darwin's Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

I'm not a creationist, but I think the standard answer to your question is "we believe in micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution". I believe most creationists today admit that "small" evolution do occur (after all, that can be witnessed in laboratory conditions, so it's rather hard to deny).

They will tell you that, though your elephants did in fact evolve, they are still elephants, so it's not macro-evolution.

(depending on your definition of "still elephants", that's either a lie or a strawman, but of course that's science's biased opinion )

Very good representation of the belief. Until we can actually verify that macro-evolution actually does take place, it's just not believable. There is more evidence for the existence of a creator.

[SuSuSushi]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Very good representation of the belief. Until we can actually verify that macro-evolution actually does take place, it's just not believable. There is more evidence for the existence of a creator.

Show us that evidence, then.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by SuSuSushi

Show us that evidence, then.

Take a look around you. It's more logical that since the universe could not have created itself that it must have been created. You don't think the computer you're typing on is a result of evolution...yet you're willing to believe that you yourself are the product of evolution?

it's just not logical.

[DTO Luv]

Just because the world is so complex doesn't mean it was intentional. If all there was meant to be was life on Earth why the other 8 barren planets in our solar system and untold amount of other galaxies out there? The way the Christian "science" timeline pans out is so unreal. There's no way the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[kdbrich]

Before we get into the question of the age of the earth, answer the question about how it all started.

It's only logical that if we have a creation, we need a creator.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Before we get into the question of the age of the earth, answer the question about how it all started.

It's only logical that if we have a creation, we need a creator.

So who created the creator?

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

So who created the creator?

If you want to believe there was a creator for the creator, fine. At some point though, there had to be a creator that was not created. To believe in an infinite number of creators, one must believe in an infinite amount of time. That would be impossible--as it's impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time.

I mean...the date is 12/30/2008. In order to get here, it had to start somewhere. You cannot keep going an infinite amount of time and get to 12/30/2008 without defining a starting point.