Could the creation AND evolution be accepted (genesis, myth, Baptist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not bashing creation or evolution here-just wondering
i mean who knows maybe only certain species have the ability to evolve naturaly or beneficiary,and the chances of mutations benefitting are ment to be very slim,also i remember one poster writing that man hasnt evolved for the last 50,000 years so if thats the case then who's to say we havnt for the last 4 billion years.
also-the dinousaures got wiped out so the whole thing would have had to start all over again
also i think the main reason for species to evolve is a change in envirnoment but what change could possibly be relevent for species to change their genes.
o.k. there are one or two questions there,that i need to to get off my chest and im ready for the insults,go ahead!!!!
but all I'm saying is how do we know that both are'nt true!!!!!!!!!!!
If it was all created, it was done through the methods described by science and it took billions of years. Huge amounts of work have been done and the evidence is clear as day for anyone who will actually study it. I can buy the possiblity that god sparked the big bang, but not that man existed 4 billion years ago as he is today, nor that it was all poofed into existence as it exists now in 6 magical days. God may have guided evolution, but evolution is still a fact. So from that perspective, creation and evolution could be accepted together. Still, the proof for the existence of a creator is conspicuously absent.
If it was all created, it was done through the methods described by science and it took billions of years. Huge amounts of work have been done and the evidence is clear as day for anyone who will actually study it. I can buy the possiblity that god sparked the big bang, but not that man existed 4 billion years ago as he is today, nor that it was all poofed into existence as it exists now in 6 magical days. God may have guided evolution, but evolution is still a fact. So from that perspective, creation and evolution could be accepted together. Still, the proof for the existence of a creator is conspicuously absent.
Creationism will never be accepted in science without empirical evidence, and to date, they still have none.
It's amazing how some people can be proven wrong time after time, every time, and still believe they are right..
Yes. In fact Christians who accept evolution (or evolutionists who believe in Christianity) believe both.
Evolution is the way it happened and God did creation that way. Genesis is a myth or at best, symbolic or metaphorical.
Rather like the post on 'Who Dunnit then?' which concludes that the real question is not First Cause (who does not require religion) but specific Biblegod (who does) the evolution question is the same. It isn't whether a god might be the planner of evolution and the 'whoddunit then?' First cause behind abiogenesis; it is whether Genesis is to be taken as literally true.
I've said it before - the creationism debate is not about God or disproving God, but about Bible literalism. Evolution and Bible - Literalist Creation are not compatible.
That said, The point above is correct. There is not a player on the field, at least, not one who leaves any visible trace.
I'm not bashing creation or evolution here-just wondering
i mean who knows maybe only certain species have the ability to evolve naturaly or beneficiary,and the chances of mutations benefitting are ment to be very slim,also i remember one poster writing that man hasnt evolved for the last 50,000 years so if thats the case then who's to say we havnt for the last 4 billion years.
That one poster is wrong. I believe that lactose tolerance has developed within the last 10,000 years.
Why would you say only certain species can evolve naturally? The ToE has a well explained, thoroughly documented procedure through random mutation and natural selection of DNA. As all life on earth has DNA, why would only some of it mutate?
Or, starting a scientific line of thought....
You have posed a hypothesis (maybe only certain species can evolve). Now, please post your observations supporting that hypothesis, the method by which some can evolve and others not, and all the supporting documentation that proves your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable
also-the dinousaures got wiped out so the whole thing would have had to start all over again
Which is a perfect example of evolution. Species became extinct because they were unable to adapt to dramatic changes in their environment. Others were, and evolved to fill the empty environmental niches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable
also i think the main reason for species to evolve is a change in envirnoment but what change could possibly be relevent for species to change their genes.
What change? You yourself alluded to dramatic environmental changes that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to flourish. But how about a number of simpler ones. The domestication of cattle, and the resultant availability of dairy, gave a selective advantage to humans who could digest milk. Therefore the environment changed (dairy is now available), so some humans evolved to take advantage of that.
How about the amount of sunlight we see? Africans have darker skin pigment, resulting in higher resistance to skin cancer. Northern europeans, who see very little sunlight compared to equatorial humans, have very light skin.
Lets get a bit more hypothetical. We have more CO2 in our atmosphere from industrial processes. The trend is likely to continue. At the moment, this is an unusable waste gas to us, poisonous in high enough concentrations. What if an organism was able to process CO2 in a beneficial manner? Don't you think that would give them a reproductive advantage?
This is 9th grade science stuff. Very, very basic evolutionary theory. You can pick it up by reading Discover magazine or National Geographic once in a while. Do yourself a favor and start.
I've been trying to avoid these evolution threads because they usually just turn into people bashing with no resolution; however, I am going to take a stab at this one.
When a person outright rejects evolution, the process of coming to accept it is usually a very long journey, both intellectually and emotionally. Once a (religious) person starts to realize and accept that the evidence for evolution is pretty strong, they often experience an inner conflict because it appears to go against everything they believe and/or have been taught while growing up. Some react by angrily lashing out against evolution like we see right here in this forum (reminds me of "the lady doth protest too much...") If a person can get over that hurdle, then it is perfectly normal for some (religious) people to try and accommodate themselves by tweaking either their religious beliefs and/or what they understand about evolution.
There are many, many variations on this. Some will be ok with evolution for everything except humans. I recently had a baptist preacher try to tell me that god created humans as they are, only it was millions of years ago. That was his way of accommodating for the hominid fossil evidence. I would love to talk to him in another 10 years to see whether or not he has revised his thoughts.
Another recent conversation with someone who has a MS in biology and a PhD in theology is perfectly OK with all aspects of evolution, but he prefers to believe that god started it all with the first bacteria and then just sat back to watch it unfold. He has a good grasp of evolution and knows that it does not address the origins of life, so that is his was of accommodating. I am not sure how he revised his religious beliefs other than that he doesn't take a literal view of the bible.
I am not a religious person myself (agnostic), and I couldn't care less about another person's religious beliefs (as long they don't shove it in my face). BUT, but as a biology educator, I feel that both understanding and accepting evolution are critical components of scientific literacy. I live in the bible belt, and I teach evolution to biology majors and also to non-majors. I do have students that will politely sit back and learn enough to pass my exams but clearly not accept it (makes me think of "just smile and nod"). I have some who understand it and won't admit that they are starting to accept it. I see this when they are applying the concepts to contexts beyond what I covered in class - not using the word, evolution, but applying the concepts of natural selection and change in a population. Finally, I have some who come to an understanding AND acceptance of evolution without abandoning their religious beliefs.
There are a lot of people on this forum who will absolutely bash me with the claim that one cannot accept evolution and be religious. They are absolutely correct when referring to young earth creationists/biblical literalists, BUT in my experience, not all theists can be lumped into that category.
To the OP: your posts do reflect a lot of misconceptions about evolution. Several posters have already pointed them out to you, so I am not going to go further with that right now. If you are truly interested in learning more about how to address those misconceptions, send me a PM and I will gladly provide you with references.
Yes. In fact Christians who accept evolution (or evolutionists who believe in Christianity) believe both.
Evolution is the way it happened and God did creation that way. Genesis is a myth or at best, symbolic or metaphorical.
As a Christian who has no problem with evolution or a 15B year old universe here is my understanding of Genesis 1. This view is accepted by many Christians.
*********
I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates, etc.
The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.
As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind.
*******************
I believe all of the Bible to be true. But some of the Bible is poetry, some is symbolic, some conceptual, but most is literal (esp the NT).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To a given value of Creation...
