*Debate* Evolution and Creationism

[Corban]

First off I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[IFman]

I personally think they go hand in hand, there was a creator that uses evolution to tweak his life forms, to make them more adapt to their native enviorments and to have a long lifespan.

[The Beatles]

I used to believe in literal Creationism, but now I am less sure. As IFMan said. Jesus taught in parables, so perhaps Genesis is a parable as well, or parts of it? I am not definitely sure, but I am leaning towards that view.

[Devari]

I personally think they go hand in hand, there was a creator that uses evolution to tweak his life forms, to make them more adapt to their native enviorments and to have a long lifespan.

Word. :*laughs*:

[Ruddertail]

I believe in six literal days of creation. IFman, if you mean that one type of fruit fly might change a little to be better adapted, I'd agree. But I don't think that anything can changed from say, fruit fly to bird, or something that.

Beatles, with parables, Jesus uses the word "Like" a lot. "The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. In Genesis, it doesn't it was "like" something, it said that this happened and that that happened. It seems fairly clear that it's meant to be read as literal, not as a parable.

[ohmyjapan16]

I believe in six literal days of creation. IFman, if you mean that one type of fruit fly might change a little to be better adapted, I'd agree. But I don't think that anything can changed from say, fruit fly to bird, or something that.

Beatles, with parables, Jesus uses the word "Like" a lot. "The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. In Genesis, it doesn't it was "like" something, it said that this happened and that that happened. It seems fairly clear that it's meant to be read as literal, not as a parable.

Ditto.

[The Beatles]

Wanted to add that evolution in itself is utter bollocks, I hadn't made that clear earlier. But then why is there a fossil record datable with carbon dating?

[ohmyjapan16]

Well, evolution in general goes against one of the fundemental rules of science which is that two non-living things can not turn into living things.

[bjornredtail]

Well, evolution in general goes against one of the fundemental rules of science which is that two non-living things can not turn into living things.

Might you be referring to the 3rd law of thermodnymanics, the law of entropy? That is as close as I can think of to a "fundamental rule of science" that non-living things can't become living somehow.

In fact, all living stuff is made from other stuff that is, in and of itself, non-living. Amino acids, phospolipids, and Ribonucleic acid are all in and of themselves non-living. They don't consume energy, they don't respond to stimuli, they (with the exception of the latter) don't reproduce. Yet all three are critical components of living things....

[The Beatles]

Beatles, with parables, Jesus uses the word "Like" a lot. "The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. In Genesis, it doesn't it was "like" something, it said that this happened and that that happened. It seems fairly clear that it's meant to be read as literal, not as a parable.

No, not really. To the best of my knowledge, He started telling a story, and the context made it clear it was a parable.
http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Matthew%2013

That has a lot, here's grabbing a specific example from Matthew 15:

"Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots."

So if we go by literal interpretation, bye bye to my chives I planted last week? No, the context determines if it was a parable, IMHO, and if modern scientific context seems to indicate Genesis was a parable, then I'll be inclined to think it is.

(By the way, it took me only a few seconds to find those links, so I am sure there are plenty more examples, but I believe I've made my point.)

[ohmyjapan16]

It goes against all possible logic. Yes, they are critical components that are in, do not make us. They are produced by the body I believe.

[Corban]

Here is a review of the day age theory http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm.

[The Beatles]

It goes against all possible logic. Yes, they are critical components that are in, do not make us. They are produced by the body I believe.

No. Please don't refer to logic or biology until you grasp the concepts you are discussing. Saying "all possible logic" is subjective, and as to your other point, they are produced by the body, and the body is made up of them.

[edit]Corban, thanks for the link. It's overall good, although it's got a Fallacy of Generalization, a Fallacy of Poisoning the Well, and Fallacy of Personal Attack (ad hominem). No, seriously, it does raise good points, but is biased. (I will be thinking about it.)

[ohmyjapan16]

Heh, I'll post something good, once I get of my bum and do some research.
[Edit: Eh, maybe sometime else. I don't feel like comprehending right now.]

[Corban]

[edit]Corban, thanks for the link. It's overall good, although it's got a Fallacy of Generalization, a Fallacy of Poisoning the Well, and Fallacy of Personal Attack (ad hominem). No, seriously, it does raise good points, but is biased. (I will be thinking about it.)

Beatles, I am familiar with the Fallacy of Generalization, and the ad hominem argument but I fail to understand the Poisoning the Well Fallacy. What exactly is Poisoning the Well? I also understand the link I gave you, while it was one of good quality it also bashed the day age theory rather harshly. Also I might as well go ahead an state my opinion. I believe in the literal reading of genesis. While I am a creationist I believe it also important for me to point out that I believe in micro-evolution. Micro-Evolution (for those of you who don't know) is changing on a small level between species. I would also have to say that, micro-evolution has been proven for all practical purposes in science. An example of Micro-Evolution would be the different dog breeds. While the collie and the gold retriever are distinctively different its is very possible the descended from an original few dog breeds (maybe one) to become what they are today through selective breeding. I guess I would define myself as a literal creationist (Though not in the extreme).

p.s. Here is a link for defining the difference between micro and macro evolution: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html .

p.s.s. Here is an interesting fact, did you all know that the father of evolution (Charles Darwin) was a Christian?

p.s.s.s. Also if you believe in a creator and creation please state:

a. What faith you belief is based off of. (i.e. Christianity)
b. What particular theory you agree with. (If you don't know you don't need to fill this in)