Creation vs. Evolution vs. Intellegent Design

cbi1972 said:

It says there were earth, and night and day, and plants before the sun was created, which is unscientific.
Genesis chapter 1 says animals were created before man.
Genesis chapter 2 says animals were created after man.

Ordinarily, I treat Genesis as a myth, forgiving its internal inconsistency and scientific inaccuracy, but you did bring it up.

Click to expand...

Big_Fan said:

The traditional approach to verse one of Genesis one is as an independent statement. This stance is supported by ALL ancient versions of the Bible and most modern ones. The grammar, vocabulary, and literary style of the passage leave it open to a number of interpretations, however the contextual entirety of Genesis supports the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. This is also supported by "without form and void." Applying a basic hermeteutical approach, the initial statement of "in the beginning, God" followed by the repetition of "and God said let there be..." give general (and orderly) formulas by which creation ocurred. Then you go to the parallel structure of the creation account through 6 days and see even more order in creation...
(1) Creation of light (corresponds to day 4)
(2) Creation of sky (corresponds to day 5)
(3) Creation of dry land (corresponds to day 6)
(4) Creation of sun, moon, stars
(5) Creation of birds
(6) Creation of land animals and humankind.

Some people try to parallel the creation account to Enuma Elish where Marduk begins creation with preexisting matter (namely the corpse of Tiamat), but there is no textual support within the Penteteuch.

Whether you are a believer or not, the orderly creation account (specifically in the Penteteuch) is without rational argument. You are talking about basic literary analysis. From a historical perspective it would have been the stance taken in order to distinguish Yahwehistic beliefs on creation from polytheism that always begins with chaos.

This is just a brief overview, without getting too deep. As for your statement "you are the authority and we should bow to the superior called by God himself!" You give me too much credit (even in sarcasm)...however it IS what I went to school for, spent thousands of hours in classroom instruction and study time, spend countless hours each day studying, have written many articles and papers on, read tens of thousands of pages and hundreds of books on, and what I do for a living. Your comment comes accross as just another instance of attacking and hurling insults when all else fails

Click to expand...

ldlane said:

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to "insult" see "smilie". I apologize if it seemed inciteful.

Genesis is nothing more than a "creation myth" and the Old testament a history that was written down after years of the "oral tradition". My tribe has these same sort of stories, but they are discounted because they are not "Christian" in origin. If someone just would have written them down!!!

Academia doesn't mean much to me and education does not overturn devout "faith". There were several PHD's at the Wannsee Conference to determine the "Jewish Question", countless PHD's publish tripe everyday and get book deals. The most that many can do is spout "$50 words for 10 cent thoughts"! Not saying anything personal about you, but that sums up academia from my perspective.

Click to expand...

Big_Fan said:

Which brings us full circle and back to my original point from the other thread...that is, regardless of untestable theories or perceived mythology, it is impossible for any of us to definatively state what happened and how. In that lies the issue of faith. Do we take evolution, an untestable theory that has many holes and gaps, as fact - just because someone with letters after their name says we should? If we do, we are doing so by faith. In treating the theory of evolution as unquestionable fact, science is reduced to faith. While it is possible to produce some evidence to the validity of the theory, it is impossible to prove it entirely. Meanwhile, those who seek to debunk Christianity as myth seek to do so by scientific means. While it is possible to bring some level of schepticism to creationism by scientific rationale, it is impossible to disprove it entirely because there is much logic and imperical evidence to its validity, but it is also impossible to elevate it to scientific fact.

So where do we go from here? I maintain that for evolution to be taught in schools, it should be identified as a scientific theory up front...just as the Cobb County BOE was trying to do with the stickers. Teaching evolution as scientific fact is teaching a lie. Many modern textbooks omit that and present evolution as the definative course of events by which all life on Earth arrived at its current state...and that is irresponsible.

Conversely, I do not believe that Christianity should be taught in a bio class. I would not object to a chapter or unit on the theory of intelligent design without specific reference to any deity or God Himself, simply the idea of an intelligent designer...the watchmaker principle. This could be taught in a single class period as a follow up to the unit on the theory of evolution.

I do believe that high schools should offer Old and New Testament survey, and Church History courses as electives. The Bible is of incredible historic value, particularly in context of what is happening in the middle east. In addition to the Historicity (which regardless of opinion, it is the best A.NE history book we have), there is also a great deal of wealth in terms of literary value in the Bible. The Poetry and Wisdom literature of the old Testament is of great value, and the New Testament provides a great backdrop for studies on the first century Roman Empire, both culturally and historically.

Click to expand...

ldlane said:

Genesis is nothing more than a "creation myth" and the Old testament a history that was written down after years of the "oral tradition".

Click to expand...

NYBamaFan said:

Goodness, I didn't realize that you were the ultimate authority on what is myth and what is real. Thanks for clarifying...

Click to expand...

Big_Fan said:

No.

Chapter one says Animals were created on day 6. Genesis 2:19 says Adam named the Animals God HAD created (NIV). There is no discrepancy in 2:19. God made them and brought them to Adam. Verse 2:19 does not address an intermediary period, however the original Hebrew word for "Formed" or "Created" is Yatsar, and that can be translated as something done previously.
Chapter two says Adam named the Animals. I am pretty sure our cat was born before it was given to us and we named it.

Click to expand...

Big_Fan said:

Just re-read your post. It your comment on night and day and plants makes it obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about...see my post 2 up.

To clarify, it is literary parallelism. You can have seeds without sunlight.

Click to expand...

cbi1972 said:

Ok. This I can chalk up to different versions giving different apparent messages as to the order of creation. I'll take your word for it that the NIV is a better translation, reconciling the inconsistency.



Am I to understand this parallelism to mean that things that are said to have happened on the first day and on the fourth day actually happened on the same day?

And by this reasoning, something that happened on the third day actually happened after something that happened on the fifth day?

And that it is my fault for not interpreting it this way?

I'm perfectly ready to accept literary license in the Bible, but if someone's going to claim that science backs it up, then it needs to at least get its numbers in sequence.

Click to expand...

ldlane said:

And you are?

None of us are going to change the minds of each other. That is what I have come to realize over the past 4 years that I have been a member. We have our positions and we spend our time "spouting" our beliefs and providing links to Google, Wikipedia, etc....or maybe the current Ann Coulter book. We post our viewpoint and anxiously await the next reply, so we can reiterate what we've already said.

We've changed no minds.

Click to expand...

How then do we explain the fossil history which appears to show a progression from simple to complex? This could not be through the "transmutation of species" as it is generally taught, because, as every good creationist knows, the "evolutionary tree" is all twigs and leaves with no branches and certainly no trunk! The fossil record does not exhibit a gradual step by step development.

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…" (Stephen Jay Gould in The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179, 80).
Almost always we find a sudden appearance of a particular species followed by "stasis", meaning that the species remain virtually unchanged for its tenor on earth. There are species that appear to be transitional but little to no transitional forms (for example half-wings). All examples found are fully formed and fully functional.

Charles Darwin wrote: "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking close together all the species of the same group must surely have existed."

There should be innumerable step by step fossils available to us, but there is not. Biologist David S. Woodruff has stated: "Fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." ("Evolution :The Paleobiological View" in Science 16 May 1980, p. 716).

There are huge gaps at the bottom of every new order of life, which is not just the opinion of a novice.

C.C. Olsen who wrote "The Evolution of Life" for New American Library (1965, p. 94) said: "Many new groups of animals suddenly appear, apparently without close ancestors. Most major groups of organisms, phyla, sub-phyla, and even classes, have appeared this way. This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory explanation of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation".

A.S. Romer, who wrote Man and the Vertebrates and Vertebrate Paleontology, on no fewer than sixteen occasions admits huge gaps in the fossil record that prevents the relating of various origins of life forms. This includes such large groupings as the monkeys, seals, marsupials, bats, marine reptiles, turtles, frogs, salamanders and the first vertebrates. From other scientific works we can also add urchins, sponges, jellyfish, trilobites, invertebrates, spiders, insects, snakes, monotremes (egg-laying mammals), rodents, deer, cattle, and giraffes.

Geologist David Kitts in an article "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory said: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Evolution, Sept. 1974, p. 467)

Click to expand...

I suspect that to this point many creationist Christians might be happy to go along with the progressive creationists logic but will ask, "Surely man is a completely distinct creation"?

Although this is a possibility, certain facts would indicate a "yes" and "no" answer here.

There are two sides to man's nature. His body comes from the earth like the animals. It's an uncomfortable fact for some Christians to follow that there is conclusive evidence to show that his DNA is 98.2% the same as a chimpanzee and 97.8% the same as a gorilla!

There is something else we must take note of. It is reported that certain pseudogenes, caused by copying "errors" are found in the exact locus spots of the DNA molecule in both humans and chimpanzees. This suggests a link of DNA information but is no proof of the transmutation of species. Whether there is a descending biological link with a huge intervention by God to produce a new species (in this case man) is not important. It is clear from the evidence God did use the same "template" - with adjustments - and I am not insulted!

Click to expand...

But (and it's a big but) man was made in God's image (not a physical image). So the other side of his nature, his psyche and spirit comes from God's breath. Yes, "God formed man of the dust of the ground". The word "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man like we would put together a gingerbread man. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field". The same word "formed" is used and the human body has the physics of the universe in it.

The word formed could refer to cellular ancestry. However, the inbreathing of God clearly refers to man's spiritual nature which separates him decisively from the animals.

Man is very different from the animals in that he has spiritual awareness. He talks to an unseen God in prayer. No animal ever shows any consciousness of the need for prayer. He has awareness of a moral code written in a conscience and has concerns about death and life after death. He has consciousness of self, a drive for discovery and a capacity to recognize truth.

Click to expand...

The progressive creationist does not accept that "flood geology" can even begin to explain the rich geological order of the earth and its fossils. Land masses arise gradually as a result of volcanic activity and plate tectonics. These wrinkle the earth's surface and, after the added effects of erosion, create the geological strata. As plate tectonics and volcanic activity superseded erosion land masses rose above the ocean to cover about 30% of the earth's surface. It is from these forces that we get the geological formations we have, not enormous earth shattering events triggered by a deluge of the kind the "flood geologists" envisage.

Coral reefs, for instance, are very fragile and could never survive this deluge. Varves are annual layers of sediment that form distinct layers of seasonal deposits in lake beds and the chemical deposits are different in the summer than they are the rest of the year. The green river formation consists of more than 20,000,000 annual layers! There are fossils neatly set between the layers making them impossible to be there as a result of a single flood.

The progressive creationist holds to the conviction that the Genesis flood was regional, for which he has some overwhelming biblical and rationally deduced evidence. For one thing, the several million species in the world have their own ecological niches. There are thousands of distinct life forms that exist in Australia and New Zealand alone and they live a long, long way from where the Ark came to rest. The three-toed sloth is an animal that only travels at, top speed, 0.068 m.p.h. (!) and the fossil record says they have always been indigenous to South America only.

Present indications are that there were anywhere up to one billion species that existed in the past but are now extinct. Those that think that the several million species that now exist descended from a much smaller number of species in the ark really believe in incredibly swift macroevolution and rapidly undo all their anti-evolutionary arguments. It's just not feasible for it to happen within the limits of microevolution. To say otherwise is to bring justified mocking from the scientific community (those that speak from within their specified discipline).

There is in Western Asia a deeply depressed area extending from the Sea of Aral to the Steppes of the Caucasus and around the southern shores of the Caspian, which includes the hilly regions of Ararat, where the Ark came to rest ( not Mount Ararat - the Bible does not say that) and the Great Salt Desert. It is the recognized centre of the human family at the time of the flood. This is an area of considerably over 300,000 square kilometers and more than enough reason for the need of an Ark the size that Noah built. It is perfectly within the bounds of Scripture to believe that the deluge was universal only in so far as the area and observation of the narrator extended. The word "har" as in "mountain" is actually a generic term for any elevation and "under all heaven" is a figure of speech common to the Bible, e.g., Deut. 2:25 and Isaiah 13:5 ,7. The writers of scripture often used a form of speech known as synecdoche, where a whole is used for a part.

When God told the Israelites that He would put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven (Deut. 2:25) surely He meant only those known to the Israelites. When Genesis 41:57 says that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain, it must mean only those countries known to the Egyptians. Did Ahab look for Elijah in every country of earth? 1 Kings 18:10 says he ignored "no nation or kingdom". Must we believe he searched through India and China?

These observations are just a start. I doubt whether many Christians have ever thought through the implications of a fully universal flood. The number of species in the world is almost infinitely vaster than those animals on show at the zoo. What happened to the thousands of species dependent on fresh water then mixed with salt? What happened to all the flora of the earth crushed under 9 kilometers of water (if indeed the Flood covered even Mount Everest)!
What about geographical distribution where species have been isolated. The marsupials of Australia are a good example. Kangaroos, koalas, wombats, Tasmanian devils (and the now extinct dog like marsupial the Tasmanian tiger) and all sorts of rat like marsupials and their fossils are only found in this region. Moas, kiwis and many other distinctive species of bird, only in New Zealand.
The queries just go on and on.

Click to expand...

BeccaBama said:

blah.

Click to expand...

ldlane said:

And you are?

None of us are going to change the minds of each other. That is what I have come to realize over the past 4 years that I have been a member. We have our positions and we spend our time "spouting" our beliefs and providing links to Google, Wikipedia, etc....or maybe the current Ann Coulter book. We post our viewpoint and anxiously await the next reply, so we can reiterate what we've already said.

We've changed no minds.

Click to expand...

NYBamaFan said:

Almost always we find a sudden appearance of a particular species followed by "stasis", meaning that the species remain virtually unchanged for its tenor on earth. There are species that appear to be transitional but little to no transitional forms (for example half-wings). All examples found are fully formed and fully functional.

Click to expand...

Crimson323 said:

Okay, lets do this. The Islam topic got way off track with about four different sub topics. For creation, evolution, and intellegent design questions and debates, come here. The damage has been done on the Islam thread, but it's not too late to bring the other topic discussions over here.

Let's start with dinosaurs. First, were they real? Second, were they a product of evolution or God's grand design? Or something else? :biggrin2:

BOOM! We're off!

Click to expand...

cbi1972 said:

Sinosauropteryx was a dinosaur exhibiting a shoulder blade permitting greater range of motion in the forelimbs.

Velociraptor was a dinosaur possessing wrist bones which enabled them to swivel, permitting even greater range of motion.

Unenlagia was a dinosaur even more birdlike than its predecessors, with a shoulder blade which enabled more up-down mobility in its winglike arms. This 'flapping' motion would not enable flight, but could have assisted in balance, turning, or high speed running. Unenlagia lived during a time in which birds of flight had been in existence for millions of years, so it is not the precursor to modern birds, but it does show how transitional forms would have looked.

Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird. It had feathers, a small sternum, a long tail, and a clawed thumb at the end of the wing. It would not have been very maneuverable. Flight would have been limited, like the Wright Brothers short hops.

Eoalulavis is a primitive bird in which the clawed thumb has developed into a structure supporting a tuft of feathers aiding controlled flight.

Modern birds of flight have small, lightweight bones, and large wings, breast bones, and flight muscles, permitting flight.

The demand by anti-evolutionists for evidence of transitional forms is insatiable, like Zeno's Paradox.

Click to expand...