Last edited by OurLittleBlessing; 04-03-2012 at 17:54.
Regina - I actually found your first example more analagous to the big bang theory Over time (and presumably with many wrong starts and things that didn't work), the collection of parts became something that worked.
With the big bang theory we are talking at least 13 billion years before the 'parts' became what they are today.
The difference is that in your first example there was a mechanic that knew what he/ she was doing when assembling them.
My analogy would differ, in that it would be a case of trying different things until they worked. (Although in your example the parts are lifeless, so a third party would be needed, whereas in the big bang theory the parts would be living organisms in their own right).
I feel that we're not really comparing like with like (in this debate), as many creationists do accept evolution.
If we ignore how the universe started, do those who believe in creationism still believe in evolution in and of itself?
For example, do you believe in natural selection?
(Hope that's not derailing - I think - hope - it's still on topic!)
(Iposted this in another thread - but I think it belongs in here too)
I picture our world without Humans... it would go on - the ebb and flow of nature would still be there, most of the destruction would be gone and the balance of the eco system would keep on going.
Take things like ants, fungi, bacteria and beetles out of the equation -- and we'd be literally walking around in our own sh!t.
That sounds crass - I know
... But when people talk about US being so special [relationship with higher power] , Man having dominion over the animals etc.
this is why I can't believe the world was created FOR us.
another crass sounding argument for evolution is the similaties between the way Bonobos have sex and we have sex. Our sexual organs are forward facing. We have concealed ovulation...
Last edited by FiveInTheBed; 04-03-2012 at 18:02.
I do believe in natural selection, and adaptation, and survival of the fittest. I beleve that one creature can adapt to it's surroundings. But I also believe in the bible (please, don't ridicule me for this). The bible tells me that each creature produces after it's own kind. So, I think that, even though creatures can adapt and change, they will still produce after their own kind (eg, a donkey produces another donkey that is more adaptive to it's surroundings - not a donkey produces a camel).
I guess I don't always see the discussion lining up quite right in 'creation vs evolution' - because creation describes how the world was made, where evolution does not explain how the world was made, just how it has changed over time.
I'm interested in hearing people who do not believe in creation discussing how they believe the world was made. So I guess this is more of a creation vs big bang theory discussion? I know that big bang and evolution are linked, but do ALL evolutionists believe in the big bang theory? I'd be interested in hearing views on this - if the OP doesn't feel it is digressing too much from the thread
Regina - just quickly (i'll come back)
A donkey won't produce a camel... That is absurd.
..buuuut - a donkey and a horse WILL produce a Mule.
That Mule is usually infertile
A Tiger and a lioness can produce a Tigon though... and a Lion and a female tiger a Liger.
This won't happen in 'nature' though - because they don't live in the same place - but it does happen in zoos.
This can happen because they are from the same family.
The Horse as we know it today has a whole line of ancestors
ETA>> I see 'Creation' [of man] VS 'evolution' [Of man] being the thing that most people have come to mind when they hear the phrase.
Ofcourse it does go deeper Creation [of the world, universe, mutliverse] ...Evolution doesn't try to explain that though...
Last edited by FiveInTheBed; 04-03-2012 at 18:17.
To discuss creation you have to also discuss the beginning of the planet/universe. Creation involves Genesis 1 and its the beginning, its a chronology of what God created, and the first sentence is 'In the beginning, God created heaven and earth' Then it goes on about (this isn't in order) light and day and night, light for night and day (ie sun and moon) water, land, vegetation, sea creatures, living things on land, time and then he created man.
It says 7 days, I think this a metaphor.
When I look at the theory of how the world began, the universe, they have the big bang theory. What follows after the big bang? Light, stars, planets, earth, sun, moon water on earth, land on earth, living organisms, sea creatures, vegetation, animals, insects and man is last. To me the story of creation in genesis 1 is a simplified version of the big bang theory and how they think our world evolved. I find it interesting that whoever wrote Genesis had a good grasp on the chronology of events that made earth and man?
In genesis 1 it says God created man on the 6th day in the likeness of him.
In genesis 2 it says the heavens and earth were complete and he rested. Then it talks about how there were no shrubs or trees yet because there was no rain and he created Adam from soil to cultivate the land. THIS is where I think the story overlaps into evolution vs creationism.
How does God create man in his likeness on the 6th day and then go onto to say he then made Adam from dirt after the 7days of creation? Could this mean Gods creation of man was what would evolve to Adam, the humans as we know them today that can cultivate food, marry and Eves sin to then give them shame (because they hid and realised they were naked) Is the sin by Eve a metaphor for how humans evolved into beings that needed to be clothed and felt shame?
I think the bible (IMO) doesn't reject evolution, but talks about it, its just explained simply and with alot of metaphors. But how can we reject science and evolution? I don't take everything literally in the bible and its open for interpretation.
BUT I believe God created these things, because I believe in God I don't believe in just science or that it came about by chance.
As for man evolving from apes. I'm not sure. I do believe in evolution, but I also don't believe 100% in scientific theories. I've seen alot about new discoveries in fossils and missing links in the chronology of ape to man but were these species seperate to humans? Are humans their own species that evolved individually? Its all possible.
As I said...
So logically speaking, it makes more sense that there was a God who always was and did all this stuff than a bunch of gas just being there. It's gas, it doesn't have reason or logic or intelligence. I don't know where God came from anymore than you know where gas came from. So we both would need to choose which made more sense to us.Logically speaking, if we want to go there, it makes more sense to me that there always was a higher power (God) and that he just is and was always there rather than the belief that gas is and was always there.
Obviously it makes more sense to YOU that gas was just hanging around doing nothing then one day something happened which started a chain reaction. That's fine. This defies logic TO ME so therefore I don't believe it.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!