Results 71 to 80 of 163
04-03-2012 18:12 #71
04-03-2012 18:17 #72
04-03-2012 18:19 #73
04-03-2012 18:20 #74
Eurhino... something... sorry, I know it starts with eurhino but there's more to it. The dolphin of the mesozoic. Excuse the errors. My eyes are terrible and it's hard to type on the phone with bad eyes.
04-03-2012 18:27 #75Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
OurLittleBlessing - Evolutionary theory is not that one thing can turn into another. Rather, we all (humans, animals, plants, bacteria - every living thing) evolved from common ancestry. It is thought that lots of things evolved down separate paths, rather than one thing 'turning into' another.
Also, changes happened at a miniscule level over a period of 13 billion years to date. To give a silly analogy, a baby is unrecognisable from that same person at elderly level. Yes, genetically they are the same, but even then their cells will have changed somewhat and may have responded to mutations (e.g., cancer) throughout one lifetime. There is not usually a single day where a child 'suddenly' becomes an adult. Similarly, there is not a single point where a fish 'suddenly' became a lizardy thing. It would have been a very slow evolution, where we developed slightly differently over billions of years.
An ape is still an ape. We are still humans. But that ape has taken many (billion) years of evolution to be what it is today, and we have done the same.
Regina - I would never ridicule you (or anyone) for your beliefs. I prefer to use science to understand the world, but that doesn't mean I look down on or throw out any concept of religiosity.
Evolutionists would agree with you in that animals adapt within their own kind. One does not simply become another. However, there comes a point during adaptation, at which an animal is thought to have changed so much that it becomes a different species. That point is usually when that animal could no longer successfully breed with another 'non-adapted' animal from the same species. Darwin studied birds of the same species that migrated to different islands, and evolved with different physical characteristics to suit their environments. Eventually (and very gradually) they changed to the point at which they were considered different species.
I agree with you that it is not a case of evolution vs creationism. Evolution does not explain how the world began, and I think that someone could potentially believe in both. I think 'creationism vs big bang' would be more the issue.
I do believe in the big bang theory. However, I also believe that good science means abandoning a theory that has been disproved, and considering new evidence when it is available. My belief in the big bang theory is not 'faith based', and I am prepared to discard that theory when/ if we have a better alternative.
It makes sense to me to understand our world based on things that are measurable, provable, and predictable. It makes no sense to me to form instinctive opinions that can be contradicted by science. However, that does not mean that I believe or disbelieve in the possibility of a God - just that I don't find it helpful in understanding the science of the world. I feel that we move forward in the world based on scientific discovery, and this is what is relevant to me in understanding physics.
The Following User Says Thank You to Guest654 For This Useful Post:
04-03-2012 18:29 #76Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Erghh that was the longest reply ever (above).
Sorry! Hope you're not off to sleep just yet...
Waiting for the roast to cook, which gives me too much time to bore everyone with long explanations...
04-03-2012 18:32 #77Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
I do believe this creation vs evolution horse has probably been flogged enough, but I'm voting evolution with some Spiritual intervention of some sort.
04-03-2012 18:34 #78
[QUOTE=Lily of the Nile;6418756]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.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how to seperate quotes - so I've bolded some bits.
I lke the idea of a metaphor. thing is some people take it literally. as in adam and eve REALLY were created from dirt and then eve from a rib.
Metaphor would be... from the earth life came, and flesh gives birth to flesh?
Literally - a dude was made from dirt and his wife from his rib.
Cultivating food has only been around since The Agricultural Revolution. before that man was nomadic. there are still nomadic tribes around today.
I don't believe clothes originally came about to protect our modesty - they came about to keep 'us' [our ancestors] warm.
It is society that has given us the idea of modesty.
some ancestors were (well the fossils we ahve found and named were..it is really not easy for fossils to be formed - that is why they are so rare)
Australopithicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homosapiens neanderthalensis --- Homo sapiens. theya re all individuals - but connected/related
04-03-2012 18:35 #79
i'm not reading through eight pages of answers i'm too tired lol
creation initially. i don't believe in the big bang theory (although i do rather like the tv show lol)
but then evolution happened. i think that the seven days were more like seven ages, and what if when god created animals it was the dinosaurs he created? there's no specification in genesis as to how long it was between each 'day'. dinosaurs became the animals we have today. or something. i don't know enough about biology to talk very authoritatively on the subject.
i do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, though. i do believe that that was a separate effort on the behalf of the creator. but even humans have evolved, so i don't think that adam and eve were homo sapiens sapiens, which is what we modern humans are according to what i learnt at school.
i think science has a very strong place. i just think that god created science initially.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeee For This Useful Post:
04-03-2012 18:37 #80
evolution. without a doubt.
i'm a scientist at heart and believe in hard evidence. as a paleontology major at university i have seen a lot.....
simply evolution is like a family tree. stromatolites were the first 'living' structure with algal cells. over various parts of the world in different environmental conditions, life formed and over millions of years evolved and branched out into different forms of living creatures.
all living creatures need water, temperature and some kind of food to survive which is what links us.
i can't fathom how people simply dismiss the evidence of the fossil record and believe in a book written by an unknown person instead. but that is just me and my opinion.
i have nothing against religion, i think it helps a lot of people. i guess my religion is just science.
By headoverfeet in forum Parents with large familiesReplies: 13Last Post: 02-11-2012, 13:46
By JaneDoe in forum General ChatReplies: 37Last Post: 12-07-2012, 19:03
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
LATESTWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?7 ways to break the ‘mumnotony’ at homeGuide to government family benefit payments
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
I am... #20General Chat
Would you breastfeed in public?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility General Chat
Help with baby names please!Choosing Baby Names
How long would you leave your 8 (almost 9) year old at home alone?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat