Evolution?

[Close102]

i noticed a lot of the posts here were about how a God is/isn't real. well i thought of this: why couldn't a God have made the origional animals evolve into humans?

[robbiehay1]

well i believe that there were humans in the beginning but animals also evolved and some apes evolved into humans

[Dolphus Raymond]

There is a theory that is kind of like this called Intelligent Design, or ID. You may want to look that up.

The downside is that it does contradict the literal Genesis story, so most Christians reject your version of ID.

[Andrew56]

Go watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's amazing, and almost objective.

I believe that no new species have emerged, but there is adaptation within a single species, and survival of the fittest, which does result in minor changes to a species through breeding and learning.

[Whisper]

Because Evolutions is about science not faith
PROVE that god exists, solid hard evidence
Otherwise personally I'll stick with the facts we have

[Dolphus Raymond]

Go watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's amazing, and almost objective.

I watched that the other day. I was disappointed for the same reason I always am when I see Michael Moore moves. The main reason for "suppression of ID" in academic circles is that it's claimed it has no scientific validity. The movie didn't really academically defend ID, or even define it. I didn't feel it was objective at all, since at one point he outright said that his purpose was ideological. He also used a version of the First Cause argument that I think is philosophically questionable as if it were unquestionable fact. I've also read a lot about dishonest interview editing (surprise surprise).

I could go on with complaining, but it was well-edited, and I had some fun. It just shouldn't be used as educational. It was just as intellectually dishonest as Moore's stuff, and never even bothered to properly support its own thesis. I guess that's what you get when you try to boil down a heated and multi-faceted debate into a 90-minute movie appealing to a certain audience. I'll wait for the book.

[Close102]

im not saying anything does/doesnt exist. im just saying people should be able to compromise more. there have been many wars started over stuff like this

[serial-thrilla]

im not saying anything does/doesnt exist. im just saying people should be able to compromise more. there have been many wars started over stuff like this yeah by the religious people trying to make others believe their way.

[Zephyr]

i noticed a lot of the posts here were about how a God is/isn't real. well i thought of this: why couldn't a God have made the origional animals evolve into humans?

It's like saying that magic really exists when it doesn't.
We all know that magic isn't real, it's all illusion.
The Bible says that Adam was made from clay, and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.
Would you believe me if I said that I made a live hamster out of a twig and only showed you the hamster, rather than turning another twig into a hamster to show you?

[Atonement]

Okay, I have been thinking this for a very long time. And I am a faithful Christian. I believe the Genesis story, only Adam and Eve were the final product of the evolution that God put into effect and planned out. Its intelligent design, through evolution.

[theOperaGhost]

The thing is, nobody knows. We had to evolve from something, but first there had to be something to evolve from. So how did this first thing get created. Christians like I would say that God created it, others, well I don't know what others would say. It's one of newtons laws, "matter cannot be created nor destroyed", to how did everything get created?

[Dolphus Raymond]

So, Atonement/PianoMan, if you do believe in creationism but also evolution, I'm assuming you reject macro-evolution (the idea that animals mentioned in the Bible evolved from earlier versions)? A lot of principles of that sort of evolution are incompatible with the literal Genesis story. As in, we'd have to have been created as we are now, among other things, and those conflict with scientifically-supported macro-evolution theory.

Denying micro-evolution, since we can see it happening in front of us, isn't something that even Young Earth Creationists do as far as I know.

[The Batman]

The thing about Genesis is that it's not literal at all like when it says "fowls of the air, and fish in the sea" (or something like that) but doesnt describe them.

[Atonement]

So, Atonement/PianoMan, if you do believe in creationism but also evolution, I'm assuming you reject macro-evolution (the idea that animals mentioned in the Bible evolved from earlier versions)? A lot of principles of that sort of evolution are incompatible with the literal Genesis story. As in, we'd have to have been created as we are now, among other things, and those conflict with scientifically-supported macro-evolution theory.

Denying micro-evolution, since we can see it happening in front of us, isn't something that even Young Earth Creationists do as far as I know.

Nope, I dont see why if humans can evolve, why can't animals?

[Close102]

sorry if i miss understood this but technically if we did evolve then we could only evole from animals. i meen plants wouldnt make much sense.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Nope, I dont see why if humans can evolve, why can't animals?

I mean from, like, a common ancestor with apes and everything. The idea that certain animals as they are now known evolved from other, earlier forms, is supported by scientific and genetic study, but contradicted by the Genesis story.

The thing about Genesis is that it's not literal at all like when it says "fowls of the air, and fish in the sea" (or something like that) but doesnt describe them.

True, but macro-evolution and genetic theory has essentially traced the origin of fowl to before they could be described as "winged birds" and cattle to before when they even resembled today's cud-chewers.

[Atonement]

I believe that God planned for both animals, and humans to evolve from eachother into what they are.

Do you not understand that? I am AGREEING with both science AND religion.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I believe that God planned for both animals, and humans to evolve from eachother into what they are.

Do you not understand that? I am AGREEING with both science AND religion.

I'm just trying to understand what you believe. If I understood that I wouldn't be asking stuff still.

So, you disagree with the literalness of the Genesis creation story, because that says humans were created as they are now? Unless you accept Genesis as a non-literal parable, I really don't think Christianity and science can be in complete agreement on this issue.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I'm not trying to be dense or intrusive, I'm just interested in how people see science within their faith. I'm not meaning to piss anyone off in the process.

[Atonement]

Okay, I blieve that God planned for evolution to happen, and when the human race is completely evolved, there was Adam and Eve. God creates everything, so he creates the evolution process too.

The Genesis literal story is not literal as it says. The whole, number of days it took to create the world, is not literal to us, but to God. God's day could be a couple million years for us. God is the past, the present and the future.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Okay, I blieve that God planned for evolution to happen, and when the human race is completely evolved, there was Adam and Eve. God creates everything, so he creates the evolution process too.

The Genesis literal story is not literal as it says. The whole, number of days it took to create the world, is not literal to us, but to God. God's day could be a couple million years for us. God is the past, the present and the future.

I'm still having trouble understanding how that works. God created what we evolved from, we evolved to what we are now, and Adam and Eve were part of that? Wouldn't there be other humans too, and Eve not created from Adam's rib, making Genesis a parable?

And Genesis expressly, non-metaphorically says that God created humans as-is, so even that excepted, it would still be a parable. Which I'm open to, and I don't think conflicts with a belief in the divinity of Christ. It does make at least part of the Bible clearly a non-literal story though.

[Atonement]

Well think about it, if we took everything in the bible in full literality, then when you get married, the groom's family would have to pay the bride's family so much gold and a few goats! And in 1 timothy 2:9-12 it talk about how women are to be submissive to men, but that is all about that time, not relevant anymore.

Everything cant be literal.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Well think about it, if we took everything in the bible in full literality, then when you get married, the groom's family would have to pay the bride's family so much gold and a few goats! And in 1 timothy 2:9-12 it talk about how women are to be submissive to men, but that is all about that time, not relevant anymore.

Everything cant be literal.

How do you decide which is which? Based on modern human culture? Isn't that more flawed and polluted by sin than God's word?

[Atonement]

You have to understand that the Bible was written by a lot of men 200 years ago. What they held true then is not true now, on every subject. And yes, in the bible there are a lot of metaphorical statements.

[theOperaGhost]

Many things in the Bible are not meant to be literal I don't think. Most of the stories are to teach lessons to live better. I don't take the Genesis creation story literally. Eve isn't even considered to be the first woman according to many theologists.

I do think humans evolved from animals, but like I said earlier, there had to something to evolve from, and something had to create that.

[Dolphus Raymond]

You have to understand that the Bible was written by a lot of men 200 years ago. What they held true then is not true now, on every subject. And yes, in the bible there are a lot of metaphorical statements.

I understand, but I'm asking how you personally differentiate the parable and the metaphor from the literal, and how you know what changes over time. It seems that cultural evolution is a flawed test. One thing is true for our culture but not another person's. Or do you believe God judges us all based on our decency relative to the culture from which we come? That's kind of a cool idea actually...

I do think humans evolved from animals, but like I said earlier, there had to something to evolve from, and something had to create that.

I have to make one minor complaint about the "First Cause" argument. If everything has to have a creator, then God does too, otherwise it's special pleading. If God can exist without being created, logically, something else can potentially too.

[theOperaGhost]

I have to make one minor complaint about the "First Cause" argument. If everything has to have a creator, then God does too, otherwise it's special pleading. If God can exist without being created, logically, something else can potentially too.

Very good point. I guess being a Christian, I just overlook that, but yes, that is a very good point.

[Uhh.Huhh RAN_DOM]

yes i do believe a god created animals and we evolved from those animals but if there is not got something had to create the organism on the earth or we would nver be here now riight??? then again there could be space things flying into the earth thus creating the oragism????