I Have Solved the "CREATION vs. EVOLUTION" Dilemma!!

[BroncoBuff]

It took me exactly 4000 posts here to do it, but yes - I have solved the "CREATION vs. EVOLUTION" dilemma, and both these theories may now co-exist.

It was §pider's thread that inspired me, so Click Here! for the solution in his thread.

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

It took me exactly 4000 posts here to do it, but yes - I have solved the "CREATION vs. EVOLUTION" dilemma, and both these theories may now co-exist.

It was §pider's thread that inspired me, so Click Here! for the solution in his thread.

I didn't realize that there was any kind of a dilemna...Where the hell have I been

[BroncoBuff]

I dunno, but usually it's one or the other .... since the Scopes trial in the 1920s.

[Crushaholic]

A lot of people want to explain life with an "either/or" when it comes to evolution/creation. I have maintained for a while that it's a combination of both theories.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

A lot of people want to explain life with an "either/or" when it comes to evolution/creation. I have maintained for a while that it's a combination of both theories.

Me too - you didn't click on the link, but if you do, I think we agree....

[TheDave]

Sorry, just been involved in way too many of these.... Good luck

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Sorry, just been involved in way too many of these.... Good luck

TheDave

Just remember the world is flat and those dinosaurs fossil are a hoax created by the east coast liberals from Boston and NYC

[alkemical]

Why can't it be a bit of both, as stated before for as long as this conversation has gone on?

Why can't evolution be the fingertips of 'god'?

anyway i'm not going into this anymore - because i'm 'right' lol/jk

[The Lone Bolt]

Not that I'm a creationist (far from it) , but those who believe in the literal interpretation of genesis will point out that one of the first things God did was divide the light from the darkness and call the light "day" and the darkness "night", so the bible is clearly referring to 6 24-hour days to create the Earth and all life on it.

That said I see no reason why evolution cannot be considered part of God's plan.

[alkemical]

or maybe we are part of "someone" and the big bang was the moment the egg & sperm fertalized (cell division).

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

one of the first things God did was divide the light from the darkness and call the light "day" and the darkness "night", so the bible is clearly referring to 6 24-hour days to create the Earth and all life on it.

Oh.

I didn't realize/remember about the dividing light and darkness. This would basically harpoon my plan ... maybe that's why I got so little response. Excellent deductive reasoning, btw...

But it still depends on how soon he divided it. If even one "day" went by before he divided light/dark and created Earth, then my hypothesis that His "days" don't apply to us may still work.

The Bible is filled, though, with bizarre time-span discrepancies, like guys living 700, 800 and 900 years ... and the Tower of Babel being as high as they wrote, and Goliath being as tall as they wrote. If you really wanna get LITERAL, the Old Testament is freaky!

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

That said I see no reason why evolution cannot be considered part of God's plan.

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

maybe we are part of "someone" and the big bang was the moment the egg & sperm fertalized (cell division).

I love this kinda talk ... expand your boundaries of thought. These fundies and their narrow minds try to restrict everything - even free exchange of such ideas. It's all fear-based. They are terrified of death, and need concrete explanations.

And yeah, Bolt ... why can't God have set in motion the organic process of evolutionary life on this planet? The only reason not is the ridiculous Old Testament timeline and the Christiano-Fascists who believe in it to the exclusion of all rhyme and reason.

"The Big Bang" sure sounds religiously divine - like something God would do. If you know much about astro-physics, apparently all the matter and mass in the universe was compressed into a tiny area just as the Big Bang occurred ... and they know how it happened - right up until 10 to-the-minus-32nd-power seconds after the actual Bang occured (thats a tiny, infinitesimal fraction of one second). This tiny time barrier, before which they know nothing of, is called "Planck's Wall." (after quantum pioneer Max Planck.) Now doesn't that sound vaguely divine? Vaguely spiritrual?

I think God is hiding behind Planck's wall!

Astro-physicists uniformly speak in almost spiritual terms about Einstein's relativity ... "the equations are so beautiful," they say, "so elegant."

I think God is winking at us with quantum mechanics - "okay, mankind, you've discovered the sub-atomic level of ny creation? Check THIS out!" Maybe he doesn't "play dice," but something is sure screwy down there.

Here's a couple more:

"God" winks at us in nature - IN EVOLUTION - all the time if you watch for it. Fractals, Pi, the Phi ratio, the Fibbonacci sequence, deja vu, savants. You think it's just a "happy accident" that Pi is unsolvable?! Or that fractals have EVOLVED in all aspects of nature everywhere around the globe?! (Examples: In sea-shells, fishes, tree branches, the ratio of man's full height vs. the height to the naval; shoulder to fingertip vs. elbow to fingertip; every beehive in the world has 1.618 females to 1 male....)

[Rohirrim]

The spiral is the key.

[alkemical]

always has been, look at DNA

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The spiral is the key.

Are you referring to Pi?

[epicSocialism4tw]

As far as the "Big Bang" goes, there really is no information in that theory that alters my personal concept of deistic cosmology. It really changes nothing. It provides great fodder to ponder, but it does not give me the glimpse into divinity that I desire or the evidence of another cause. All that it does is take the Genesis creation account and add some potential detail to the mechanisms.

[GonzoLays]

There are many problems with the THEORY of Evolution.

* Where are the fossil records of half devoloped frogs, fish, lizards etc? Fossil records contains fossils of only complete and fullyformed species. Where are the fossil records of partially evolved species to show the gradual process of evolution occured?

* How could partially evolved animal species survive over millions of years when they don't even have their basic organs and tissues because they were evolving? How were the initial animals breathing, eating, and making babies when their organs were still developing?

* How did the first cell organism develop sense organs? Senses are not evolved through the evolution process. The impulse to see or hear is not within the realm of the capabilities of body tissue. What came first the eye or the desire to see? What developed the desire? The mind? Did the mind come first? Then the arm because the mind desired to reach food?

* Evolution only provides intellectual thought on horizontal evolution not a creative process. How did they get here? Of course you can show varities of dogs, horses etc. but that is it. It cannot show the initial process of origin without taking blind leaps of faith as to how we evolved from a single cell organism to the person who is typing on a computer right now. \

To believe that there is no God takes as much faith as believing that there is a God. Neither can be proven.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by GonzoLays

There are many problems with the THEORY of Evolution.

* Where are the fossil records of half devoloped frogs, fish, lizards etc? Fossil records contains fossils of only complete and fullyformed species. Where are the fossil records of partially evolved species to show the gradual process of evolution occured?

* How could partially evolved animal species survive over millions of years when they don't even have their basic organs and tissues because they were evolving? How were the initial animals breathing, eating, and making babies when their organs were still developing?

* How did the first cell organism develop sense organs? Senses are not evolved through the evolution process. The impulse to see or hear is not within the realm of the capabilities of body tissue. What came first the eye or the desire to see? What developed the desire? The mind? Did the mind come first? Then the arm because the mind desired to reach food?

* Evolution only provides intellectual thought on horizontal evolution not a creative process. How did they get here? Of course you can show varities of dogs, horses etc. but that is it. It cannot show the initial process of origin without taking blind leaps of faith as to how we evolved from a single cell organism to the person who is typing on a computer right now. \

To believe that there is no God takes as much faith as believing that there is a God. Neither can be proven.

I believe your questions stem from a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not suggest "half developed frogs, fish, lizards etc." Evolution suggests that species change over time from one form to another. Some suggest this is sudden (cladogenesis) where other believe it is gradual (anagenesis). But at no point would there be a "half-developed" anything. Evolution suggests that even today all species are slowly changing in response to environmental demands. Look around -- do you see any species that are "half developed?"

The fosil record abounds with examples demonstrating the gradual porcess of evolution. Furthermore the deeper geological strata one finds fossils in, the further back in the evolutionary chain one goes. Consistent with this, fossils that more closely resemble modern species are found higher up in the strata. Our own species is a good example. We can find fossil evidence of life forms that more closely resemble modern humans as we move higher up in the geological strata.

At no point in the evolutionary process are species "missing organs." The organs change along with the species. One theory is that new structures evolve because species find new use for old structures. Flying squirrels for example probably developed that flap of skin between their limbs for another purpose, but when those flaps of skin helped the ancestors of today's flying squirrels survive (possibly by increasing wind resistance during a fall), they were able to pass that feature on to their descendents, unlike the ones who did not have that flap of skin and were therefore less likely to survive and pass on their non-flap genes. Over time squirrels with larger flaps were more likely to survive and pass on their larger-flap genes than squirrels with smaller flaps. Finally over generations the squirrels had such large flaps they were able to glide from tree to tree. Thus a structure that started with one use became adapted for another use altogether. That is how evolution works.


Senses are indeed included in the evolutionary process. Early single-celled organisms are thought to have aquired light-sensitive molocules by mutation of genes. This genetic accident gave then a survival advantage, and so they were able to pass the feature on to the next generation. Soon random mutations caused changes in these primitive photoreceptors over generations. Most of these mutations were maladaptive and so the organisms that were born with them died and did not pass on the flawed photoreceptor genes to the next generation. A few however were born with mutations that improved on the primitive photoreceptors, and thus they were better equiped to survive and pass on their improved-photoreceptor genes to the next generation.

Getting the idea? I think you had some misconceptions about evolution. I hope I was able to clarify.

[Mile High Shack]

http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/Mot...hQuestion.html

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by angryllama

As far as the "Big Bang" goes, there really is no information in that theory that alters my personal concept of deistic cosmology. It really changes nothing. It provides great fodder to ponder, but it does not give me the glimpse into divinity that I desire or the evidence of another cause. All that it does is take the Genesis creation account and add some potential detail to the mechanisms.

Take your meds...you are overdue

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by GonzoLays

There are many problems with the THEORY of Evolution.

* Where are the fossil records of half devoloped frogs, fish, lizards etc? Fossil records contains fossils of only complete and fullyformed species. Where are the fossil records of partially evolved species to show the gradual process of evolution occured?

* How could partially evolved animal species survive over millions of years when they don't even have their basic organs and tissues because they were evolving? How were the initial animals breathing, eating, and making babies when their organs were still developing?

* How did the first cell organism develop sense organs? Senses are not evolved through the evolution process. The impulse to see or hear is not within the realm of the capabilities of body tissue. What came first the eye or the desire to see? What developed the desire? The mind? Did the mind come first? Then the arm because the mind desired to reach food?

* Evolution only provides intellectual thought on horizontal evolution not a creative process. How did they get here? Of course you can show varities of dogs, horses etc. but that is it. It cannot show the initial process of origin without taking blind leaps of faith as to how we evolved from a single cell organism to the person who is typing on a computer right now. \

To believe that there is no God takes as much faith as believing that there is a God. Neither can be proven.

Oh, hey! Over here...my name is science...I don't believe we've met

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

http://doesgodexist.org/JulAug04/Mot...hQuestion.html

Well, that's good enough for me. That John Clayton sure knows his stuff...

[GonzoLays]

Originally Posted by orangenblue2

Oh, hey! Over here...my name is science...I don't believe we've met

U'hhh, okay.




Thanks for the enlightening response.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by orangenblue2

Well, that's good enough for me. That John Clayton sure knows his stuff...

did you actually read the whole thing?

he is a scientist

[Hotrod]

Let me grab some popcorn this should be worth the price of admission...


http://comic-mint.com/media/client/0...mall-c7873.JPG