originally posted by Zipdot
Creationtelligentignerlution: Where is the Eviproof?
There are many threads here focusing on "debates" between creationism and its opposite, between evolution and its primary competing theory, and
between Young Earth creationists and, well, everyone else.
I think we need to start a grass roots campaign with the aim of getting Creationtelligentignerlution, the new biological theory of everything, taught
in the public schools. Who's with me? Our main problem is going to be fitting that on a textbook once we slap an "ism" on the end...but we can
get a team of Creationtelligentignerlutionologists on it immediately.
Organic origins, developments, and destinations are fascinating and important subjects, and we, exclusively, as humans, have the ability and
the desire to investigate these topics and make judgements about them. Different people and groups of people are drawing divergent conclusions, and
often, people find it difficult to agree about ANYTHING on the subjects.
There are actually alot of things we can
agree on, but the "debate" often gets so heated nobody wants to make any concessions for fear that
the other guy will pounce on it. Its gotten to the point where it's like watching Hannity and Colmes
...and i don't know about ya'll but it
actually hurts me physically to watch that show....so i don't
... just like with a thread that starts creation/evolution is stupid. I'm not
going to learn anything new and i doubt they'll listen, objectively
, to anything i have to say so why bother. *shrug*
man and ape: common ancestry
The machanical qualities of cells are undeniable. Similarly,
Microevolution is demonstrable.
I think these two points are easily conceded. What are you willing to concede or agree upon?
In all honesty i should begin by saying i'm not there yet, but i am open to the idea..and i have not ruled it out as either a scientific or
biblical possibilty. Now this is a HUGE deal when it comes to the creation -vs- evolution debate, so i'll try and show why i think it's not out of
the realm of possibility.
While i do believe that there is a 'kind barrier' or that evolution is limited to the variability already built into
an organism(ie it's not
possible for me to evolve wings or a bird to evolve hands or a tomato a brain(bit of a stretch on that last one i know)). But.....i'm not so sure
that you can't make the argument: man and ape are the same kind. I would have to agree that we are remarkably similar...especially in regard to
Neanderthals. At the very least i think that the common ancestry of ape and man should be a seperate debate from that of universal common
From a Biblical perspective this concession is alot tougher and i'll admit that it is the biggest stumbling block for me. I'll further admit that i
do believe that the Bible is the inerrant
word of GOD, but perhaps we're mis-interpreting/understanding what is said, and just as important,
what is not
said. I'll try and, briefly, break that down.
Genesis 1 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness.....
In our(GOD's) image (the "our" thing is a whole different debate..irrelevant here imo) speaks of the spirit not the body...i think that all
believers would agree with this. This body is not Rren (or Zip) it's merely the (temporary) vessel that GOD created for me(us). Although, i'd have
to say, Sept. '75 God was having a good day.
So what does the Bible say about 'how' we were made?
Genesis 2 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.
) can be interpreted to mean b)
to frame, pre-ordain, plan (fig. of divine) purpose of a situation)
, which doesn't neccessarily rule out a "pre-ordained" plan for man to
evolve from an ape(-like ancestor)...maybe.
Now Gen. 2:7 shows that GOD creates man first then gives him the "breath of life" making man a living soul. I don't know how much of a stretch it
would be to infer a gap in time between the two...maybe. Here's
that 'chops' up Gen. 2:7 into the corresponding Strong's links. This example (of a possible compromise) has gotten long enough and i don't want
to turn Zip's thread into this debate.
Ok that was really longer than i had intended....especially considering i didn't concede anything really.
But the common ancestry between man and
ape is a big one. And i hope that i've shown that i'm willing to disuss it objectively, so long as i'm not asked or
expected to throw out
my Bible...'cause i won't do that.
(neo)Darwinian evolution does not equal atheism-
Many, many, many evolutionists are not atheists and in fact Darwin himself wasn't either.
Yes, there is even such a thing as a Christian(who also believes the Bible is GOD's inerrant word) who is also a loyal Darwinianist(that can't be a
word), they're just not naturalists(i think it's possible to seperate the two imo). Calling an evolutionist an atheist is a good way to pick a
fight. But that's all that it's good for, and it's not really a reality based statement.
The Bible does not say how old the earth/universe is
- You have to quite a bit of ciphering, interpreting and assuming
to get at a
number. And if you ask me all you end up with is an approximation of how old man is...and even that ain't 'dead nuts' accurate. There is a
argument against YECism on top of the massive
scientific argument(pick a field any field...literally). IMHO YECism is just as
extreme a view as (strong) atheism...the "Hannity and Colmes" of the philosphical/scientific ideaology or world-view. Not putting anyone down who
holds either belief, but i don't see a compromise...i certainly hope i'm wrong.
Zipdot is a cooler 'nick' than Rren
- It just is. This was my first forum board and i didn't put any thought into it. Hmmm pick a
name....i'll just use my initials, brilliant! I would like to now be known as "Trolling for Olives", or TfO if you're in a hurry. On second
thought i should probably put some more thought into that.
Ok i'll stop rambling here. BUT a thread where Zip is saying "maybe there is something to this whole ID thing after all", could not be left to
die. That'd be like RANT saying "ya Bush ain't so bad, it's a shame he can't run again"(ok maybe not that extreme). And any opportunity to
discuss origins without fighting over it....i'm in
Way to set the tone mr. FSME...job well done.
[edit on 17-11-2005 by Rren]
[edit on 17-11-2005 by Rren]