Well that is where a lot of people fit in, Salt. Most educated Christians do not take the Bible literally. But the problem with the theories of Creationism and Evolution are extreme.
it could be because the are both trying so hard to debunk the other... they work together. I think both sides theories are strengthened by each other once you get past 7 literal days
I see what you are saying, Salt, and that was the position that I took during the death throes of my Christianity.
It's the only rational position that an educated Christian can take, and in a lot of ways, it seems un-debunkable. I mean, essentially, you're simply taking evolution and saying "Yeah, God did it just like that."
It's a possibility, don't get me wrong. Still, though, you run into the problem of giving man the "breath of life" and the soul while giving the proverbial finger to the rest of life that has developed these millions of years.
My post earlier in the thread asked a few questions about that, so I point you to it and ask you to answer them before I continue making points, lol.
I do agree there had to be a beginning point for everything in the universe. The way time works, there can't be an infinite chain of past events. Time itself had to start somewhere. Oh, here's something interesting...the universe, well, spacetime, is held together by light, right? If light did not have constant speed, everything would fall apart. In the Christian version of creation, the first thing God created was light. Make sense? It makes perfect sense to me that all the matter in the universe would radiate from a single point, too. It's the only explanation for the current observable structure of the universe. As far as life is concerned, animals probably have changed slightly over the years but have not changed into different animals altogether. Also notice that all the supposed states of evolution required to reach human complexity currently exist together today. We have microbes, tiny worms, spineless jellylike creatures of all sorts, on up to arthropods, fish and other vertebrates, simple land animals, complicated land animals, primates, and even all different levels of complexity from simple to mind-bogglingly complicated in specific organs like eyes, stomachs, and limbs. Why hasn't all life become as complex as us if they've had just as much time? I also think there's much LESS genetic diversity now than there used to be. Also, about origins, consider that many animals may be similar not because of common descent but because of common design. Can't you recognize an artist's work by similarity in his paintings, or an engineer's work by the similarity between his designs? Engineering...you know, it's highly unlikely that such complex machines as our animals could have been created by unorganized, entropic forces. I think they were engineered by the greatest designer in the universe. Hmm...Maybe I should just make a reading suggestion. Pick up a book by Lee Strobel called The Case for a Creator. And if you think you can handle a complex biochemical argument, look for Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.
Ok, big run-together post to dissect. Gimme a sec.
Ok, hold on, you've already lost me at one of your first points. I'm no scientist; heck, I despise a lot of science, but still...how are you getting at the fact that the constant speed of light holds us together?
Why would that have any effect on the construction of matter?
Secondly, and not necessarily trying to nitpick here, but according to the Bible, got created matter first, not light, so it doesn't really support your theory about light very well either.
Hold on here, again...evolution is not a straight ladder up to some unachieved plane of complexity. ALL that it's about is passing on genes, period. The changes that were necessary for one species to survive - say, a primitive primate in Africa, for example - would not be the same as a deep-sea invertebrate. In other words, they're allowed to stay separate. We don't have to have one massive species. It doesn't even make sense.
To add to that point, those things that we see around us, these species? They ARE changing. Our perspective is just too skewed to see it. Evolution takes a long time; millions of years, even...how can we expect our blip of a 75+ year existence to be able to observe a minute change in an animal.
As with your engineering reference, there's one key element that you're missing, here: time.
A LOT of time. Billions of years worth of time. As I said, evolution is slow, but it works its magic steadily. These "complex machines", as you put it, are works in progress and didn't pop up overnight. That's why we see the gradual change through the fossil layer.
On a similar topic, if a perfect designer made this life system, why in the WORLD is it so messed up? I mean, we're talking about bodies that break down due to simple structural errors, genetic defects that can cripple a person for life, uninhabitable places on our planet, and an overall inefficient use of resources by nature.
In other words, it kinda looks like it was a random smattering of things that HAPPENED to work together, but aren't supervised by some smartypants in the sky - if they are, he's a bit lazy.
As for Behe...he admitted on trial that his arguments for intelligent design were not founded in science and that his criticisms of evolution could be easily explained away. Look it up.
Why do you say a(n) (I assume intelligent) creator created the universe, anyways?
I think in one of my earlier posts in the thread, I pointed out that there were no oppurtunities to shape the creator's personality without experience and something to interpret experience.
Humans shape their minds through their body and enviroment, how can a creator have these living characteristics if he never had one to begin with? How is he able to think?
First, read the first chapter of Genesis. The first thing God said was, "Let there be light." Matter came later. Second, you don't need a body to think, only a spirit. God is a spiritual being. So are we. Third, read Behe's book first. It sounded pretty legitimate when I read it, even had all the chemical equations for dozens of steps in certain processes written down. If Behe said that under trial, he was probably being forced. Remember also that Charles Darwin warned on his death bed that he feared his theory was false. If the very man who came up with the theory doubted its truth, why do we accept evolution today?
I never actually read much on the details within Charles Darwin's theories, but only the basics. He might have made a mistake on some details, but the basics can still stand alone.
Also, you still havent explained to me how god's personality might have been formed.
That's a debunking from a Christian website, so that should do all of my talking for me. He didn't recant, period.
I have not read his book, admittedly, but to believe that he was being forced to say something on trial like that rings a bit too loudly like a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's the best source to pinpoint his testimony in question. That's in court, sworn to truth, so take a look.
It's impossible to even discuss the possibility that we need a spirit to think because that's a completely unverifiable theory. We need a brain to think, according to science, not a spirit.
