Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 555/810
Donated $8.00
(24-Nov-2004 at 18:51)


Evolution vs. Garden of eden

Well, the big book (the bible) says god created the world in 7 days, evolution (Darwin) says man developed from the apes.

are these two theories impossible to combine? or is only one 100% true?

As I belive more in science than in a old book, this was one of the main reasons I consider myself an agnostic today.

So what are your thougts?
was the garden of eden just made to explain something they didn't know what was (as a myth)? Or was the whole world created in 7 days?

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
~ Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill ~
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Skotten Add Skotten to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Numero Uno)
Posts: 167/434
(24-Nov-2004 at 18:57)


Don't quote me on it but if memory serves me correctly biblical times are not as we see them today..

Example:7 days to us may have in fact been something like 7 years (more or less not too sure).

I do believe that is how it goes

You Don't Know What You've Got Till It's Gone..Live For Today Cos You May Not Be Here Tomorrow
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Girl Add Aussie Girl to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 915/1232
(24-Nov-2004 at 20:46)


The bible is just full of bullshit.

And the god thing doesn't answer any questions either. The argument "well, the universe couldn't have appeared from nothing" only creates the question, "then who the fuck created god from nothing".
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Tobleronex Add Tobleronex to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 667/1288
(24-Nov-2004 at 22:28)


Genesis and evolution can co-exist in my religion. However, the more specific theory that man evolved from apes cannot.

But man didn't evolve from apes anyway. They just share a common ancestor.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 358/368
Donated $1.28
(24-Nov-2004 at 22:52)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

But man didn't evolve from apes anyway. They just share a common ancestor.
Yes lovly contradiciton,

awww we humans are so dam special. How lucky it is to be so devinely created!

[- P i G L e T -]
|I HATE HUMANS|
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by P i G L e T Add P i G L e T to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 137/199
(25-Nov-2004 at 00:18)


My belife is that the dieties created the world and all its little organisms, then, through Darwins Natural Selection, humans evolved from the rest.

I have little proof of this but its my thoughts (to be my way, there little proof of god too, except the world which he and the goddess created through Big bang) My thoughs co-exist with a balance. Just the way i like it

I left for for like, two years. Now I'm back. With no warning points!
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by bowds Add bowds to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 526/611
(25-Nov-2004 at 00:25)


By Numero Uno: Don't quote me on it but if memory serves me correctly biblical times are not as we see them today..

Example:7 days to us may have in fact been something like 7 years (more or less not too sure).

I do believe that is how it goes

7 days has always been 7 days, since what a day was and what a year was was decided upon, and before that, nothing was called a day or a year (plus it would have to have been 7 billion years, not 7 years. And see, no quotes )

Last edited by Raghnall, 25-Nov-2004 at 00:25.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Raghnall Add Raghnall to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 668/1288
(25-Nov-2004 at 00:57)


Quote:
(Originally posted by P i G L e T)

Yes lovly contradiciton,

awww we humans are so dam special. How lucky it is to be so devinely created!
Contradiction? Care to explain? I don't see how I contradicted myself...

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 669/1288
(25-Nov-2004 at 01:11)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Raghnall)
7 days has always been 7 days, since what a day was and what a year was was decided upon, and before that, nothing was called a day or a year (plus it would have to have been 7 billion years, not 7 years. And see, no quotes )
The sun and moon and how they were to be used to figure out times and seasons and years wasn't even created until the 3rd day. So yes, in genesis a day is an unknown amount of time.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 227/699
(25-Nov-2004 at 05:27)


The seven days IMO is just a metaphor for various stages in the earth and our galaxy's development.
I see parallels in Genesis with evolution. All life on earth stemmed from tiny bacteria that gradually, through trial and error became more and more complex. Hence Darwin's Natural Selection Theory. Animals born with birth "defects" (or rather.. differences) occasionally gave them an edge over other animals of the same species, so the ""defects"" stayed and evolved further until it was often hardly recognisable as the same species. Only the good "defects" stuck because obviously the births with the bad defects didnt survive the "survival of the fittest". The species that they evolved FROM either dies out from the new one eating all their food, or taking over their habitat better than them, or they carry on living parallel to the new one. Now that I have explained what I've learned of evolution:

Apes had the same thing going on as other animals. They were continuously evolving into more advanced creatures. What I believe the Garden of Eden was, is the earth as it was to the most advanced to-date apes (very close to us), before they gained self-realisation and made the step to become us. They were living in blissful "ignorance" and harmony with the rest of the world like other animals are still doing today. The next step in their evolution set them apart from the other animals by giving them a sense of self. This was the bite from the forbidden apple, which made Adam and Eve realise that they were naked. This new sense of self encouraged ambition, jealousy, and various other sins, thereby becoming us, basically, and "kicking us out" of the peaceful, sinless Garden of Eden because we think we're better than anything else.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by jond Add jond to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 21/22
(25-Nov-2004 at 05:45)
Who cares about the Genesis creatin myth? It is fiction all the way. There are all sorts of crazy origin stories and creation myths falling out of our ancestor's asses.

See this paper I wrote:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/originalsin.html

The bottom line is the question I asked: "Why should a mythical story be given precedence over the facts of modern science?"


A relevant section of my paper cited here:

This comments strictly on the Garden story but notice ALL the other creation myths *e.g. belief that humans orinally walked//climbed out of a huge vagina in the ground, etc).

Quote:
When taken historically, the Garden story is intrinsically unlikely for several reasons:

First, the punishment or rather, the effects of the fall do not fit the crime. Why would God set up a system where two people eating a piece of fruit against his will would cause so much damage to subsequent civilization (billions and billions of people)? The situation in Genesis seems like it was rigged-like it was a recipe intended to create disaster.

Second, the account is somewhat contradictory. Genesis 3: 7 says that "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked" and v. 22 records God as saying "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". How does one give a moral command to someone who does not "know good and evil"? This also further intensifies the ethical problem up above. If Adam and Eve did not know "good and evil" how much more do the effects or punishment of the fall not fit the crime?

Third, where is the Garden of Eden at anyways? Genesis 3:24 says "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Surely this "cherubim and a flaming sword" is a marvel to behold? It surely would attract hundreds of millions of tourists? Did the Garden of Eden disappear? Was it destroyed in the (global or local depending on who you ask) flood? I take it, paradoxically, the tree of life died somehow and this allowed the cherubic to go on its way? Even if this is so, it would seem silly for God to guard it with a cherubic and a flaming sword rather than just destroying it himself. Or why not have the cherubic destroy it rather than sit around guarding it?

To go even further without beating around the bush: there is no valid positive historical evidence regarding the details of the Genesis myth. None whatsoever and all the evidence points against it!

Fourth, things like Adam naming all the animals are clearly fictional. Some apologists try to reinterpret these passages (e.g. Hugh Ross) but their eisegesis and back-reading into scripture does not stand on its own merit.

Fifth, the cursing of the snake makes little sense. See Genesis 3:14:

" So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "


But one should immediately ask why did God curse snakes? Most Christians think the snake was the Devil. If the devil possessed a snake to tempt Adam and Eve why would God curse snakes afterwards? This makes little sense and is another indicator that the Garden Story should be seen as mythical.


Sixth, there are numerous other creation myths from around the world that all have such mythical stories as the Genesis tales:

1. "The myth of human origins told by the Carabaulo people of Timor, in eastern Indonesia, serves to explain the social order. According to this account, there were originally no humans, just the sea. Two pieces of land emerged from the waters to become the entire island of Timor. Then a huge vagina appeared in the ground, out of which came the ancestors of the present population: the first to emerge became the landowning aristocrats, and those who followed were their commoners and tenants. To climb out of the vagina, the first people hauled themselves up by the creepers of a tree. It is said that the place of emergence is still to be seen today, but no one is allowed to penetrate the tunnel which descends from it." World Mythology, p. 303

2.In some West African myths, human beings were first created in heaven and sent down on a spider's web to the earth. [Information from WM p. 267]

3. In another African myth, this one belonging to the Yoruba people. Oblata, king of the White Cloth wished to fill Olukin's empty kingdom which consisted of nothing but sea and marshes. Olukin was the sister of Olorun (the most high). Oblata sought Olorun's counsel on how he could go down and fill Olukin's kingdom. He was sent to Orunmila who told him that he needed to get a golden chain with a hook on the end.

It was lowered down to just over the water. Oblata had a sack which included the things Orunmila told him to bring. He pulled out a snail shell filled with sand and dumped it on the water, and there was dry land. next Oblata pulled out a white hen which scratched at the sand and helped spread out the extent of the land. Once there was enough land Oblata jumped down. Next he planted a palm nut that he had in his sack. The final item in his sack was a black cat to keep him company.

Oblata sowed crops, built a house and made wine from the pine nuts he harvested. Then Oblata went to work and formed people out of clay. he did not breathe life into them as he did not have the power to do so. Oldumare did that.

But while Oblata was working he became very thirst and started drinking wine. he kept working and drinking and got drunker and drunker as the day progressed. "Some of the people he molded were malformed, some missing limbs, and some twisted. Since Obatala was drunk, he didn't notice that his work was marred. So he blew life into the figures, then passed out.

When Obatala awoke the next morning, he saw what he had done and regretted it. Then he vowed to never drink again. This is why children of Obatala must avoid alcohol. It's also why Obatala is the protector of the crippled, deformed and albinos." [Information From Jackalope, poster on II Forums, via Tales of Yoruba Gods and Heros, by Harold Courlander]


4. In some Chinese myths goddess Nu Gua, who had a human head intertwined with a serpent tail for a body was on earth for some time. A sense of loneliness and the feeling that something was missing from the world kicked in and Nu Gua decided to fashion a human out of mud. When she put the creature down it sprang to life immediately. When she saw that her work was good she took more mud and made a host of people who wandered off into the countryside. She never felt lonely again as she could always hear their voices. (Info from WM p. 91)

5. Khnum was one of the four main Egyptian creator deities. He was described as the "father of fathers and the mother of mothers" in his temple at Esna. He shaped animals, humans and gods from clay on his potter's wheel and gave their bodies the breath of life. (info WM p. 39)

6. In Greece the myths of Prometheus and Pandora helped to explain the hardships which beset humanity. This is where the term 'pandora's box' comes from. When it was opened evil and sickness was released into the world. Only hope remained inside. Further, Greek mythology offers a variety of accounts regarding the origins of humanity. The idea of birth from the earth is often encountered. The first man Pelasgus, in one myth, sprang from the soil of Arcadia in the Peloponnese and founded the race of Pelasgians. "Another myth tells how Zeus sent a great flood to destroy humanity as a punishment for the misdeeds of the Titan Prometheus.. Deucalion, son of Prometheus, and his wife Pyrrha, daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora, were warned by the Titan and built an ark in which they survived the deluge. When the waters subsided, Deucalion and Pyrrha went to Delphi to pray to the Titan Themis, who in some accounts is said to be the mother of Prometheus. She told them to throw over their shoulders the bones of the being from whom they were both descended.

Bewildered at first, the couple soon realized that Themis must be referring to Gaia, the earth, whose bones were the stones in the ground. As each stone they hurled behind them landed, it turned into a human being: those thrown by Deucalion became men and those thrown by Pyrrha turned into women. The human race was thus re-created from the soil" (ibid, p. 130)

In a variation of the above account, Deucalion and his wife made a sacrifice to Zeus after the flood and his wrath was placated. Zeus then granted Deucalion one wish and his wish was for humanity to be re-created.

Hesiod in Works and Days wrote that the gods made the first men the Golden Race. They did not suffer old age, sickness or toil but for some reason they all died. It was not clear why. (WM)

7. In Indian thought, Prajapati (lord of progeny) produces children through his power of asceticism, among them a daughter, the Dawn. Prajapati becomes sexually aroused by his daughter and tries to commit incest with her. In shame and terror she turns into a deer, whereupon Prajapati become a stag and spills his seed, which gives rise to the first men. In another version, Prajapati mates with his daughter in one form after another and creates and procreated "all the pairs, even down to the ants." (WM p. 70)

8. Mayan myths tell of a succession of creations. The first people were made of earth but they were destroyed because they were mindless. The second race of people were made out of wood but they were destroyed because they were ungrateful towards their creators and they lacked souls. Legend has it that this wood race died in a flood or were eaten by demons. The last race created was naturally the Maya's ancestors who were made out of white and yellow maize blended together. "Because these maize people had divine understanding, the gods decided to "chip their eyes": this ensured that the people would be fired by the urge to reproduce themselves." (WM p. 249)

9. In the Babylonian creation myth Maduk killed Kingu and mixed his blood with earth to make humans. (WM p. 62)

I could go on but this should suffice. Creation myths and stories of the origins of humanity are very common around the world. There are also explanations that try to understand the hardship humans must endure. The question that naturally arises is: why should we accept the historicity of the Genesis myth and reject all the other accounts? The Genesis myth might be more ordered and structured than some other accounts and even less primitive but this should not be mistaken with historicity. Some apologist might assert that we should be agnostic about the Genesis creation story on strictly historical grounds as we cannot prove single attested events in antiquity did not happen. This us true but people who make comments like this are more to be admired for their devotion to apologetics than for their historical expertise. In the case of the Genesis story it is a fallacy known as 'special pleading' and I would respond to it accordingly: "I will remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Genesis myth if you remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Carabaulo myth which tells us that human kind originated on earth when a huge vagina appeared in the ground and the ancient peoples climbed out of it."

I could add more to this (e.g. the talking serpent) but it should be clear that there are serious impediments to viewing the Genesis myth as literal history. The Genesis myth has many of the "fantastic" claims that are found in other creations stories that are dismissed without a second thought. It deserves no special historical privledgesthat are not granted to any other ancient texts.
Vinnie
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by afterhourz Add afterhourz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 228/699
(25-Nov-2004 at 06:20)


I somehow doubt the Genesis story was meant to be taken literally. I think it was worded like this to explain creation in a way that the simpler minds of the time would understand. The people back then would be more likely to believe that rather than some complicated story of evolution or whatever the 'philosophers' of the time might have called it. And on top of that, cutting 'god' out of the equation could have been likely to get them burned for heresy. Its like the parable of the prodical son, the parable of the weeds and others that have been used in the bible and elsewhere: A simple story to explain something very complex. Just like how we tell children where they come from: storks, cabbage patches etc. Its like any classic lie-to-children.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by jond Add jond to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 64/193
(25-Nov-2004 at 09:16)


but i don't believe i came from a stork, i got told the real answer...

the bottom line fo the Genesis story is ***God made it***

doesn't matter how, whether literally according to the story there, or if its just a picture to help people comprehend how powerful God must be to create it all, but it actually happened by evolution... it doesn't matter, thats the small detail of HOW... the important thing is WHAT happened - God, out of his power, spoke and the world was created... (either in 6 days, or over billions of years)

"I am the way, the truth and the life"
"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full"

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"

"preach the gospel at all times - using words only when necessary"
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Coatesey Add Coatesey to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4109/8194
(25-Nov-2004 at 09:26)
Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)
But man didn't evolve from apes anyway. They just share a common ancestor.
By definition that common ancestor would have been an ape, therefore man evolved from apes, in fact, we still are apes. In biology if you have species evolved like this:

A B C
\/ /
\ /
\/
|

and you choose to group B and C then A has to belong to the same group. In this case C would be gorillas, B chimpanzees and A humans.

As for the Biblical creation myths. The fact that the first chapters of the Bible contains two contradictory myths should be enough to prove that the Bible is unreliable. (In Gen 1 man is created last after all the animals, in Gen 2 he is created first)
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 677/2678
(25-Nov-2004 at 09:30)


<Is a proud Ape.>

"I KEEK A TOUCHDOWN!" - Garo Yepremian
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sister Klon Add Sister Klon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 16/76
(28-Nov-2004 at 00:10)
How was science started and by whom?

A human, wanted to know how something worked and began to develop laws and theories. How many perfect people do you know? Remember, evolution is a theory, there is not a single item of proof that confirms it's accuracy. Everything, from why there are leg bones in snakes to the exact age derived from carbon dating, is theory. Belief in evolution requires the same amount of faith as belief in the bible.

As far as the 7 days of creation. They were 7 days. The language used, even in the origionl laguages, is very specific that they were 7, 24 hour days. This is important because they show the power of God to create.

The passage that states "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day", is there to show the unimportance of "human" time to God. He notices the passing of time the same, whether only a day has gone by or a thousand years. He is not bound by the effects of time, nor is he impatient.

Believe it or don't. Just don't try to prove or disprove it. That is as impossible as proving someone is right about evolution. Always chanllenge, but remember, understanding is never complete.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Turbonyx Add Turbonyx to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Illuminate)
(User is Banned)
Posts: 45/89
(28-Nov-2004 at 05:44)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)
As for the Biblical creation myths. The fact that the first chapters of the Bible contains two contradictory myths should be enough to prove that the Bible is unreliable. (In Gen 1 man is created last after all the animals, in Gen 2 he is created first)
For argument's sake, it is very possible that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are in different contexts. Take what jond said for example:

Quote:
Apes had the same thing going on as other animals. They were continuously evolving into more advanced creatures. What I believe the Garden of Eden was, is the earth as it was to the most advanced to-date apes (very close to us), before they gained self-realisation and made the step to become us. They were living in blissful "ignorance" and harmony with the rest of the world like other animals are still doing today. The next step in their evolution set them apart from the other animals by giving them a sense of self. This was the bite from the forbidden apple, which made Adam and Eve realise that they were naked. This new sense of self encouraged ambition, jealousy, and various other sins, thereby becoming us, basically, and "kicking us out" of the peaceful, sinless Garden of Eden because we think we're better than anything else.
Man is first since he is the first animal to recognise both God and self. If man then follows God, he will also become the last. God intended this, humans are the destined species. And depending on how far reaching your Christian beliefs are, the fact that Jesus was a man may also support this.

Until chimps start attending Church, I believe this is reasonable interpretation. It's all I got at the moment.

Last edited by Convict, 28-Nov-2004 at 05:52.
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Convict Add Convict to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 19/76
(28-Nov-2004 at 06:34)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Illuminate)

For argument's sake, it is very possible that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are in different contexts. Take what jond said for example:



Man is first since he is the first animal to recognise both God and self. If man then follows God, he will also become the last. God intended this, humans are the destined species. And depending on how far reaching your Christian beliefs are, the fact that Jesus was a man may also support this.

Until chimps start attending Church, I believe this is reasonable interpretation. It's all I got at the moment.
It is impossible to combine evolution with the bible, no matter how nice it sounds. Both preclude the other.

Evolution says we are the result of the greates series of lucky breaks ever. Every step in evolution is a extremely unlikely chance that actually happened. The bang happened just right to send out chunks of matter in a way that they could react with each other and grow. Then at a certain point, that matter was able to form a planet, in just the right orbit around just the right star. Somehow, on that planet, just the right three elements were present in just the right amounts at just the right time during a discharge of just the right amount of electricity to form amino acids. Those acids of course were created in just the right conditions that they survived long enough to somehow merge together and form the first cell. It goes on and on for millions of year. Always beating the odds, naturally.

The bible says there was no chance happening. God looked down and said, "wouldn't it be nice to have some company." So he created the world and the universe around it. He filled the world with plants and animals. Then, he sat down and took the time to craft, by hand, a creature that he would model after himself. He would breath into it life and set it up as the best of his creation.

Thats just the basics. Faith's only requirement, faith in evolution or faith in God, is that it is felt whole heartedly. If you don't, you don't trully believe, for if you did, there would be no division.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Turbonyx Add Turbonyx to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 240/699
(28-Nov-2004 at 07:03)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Illuminate)

For argument's sake, it is very possible that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are in different contexts. Take what jond said for example:



Man is first since he is the first animal to recognise both God and self. If man then follows God, he will also become the last. God intended this, humans are the destined species. And depending on how far reaching your Christian beliefs are, the fact that Jesus was a man may also support this.

Until chimps start attending Church, I believe this is reasonable interpretation. It's all I got at the moment.
the fact that chimps DON'T attend church is another one of the innumeral things that convince me that mankind's religious practises are seriously misguided.

Why would 'God' create this ENTIRE universe, which for all we know is infinite, for a bunch of comparably insignificant specks on one planet? Did he not create the earth for the other animals too? and if he did, why does he not insist that THEY plonk their butts on church pews on Sundays?

And Turbonyx, the fossil record shows that other animals were around a HELL of a long time before we were. Whether you have complete faith in carbon dating or not, you can tell their fossils have been around a lot longer than the human remains by how deep they were buried, what they were buried in, how much they have weathered and what other fossils are found in the same area. And carbon dating may not be accurate to the year, but at least it gives us an idea of the proportions of time involved. And why didnt god create all the animals at the same time? There certainly werent any mammals around at the time of creation. They wouldnt have survived back then.. the world hasnt always been such a comfy cushie place to live, what with the complete lack of oxygen at some points, extreme temperatures etc. Therefore it is pretty much impossible that all creatures, including humans, were suddenly created in one, or even the full seven 24 hour days.

There is physical proof as well as a little thing called logic to support the evolution theory. What proof is there for the Genesis story of creation apart from taking the word of whoever it was that wrote it centuries years ago?

Unless God planted those fossils and other clues for evolution to confuse us..?
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by jond Add jond to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4139/8194
(28-Nov-2004 at 08:02)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Turbonyx)
A human, wanted to know how something worked and began to develop laws and theories. How many perfect people do you know? Remember, evolution is a theory, there is not a single item of proof that confirms it's accuracy. Everything, from why there are leg bones in snakes to the exact age derived from carbon dating, is theory. Belief in evolution requires the same amount of faith as belief in the bible.
Yet another creationist who hasn't bothered to learn anything about science. It really helps if you know what a scientific theory is. The word 'theory' doesn't have the same meaning in science as in everyday language. There is lots of evidence for evolution, the fact that we have observed it, for example. When it comes to carbon dating you can, and people do all the time, test it on objects for which we already know the age. (In fact, you have to since the C-14 production varies with the activity of the sun).

There is enough evidence for evolution to make this the only viable scientific theory. The kind of creation where God makes each species individually would not give the world we see us today, unless God deliberately faked all the evidence for evolution, laying down fossils of animals that never lived and deliberately designing our DNA in a way that makes it look like we've all descended from a common ancestor. Is that what you think God did? And in that case shouldn't you believe in evolution since doing otherwise would be a statment that you think God hadn't done a good enough job of making it appear as if animals had evolved?
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 23:33.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.