Allright. I've read the other similar threads, and just want to put up a thought. This isn't what I believe. Just a thought. Please don't let this make your blood boil.

Let me establish that I'm not religious at all, and that I believe in evolution. Any comments I have on religion are likely inaccurate.

But what is the flaw in this logic:

Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, the universe was non-existent. So God created the universe. Not all at once, mind you, but through the controversial big-bang. The evolutionary story begins. Time passes, and man eventually takes shape.

Eventually, man evolves communication and reason skills, all as a result of God's creation of the universe, evidenced by man's worship of God. The stories of the Bible are written.

Evolution probably wasn't even conceived of in the human mind at the time of these writings. People may have reasoned that since there was no prior record of their existence, they must have just appeared. They believed there was a God, so, of course, they credited God via the Bible, thereby putting all believers on the path of the Bible. And creationism is born. They reinforced God's power through the miraculous timeframe in which, according to their account, man was created.

The Bible is a series of stories used to teach and guide others. Don't most believers admit that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally?

What if the portion of the Bible that establishes creationism is simply a story to explain the discovery of conscious human existence?

So, are creationism and evolution one and the same? Or do you think I've missed it big time?

Mike

In summary, yes, you've missed it big time.

There are actually a lot of things here that are good debate topics.

Is the Bible just a collection of made-up stories?

Should the Bible be taken literally?

How much does creationism and evolutionism overlap?

And of course, we're debating creationism now and the evolution thread will soon follow.

I think Mike is trying to open this thread up to debating creationism AND evolution. I think we can debate both here. It seems too hard to separate them if we're going to try and compare them.

Both words carry with them both definitions and implications. Standard dictionery definitions may suffice for some but they are usually inadequate. If one depends on references to measufable reality and to the implications that the words and ideas suggest it is not difficult to ascertain the validity of either concept.

Evolution means the developement of one construct with it's behavioral characteristics, both physical and chemical, to another. Thus ideas can be evolutionary. Language can be as can any measurable construct that humans are subjected to. The word also implies direction. To evolve suggests developement fron the lessor to the more complex, from the primitive to the modern, from the less efficient to the more efficient. Since there is no evidence that earlier forms of life were less biologically complex or less efficient given all of the environmental influences, the word evolution has far less application than the word and the idea of simply CHANGE. Even the word adaptability has far less meaning than the simpler concept of environmental selection. IOWs animals do not adapt. They either are able to survive or they die out. They do not make adjustments or modifications to their anatomy or to their genetic structure. They can learn and make adjustments but they cannot increase their biological ability to learn. The environment and it's ability to select does all of that. Same goes for humans. This point of view can be used to demonstrate just how important is the human need for interaction. Humans have always lacked cooperation as a means of achievement and the same principle is true today. Scarcity is the menace. Science and education are the tools necessary for increased developement.

Creation means the developement of anything new. Something humans in the world have not seen. Certainly there are indications that animals of lower intellectual orders are interested in new elements in their environments but the interest in them is proportionate to the level of their capabilities......always. But is the concept of the creation of anything valid? If you take into consideration developments in the arts you will find things that are new and unseen before, but the life of these structures and ideas (almost always abstractions) are short lived as humans can find no similarities with which to compare them. Everything that is "created" by humans can be likened to something else so is it actually created or is it just a variation on that which existed before? Just taking elements of from the environment and putting them together in a fashion so as to produce a desired effect can hardly be called creation. By the same token with every so-called creation there must be a "creator" otherwise it would be merely physical law in operation. Without a predicting organism there can be no intent and without intent there can be no directional development. Creation from this point of view is merely a reaction to the overwhelming evidence that mankind is merely another form of life. Complex?.... true. Sophisticated and productive?....true. Innovative and progressive scientifically?......true. But nevertheless just another form of life.

In order to debate Creationism and Evolution, we need some definitions. Otherwise, we are going to be getting a lot of posts like Joemailman's.

Unless someone speaks up, can we all agree to the following definitions with respect to the origins of life?

Creationism - all life forms that we see are a product of a higher power creating them. They were created in the beginning with enough genetic variability to account for the SMALL differences that has been scientifically documented.

Evolution - all living organisms arose from a single cell organism (which itself arose from non-living chemicals) by means of chance, random mutation, and/or natural selection.

I second that, clue. I agree a need for some loose definitions are needed as a basis for this discussion. I see validity in what Joemailman asserts but I think it gets us too far away from the original intention of this discussion.

I have no qualms about the basic definitions clue provided, so I say, based on those definitions, let the debate begin!

I didn't realize that Mike's intent here was to debate creationism vs evolution. I thought it was more a hypothesis on reconciling evolution and creation.

As for carrying out a debate on C vs E, I'd prefer it not to be here in the religion forum. I would suggest creating another thread in a more appropriate forum to fully engage in a C vs E debate.

Wow, I didn't either.

I was more wondering why this particular issue seems either one way or the other. Either creation or evolution. Pick one.

Why can't creationists recognize there is a possibility that man may have evolved from a God-created universe, and why can't evolutionists recognize that there may very well have been a higher power that got this ball rolling.

Or can they?

Mike

There is actually a broad spectrum of creationists and evolutionists and religions. There are religious people who believe in evolution. There are nonreligious people who believe in Intelligent Design. There are creationists who believe that the creation of the world in 7 days is not literal, but billions of years. And there creationists who believe in a literal 7 days. There are evolutionists who don't believe that God started life on earth, but space aliens started life on earth. It's all across the board.

Allright then.

I just had never heard that "theory".

Mike

joe mail man,

there IS something that sets us apart. our divine conshisness((cant spell)), the moment adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil((also known as the 'sephirothic tree of knowledge of good and evil' in the caballah as an astrological table, the other being the 'tree of life' of course.)) we lost our innocents as animals ... and became humans, and what we create is of divine knowledge. what other animal has the virtue of creativity?

some believe that god created man and the universe, some believe that the universe created man created god. i believe that the universe created god created man.

I didn't read this whole thread cuz my itchy fingers got the best of me.

There was a being that became aware that it WAS.

So came the questions... What am I? Where am I? etc...

In order to know where you are you need to know where you aren't.
3 things are then created... HERE, THERE, and the space in between.

So I'm aware and I exist but when?
3 more of 'em... The PAST, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE

So what am I?
Well you need to know what you are not and what makes you different from that.
3 more things, What you ARE, what you AREN'T and what is the DIFFERENCE.

I know that this is what happened and it coincides with nearly every belief.

Many people do believe in Creation through Evolution, and are often associated with Deist. (The idea that a GOD created things and let it go on its own) – Not the best summary, but close enough!
Anyway – As a believer in creation, my problem with this is my belief in the words of Genesis where God made us in his image. This does not allow for evolution. Additionally – To me it really makes no sense that we evolved from inanimate, none biological elements, and then developed from there.
I would compare this to the thought of tossing a Pepsi can into space, waiting for a couple billion years, and returning to find a fully functional satellite, space shuttle, or even a colony of astronauts who have evolved from this inanimate, none biological item.

There it issssss!! mniknn, number 3! What is this?

MT