Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    They can only co-exist if you take Genesis as a moral tale rather than absolute fact. That said I know many christians (probably the majority of the christians I know) who see absolutely no conflict between their faith and their belief in evolution - good on them!
    my biology teacher thinks that they co-exist together
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    my biology teacher thinks that they co-exist together
    I don't see how you can believe at once that man was created in the state we know today by God and that man has come to its current state through evolution from single celled organisms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    my biology teacher thinks that they co-exist together
    I believe you can too. i mean if God created the animals on the 5th day, and humans the next, what's to say there can't be an evolutionary step in between, given that we don't know how a 'day' was defined in biblical terms.

    A day was probably just a term used to descrie a period of time by the author of Genesis, since there was no concept of months and years at that time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    I don't see how you can believe at once that man was created in the state we know today by God and that man has come to its current state through evolution from single celled organisms.
    i don't believe in either creation story or evolution lol but that's what my biology teacher said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    i don't believe in either creation story or evolution lol but that's what my biology teacher said.
    So what is your mysterious Third Way - I am intrigued!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    I don't see how you can believe at once that man was created in the state we know today by God and that man has come to its current state through evolution from single celled organisms.
    OK well take the first animal/bird/whatever created by God. If in this time period that God chooses before the next stage of evolution is formed, we actually move up and up till we reach humans, then surely God has also created the human, since he instigated its evolution.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    OK well take the first animal/bird/whatever created by God. If in this time period that God chooses before the next stage of evolution is formed, we actually move up and up till we reach humans, then surely God has also created the human, since he instigated its evolution.
    But all this happened overnight. And God specifically creates man, he does not simply appear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    So what is your mysterious Third Way - I am intrigued!
    there's always a possibility that something never had a beginning but to be honest it's not something i worry about. i'm worried about here and now.

    i'm quite neutral to be honest but i pick and pull at other people's ideas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    sexual reproduction evolved from asexually reproducing orgasm...
    or it just always existed that way. have you noticed that in almost all(i say almost because i don't know every organism) sexually reproducing organism there are 2 sexes?
    There are organisms with about 392 "genders". These organisms have three genes which determine if they can mate or not, two of these genes have 8 alleles and one of them has 7 alleles. Two of these organisms may mate only if all three genes are different. Thus you have 8*8*7 = 392 different possibilities each capable of mating with only a different combination than itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    But all this happened overnight. And God specifically creates man, he does not simply appear.
    That's if you take the story literally. Many people don't believe it is literal. Most of the NT isn't, so why should the OT be ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    That's if you take the story literally. Many people don't believe it is literal. Most of the NT isn't, so why should the OT be ?
    it's funny how fossil records have specific ages/eras for things. no one knows how long these days in the creation story lasts for? maybe 24hrs? maybe millions of years? you never know...

    oh i have to add, it was the egyptians who gave us 24hr days
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    Which is simpler, God or evolution?

    Occam's razor.

    Evolution theory is full of gaps, and impossibilities. And denying the existence of God or supernatural creation is a philosophic not scientific decision.
    Ockhams razor states: You shall not include elements in your theory which are reduntant in order to explain the outcomes of your experiments.

    Surely God is a redundant element. Evolution is not. Without evolutionary theory you could not explain why we can make the observations we do when we find fossiles and other evidence for an evolution. The existance of a supernatural creation is redundant however and thus Christianity falls on Ockhams razor. Ockhams razor is not about simplicity, its about what elements of a theory are necessary in order to explain how a given input can yield the observed output. Or, as Einstein stated it "A theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler!"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    That's if you take the story literally. Many people don't believe it is literal. Most of the NT isn't, so why should the OT be ?
    Yes of course you don't have to take it literally - I previously mentioned that in an earlier post. I was responding to claims that it was possible to take both evolution and Genesis as absolute fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    oh i have to add, it was the egyptians who gave us 24hr days
    No, 24 hour days are natural - the time it takes the earth to rotate. And yes I know that it is not exactly 24 hours but that is beside the point. And whilst this will have been different at the time the earth was created, when Man appeared it was certainly as today (more or less). It is not as if the Egyptians just decided out of nowhere how long a day would last - it is fairly obvious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    No, 24 hour days are natural - the time it takes the earth to rotate. And yes I know that it is not exactly 24 hours but that is beside the point. And whilst this will have been different at the time the earth was created, when Man appeared it was certainly as today (more or less). It is not as if the Egyptians just decided out of nowhere how long a day would last - it is fairly obvious.
    LOL, I think you misunderstood the point here. one hour is defined as 1/24 times the length of a day. Thus if teh egyptians had defined one hour to be 1/10 times the length of a day we would have 10 hours a day. I know that you have these days picked other more accurate definitions in order to maintain an accurate constant for the second, but still the reason we have roughly 24 hours a day is that the egyptians found out that it was easy to divide a circle into 24 eaqually large sectors. They used this principle to construct sundials. Thus the length of an hour is the amount of time needed for the shadow of the sun to move past one of tehse sectors. Had the egyptians divided the circle into 6 parts instead, we would have 6 time units per day.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    is there any real proof of macroevolution - species from species, plants to fish to amphibhian, to reptile, to bird,or mammals, to eventually us? Well, we assume we're at end of the chain, but there are so many other species around, so they must all have taken a different route in this journey of evolution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JnA)
    is there any real proof of macroevolution - species from species, plants to fish to amphibhian, to reptile, to bird,or mammals, to eventually us? Well, we assume we're at end of the chain, but there are so many other species around, so they must all have taken a different route in this journey of evolution.
    Theres quite good evidence for it, among other fossil findings. Also all DNA research so far appears to confirm this theory. It seems a little strange that all living organisms on the earth should have had the same molecules to compose their genetic material if they had all came into existance independently dont you think? Why should the DNA of an ant be built from teh same building blocks as that of a human? Also all larger animals have very similar skeletal structures ( You can eaven identify the "finger" bones on a blue whale ).

    Otherwise I dont really understand what you mean with "real" proof. There is plenty of evidence to support thetheory, and in science thats as good as it gets. You could always come up with some fantastic scenario where all the evidence is misleading, but the question is if such a scenario is likely or not. When it comes to evolution the case is that you have so much compelling evidence that such a scenario simply is not a reasonable theory. With all the evidence we have macro evolution is certainly a very likely theory. Dont confuse this with thinking that evolution has never been prooved. It is simply the scientists way of saying: "We considder all possibilities, but so far we are pretty certain this is what happened..." Unlike a police investiogation Science doesnt end up with a conclusive trial. Science is always in the process of investigartion and thus the most certain answer you will ever get is that it is extremeley extremely likely (Eaven if this means it is so likely that it would be foolish to think anything else).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    LOL, I think you misunderstood the point here. one hour is defined as 1/24 times the length of a day. Thus if teh egyptians had defined one hour to be 1/10 times the length of a day we would have 10 hours a day. I know that you have these days picked other more accurate definitions in order to maintain an accurate constant for the second, but still the reason we have roughly 24 hours a day is that the egyptians found out that it was easy to divide a circle into 24 eaqually large sectors. They used this principle to construct sundials. Thus the length of an hour is the amount of time needed for the shadow of the sun to move past one of tehse sectors. Had the egyptians divided the circle into 6 parts instead, we would have 6 time units per day.
    But however you divide it, a day is still a day and when in genesis things take a day (remember we are taking it absolutely literally here) then that means a day, whether you split it into 10 or 24 hours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JnA)
    is there any real proof of macroevolution - species from species, plants to fish to amphibhian, to reptile, to bird,or mammals, to eventually us? Well, we assume we're at end of the chain, but there are so many other species around, so they must all have taken a different route in this journey of evolution.
    Why should we consider ourselves as the final product? We are destined to be superceded by a more evolved species just as we superceded the specii from which we came.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    Why should we consider ourselves as the final product? We are destined to be superceded by a more evolved species just as we superceded the specii from which we came.
    we've actually grown weaker as a species. due to the fact that people these days don't select the fittest of the bunch (so to speak).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.