Just thought I'd let you all know.

Please explain that. Are you saying that evolution is a form of creationism or just a human way to look at creationism?

To say though that evolution is using the same low level of science and the same high level of faith as creationism is just wrong.

Just thought I'd add my $.02....:)

Hard to say what the top post was trying to get at, but I agree with your take.

Creationism isn't science at all and there are very fundamental differences between that and evolution theory.

damon.enola:

Please explain that. Are you saying that evolution is a form of creationism or just a human way to look at creationism?

To say though that evolution is using the same low level of science and the same high level of faith as creationism is just wrong.

I'm saying that there are a number of places in the Bible that talk about time and it's perception by man and God. To believe that mankind perceives time on the same level as God Himself would to me be the height of human arrogance.

To paraphrase, people that think that the universe was created literally in 24 hours as we measure time make baby Jesus cry.

When God rose Adam from the earth, wouldn't that simply be evolution, or rather couldn't it be creationism on a really long time scale?

I consider myself a Christian, though I don't attend church, but I do believe in the basic premises of the Bible with a few caveats. Considering evolution as the way mankind perceives creationism went a long way to reconciling some of my biggest issues.

Plus, the Bible is IMO not the actual Word of God, Dun Dun! It's the word of God tranlsated and understood by imperfect man. Again, to claim to understand exactly the word of God is human arrogance. That's why the Bible also tells to not try to understand it alone, which is why churches have councils of elders rather than one man in charge. Or at least should, not always.

Damon, I am an atheist, however, if I had to try to defend creationism, I would argue that Evolution is the best thing God ever created.

Both sides are satisfied, No?

Leo

Why not just say The Bible is a primitive attempt to explain reality and is ultimatley metaphorical? It's "science' before people knew how to do science. Takes many fewer words to say this. At least you seem to be thinking about it some. Keep it up.

"To believe that mankind perceives time on the same level as God Himself would to me be the height of human arrogance."

I would agree except for the problem where religion has allowed for an unscientific measurement of the age of the Earth and of human beings. It is actually arrogant of religion to suggest that 1) the answer is an entity with a human interpretation and that 2) that this theory is on par with something that has been "battle-tested" like evolution.

Human beings are arrogant and narcissistic and religion caters to that. It doesn't challenge it. Why else would most religions assume that "God" has characteristics similar to humans? If we are to assume that such an entity is one that gave us life, two better examples of what this "God" should mimic are the Sun and blue-green algae, both of which made life on this planet possible.

"When God rose Adam from the earth, wouldn't that simply be evolution, or rather couldn't it be creationism on a really long time scale?"

This is a faulty premise. You are assuming that humankind existed quite discretely (i.e. in one big jump). Evolution would state that there are precursors to the human species that eventually evolved into human form through changes in the environment.

You actually would be better off trying to determine how the single cell organism came into existence than trying to determine when humans came into existence.

"Considering evolution as the way mankind perceives creationism went a long way to reconciling some of my biggest issues."

Except that unlike creationism, evolution has had to prove itself and has done quite well.It is not out of the mostly blind faith school of creationism.

"It's the word of God tranlsated and understood by imperfect man. Again, to claim to understand exactly the word of God is human arrogance. "

It is also arrogant to suggest that what you are trying to understand is actually the word of God. Couldn't I also argue, considering you have no proof for your side either, that you are just as misguided to suggest that 1) "God" was actually trying to speak to someone and that 2) that someone translated it incorrectly?

Except that this notion contradicts the (literal) Biblical account. Things were created just as they are in this version.

Leo Harold:

Damon, I am an atheist, however, if I had to try to defend creationism, I would argue that Evolution is the best thing God ever created.

Both sides are satisfied, No?

Leo

Depends, from a comedic standpoint, this is quite satisfying.

However, to claim that evolution is a creation of "God", wouldn't you have to prove first that "God" exists in an objective form (and not just a form that has been perceived by Man)?

The two areas where creationism and evolution have a fair fight are 1) the "Big Bang" theory and in particular the types of elements created from it and 2) the creation of the single cell organism. It is in these areas that make me question the atheist school as absolutely correct.

*** which is why churches have councils of elders rather than one man in charge. Or at least should, not always. *** Right, because a committee of hypocritical old farts wearing silly hats is much better than just one.

...is readjusting the time frame of your religiosity to try to accomodate it to science. That's both bad religion (isn't the Bible LITERALLY true?) and bad science (which does not consider the supernatural in scientific discussion).

Suggesting that religious texts are the "imperfect word of God" is just another way of plastering over the contradictions and absurdities of religion with some kind of vague rationalism. It theoretically COULD be true, if there were a God or Gods. But claiming that such exist is a supernatural claim, and by definition non-scientirfic.

Except that evolution says *nothing* about creation.

Wow, you people just plain hate religion, don't you?

But again, and I can't state this enough, religion is nothing more than a set practice of ones beliefs. So at least argue the correct point.

How can anyone say that evolutoin is not God creating mankind? Why can't a single cell organism be what God started with, molded the clay so to speak, and eventually, as we percieve time, came up with mankind?

I'm not going to defend the literal word of the Bible, because as I stated and maybe some of you missed, I do not agree that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

If you people want to close your minds off to other opinions and beliefs, by all means, you have free will. Myself, I'll consider all sides without resorting to dismissing and denigrating other peoples opposing views.

And people claim religious people are closed minded.

opus512:

How can anyone say that evolutoin is not God creating mankind? Why can't a single cell organism be what God started with, molded the clay so to speak, and eventually, as we percieve time, came up with mankind?

No one is hating religion here. Well, maybe some are but that's not the point. In any event, it is easy to say that evolution is not god creating mankind if you don't believe in god. Whether you are defending the literal word or not, it is just a made up statement to someone who either doesn't believe there necessarily is a god or specifically believes there is none.

I'm sure that for someone who does believe in god your statement has more significance. But don't say the rest of us have closed minds when we are the ones who are being excluded from your premise!