ADN

err yeah... I imagine so indeed and I find your reply intriguing.

what is so different between the Shabo Yom veh Sepher Ha-Berashith and its current interpretation by fundamental - do you mean Roman-Catholic ones? - christians?

btw. funny way of putting it raum. It makes me wonder if Moses would have slapped his stone slab against my scowl? /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

QUOTE(Brains @ Nov 22 2006, 09:59 AM) err yeah... I imagine so indeed and I find your reply intriguing.

what is so different between the Shabo Yom veh Sepher Ha-Berashith and its current interpretation by fundamental - do you mean Roman-Catholic ones? - christians?

btw. funny way of putting it raum. It makes me wonder if Moses would have slapped his stone slab against my scowl? /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

the difference is that the book of genesis was not written by moses, and originally doesn't mention half of what it does now. it reads more like native american creation myths that have been passed down, to be honest.

QUOTE(raum @ Nov 22 2006, 05:52 PM) the difference is that the book of genesis was not written by moses, and originally doesn't mention half of what it does now. it reads more like native american creation myths that have been passed down, to be honest.
so. what does it bring to the discussion here? how does it explain creationism?

QUOTE(Brains @ Nov 22 2006, 03:54 PM) so. what does it bring to the discussion here? how does it explain creationism?

Brains, that is my point exactly. The minute I say something about Intelligent Design, you start adressing it as though it is synonymous with creationism. My point do not explain Creationism. My support of the study of Intelligent design does not fit into the model that teaches "(WHAT I SAY) THE BIBLE SAYS IS RIGHT."

In fact, it humiliates it.

right. foolish me. both are different.

hmm... wonder why the brain didn't catch that for over a year now. /dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="<_<" border="0" alt="dry.gif" />

damn... need to reread the thread now, I guess.

My beef with Creationism is not that it's wrong - just that it isn't science. See the Flying Spaghetti Creature argument. Wrapping itself in science is disservice to the actual practitioners of science, which is why they get so irate about it. It's not unlike a group saying "We're Christians because we believe Jesus existed as the incarnation of the devil." Might be a valid belief system, but it ain't Christianity and to use it that way is a direct affront to those who believe in him as the Messiah.

Evolution is clearly happening. There are unfit species dying out and being replace by fitter species all the time - even in our human time frames. See the classic black / white moth example. Also evolution or whatever its successor is like, is not linear and is very repetitive.

So they are in fact Orange Soda vs Apples. I think the question that this thread is actually discussing (maybe) is whether evolution, by itself, is sufficient explanation for mankind. My response would be, from a scientific perspective, clearly yes, since the soul based parts of the human animal are not part of the scientific equation.

From a personal and subjective position, I would say no. Evolution does not answer the "Why are we here?" question that seems to be a very fundamental question that most humans encounter. Intelligent Design doesn't really answer it, either, but it at least gives some pointers along the way. I would be very interested in hearing the discussion continue along these lines.

[Another, hopefully appropriate, bump of a topic I find interesting]

As long as you are adding things like that, I certainly don't mind... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

But as was argued earlier, evolution is a whole nother beast from adaptation...I think a species or more prone to adapt, than to evolve...A careful combination of both adaptation and evolution, with some sort of creationism; you just can't get something from nothing, and I think we're fine...

I missed the adaptation vs evolution argument. I thought I read it pretty closely...

The argument for "something" from "nothing" has to do with the effect of statistical bias over a very long run. That I believe, is how evolution, results from adaptation. However, the theory really doesn't explain why the bias exists at all. My basic take on this is that the Creator went to a great deal of trouble to make a universe that wasn't predictable. The only reason I can see is that the Creator wanted to have creations with Free Will.

So my answer to the whole mess is, I think, that the universe is designed, but designed to create creatures that are not predictable to the Creator. I suspect this opinion may get me shot at by both sides of the argument...

BTW, this is post #500...

OK

Here's my take Creation and Evolution can Coexist

It is like comparing apples to OJ Soda

Why couldnt a supreme being create evolution, or put it in place or start the process.

The bible isnt ALL literal, its coded, riddled, rhymed, similied, etc

Is the Genesis day 24 hours or is it longer??

I do agree that religious creation shouldnt be taught in public schools maybe mentioned as in a debate or other side of the story

Hell we can duplicate the process that creates life - the Big Bang, etc is a theory NOT a proven fact as is the stories in the Bible - theory (or Faith) but not proven

Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? It actually is way more scientific than evolution. This world is way too complex for there not to be a Creator.

We can duplicate the process of life? Do explain...when and where did we do that?