God speaks in metaphors almost all the time, and evolution happens faster, much faster than most scientists think, until you live for over 6000 years, and see how the people in that time evolved come back and see me.

Still, the earth was new the chemicals may have speeded up the evolution rate.

And in a way, the bible is a Christian Koran unless you actually are somewhat familiar with the Koran.

And instead of questioning me, why don't you find the answers for yourself?

That had to be the second time you had contradicted yourself. It's actually quite funny.

Still think what you want.

Rev. 17:14. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

Rev. 16:14. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.

Gen. 1:3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

"Amazing, that took a single second! Wait! I though he did that in one day!?

Matt. 24:9. "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

Jeremiah 10:13 When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses.
Doesn't this have a scientific reference as well?

The parables such as the prodigal son and the 10 virgins are metaphors, God's word is perfect meaning he can tell no lie.

Matt. 10:34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Somewhere else in the bible the word of god is likened unto a two edged sword. God states that he will cleanse the earth with a sword of fire, or the word of god, the tree of life in mormon doctrine likens the word of god to an iron rod. This states that we must always be holding on to the iron rod or the sword to avoid being destroyed by it.

Your turn to explain something to me.

FirestormPhoenix:
With all due respect, I think it'd be better if you didn't attempt to use scripture in an argument against someone who doesn't see scripture as a form of authority.

MrDucky:
A large amount of Christians hold a more liberal "Old Earth Creationist" or "Theistic Evolutionist" viewpoint, rather than the more traditional, fundamentalist "Young Earth Creationist" viewpoint. As you've said, the God of the bible speaks in metaphors- it's perfectly reasonable to believe that that is a metaphor for gradual change over time (IE - Evolution) - I know many Christians who are scientists (I frequent a Theology Debating site, and often converse with them) and can accept both beliefs side by side. There are a few interpretations of the bible:
-Fundamentalist: Believes that the bible is the exact word of God, is infalliable.
-Conservative: Believes that the bible is the word of God written and changed by man.
-Liberal: Believes that the bible is written by man, but inspired by God.


St.Even - (By the way I'm an atheist) Battledawn Staff.

I believe it's more suited to the word "Aeon" - regardless, there has been many debates over which word is actually used in the original text, and as far as Christian doctrines go, it's not really an important issue. I mean, YECs are wrong... but there are issues such as Sola Fida which are considered much more important.

*Yawn* Wake me up when Mars 1 is out.

This is.... amazing.

[offtopic]Won't be long[/offtopic]

So, FirestormPhoenix, what's your personal protological view? It sounds like... apathetic creationist? (Creationism, but you're undecided or don't care about when). Something like that.

It's interesting to bring up, though, the "that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day" verse. Although, in some translations it is "that a single day is..." - This could be reconsilable with a Young Earth View point. (It does say "like" a thousand years, which is implying that it can be more or less than the number).

St.Even

Ok, after wading through 9 pages of discussion, I have a few observations.

1) for the record, I believe in evolution.

2) I am interested in what 'scientific evidence' somebody from the opposing camp would be prepared to accept as definitive 'proof' of evolution. No point arguing with somebody who won't accept anything you say, period.

Now for some postulates for comment / refutation:
1) according to the bible, and accepted christian belief, God is infallible, yes?
Following from that, anything He does / makes / says is perfect, yes?
Therefore, it would be logical to assume that He would not create something wasteful. He would choose a design that would provide the optimum balance between matierials used, effort required, and suitability for the intended application. (Same as today: why bother with a 1 ton v12 car, intended for driving 3mm to the shop for a 6 pack? Surely a small, efficient engine, and a lightweight chassis is more efficient and economical).

Bearing in mind that we KNOW that existance is in a constant state of flux (how much has the world changed in the last 10 years? 50 years? 500 years?), God CANNOT simply have created the universe and left it static. His chosen special creation, man, MUST change in order to survive in a changing environment. By Christian logic therefore, God must have instilled into every living thing the capability for change, otherwise He and all His creations would be imperfect...

Ergo evolution is real. Call it what you will, but by both christian logic and by the most modern accepted scientific methods, evolution is real.

Further to the above: God is perfect, humans are not. Humans are far from perfect (but they were 'designed' that way, apparently, the whole 'free will' thing). Bearing that in mind, why would God speak to Man as an equal, when it is obvious that He isn't? God spoke to Man as a father would to His children, yes? How many children understand the concepts of advanced string theory? Or quantum mechanics? Or even compound interest?
In talking to Man, God MUST have 'dumbed down' a LOT. I mean, he created the whole universe from scratch, yes? To go from that to addressing a creature that: can't make fire, has never heard of a 'wheel', thinks the earth is flat, wouldn't know DNA from RNA... all these things exist beyond doubt, yet the mind of early Man was far from equipped to handle such things.

That is why the early bible is full of parental advice, aka 'commandments', which is a nice way of saying "do as I tell you, and don't ask why. I know better, but you wouldn't understand me even if I explained it to you, so just steer clear of the things I have forbidden, and you'll get desert, ok?"

Another thing that constantly irritates me is the whole 'missing link' thing...

Man did NOT evolve from apes any more than apes evolved from man.
They share a common ancestor, who was ape-like...

It is like saying "oh yes, I am descended from my cousin..." (aside from the whole incest thing, which I won't go into here)

You are not descended from your cousin, but from your common grand-parents.

An ape is not 'less evolved' than a man, they are simply on a different branch of the family tree.

As for 'choice' vs 'randomness':
Scientisis 'choose' what to examine/test, because their budget and timeframes simply do not allow them to test every single possibility. They select a certain set of components, put them in a given scenario, and observe the results.
How long would it take, if you had all the neccesary precursors for amino acids in 1 tidal pool, to form? Allowing for the presence of UV radiation, heat, etc...? How about 100 billion years, as a totally arbitrary, made up figure?
Now, take those precursors, and extrapolate those conditions across the entire globe, for every nook and cranny of every inch of coastline... even if you allow only 100 viable sites globally, you have slashed the time for 'randomness' to create an amino acid from 100 billion to 1 billion... the universe is not a fixed, one station experimental lab. Everywhere, everyWHEN, is a lab, constantly mixing, changing, testing. Under those circumstances, life in some form is almost CERTAIN, not a 'statistical improbablility, therefore it must have been intelligent design'.

Look at the world today, and look at the evolution of life.
They are both an exponentially accelerating scenario:
Several billion years from 'big hot rock' to 'w00t! I has bacteria!'. A few hundred million from 'bacteria' to 'look out for the T-Rex'. Only a few million from 'hey! Where did the dinosaurs go?' to 'I wonder what happens if I sail over the horizon?'. and in living memory, we have gone from 'man cannot fly!' and 'I wonder what is happening in the next town over' to 'mars probe launched' and 'damn! I left my mobile at home, I was going to ring Bob in Vladivostok too'.

Every step we take we are not learning to walk all over again, we build on what has come before. Our genes, and those of every living thing, do the same.
We have eyes cos over time, "bits of skin that reacted somehow to light" became "visual input receptors" in all their many forms, and cos they worked, and gave anything with them an advantage over those without. Every now and then, and improvement occurs, and gets kept. Every now and then, a non-improvement occurs, and that gets scrapped cos to pass the gene on, you need to do better than the competition.


Getting back on track somewhat, I fail to see how creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. The sticking point is (funnily enough) human fallibility and hubris. Who are YOU to believe that you and you alone have the ultimate truth? "The bible did not arrive direct from God by fax". Faith, by it's very nature is not logical, it even says so in the bible, so you can't argue THAT with me without invalidating your whole argument

I am a scientist at heart. I make judgements based on demonstrated facts. I will accept as a fact anything that can be physically proven, not simply stated. The word of God is not proof, because unless I can see something with His signature on it, not a 46th-hand copy of something translated through 4 languages, it is subject to 'interpretation' through the mind of fallible Man.

And yes, I miss general kaja too, he actually knew how to debate, not just spew forth a bunch of fanatic clap-trap.

Rejoinders anybody?