Evolution and Intelligent Design

[BluePriest]

1. yes, i know, but so what?

2. again, so what?

3. yes, i know, but the religeon must bend ALOT! and also it is implied that evolution is false.

It seems the only person here that says that religion implies that evolution is false is you.

[TheOwner]

Some religions imply that evolution is false but they are small religions none of the big name religions say so

[ratcharmer]

ID states that god created all living things, evolution states that we evolved from other organisms.

i just dont see whats so hard to understand about that! evolution states that we STARTED OUT as bacterium and evolved into us. ID states that we were "poofed" into existance at around 6000 years ago i believe, i might be wrong about the timing though. i just CANNOT think of any reason why and how you think that they can co-exist!

well, i know WHY; you want to have some proof of real things, while still having an almighty diety.

(underlined section) This is not what Intelligent Design states. You've mashed together some elements from ID, Bishop Usher's work on the age of the universe (which only a small subset of Christians believe), and a long outdated spontaneous generation hypothesis.

I've already provided an explanation of what ID does and does not state twice, I see no reason to repeat myself.

According to the actual definition of ID there is no conflict.

The initial dispute around  Design versus Evolution came to be when Darwin first proposed natural selection and a church official said something along the lines of "wait, why would things need to evolve? Wouldn't God have made things perfect to begin with?"

The mistake that the church official made (I'm not sure who the official was) was in assuming that the perfect form (for God's purposes, not ours. No comments on imperfections in the human body please) would be static. Doesn't it make  more sense that a perfect form should be able to adapt to changing circumstances?

[TheOwner]

Thank you for backing me but also didn't you say that you didn't believe in evolution ratcharmer?

[ratcharmer]

Thank you for backing me but also didn't you say that you didn't believe in evolution ratcharmer?

Umm . . . no? If I did somewhere I can only imagine it was a typo or someone playing a prank when I left the forum open on my computer.

I don't see any conflict between a Creator God and the theory of evolution. I'm a microbiologist by trade so it'd be sort of silly of me not to believe in evolution.

[Innominate]

I assume your going with the Christian story line correct?  Evolution coexists with Genesis.

1.  Genesis is very metaphorical
2.  One God day doesn't have to equal one human day (human day gets longer and longer all the time)
3.  Almost any religion that doesn't specifically say evolution does not exist can be interpreted to fit with evolution

Could you please provide some evidence that Genesis is meant to be taken metaphorically rather than literally? So many Christians think it is figurative, but none have any evidence.

[BluePriest]

I had a friend that took hebrew and was a biblical scholar. We always had long debates about whether it was a figurative 7 days or literal 7 days. I use to always think it was a literal 7 days, but all the eviedence I was finding was saying it wasnt. And also,  my friend I was talking about told me that you have to look at it in the hebrew, and see that the creation account in Genesis is actually very poetic, meaning that it is meant to be taken figuratively.

Aside from that

http://www.creationingenesis.com/TheHebrewWordYOM.pdf

[lawlmaster09]

a discussion is not very good evidence, but, if you want evidence about anything in the bible, it is VERY rare, I'm not saying that there is NONE (but personally i dont think there is any ) but very little. why do people think the bible isnt meant to be taken literally? because it is false. does that make sense? that if something is false then instead of admitting that it is, you say "its figurative! dont take it so seriously!"

[BluePriest]

a discussion is not very good evidence, but, if you want evidence about anything in the bible, it is VERY rare, I'm not saying that there is NONE (but personally i dont think there is any ) but very little. why do people think the bible isnt meant to be taken literally? because it is false. does that make sense? that if something is false then instead of admitting that it is, you say "its figurative! dont take it so seriously!"

I also cited something as well.

[lawlmaster09]

kk, wait a sec, im writing a reply, but its really long

[lawlmaster09]

NOOO!

dammit!

EVERYTHING GOT DELETED! ARGH!!!!!   

[Artois]

NOOO!

dammit!

EVERYTHING GOT DELETED! ARGH!!!!!   

I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, dammit!!!