"So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." Genesis 5:5. This statement appears to be much more "historical" than "allegorical."
very true. it does. when i talk about genesis being poetry, i'm talking about the creation story. there are actually 2 creation stories in the bible...which i think kinda makes the point clearer. there are assertions of fact throughout genesis. like that adam lived 930 years. and even that God is creator. i think the discussion centered around whether evolution is precluded in genesis.
Because evolution is a scientific theory that can be falsifiable, whereas creationism is largely an unprovable belief. So while you can believe both coexists, you can't claim without a doubt that both are true (and thus can't prove it scientifically). Would Believers want it any other way? Discussing faith is always a tricky affair. If Intelligent Design were a genuine scientific endeavor, it'd seem like a loophole to prove God beyond a doubt. To me, it seems like an easy way to validate an individual's faith...
The concept that all life dervied from inanimate matter can not be falsified. We can't go back to directly observe. Even if we can show evolution within a species, the best we can do is to extrapolate out with assumption. Right??? And please don't take this as a Christian's attack on evolution. I really don't care enough to be attacking it. Just trying to see if my logic is correct.
Not being able to go back is not an impetus per say Max, but simulating those conditions and circumstances (for example, the time required) to a correct level of scientific pedigree would be impossible - it's not an achievable experiment. Which is why all of the documented evolution and historical indications of evolution are used within the confines of a theory - it is the best available mechanism to explain the data currently in hand. There is NO extrapolation - we are talking about interpolation between known points. Somewhere between x date and y date, species A died out but species B arrived - and species C appears to indicate a intermediary. This would lead to a hypothesis that species A evolved into C and B, with B having preferable traits for natural selection to work it's course.
So what happens when fossils from species A,B,C are all found together as they are on numerous occasions? This does not lead to a hypothesis that A,B,or C evolved. Many times fossils are found in different and even contradictory dated stratas in the same area. Even the geological ages have been found out of place and mixed up. I can't scientifically support creation. But I can't scientifically be as convinced about evolution as I once was. There are too many holes that are covered with circular reason or some very smart person's best guess. Species that indicate an intermedieary is an oxymoron. A species either is a missing link or it isn't. birds, reptiles and amphibians are distinct species. An intermedieary species does not exist, at least there is no evidence that there is an entire species that is intermedieary. The number of trans-species (missing link; intermedieary) fossils it would take showing the gradual specific transition between species is like 10 to the googol power, the number of transitional species would dwarf considerably the existing fossil record. But they are missing- every one of the missing link species are missing from the fossil record. Aliens took them- that is the best data in hand.
I don't think creationism precludes evolution, and, conversely, I don't think evolution precludes creationism. "Media evolution" and the "evolution" of many social scientists are another matter. I know many physical scientists who are creationist, yet hold to some version of natural selection or genetic adaptation. The "evidence" for every popular notion of evolution is not as air tight as most people think.
rhester: we've had this debate more times than I care to remember. I really don't have a dog in this fight with respect to what you believe. Just leave creationism out of the science classroom.
I agree, and I don't think you need to worry about the classroom. Evolution threads are tired. I have been wanting to post a thread on Jesus but I haven't thought it out. That's more to my interests.
I personally don't believe in those origin theories, though I do understand some evolutionist's inclination to find a "zero point" to evolution. As rhad mentioned, even if we were to create life out of organic building blocks similar to our own, it wouldn't be the exact case on how our life began. The diversity of life on earth should constantly remind us of that. What we can observe and categorize is evolution as it occurs and has occurred. That, imo, is very solid scientifically. So solid that ID'ers seek to amend things to the current model instead of scrapping it outright.
