• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A potential solution to the evolution/creationism debate.

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think I have a solution. Please look at the whole thing with an open mind, then look at what I talk about and think about it. Then make your decisions free of bias. It makes things easier for all of us.

In Genesis, God made the Earth in 6 days (resting on the seventh). This apparently conflicts with science, which states that Earth was created 4.2 billion years ago, life started 2 billion years later, yadda yadda yadda.

My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.

What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.

Evolution could have taken place as well. As He changed the earth, God would have made modifications to the plants and animals inhabiting there, i.e. evolution.

I would like to hear any comments on this. I don't see why it can't work!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: A potential solution to the creationism/evolution debate.

If you believe in a God, then yes - it could certainly work. However, die-hard atheists will never agree with such a suggestion. ;)
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What the hell? Did someone accidentally delete my post?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vergiss said:
What the hell? Did someone accidentally delete my post?
Mod Note

No, actually, there were two threads of the same post. I've merged the two threads together now.

/Mod Note
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Okay... I was just getting deja vu, then. :lol:
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, but it's an old idea. One probelm is that there is still no proof for anything other than natural processes. No evidence for a god.

Also, the die-hard biblical literalists won't buy it... ;P
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: A potential solution to the creationism/evolution debate.

vergiss said:
If you believe in a God, then yes - it could certainly work. However, die-hard atheists will never agree with such a suggestion. ;)
Heck, those UbEr atheists talk about God more than Christians do!

Sorry, but it's an old idea. One probelm is that there is still no proof for anything other than natural processes. No evidence for a god.

Also, the die-hard biblical literalists won't buy it... ;P
It is so my idea! ;)

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist either. How do you think we as a seriously unstable species has survived for all these millenia? Also, I think that DNA, RNA, cells, all that good stuff we love and cherish (until the end of Bio exams :p) is a tad complex to have spontaneously evolved on its own. Maybe Star Trek has it right...

I really don't know why atheists hold on to the belief that we have been deluding ourselves for 3000 years.

And the bible shouldn't be taken literally. It has lots of symbolism for a reason.

Mod Note

No, actually, there were two threads of the same post. I've merged the two threads together now.

/Mod Note
Great, now the Mods are following me...
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
About there being no proof against god, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative.

That's why the burden of proof lies on the one making a claim of something existing.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.

What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.
It still leaves problems inherent in Genesis. The order of occurences is not exact. The flood story doesn't fit with anything we know. etc. Even if you fix the time issue, the Bible still doesn't make it as a Science Text Book.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
galenrox said:
I think that the creationist interpretation of science as being an abomination against God is stupid, cause I've always felt that science is one of the best ways to show God love, to show an interest in better understanding the depths of his works.
Indeed. Science is about the "what" and the "how." Religion/God is about the "why." They complement each other for a greater whole, but they are lousy in each otehr's sphere.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nez Dragon said:
I think I have a solution. Please look at the whole thing with an open mind, then look at what I talk about and think about it. Then make your decisions free of bias. It makes things easier for all of us.

In Genesis, God made the Earth in 6 days (resting on the seventh). This apparently conflicts with science, which states that Earth was created 4.2 billion years ago, life started 2 billion years later, yadda yadda yadda.

My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.

What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.

Evolution could have taken place as well. As He changed the earth, God would have made modifications to the plants and animals inhabiting there, i.e. evolution.

I would like to hear any comments on this. I don't see why it can't work!
The problem with this is that if it is accepted as truth, then all of the Bible must be thought of as uninterruptible by people. If one of a god's days does not equal one of our days then how do we know that one of a god's thoughts on sin are our way of interpreting it?
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
alex said:
The problem with this is that if it is accepted as truth, then all of the Bible must be thought of as uninterruptible by people. If one of a god's days does not equal one of our days then how do we know that one of a god's thoughts on sin are our way of interpreting it?
That is a different issue. God is talking about our (human) sins. It never says that one of God's days is one of our days, or vise versa, whereas God does directly refer to us when He talks about sin. The two issues are seperate.

Question, have you ever read the Bible? All of it?
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
It still leaves problems inherent in Genesis. The order of occurences is not exact. The flood story doesn't fit with anything we know. etc. Even if you fix the time issue, the Bible still doesn't make it as a Science Text Book.
It's not meant to be taken literally. The bible is symbolic. The stories within are meant to be taken symbolically. And there are other forms of the flood story in many different cultures, most notably the numerous Indian cultures across the Americas.

The Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
232
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The day explanation does try to rationalize how biblical fiction might actually fit with the evidence collected. And your right , the original spoken heritage of the bible doesn't specify one earth day as the unit of time. I can respect this view much more than a literal interpreting.

That being said, the different time scale isn't the only unreconcilable difference between the scientific theory of creation and the mythology of creationism. Look at the order in which light and plant life were created . For plant life to exist for as long as it did in your new definition of day would take... hmm it would take divine intervention. Oh wait.. that's on the calling card of creationism. " If you can't find evidence to support your view say that god did it in an unconceivable manner. "
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
dogger807 said:
The day explanation does try to rationalize how biblical fiction might actually fit with the evidence collected. And your right , the original spoken heritage of the bible doesn't specify one earth day as the unit of time. I can respect this view much more than a literal interpreting.

That being said, the different time scale isn't the only unreconcilable difference between the scientific theory of creation and the mythology of creationism. Look at the order in which light and plant life were created . For plant life to exist for as long as it did in your new definition of day would take... hmm it would take divine intervention. Oh wait.. that's on the calling card of creationism. " If you can't find evidence to support your view say that god did it in an unconceivable manner. "
Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
232
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
Your right.. for some reason I was thinking light was the last thing created. :doh:3oops:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
But the SUN was created after plants. What we are getting at here nis photosynthesis.

And then the deal about flying creatures being created before animals. Kind of leaves the bats in a tight spot.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
232
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
Ok one quick re read of genisis later. It was the sun created on the 4th day while plant life was on day 3 . Ignoring the fact that the sun is older than the earth we know that light is an electromagnetic radiation from some source , (say sun , stars, my red face for examples) and dark is mearly the absence of light. ( the separating of darkness and light demonstraits the primitive conceptualization of the originators of genisis.) IE day and night are not possible without a sun for a planet to rotate around.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nez Dragon said:
It's not meant to be taken literally. The bible is symbolic. The stories within are meant to be taken symbolically. And there are other forms of the flood story in many different cultures, most notably the numerous Indian cultures across the Americas.

The Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook.
There is a form of flood myth in most civilizations. However, that is easily explained. Virtually all civilizations have were founded next to rivers, seas, oceans and lakes where floods were a very real problem.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nez Dragon said:
That is a different issue. God is talking about our (human) sins. It never says that one of God's days is one of our days, or vise versa, whereas God does directly refer to us when He talks about sin. The two issues are seperate.

Question, have you ever read the Bible? All of it?

The point still stands. If the interpretation of a day cannot be trusted, then nothing can. You cannot pick and choose what is accurate and what isn't.

Yes, I have read the Bible. I went to a Christian school. That is where I learned how to be an Atheist.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re:

A potential solution to the evolution/creationism debate.
You wanna solution here it is.

Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re:

SKILMATIC said:
You wanna solution here it is.

Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet
Except it wouldn't be fair to the children to present scientific theory and religious myth as being equally valid.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alex said:
If one of a god's days does not equal one of our days then how do we know that one of a god's thoughts on sin are our way of interpreting it?
Ooh, nice. I had one of those head-exploding moments of profoundness after reading that, hehehe.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
as long as only evolution and/or other VALID SCIENTIFIC theories are taught in school, kids can believe whatever they want at home. By introducing this intelligent design stuff into a classroom, you just undermine the whole scientific process...
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re:

SKILMATIC said:
You wanna solution here it is.

Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet
Ah, yes. Lets teach that the Earth is Flat. Lets teach that Pi is 3.0. Lets teach all the quack ideas out there and let kids figure out for themselves. Lets teach that 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5 and that 2+2=6. The kids can decide what they want to believe, right?

Here is the deal. Lying to kids is child abuse. case closed.
 
Top Bottom