Creation?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Creation?

Post by David George » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:49 am

The
Bible states God first created plants only[From algae to angiosperms] I
am sure they had no knowledge about bacteria.God only created animals
later this goes against the common ancestor.It is said that Noah made
an ark to carry all animals in pairs were plants were left out and the
measurement given in the Bible is too small for all organisms to fit
in.

Sabby
Garter
Garter
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:31 am

Post by Sabby » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:14 am

go take some english courses first
APOPTOSIS BOOOOOOOM!

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:54 am

Now, now, let's play nice! His English is much better than my Latin (but who's actually fluent in Latin, really?). I agree with most of your points, though, David. A Biblical literalist once told me that the Bible does mention bacteria, and to prove his point he quoted a verse that describes a fungus. Somehow he just couldn't understand that bacteria and fungi are two completely different kingdoms.

Interpreted a bit more loosely, Genesis does describe simpler life forms coming first, then more complex ones, just like evolution. It even mentions life in the water before life on land, just like evolution. And man arrives relatively late, just like evolution. And let's not forget those very first few verses that basically describe the big bang in amazing detail. The Bible, read correctly, says the exact same thing as science.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

User avatar
Poison
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by Poison » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:00 am

Do you need a reminder? So here it is: This is a biology forum.
Hope you know the meaning...
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.

User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by Linn » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:58 pm

The whole earth was not
destroyed by the flood.
Only the inhabited land.
Animals only from that area
were saved.
There is
archeological evidence
to support that there was
indeed a flood..
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:05 pm

http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html
If you interpret it that way sure, the q'uran predicted the formation of the universe and the big crunch. As did the Hindus. And many other creation myths.

Can they be true? Sure. But are any of this scientific? NO! Science is a process, and none of these follow the scientific process of observation-hypothesis-testing-conclusion.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:11 pm

I think there may be evidence for a local flood in the Black Sea area; is that what you're talking about, Linn? Such an event would certainly have seemed global to the people that lived there, especially after the story got retold and exaggerated over time. And mithril, I'm not saying that those accounts are scientific; I'm just trying to point out that there's more than one way to interpret it. Biblical literalists don't have a ground to stand on because the Bible doesn't necessarily say that.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:18 pm

@mithril
Actually, from the latest books i have read, there is absolutely nothing to support the idea of big crunch. Most cuantum physicists abandoned the idea. My geography teacher still tells us about it every class though...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Post by David George » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:11 am

The question of common ancestor has yet not been answered by you people.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:50 pm

well, you have to understand that science and religion don't mix very well...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
Khaiy
Coral
Coral
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:37 am

Post by Khaiy » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:25 pm

There are a number of arguments against creationist theory that are much stronger than "Where's the common ancestor?", because a creationist theory would simply say that there never was one. At the same time, showing that some parts of the flood story are feasible is not the same as supporting it.

Evidence gathered adhering to the scientific method is generally good in a discussion of science (sorry linn, I read about some of the studies in favor of the flood, but there were still unanswered questions).
Last edited by Khaiy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:32 am

I don't mean to say that I take the Genesis flood story literally; I only mean that the possibility of a Black Sea flood (which is close to Mt. Ararat) may provide a basis for a tale that gets exagerated and becomes the global flood story of the Bible. Of course there's still holes in this theory, but it's a lot stronger than taking Noah literally. There is absolutely no evidence at all for a global flood. And I'm confused as to how a common ancestor fits into this.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests