Evolution OR Christianity... Why?

[CJ1145]

Could someone PLEASE tell me where in the bible it states that God created everything, but liked it as it was, so prevented his creations from adapting over time? I personally don't understand WHY it's so impossible that God might just have thought somewhere along the line "What if there's a drastic enviornment change?" and decided to allow evolution so his creations could protect themselves. Is it truly so wrong to think that the all-knowing Lord had the foresight to create evolution? He seems on-the-ball about everything else...

[Sornaensis]

Because hoominz didn't come from monkies, silly boy!

[bluefinger]

If it ain't in the BIBLE, then it is of the DEBBIL!!! Evilution is nothin' but a lie crafted by SATAN to tempt us away from the LORD!!![/fundie] Okay... that was too easy. I think I need to go bleach my mind several times....

[psychology student]

Grow up guys. To the original poster: the bible says that God created a man (Homosapien) when he created the world; if you take Genesis literally. Evolution says that men (Homosapiens) are not the first stage, but infact the last stage so far, the current stage. Therfore the bible disagrees with evolution, to put it simply.

[bluefinger]

Grow up guys. Come on... gotta have a laugh here and there. I can't always be constructing lengthy, well-reasoned arguments without venting every once in a while.

[psychology student]

Come on... gotta have a laugh here and there. I can't always be constructing lengthy, well-reasoned arguments without venting every once in a while. Yeah, but not on the new members.

[bluefinger]

Yeah, but not on the new members. What makes you think I was mocking him and not the mentality of a group of people? Perhaps I should have made it more obvious?

[YULAW]

Grow up guys. To the original poster: the bible says that God created a man (Homosapien) when he created the world; if you take Genesis literally. Evolution says that men (Homosapiens) are not the first stage, but infact the last stage so far, the current stage. Therfore the bible disagrees with evolution, to put it simply. Nice point, yup I would say it's correct.

[bluefinger]

Nice point, yup I would say it's correct. Due to the vagueness of "it" in the above sentence, one remains perplexed at what you are trying to convey as being correct. Should I assume that only psych's point is correct in highlighting the differences between a bronze-age text and current scientific understanding, or perhaps something more?

[psychology student]

Maybe he is a duplicate account of mine, a doppelganger. (on second thoughts) even though he joined way before me

[YULAW]

I have no problem with that you can assume whatever you like bluefinger. You're gonna do it anyway right?

[Sornaensis]

That wouldn't surprise me, dropout. Dropout here has to invent people to be his fans.

[psychology student]

That wouldn't surprise me, dropout. Dropout here has to invent people to be his fans. I see you have broken the peace treaty. And have missed his 2003 join date.

[bluefinger]

I have no problem with that you can assume whatever you like bluefinger. You're gonna do it anyway right? Nope, I'd rather prefer knowing the facts before deciding to plunge into the deep end.... you know, like doing research. No point in assuming about things that may not be true.

[YULAW]

Nope, I'd rather prefer knowing the facts before deciding to plunge into the deep end.... you know, like doing research. No point in assuming about things that may not be true. Sounds a little too familiar don't you think? So tell me this, Is darwinian evolution full-proof? Would you say "ALL" the information is accurate and the evidence is concrete?

[Sornaensis]

Provide a counterexample that is relevent to evolution, but cannot be explained by the process, and we'll talk.

[YULAW]

What you talkin bout willis??? No seriously who are you talking to?

[bluefinger]

Sounds a little too familiar don't you think? So tell me this, Is darwinian evolution full-proof? Would you say "ALL" the information is accurate and the evidence is concrete? Ahahaha, so you were able to detect my subtle insinuations. Not only that, but you took both the hook and sinker. When something has had about 200,000 peer-reviewed journals in support for it, including a recent one coming out showing that major evolutionary leaps in bacteria have not only been observed, but were repeated using frozen samples from earlier generations of the bacteria being experimented on, I guess the evidence is pretty conclusive (as pretty much all of Biology makes sense thanks to evolutionary theory). If you can show me a peer-reviewed paper in support of ID or at least with a case showing how evolutionary theory cannot explain a certain occurrence, then maybe I'll take ID more seriously.

[Idolfan]

Wow guys, being a Christian isn't all to do with being a creationist too. It blows my mind as to why some people take the bible literally, that's just gullibility of the most blatant kind. Most Christians have come to terms with the fact that half of the bible is rubbish. People wrote it, not god. I wouldn't consider belief in Christ to be gullibility as he is mentioned in numerous religious texts including the Koran. The title "Evolution OR Christianity" is a bit, well, behind don't you think? Shouldn't the world have moved on by now?

[Sornaensis]

What you talkin bout willis??? No seriously who are you talking to? Wow guys, being a Christian isn't all to do with being a creationist too. It blows my mind as to why some people take the bible literally, that's just gullibility of the most blatant kind. Most Christians have come to terms with the fact that half of the bible is rubbish. People wrote it, not god. I wouldn't consider belief in Christ to be gullibility as he is mentioned in numerous religious texts including the Koran. The title "Evolution OR Christianity" is a bit, well, behind don't you think? Shouldn't the world have moved on by now? Oh, right. Makes sense. All the stuff in the bible doesn't apply except for the magic faery in the sky and his son part, right?

[YULAW]

Ahahaha, so you were able to detect my subtle insinuations. Not only that, but you took both the hook and sinker. When something has had about 200,000 peer-reviewed journals in support for it, including a recent one coming out showing that major evolutionary leaps in bacteria have not only been observed, but were repeated using frozen samples from earlier generations of the bacteria being experimented on, I guess the evidence is pretty conclusive (as pretty much all of Biology makes sense thanks to evolutionary theory). If you can show me a peer-reviewed paper in support of ID or at least with a case showing how evolutionary theory cannot explain a certain occurrence, then maybe I'll take ID more seriously. Bluefinger I believe we wend down this road before sir. Can Evolution explain this? This right here my friend is called "Intelligent Design" Feast your eyes on the craftsmanship. The precise additions of insurmountable beauty on levels thats beyond human comprehension. No I'm just messing around On a more serious note. Evolution doesn't explain information and the source of information. That's pretty cut and dry.

[Idolfan]

Well, basically yes. I'm not saying Jesus WAS the son of god but with so much reference to him I find it's only logical to assume that he at least existed.

[bluefinger]

Bluefinger I believe we wend down this road before sir. Can Evolution explain this? This right here my friend is called "Intelligent Design" Feast your eyes on the craftsmanship. The precise additions of insurmountable beauty on levels thats beyond human comprehension. No I'm just messing around On a more serious note. Evolution doesn't explain information and the source of information. That's pretty cut and dry. Militant bisexual attempts to balance this thread: A perfect example of evolution at work here! Yum for natural selection... Also, your speculation on 'information' is kinda false. DNA, RNA and proteins all function by their structure, in the same way keys and locks do, not by the code they contain. If anything, we applied the standards of information onto DNA, when really, all that DNA does is act as a framework for the production of protein. Again, explained in many peer-reviewed journals and can be looked up on encyclopaedia britannica and wikipedia. Also, source of 'information' (using your terms here, just for fun) = Abiogenesis. Adaptation and diversification of 'information' = Evolution Let's keep things clear-cut here. Like you said.

[psychology student]

I prefer Halle.

[bluefinger]

I prefer Halle. Catwoman... 'nuff said. D:<