Sorry, I just don't get the whole Evolution versus Creation thing. I posted some of the following ideas earlier on various threads, and got ignored.

Let's examine the dirrences between the two. I am totally disregarding the time frames, since they are mistranslated in most translations any way.

EVOLUTION/GENESIS

Earth was molten lava. /"unformed and void"

Then it was covered with water,from which land appeared./ "let dry land appear."


Plants were the first life./"let the earth put forth vegetation."

Clouds covered the skies for a/"let there be lights in the firmament"
while, and then
they cleared.

First animals in the sea. /"let the waters bring forth..."

Then land creatures./"birds that fly....cattle, creeping things..."

Lastly man./"let us make man"

neanderthal/nephalim

much later, ice ages./followed by flood.


in general, the only thing the writers of genesis got out of sync were the birds. otherwise, they pretty much had the idea. after the last ice age receded, there were many, many places all over the world, where dry land became part of the sea or ocean. could this not be the source of flood legends all over the world. Could not all the giant legends, pixies and nixies, etc., not be a remembrance of the neanderthals?

please note that the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. the creationists believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. We could say that the "earth we know" is about 10,000 years old.

I'm afraid we can't all get along. You see, people need this forum to take out their anger on people who disagree with words. If we all agreed to not fight here, then everyone in the Spirituality/Skepticism would all end up beating people they know up into a pulp. It must be so, lest there be unwanted violence!

I understand what you are saying. You know my beliefs on evolution. I believe it may have happened. I also believe if so, God is behind it. I just argue against evolution for two reasons. Firstly, it's fun. Simple as that. Secondly (and more importantly), the pervading belief that evolution must be true. It is no more proveable than any other, yet so many in our world take it as fact (sort of like Christianity - or any other religion - if you think about it, hmmmm).

Regards,

I tend to agree with you...they do mingle together don't they...

gideon, what of all the other "creation myths" out there? are you going to squeeze them in as well? if one is welcome, then all should be welcome since all of them carry the same lacking of evidence.

you will not find any co-mingling of the two theories so long as there is not evidence of there being gods, evidence that these found gods created the universe, evidence that these gods did whatever to start life, etc, etc.

if science starts just throwing in whatever fanciful idea some nutjob dreams up and calling them facts it rather defeats the entire purpose of science. if we did this we might as well go back to talking about tree spirits, fairies, and other such descriptions of the way the world works.

no-the point was, that the genesis version is not that much different from what science tells us. that's it. this is the predominant legend in the "west". of course others are close., too/

Evolution and creation are the same thing.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Evolution is in linier time,creation is in nonlinear time.

Gods perspective is nonlinear so every thing happens at once.

We live in linear time so our perspective happens over a long period of time.

not the same thing, but attempt to explain the same thing.

the reason they can appear to have such similarities is they share a common pretext (western science was born under a judao-christian-muslem social order, and thus carries with it those influences no matter how hard it tries to remove them).

perhaps your perspective is of linear time, but speak only for yourself.

Welcome Crom to the UM forum.
May you stay saner than the rest of us here.


Please read the last line in my signature:
"Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither."

No they are not the same.

Hi Gideon, It sounds good to me.

Just a thought: didn't that happen with Darwinism?

het there TD! what part of darwinism are you refering to? repeatable observable effect, or just darwin's insistance on there not being any "hand of a god"?

disagree with darwin all you like, it still carries more objective data than the thousands of years of millenarian/"golden age-fall from grace-redemption" mythology has produced.

I think I agree with Crom (I'm not very welled versed on this subject evolution or creatism ) and i kkow I might get ran right out of here but this is why I agree, as humans we like to break things down into right and wrong we forget we make up this stuff up to define the material, it could be both right and wrong in the relative realm things are always one way or the other (linear time) In the world of non linear time all things are the same Sometimes we can only except the truth as we understand it, All legs lead to the elephant. Don't be mad just my opinion Namaste sheri

i can't believe you guys are already bored with this thread. can i ask an additional question, all you wise and all-knowing Christians and atheists?
do you think that maybe, just maybe, Genesis and many other ancient documents are actually garbled remnants of ancient science? i pointed out the many obvious genesis/evo ones, but there are others. What about the phoenix, for example? Anyone here know a little about microbiology? That "mythical" bird that rises from its own ashes resembles a little too suspiciously what we call now "Clostridia". look it up if yopu don't believe me. the bacteria in question forms a "spore" when exposed to heat, and the new organism "hatches" from the spore. There are phoenix legends east and west. let's not forget the dragon legends. primitive man probably saw quite a few dinosaur skeletons when the ice receded, and that was only 10,000 years ago!

gideon... many things are possible. however, when searching for similarity one tends to find similarity. how far are you willing to interpret the meaning of one to make it fit the meaning of the other?

everything has one commonality: it came from the minds of men. so as with the parallel independent discoveries that are documented in more recent times, parallels may exist with past times. too bad we won't know with any certianty unless some "great" uncovering occurs. i would put greater likelihood on man suffering a great setback at one point than on the theories of alien assistance or other such ideas, but it is all speculation/hypothesis without evidence!