Quote from Masiakasaurus on Jun 11^th, 2012, 4:16pm:

 
It was more of a post against evolution and an old earth wich is kind of collectively one thing and it's pretty widely accepted that those who belive in Evolution believe in an old earth. If it can only relate to evolution I'd change it to, "I'm pretty sure Christians always knew about small changes, hence why you and I probably don't look exactly alike. But, did both of us come from fish, I highly doubt it."  
 
Same concept. You can replace fish with micro organisms, bugs, dinosoaurs, etc. That's not really the most vital part of my past couple posts.
 

Quote from Dan on Jun 11^th, 2012, 2:40pm:

 
I think much of your argument is based on assumption and interpretation.  For one, you are assuming that the Bible means seven twenty-four hour days.  That literature has been translated and interpreted so many times that it's tough to say what exactly they meant.  For all we know "days" could have originally meant "unit of time" rather than what we know it as now.  This would allow creation to take place over eons, which meshes much better with the science.
 
Also "made" doesn't mean sprung into existence.  The Bible describes men being made out of clay, which is a process that takes some time, again, better meshing with the science.
 
The producing after their own kind clause does not interfere with evolution.  In the process of evolution, the offspring is still almost exactly the same as the forebear, with just very minute differences.

The "Bible" was written by the hand of man.  Was it dictated by some "God"?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It has been used since it's inception to control other men.  If you need to cling to it to have a sense of purpose that is fine by me.  I personally have no use for anyone's gods (but that doesn't mean I deny they exist).
 
As for macro-evolution, we are seeing it.  If you follow science, there are current examples of animals that are being segregated and are losing the ability to interbreed successfully.  That is the definition of separate species.  I don't recall where I heard it, or the location but there is a mountain that in inhabited by a lizard.  When the lizard was first found, individuals from higher elevations could interbreed with individuals from lower elevations.  With changes in the climate the higher elevations and lower elevations have changed.  Along with those changes the lizards have changed.  Today a lizard from the top of the mountain cannot successfully breed with a lizard from the bottom of the mountain.  That one species has become two species.  Macro-evolution.
 
Every "scientific" claim that evolution can't happen and that Earth was created in 6 days that I've examined has hinged on underlying assumptions that are false.  But unless you understand the science being discussed thoroughly, you won't recognize those assumptions are even there.
 
I expect those who cleave strongly to the bible won't accept this tale with out details of where or maybe not at all.
 
ron

There's a logical fallacy called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  Dan cites it nicely.
"Catholics believe in evolution."    "Well, Catholics are not true Christians".   (Nor, by extension, would be Episcopals, Methodists, Sundry Lutherans, and numbers of "Orthodox" Christians.)
 
To me, it's merely sad.   The numbers of people that reject this aspect of science because it is in opposition to a creation myth passed on by simple herding nomads 3000 years ago strikes me as well, more incredible than the science seems to the biblical literalists.
As I've said before, Genesis is a creation myth that happened to become enshrined in the Hebrew bible, and then by getting grandfathered into the Christian version as well.
It's an oral tradition that goes back likely to pre-history, and borrows much from other cultures in the area.  It's well known that the "Mosaic Flood" story is essentially copied from the much older Epic Of Gilgamesh; some of the wording is identical and the whole story is essentially the same.
The ancient proto-Jewish people were in close contact with the Babylonian culture; even enslaved by them as the story goes.    It's hardly surprising that some of the culture would have rubbed off.
Likewise, the Decalogue, the "Ten Commandments", are remarkably similar to the "Code Of Hammurabi", again a Babylonian codex that the ancient Hebrews would have been familiar with.
 
As I also said previously, Genesis does not differ in any qualitative way from any other creation myth.  Whether it be the Norse or the Pacific Islanders' or the various tribes of North American indians.
Simple people craft stories to explain themselves to themselves.   Joseph Campbell goes over this ground very thoroughly in his writings on mythology, like The Hero With A Thousand Faces.  
 
BTW... I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for those various vestigial organs and structures, save perhaps that God made 'em that way to confuse us...
That's another point, of course.  Why would a "supreme being" go to such extraordinary lengths to deceive human beings, who are so notoriously easy to deceive?   I mean, to accommodate the "young Earth" scenario, God would have had to create the deep rock strata already filled with fossils, and light from the distant galaxies "already on the way" just to make it appear to us as if the universe were 15 billion years old and the Earth 5 billion with life (in the form of microorganisms) appearing 3.5 billion years ago.  The reasoning behind such subterfuge is, at best, elusive.

Woonsilara, sorry I didn't see your post. There were over 500 witness acounts after Jesus' deaths, plus the diciples who wrote about it. Read the first book in Mere christianity and I think it will really help you out. If you want to know why Chrsitians belive what they do, read the second book of mere christainity which covers just that.
 
Son of bluegrass, welcome. Secondly I could belive that there are different kinds of lizards. And I'm sure a komodo dragon couldn't mate with a gecko. Have you made a non lizard, I don't think so. So it's concievable certainately, but it's not really proof for anything.
 
 
Masi, that is really cool that God made those animals so addaptive. Have they changed into a non bird or a non salamander, nope. Same thing as above, beleivable and cool. But it's not proof for evolution.
 
 
  You guys really need to read deeper into my posts becuase I keep having to repeat myself. The Foundation of Christianity is faith and trust in Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that Man was Created. I trust him. Another foundation is trusting in God ( Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." might sound familiar). God said in Exodus that he created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days, and when he worked through Abraham to write Genesis in a form that it would be evident that he made everything in 6, 24 hour days and rested on the seventh.
 
  Another reason that the Biblical account would indicate literal days is because God was setting an example for his people. That you should work each project each day and rest on the 7th day. Not that you should spread out your projects for a few million years and after everything is done, take a personal day.  
 
Bikewer, just becuase you can go without something, doesn't mean it's not nice to have. You could live without all of your appendages. Would that be some kind of superior evolutionary being, I wouldn't think so. If someone was unfortuantely born without any appendages, would this be exact evidence of evolution with humans ridding themselves of things they don't need? Again, I wouldn't think so.  
And you are forgetting the Flood too. Romans 1:20 says
 
 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
 
So God tried to make it pretty obvious for you to see. And even worked through man to give you a journal as to what all happened knon as the Holy Bible.
 
  God did make a relatively aged planet as both humans were adults and the trees were not nuts nor pollen, they were trees. The stars for light wouldn't have been very usefull if you couldn't see them and being an all powerfull God I don't think He would have any trouble with it. The fossils and the layers of earth were all deposited about 4,500 years ago in the Flood. In such a flood all of the smaller fossils would go deeper and the larger animlas which could run and would naturally come to the top would be at the top. It's like when you shake a bag of chips to get the big chips at the top.

I've been staying out of the second half of this discussion on speciation mainly because I think the two sides agree on more than they realize and inside either end you can't really see the agreements as each claims to be subsuming and holding the fuller truth. Hence Dan's feeling that he has already answered things, and I think that same feeling is on the other side.The positions, in my opinion, are intractable and only time and honest searching will budge either.  
 
I did want to weigh in on the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy though. It is certainly abused by religion, but also by science. Only the current generation ever has true science or religion. Men of science/religion who made arguments that are defunct or unpopular were not acting as true scientists/clergy when they made those arguments.  Part of the problem is because both religion and science have changed at certain points but need to have a continuous history. Part of it is because the ideals are true, but humans further them and humans are flawed and few-if any- adhere totally to the ideals. To say nothing of honest mistakes.  There's a big nugget of truth in the "no true scotsman" fallacy and that's why all the sides use it. Ideals are upheld badly by humans and when they fail it is true in a sense that they "were not true followers". Take that too far and there never have been or will be true followers. Take it further and you can use it to dodge any criticism (that was pre-scientific or that was false christianity). But at it's heart there is a nugget of truth.

Masi, it's still a finch. And regaurds to the sharks and stingrays, is it possible that all of these animlas have a common Creator? It would be expected that some animals look alike,
 
Bikewer, wow bro, why don't you tell us how you really feel.  
 
That last quote is actually quite similar to how I view evolution. God is an unchanging God, he will love you today just as much as yesterday and as much as tomorrow no matter what you do, he'll always forgive you.
 
Yall are calling me close minded for my faith in God, when you say there is absolutely no evidence for Creation and intelligent design. I think you may underetimate how difficult it is to prove absolutes. Infact, one thing you should remember from elementary science class that that is actually one of the things science can't do is make absolute statments.  
 How about scientist like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Kelvin and the list goes on in some of the most amazing minds in scince that beleive in Intelligent Design. Or can these guys just be 'dismissed' too?
 
To quote Issac Newton, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
 
From what I've heard this guy is pretty legit, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his intlectual merit.  
 

1. Sorry about that, I was just thinking about Abraham from something else I was studying and it kinda traveled over, good catch.
 
2. God wanted his people to rest on the Sabath every week, not every few thousand years. It's a small factor though compared to the other verses in the Bible I posted earlier pointing to 24 hour days.
 
3. They aren't 'leftovers'. I was using an anology on how just because you don't need something dosen't it's not nice to have. The Sword of the Spirt (spripture) is my main weapon bro. It's the foundation of Christanity, it's my best reference for what I belive in. Not trying to 'zing' you (whatever that is), just giving some background as to why I belive what I do, and the Bible really helps with answering questions.
 
4. If you were a cray fish, you probably wouldn't have had much sucess getting to high ground compared to a deer. The Chip bag thing is a larger factor though anyway.
 
Please don't try to use the ad hominem. These aren't just my views (see the post with all the Christian scientists above), I am just representating and reflecting the views of the Church. And yes, I use a Christian Curriculum which really helps in being able to defend my Faith when I need to.