Quote Originally Posted by Sharla
Interesting Bilbo - but this is the definition of evolution in Wilkipedia and as it has always been taught to me - distinct from the big bang theory.

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


As for macro evolution you can check all the definitions in the following google search result - none mention the big bang theory:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ition&ct=title

In some specific parts of the bible you could argue that the theory of evolution goes against religion but it doesn't mean it can't be interpreted metaphorically or in the sense that there was more to the story than could be put into words. Even if evolution was proven correct it would not disprove religion just how literally it is interpreted.

Why do you insist the big bang theory must be true for evolution to be real? That to me makes no sense at all. Even if the first life forms were formed by a higher power there's no reason why they couldn't be influenced by the environment and natural selection can't take place.

Really where can you conclusively say that the environment is not at some higher level controlled by a higher power. What is to say that evolution could not be a tool used by god to shape the earth.

I am not an expert on the bible but I would think all things written can mean different things and be taken in different ways as explained in the last thread by Andre.

I'm not sure that death is mindless although I'm not in a hurry to die. You could say that organic matter is recycled into the organisms which subsist from the last. Death is recycled into life. I know it's not a Christian thing to believe in reincarnation but you would believe souls go somewhere after death so why would that be mindless? Why would it not just be a part of a journey?

Perhaps because you don't believe any organism has a soul except for humans? Perhaps we come to disagree again at the very first point we disagreed on. I feel - in a totally unprovable way - that animals and perhaps plants too have souls - of some kind although perhaps my definition of a soul is not identical to a Christian one.

What if all the organisms before the time of humans were to 'die' and have one soul existing both in the physical and spiritual world for all that time evolving with a particular purpose and that was god? Evolution could still occur and a higher power would have still created life.

I don't know that there would be only one original life form but I don't see any proof that there wasn't either as many organisms are able to reproduce asexually - without a mate.

I guess I object to the idea that people can say something IS or IS NOT correct without proof and our feelings/beliefs are not proof. Seriously as a race can we ever expect to fully understand something as big as the creation of life. I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story. Humans just don't have the mental capacity to fully understand or know everything and we're being silly thinking it can be summarized by any text book or bible. There will always be plenty we don't know. I think scientists know that. We just form a hypothesis and hope someone can either prove or disprove them to advance our knowledge.
Hey Sharla for your continuing participation in this debate.

I think it's fair to say we will always disagree but I don't understand how you seem to think I'm being dogmatic but that you are not?

You see I do agree with your own point below

I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story.

but as I see it, I'm not violating this point any more than you are. My belief is that all creatures and plants on this earth were created seperately from each other, your belief is that they all evolved ultimately from one single organism and so all of life is descended ultimately from one single cell.

You object to me saying that I don't believe your view of macro evolution is correct and you see that as dogmatic and foolish, yet you don't see your objection to my belief as dogmatic and foolish.

You say i should accept that life may not have occured the way I see it, but you seem to believe that life definitely occured the way you see it.

That's just totally inconsistant. If I sound dogmatic or forceful at times it is because I am conscious of the fact that the scientific establishment allows only for their own particular view to be considered.

In America humanists are constantly going through the law courts to get any mention of intelligent design removed from the classroom altogether. In places such as Kansas the legal ruling flip flops in favour of either side every few months it seems.

If science is to be as you put it unbiased and to allow for debate where a hypothesis can be put forward and tested then all interperations need to be put on the table.

I am not against the teaching of evolution at all, I just believe that the alternative intelligent design should also be taught and both thories subject to critical analysis.

The present situation is tantamount to an indoctrination whereby macro evolution alone can be taught as the answer to the question 'where did we come from?'.