Originally Posted by
VanChilds
I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion
1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"
2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.
So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.
Hey Van Childs,
Some interesting questions you pose, I'll try and answer them.
I completely agree with you that it is impossible for finite man to ever come to an understanding of how the world came to be. We are literally like fish in a bowl trying to fathom out what we can see beyond our fish tank.'There is no water outside the tank one fish might say, 'Impossible says another, how can they breathe there has to be water!
As regarding it making no difference whether you belive in biblical creation or Greek mythology however I would say it makes a big difference. Firstly if life existed and lived and died before Adam it makes a mockery of the entire doctrine of Sin.
According to the Bible, death and decay entered this world as a direct consequence of Adam's trangression. The curse that God put on Adam was to affect all life and all generations of humans, thus as Adam's descendents we share in his curse. Christ came as the second Adam, the perfect son of Man and of God to take the punishment of the first Adam and so to redeem mankind.
If the first Adam was a myth then Jesus' mission makes no sense whatsoever, there is no such thing as sin, death not only has always been but it is actually the process through which God created the world, a horrible horrible picture.
Secondly in response to your next question, mankind actually is not really getting stronger and fitter, at least not as a result of evolution.
We in the Western world tend to think of ourselves only when considering the state of the world and so see our own improved living conditions, better diet, medical knowledge etc as being somehow world wide but I assure you it is not.
In many parts of the world infant mortality is as high as it's ever been, people die of starvation and disease every single day. The average lifespan of many in Africa is less than that of high class citizens of Ancient Greece.
Also fossil remains, as evolutionist understand them contradict this theory. The Neandertal man skeleton, incidentally now classified as human by all evolutionists have far thicker, stronger bones than ourselves. They were a lot more muscular and athletic.
Furthermore the cranial capaticty of their skulls, (indicating intelligence) is significantly larger than modern humans alive today. Neandertal man according to evolutionary assumptions was smater than ourselves!
It is also interesting that Dr Jack Cuozzo an orthodontist and leading pathology anthropologist who has examined more original neandertal man skeletons than nearly anyone else has provided some shocking evidence regarding the peculiar skeletal features in a neandertal skull.
Modern science has revealed that the bones in the human face keep growing until a person dies. Cuozzo used computers and advanced algorithams to see what would happen to a mans face if that person lived for say 300 years rather than 70. Amazingly the resulting morphology would look exactly like a neandertal skull, indicating that it is possible that these neandertal humans actually look the way they do because they were around 300 years old at the time of death!
This is in complete harmony with the Bible who records Shem, Ham and Japeth, Noah's sons living for around 250 and 300 years after the flood.
That such ages might seem impossible is actually a myth. When you look at the fossil record ALL creatures were much larger than they are today. We think of dinosaurs being too huge for mankind living alongside them but fossil remains show deer 7 ft tall at the shoulder with head being 9-10 ft above the ground and with antler 12 feet across. Pigs grew to the size of cattle, rhino's grew to be 17 ft tall! Sloths' were as big as a house, cockroaches 2 ft in length, millipides 6 ft long, dragon flies had 4 ft wingspans!
These are all well documented fossil finds, and none of these creatures could possibly get to that size today as the atmosphere simply does not allow it. Yet we can see from the fossil record that they really did get this big back then. No wonder the bible says of the time before the flood 'There were giant's on the earth in those days', !
Why have I brought this up though? Simple because creatures to get to this size would have had to live extremely long lives! The largest crocodiles today grow to about 20 ft in length and it takes them 100 years to get that big, they keep growing their entire life. The fossil record shows crocodiles 50 ft long! That would take 250 years or more to grow to that size!
Imagine how much longer a dinosaur such as the giant sauropod's would take to reach their massive sizes?
So you see, it is abosultely proven beyond doubt that many species of animals alive today, lived for far longer and grew much beigger than they do today, kind of the reverse of your theory of everything living longer and being stronger now.
Neandertal man provides strong evidence that ancient man also shared in this long life.
If you are interested in the creation evolution debate I urge you to really look into and examine closely the problems associated with evolution.
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Creation vs Evolution
I also find it interesting that creationist never seem to have an answer to the social evolution of man. I'm pretty sure prehistoric man wasn't discussing the contrasts between a capitalist and communist society. These things took a evolution of thought. Ok I'm done you can pick this post apart now.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks