Creationism AND Evolution can BOTH be correct (possibly)

[Mytical]

A talk about a theory (I never said it was a testable or proven theory , just random thoughts in my head) of how the two various things (Evolution and Creationism) could possibly function as a whole, followed a very odd (but understandable) side path.

[Gravekeeper]

A talk about a theory (I never said it was a testable or proven theory , just random thoughts in my head) of how the two various things (Evolution and Creationism) could possibly function as a whole, followed a very odd (but understandable) side path.

Well, the problem is they won't function as a whole because one was dreamed up as a delusional counter-argument to the other. Modern creationism is not just a rejection of evolution its also a rejection of the idea that evolution can coexist with faith. Its effectively rejecting both science and the coexistence of faith and science.

[TheHuckster]

Well, the problem is they won't function as a whole because one was dreamed up as a delusional counter-argument to the other. Modern creationism is not just a rejection of evolution its also a rejection of the idea that evolution can coexist with faith. Its effectively rejecting both science and the coexistence of faith and science.

The very fact that this thread exists counters this statement. Indeed there are many people who believe in both creationism (in the sense that a deity created the universe) and evolution.

Labeling it "modern creationism" as if it's what every modern-day creationist believes is incorrect. The pope has made statements statements a coexistence of science and faith, for one thing, and while there are a lot of fundamentalists out there who believe in young-earth creationism and/or creationism that must conflict with evolution, it hardly means anyone who believes in creationism must be a fundie who can't fathom the coexistence of evolution and creationism.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm pretty sure that Gravekeeper is referring, specifically, to Young Earth Creationists, for whom everything that is scientifically proven to be older than 6000 years or so was put there by... well someone who wanted to make people believe that things have been grinding away for a hell of a lot longer than a measly 6000 years.

You know: A wizard did it.

[Gravekeeper]

The very fact that this thread exists counters this statement. Indeed there are many people who believe in both creationism (in the sense that a deity created the universe) and evolution.

No, it isn't. Creationism specifically arose as a rejection of evolution. The modern version is just more ridiculous because it refers to young Earth creationists in popular culture. Theistic evolution is a another matter and one with a wide spectrum of arguments with a slant towards Deism. Theistic evolution is also rejected by Creationists.

[EricKei]

FWIW -- I have just as much respect for the Young Earth crowd as I do for the WBC...I'm not quite sure how to properly represent negative numbers in terms of "respect," though >_>

[Gravekeeper]

FWIW -- I have just as much respect for the Young Earth crowd as I do for the WBC...I'm not quite sure how to properly represent negative numbers in terms of "respect," though >_>

Count to one with the middle finger.

[TheHuckster]

Theistic evolution is a another matter and one with a wide spectrum of arguments with a slant towards Deism. Theistic evolution is also rejected by Creationists.

Theistic evolution is also termed "evolutionary creationism," hence why when talking about creationism, it's important to distinguish between fundamentalist creationism and other types of creationism. It might be true that creationism is traditionally aimed at fundamentalist "young earth" creationism, but in recent years I've heard it used to describe any kind of intelligent design with respect to the universe. At this point, we're arguing semantics, though, so I'll just leave it at that.

FWIW -- I have just as much respect for the Young Earth crowd as I do for the WBC...I'm not quite sure how to properly represent negative numbers in terms of "respect," though >_>

If it weren't for their meddling in science classrooms and such, I'd have more of a pleasant piqued curiosity for them. The same kind I have for flat earthers and lizard people conspiracy theorists.

[Mytical]

Wait you mean the Mansonist (who follow Charles Manson, just because I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law) Lizard people from the center of the earth did not orchestrate the Assassination of the secret Myan John F Kennedy ... well dang.. there goes my whole belief system.

[Gravekeeper]

Theistic evolution is also termed "evolutionary creationism," hence why when talking about creationism, it's important to distinguish between fundamentalist creationism and other types of creationism. It might be true that creationism is traditionally aimed at fundamentalist "young earth" creationism, but in recent years I've heard it used to describe any kind of intelligent design with respect to the universe.

Intelligent design is also something the same sort of twats came up with to repackage Creationism. The term was literally invented to get around the seperation of Church and state in regards to teaching Creationism in public schools. This is not a matter of semantics. This is what these terms mean, what they were invented for and what they are presented as in the popular conciousness.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[TheHuckster]

Okay, but now we're getting off topic, then. Mytical is clearly talking about the concept of a deity creating the universe in such a way that is still consistent with science. If we shouldn't call that concept creationism or even intelligent design, then fine... but that's neither here nor there. We're still arguing over word choices rather than the actual topic at hand.

[Gravekeeper]

Okay, but now we're getting off topic, then. Mytical is clearly talking about the concept of a deity creating the universe in such a way that is still consistent with science.

Well, no, Mytical was talking about science and Creationism. Specifically trying to reconcile Genesis with science. Which is kind of my point here. If you're trying to convince someone of evolution that aready views the Old Testament as a literal and/or historical text you're already down one. Because their position is already a rejection of evolution based on willful ignorance and/or stupidity.

[TheHuckster]

Well, no, Mytical was talking about science and Creationism. Specifically trying to reconcile Genesis with science. Which is kind of my point here. If you're trying to convince someone of evolution that aready views the Old Testament as a literal and/or historical text you're already down one. Because their position is already a rejection of evolution based on willful ignorance and/or stupidity.

I wasn't under the impression Mytical's purpose of this thread is to try and convince anyone who doesn't believe in evolution. It was simply an idea about how to interpret Genesis less literally and try to conform its story to the science we know today. As people have pointed out already, it has its major flaws, but it's definitely not the first time someone said, "If you don't take Genesis literally, you can at least keep some of the faithful aspects of it while leaving science in tact."

[Mytical]

Indeed I am not trying to convert anybody. It was a random thought which, to me, would explain how the two could coincide. While it is a theory, and will always be that way, its premise seems to be too simple to have many flaws.. other then ones I by accident put in. IE saying neanderthal, instead of HomoErectus. Would immortal beings need to keep track of time. IE I am not talking about how long the earth took to form, nor about any other timeline except the timeline INSIDE the garden of Eden. Back track to whenever homo sapiens entered the picture, figure up how long that is, and break up the time line for God to see that Adam needed a companion, then for that companion to eat from the tree of knowledge (The one that actually made them able to die). Seems pretty straight forward. Testable no? Is it correct? Probably not, but as for the idea itself.. not sure what giant gaping holes I am missing. Somebody want to clue me in? Note .. it might require a clue by four.

Edit: Actually my billions of years would have been correct. See.. they were put in the garden when the Earth was made. They just didn't come OUT until much much later. So the original billions of years would have to be included or else again the bible passages would be incorrect.

[Gravekeeper]

Probably not, but as for the idea itself.. not sure what giant gaping holes I am missing. Somebody want to clue me in? Note .. it might require a clue by four.

You really sure you want me to do that? >.>

Remember you are trying to adapt some odd 3.7 billion years worth of life for which written language only appeared around 3000ish BC or so to a story that was actually compiled by multiple people from around 4 other sources while stealing things from the Greeks to create a narrative that fit the theological agenda in the 5-6th century or about. All of which was debated and argued about for centuries without concensus ( the "official" version was typically just the one most popular with people in power and/or the one upheld by the people who killed everyone who disagreed ). Which was then translated ( incorrectly ) multiple times to the point where common beliefs of Christianity are actually entirely based on mistranslations.