Nice post Jaeger, and good that you point out that a lot of the stories in the bible are metaphores and the like. I'm saddened that most people take them literally, both atheists and religious people.
However, it is VERY true that the universe and earth was created in only six days. How? You've heard it took billions of years, right? Well, that is also true. Time is all about perspective. When the "Big Bang" occurred, according to contemporary science, matter exploded from the singularity in all directions. As the universe unfolded, space and time were warped by a factor of 1trillion. From earth, the universe appears to be anywhere from 12-16billion years old. To find the age of the universe at the very center, where either the "Big Bang" or "God" (whatever you believe) created everything from, we must divide the 15billion (for this point) by that factor of 1trillion. Doing so, we arrive at 0.015, which converted to earth days equals 6 days. And no, that's not "religious", it's "Einstein-ian" physics in action. smile Time and space simply aren't constants, as we think they are on earth. Time travel is actually possible from traveling at high speeds. We just lack the technology to go fast enough to make any significant leaps.
And this is what most believers will not accept, or admit. That the God theory they believe to be true might adapt in the future, as it has been many times in the past. If you'd say this some seven hundred years ago in public, you'd be hanging that very day! The God theory changes every time science discovers new things. Were six days simply six rotations of the earth, now it's coupled to the very beginning of time and space.
On to the evolution subject:
First and foremost, the concept of "spontaneous generation". There's not a single shred of evidence that raw elements can just "create" life without outside influence. WE can not even produce it in a laboratory. The idea violates a very old law of science: Life can only be produced by other life.
Indeed, but as we keep trying to point out, science is not done yet! We've just started to understand the genes and mechanics within micro-organisms. How can you judge science so fast, while not giving a chance to prove itself? Wouldn't that be only fair? Or are you afraid that we might discover how it all works in the near future? There's no need to deny anything, just adapt the God theory again. Eventually we'll find the answer together.
. In fact, the simplest of bacteria is far more complex than a clock or an internal combustion engine. There are actually better odds of a clock or engine being produced "naturally" by the environment than life. And all of the "materials" needed to "generate" one exist naturally. Trippy! smile
Totally rejectable, a plastic digital alarm clock will never spontaneously be created just by loose elements present in the universe. It can not happen in an infinite amount of time UNLESS, unless some higher form creates it. But that does not mean the higher form is higher than the clock he created. The clock was made from the higher form's idea. It has been made out of complex thinking processes and applied chemics and physics. Therefore, I see the clock as a more complex object than the being that created it. The function of the object does not necessary define the complexity!
And the higher form? He's not made out of plastics, chips, wires and buttons, nor runs on exactly 12 volts. He's made of the basic (yet complex) organisms, which are made of the basic elements present all around us (no, not plastics).
The next problem with evolutionary theory deals with the concept of "mutation", and lifeforms transforming in radical ways
You seem to be making no point out of this one. First, frogs do not mutate in a bird, because they are both from a different branch of evolution going way way way back. And yes, mutations CAN BE bad. Albinism isn't a nice thing. Yet it only emphatizes how nature is NOT perfect, thus another evidence how it is NOT created by a perfect God.
Secondly, there is NO genome flexible enough to "evolve" as extremely as the theory requires. A fish simply can not become a bird, no matter what.
A fish can not become a bird, correct. But one, a genome has no property named flexibility. And two, if sufficient proper genes are hit by radiation or miscopied RNA, the animal will transform into a slightly different being. And animals don't live near as long as we do. A salamander lives about 7 years. Let's see, 488 million years ago life has exploded onto land, let's assume an ancestor of our salamander lived back then. So, 14 million generations, let's say one on four has undergone a slight mutation, visible or not. Then, 3.5 million mutations are not enough to make a four legged Cambrian being look like the salamander as we know it now? Then I think you do not realise how fast evolution CAN handle, if forced.
I believe the "canis" (canine/dog/wolf) genome is the most flexible in animalia, yet we can not produce anything other than a new breed of canine. No cows, no monkeys, and no fish.
Laboratory may have simulated hundreds of years of generations with fruitflies (millions of years don't make sense. A fruitfly lives between 37 and 110 days. So that'd be 27 thousand years of research) but a fruitfly is already quite advanced. A fly has not been evolved much since the dawn of insects. It could very well be that the fly simply can not change anymore.
You keep thinking that dogs evolve into monkeys and fishes, but that's not how evolution works. A dog can not jump onto the evolutionary branch of the monkey, unless you let them breed together. But that doesn't work. They are too different. So a dog can only make its own path and branches using radiation, faulty copied DNA and reproducing with a different race, same for the fish and monkey. And a fruitfly... well... a fruitfly has way less complex genes than do dogs and monkeys. So radiation does not have such significant effects. A fly does not breed with other races. And thus the only significant way a fruitfly can change is through faulty copied DNA. Not a really fast process.
So here's the current scoreboard:
Universe had a beginning : PROVEN
Adaptation through selective reproduction : PROVEN
The modern "Theory of Evolution" : NOT PROVEN
Creationism as described by most Christians : NOT PROVEN
I can reason it in such a way that nothing is proven. The universe beginning has not been proven at all. The universe may be in a vicious cycle of expansion and shrinking, where the big bang is just a phase within this cycle. There, unproven. We just assume the most reasonable theory, and build from there. God is not more a reasonable theory than is evolution. Thus we choose evolution.
In reality, there is NO conflict between science and religion. You can believe in BOTH. Science is to explain the "how", and religion can explain the "why". Science has no explanation for why we exist. Religion doesn't explain how we exist. Believing in both can give you a much better understanding of your existence (for some people). There is no need to fight over it or hate each other. smile
Nicely put
I can settle with that. But why were you fiddling with the "how" in this whole post? Why not just be content that God exists, and that we're here for a reason, but the reason has yet to be found? And let science filter all the truths and lies... because like you said, science explains the "how".
I might be wrong on some points in this post, but I did my research as good as I ought necessary. I also once again state that I have much respect for religion, but I despise how believers start to fiddle and twist with the theories science presents.
