Post by Sandy Pines on Mar 9, 2010 18:17:44 GMT -5
I apologise for not coming down firmly on the side of one or other arguments but there are too many holes in boths theories.
No problem! We accept any viewpoint from anyone here.
Now please don't think I am chamioning the creationist theory either as I have no particular religious belief and there is far too much scientific evidence to suggest that evolution didnt happen to some extent
Not to change the subject, but it depends on what 'evolution' you are talking about. There's micro evolution, macro evolution, Divergent evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, adaption, and so on. Evolution is a very broad term to use in our generation. Some types of evolution are acceptable for the Christian faith, while other's I don't see why scientists would even support because there's no founding evidence to back up what they're trying to tell us.
Adam and Eve theory actually makes me baulk, as if that were remotely true then there would have been some serious cases of incest taking place in order the human race to expand.
The same thing would be shown in the theory of macro evolution. It takes 120 proteins to sustain life, if these proteins ever met up some how and created two random organisms then these two organisms would have to populate with each other, which in turn their offspring would be causing incest.
But in my opinion, incest wasn't an issue in the begining and was only considered natural in Adam and Eve's days. I'm not sure when the rule of 'incest' came to be, but I know that it wasn't a problem in the early days of the earth.