Making the Baby diana_fan cry. :(

[diana_fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY


OK, people have their beliefs, and that's cool. I don't understand it, but I accept it.

But this is the kind of thing that ... *sigh*. Confusing these children, when they are so young and so vulnerable to this kind of bullshit seems SO damn wrong to me. It seems abusive.

Am I totally over-reacting?

[Jack Zodiac]

I got up until the part where the one jerkassfacedmotherfucker said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ate vegetables and prayed for Eve to eat from the tree so he could eat meat.

Suck my big, fat, monkey-descendant cock, Creationism!

[heystacy]

I got up until the part where the one jerkassfacedmotherfucker said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ate vegetables and prayed for Eve to eat from the tree so he could eat meat.

Suck my big, fat, monkey-descendant cock, Creationism!

You got further than I did. :(

Dinosaurs lived at the same time humans did? :rolleyes:

[Jack Zodiac]

Jesus rode a triceratops into the temple when the merchants were peddling their goods on God's ground. He couldn't have flipped over every single one of those tables on his own.

[heystacy]

Jesus rode a triceratops into the temple when the merchants were peddling their goods on God's ground. He couldn't have flipped over every single one of those tables on his own.

Dinosaurs prayed for these moments. LOL

[Infra-Man]

I actually posted something in the politics thread, so I might as well re-iterate my question:

Now, call me crazy, but if the t-rex was designed by God and was originally a plant eater, why the hell did God give the t-rex long, sharp, flesh-cutting teeth but gave the brontosaurus flat, plant-mashing teeth?

And furthermore:
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3223/1529954917ff0974be58da0.jpg
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3934/exasperatedjesusai2jk9.jpg

[DaeJi]

So many stupid Christains... not to say that Christains are inherently stupid (I'm Christain and know better than to deny evolution), but the idiots really give everyone a bad name.

[diana_fan]

OUCHIE!

I was trying to be ... as "nice" as I could be. But this honestly seems abusive to me, to drive this crap into kids' heads.

[Infra-Man]

Tangentially related, has anyone seen that Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design?

Apparently Ben Stein--yeah, Richard Nixon's and Comedy Central's own Ben Stein; "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" Ben Stein--is an advocate for teaching intelligent design in schools.

[heystacy]

OUCHIE!

I was trying to be ... as "nice" as I could be. But this honestly seems abusive to me, to drive this crap into kids' heads.

The people who do this can't see this, and the parents don't seem to object either.

It makes me sad, because these children may be turned off completely by religion when they get older.

[LewisH]

someone got confused between a metaphorical story and a literal story of how life began. We don't believe in the literal story of Prometheus or in Odin making the world from the bones and bodies of Ymir and Surtur yet for some reason a lot of people still want to accept the literal idea of the Earth being created in seven days and evil talking snakes.

Some of the bible should be interpreted as metaphor and symbol, some of it as historical and some of it should just be accepted as inaccurate 3rd person accounts of events that probably happened but not exactly as described or translated.

Unfortunately all too many people have an all or nothing approach on this subject where they are perfectly reasonable with any other topic you might want to debate.

At the end of the day we are all still here however we got here and the world would be a lot better place if we stopped worrying about how we got here and started worrying about what we're going to do to make here better.

[The Tyrant Virus]

If this was made up, it would be comedy gold. Sadly, that is not the case. :(

I was raised Catholic, but GOD DAMN.

Considering that the bible was not written in English, I don't understand how these people can cling to the *translation* verbatim, without considering the possibilities that a) meanings could have been lost or mistranslated, and b) it was translated in the 1600s and the translation was undoubtedly affected by the context of the times.

I might be completely wrong here, but I had a World Literature class a few years ago in college, and we read stories that had STRONG similarities to stories from the bible (there was a Noah's Ark parallel that I remember for sure) that were, if I remember correctly, supposedly written before the bible.

[Chris Hansbrough]

you guys are all idiots. the truth is that life is merely a construct. life is merely the inherent willpower of the planet. we are merely aspects of the ring given true form by the great lord. life is not 6000 years old or 10 billion years old life as is the one inherent truth is merely a construct of the great lord mogo given solid form as a gift from a dying friend who realized the great lord needed to be something more than a therapist.

MOGO IS ALL!

[Charles RB]

Now, call me crazy, but if the t-rex was designed by God and was originally a plant eater, why the hell did God give the t-rex long, sharp, flesh-cutting teeth

God is an evil fucker who creates lifeforms solely to watch them starve as they can't eat their food by design.

[Chris Hansbrough]

God is an evil fucker who creates lifeforms solely to watch them starve as they can't eat their food by design.

some plants back then were just really fucking hard.....they must have liked coconuts or something

[LewisH]

millions of years later Colonel Sanders would have something to sell to hungry people.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/12/healthscience/web0412-dino.php

[Infra-Man]

God is an evil fucker who creates lifeforms solely to watch them starve as they can't eat their food by design.

So God hates T. Rex, which explains why he took Marc Bolan from us at a relatively early age.

Sorry... awful joke.

[Rattlehead]

Tangentially related, has anyone seen that Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design?

Apparently Ben Stein--yeah, Richard Nixon's and Comedy Central's own Ben Stein; "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" Ben Stein--is an advocate for teaching intelligent design in schools.

UGH. I was suckered in to seeing him speak at the local college here, and it was just two hours of him parroting Conservative talk radio talking points. He didn't even seem to have an opinion of his own on anything, he was just re-iterating the same nonsense you hear on Limbaugh and Hannity's radio programs. All this crap about people not being allowed to show their Patriotism and other such myths. I know I go around ripping peoples American flags off of their flagpoles so I can do my part for the hedonistic, vast left wing conspiracy.:rolleyes: I walked out in disgust.

[Hybrid2]

Considering that the bible was not written in English, I don't understand how these people can cling to the *translation* verbatim, without considering the possibilities that a) meanings could have been lost or mistranslated, and b) it was translated in the 1600s and the translation was undoubtedly affected by the context of the times.

I might be completely wrong here, but I had a World Literature class a few years ago in college, and we read stories that had STRONG similarities to stories from the bible (there was a Noah's Ark parallel that I remember for sure) that were, if I remember correctly, supposedly written before the bible.
And the Bible was put togetter,using lot's of deferent books,by Romans polititians and religious leaders,keeping and remouving what they wanted peoples to belive in.It all come to money and control of the mass after all.
Most dont give a damn about the meanings and true.

About Noa,Yes it was actualy very old stories.From all over the world.
I got a mythologie talking about all the gods and most have Noa like peoples.
From what I read.
The Event,might have started on the american continent,A huge fire that was burning everything,then the water came and floded part of Africa/Europe Sud America,lot's of boats stories or going on top of montains.In China someone started building irigation to stop the flod.It worked and the man was worship as a god of enginering after his dead.

someone got confused between a metaphorical story and a literal story of how life began. We don't believe in the literal story of Prometheus or in Odin making the world from the bones and bodies of Ymir and Surtur yet for some reason a lot of people still want to accept the literal idea of the Earth being created in seven days and evil talking snakes.

Some of the bible should be interpreted as metaphor and symbol, some of it as historical and some of it should just be accepted as inaccurate 3rd person accounts of events that probably happened but not exactly as described or translated.

Unfortunately all too many people have an all or nothing approach on this subject where they are perfectly reasonable with any other topic you might want to debate.

At the end of the day we are all still here however we got here and the world would be a lot better place if we stopped worrying about how we got here and started worrying about what we're going to do to make here better.

Adam and Eve had 2 sons and one killed the other. The End.
How are we here?

I belive the Bible is a record of historical events.But we cant take everything literaly...

Inteligent design and evolution do work togetter.Some peoples just need to open theyre eyes.

[Hybrid2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY


OK, people have their beliefs, and that's cool. I don't understand it, but I accept it.

But this is the kind of thing that ... *sigh*. Confusing these children, when they are so young and so vulnerable to this kind of bullshit seems SO damn wrong to me. It seems abusive.

Am I totally over-reacting?

I cant even watch this video.Poor kids...

[Wonder Watcher]

Brainwashing kids with religious dogma, marvelous.

I found it worrying that at the start of the report that Gallup found only 50% of the US population 'believes' in evolution.

[Sarah Beach]

Adam and Eve had 2 sons and one killed the other. The End.
How are we here?


Cain had children after killing his brother.

And Eve had another son, Seth.



(It's not that hard to look these things up, you know. Including church history, which you seem to have a skewed view of, but I'll just leave that topic alone.)

[scout1279]

Me and my father share very different political beliefs. We argue all the time. The one thing we can agree on is that creationists are crazy. They make us laugh. It is scary that some people actually believe this stuff though.

Personally, I wish humans and dinosaurs did coexist, right now. It would make things more exciting.

[Stressfactor]

For the record... I've been a life-long Christian, went to a PRIVATE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL and in that high school we were taught evolution. We were taught that science was science and belief was belief. And also for the record... that science teacher who taught all our classes evolution? He went on to eventually quit teaching and become a pastor...

It's not JUST that these people are stupid... it is their stupid belief that their children's faith is not strong enough to handle other ideas. As I said, we were told science is science and belief is belief and there are other scientists out there who live by this creedo.

[LewisH]

quote:

Personally, I wish humans and dinosaurs did coexist, right now. It would make things more exciting.

unquote

We do it's just that they evolved into birds and they do make things pretty damn interesting. Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9j8AKN06Y

http://web1.weshow.com/us/p/33579/pelican_eats_pigeon_in_london

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuej4yhYgLo

I rest my case (unless you want more examples.)

[The Tyrant Virus]

I've ALWAYS thought, even way back when I was going to Catholic grade school, that out of all the stories in the bible (not that I've actually read the whole thing) Genesis/Adam & Eve was the most silly one to take literally.

[Infra-Man]

Personally, I wish humans and dinosaurs did coexist, right now. It would make things more exciting.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/871/jesusdinosaurjz8.jpg

[scout1279]

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/871/jesusdinosaurjz8.jpg

Is that an illustration from the Gospel of Bronty the Brontosaurus?

I probably would have paid more attention in church as a kid if there were more dinosaurs. To me, that is awesome. Hilarious and awesome.

[beetlebum]

*Sigh*

This is what happens when you read an eisegesis into the texts that takes everything in a literal context.

The literalists seem to have a post structuralist (how does this relate to me?) approach to the texts, while abandoning antinomianism, in favour of legalism. At least that's how it comes across to me.

I guess this is a part of the burden of living under the microscope that is placed upon Christendom. Although I'm glad that a lot of people have found faith, I do however, hate the odd beliefs propagated by some.

I guess you'll just have to learn to take the good with the bad.

[Hybrid2]

Cain had children after killing his brother.

And Eve had another son, Seth.



(It's not that hard to look these things up, you know. Including church history, which you seem to have a skewed view of, but I'll just leave that topic alone.)

I dont think i ever heard about Seth.

I was mostly commenthing about peoples taking the bible to literally.
Like all humanity come from Adam and Eve.
Is Adam supose to have had childrens with Lilith?I dont remember where she came from.

[Infra-Man]

Is that an illustration from the Gospel of Bronty the Brontosaurus?

I probably would have paid more attention in church as a kid if there were more dinosaurs. To me, that is awesome. Hilarious and awesome.

Yes, and Bronty said it was good.

I'm actually a bit partial to this picture of a dinosaur on Noah's Ark:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7007/noahsarkny7.jpg

[Hybrid2]

quote:

Personally, I wish humans and dinosaurs did coexist, right now. It would make things more exciting.

unquote

We do it's just that they evolved into birds and they do make things pretty damn interesting. Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9j8AKN06Y

http://web1.weshow.com/us/p/33579/pelican_eats_pigeon_in_london

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuej4yhYgLo

I rest my case (unless you want more examples.)
I kew i should have said that dinosaurs where still around and that we eat them at thanksgiving...

[Sarah Beach]

I dont think i ever heard about Seth.

I was mostly commenthing about peoples taking the bible to literally.
Like all humanity come from Adam and Eve.
Is Adam supose to have had childrens with Lilith?I dont remember where she came from.

I realize you were commenting on taking it literally. ;) I just thought I'd clarify some of the details of the story.

Lilith is not scriptural. She comes out of Hebrew folklore outside of the religious texts.

[king mob]

Adam and Eve had 2 sons and one killed the other. The End.
How are we here?

Because they're not real & we evolved over millions of years. If you believe the Adam & Eve story you do have to suspend a hell of a lot of disbelief.


Inteligent design and evolution do work togetter.

No they don't. ID is propaganda for scary Creationists.

[Hybrid2]

Personally, I wish humans and dinosaurs did coexist, right now. It would make things more exciting.

It sure would.http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AUY9d2ROMTo

[Hybrid2]

No they don't. ID is propaganda for scary Creationists.

Maybe I dont realy know what ID mean.

All i'm saying is that someone set-up the rules of evolution.

Just compare the Marsupials that used to/and still live in Australia.
There was cat-like,dog-like,bear-like,mole-like,rodents-like.

Not related at all but mostly shaped the same,as placentals Mammals,to fill the same roles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1169658723/img/1.jpg

[Infra-Man]

Maybe I dont realy know what ID mean.

All i'm saying is that someone set-up the rules of evolution.

Just compare the Marsupials that used to/and still live in Australia.
There was cat-like,dog-like,bear-like,mole-like,rodents-like.

Not related at all but mostly shaped the same,as placentals Mammals,to fill the same roles.

Okay... from wikipedia:

Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes between generations are relatively minor, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

[sic]

Natural selection is a process by which heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction become more common in a population, while harmful traits become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.


Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

They do NOT work together.

[Cam63]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY


OK, people have their beliefs, and that's cool. I don't understand it, but I accept it.

But this is the kind of thing that ... *sigh*. Confusing these children, when they are so young and so vulnerable to this kind of bullshit seems SO damn wrong to me. It seems abusive.

Am I totally over-reacting?

I hope the kids get a proper education some day.

[Cam63]

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/871/jesusdinosaurjz8.jpg

Jesus rides sidesaddle !

[Cam63]

Maybe I dont realy know what ID mean.

All i'm saying is that someone set-up the rules of evolution.

Just compare the Marsupials that used to/and still live in Australia.
There was cat-like,dog-like,bear-like,mole-like,rodents-like.

Not related at all but mostly shaped the same,as placentals Mammals,to fill the same roles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1169658723/img/1.jpg

The Koala Mafia took care of those fuckers.

[diana_fan]

I hope the kids get a proper education some day.

Agreed.
[10 characters]

[beetlebum]

I knew the arguments over whether or not the Thomist God exists would eventually happen in a thread like this.

I don't want to bust out the ontological, teleological, and metaphysical arguments today.

I do believe in the notion of irreducible complexity. If I did not, I would not be a member of the overall ecclesiastical body.

But where I veer away from the Creationists is when it comes to crazy ideas like this. And when they, in the words of Barry Goldwater, try to impose their beliefs upon others.

Take that school board in Kansas for example. Actions by people like them irritate me, as I fail to see what good the actions will bring about.

And that's all I really have to say on the matter.

[Matt Doc Martin]

I got up until the part where the one jerkassfacedmotherfucker said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ate vegetables and prayed for Eve to eat from the tree so he could eat meat.

Suck my big, fat, monkey-descendant cock, Creationism!

I love you.

[Hybrid2]

Okay... from wikipedia:

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



Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)


They do NOT work together.

I disagree.
I also dont think this statement is corect.undirected process such as natural selection

[Hybrid2]

I love you.
Great! Run off with him.LET OVE FLY!
Then Helllokittykat will be mine.ALL MINE! MWAHAHAHAHA!
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Zodiac View Post
I got up until the part where the one jerkassfacedmotherfucker said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ate vegetables and prayed for Eve to eat from the tree so he could eat meat.

Suck my big, fat, monkey-descendant cock, Creationism!
Wait! did he actualy told those kids that the T-Rex was inteligent and could pray?O_o

[Infra-Man]

I disagree.
I also dont think this statement is corect.

How do evolution and intelligent design work in concert with each other? Not being antagonistic, but I'm just curious. Are you thinking of it more in terms of deism perhaps?

[Matt Doc Martin]

Great! Run off with him.LET OVE FLY!
Then Helllokittykat will be mine.ALL MINE! MWAHAHAHAHA!
...



This is me calling "dibs".

Dibs.

[Hybrid2]

How do evolution and intelligent design work in concert with each other? Not being antagonistic, but I'm just curious. Are you thinking of it more in terms of deism perhaps?
I'm not sure what deism mean.

Evolution and natural selection work with rules,someone wrote them.Or think of it as a program.

[Infra-Man]

I'm not sure what deism mean.

Evolution and natural selection work with rules,someone wrote them.Or think of it as a program.

I need to get to a show in a bit so I just want to quickly note that the so-called rules of evolution are determined in a closed system that requires no creator but rather relies on the interaction of existing species in a given environment. Evolution by natural selection asserts that advantageous mutations (i.e., mutations that give an animal a reproductive advantage over other animals, mutations that better allow animals to evade predators, mutations that allow for greater cognitive ability, etc.) will be passed on to a subsequent generation, and that subsequent generation will inherit these genes and the advantageous trait, thus giving that new generation an advantage over other members of its species without that mutation. And so on, and so on.

Intelligent design asserts that all species were designed by a creator. It seems to undercut the entire notion of a gradual process over a long period of time.

Here’s the difference in a nutshell: The eye.

In evolution, the eye came about as a gradual process, perhaps starting with a simple thin patch of skin or a membrane that can detect light but has limited visual capacity. A mutation that allows more light detection would prove more advantageous, giving that animal a greater chance of breeding and passing down that mutation to the next generation. Another mutation occurs over time that allows more light in. And then again, and again over the course of many generations. Perhaps at one point, a generation develops a rudimentary lens, and over the course of many generations, that lens it refined and visual acuity is improved. The eye, then, develops over a long period of time as the result of many, many mutations.

In intelligent design, the eye was designed as is. End of story.

[OzBat!]

No, Intelligent Design appeals to irreducible complexity. There's parts of the eye that will not operate without others and could not have mutated as such by themselves.

That said, the sheen went off ID a lonnnng time ago for me. Some arguments are good, others are off the beam. And as a cohesive theory, it comes down to trying to move the goalposts and appealing to all, while alienating everybody.

[Chris Hansbrough]

http://dorholtcustomsports.com/sitebuilder/images/jesus_saves_pic-263x191.jpg

[Charles RB]

There's parts of the eye that will not operate without others and could not have mutated as such by themselves.

I know I own a book that refutes that, and of course it would have to be one of the many that it would take me over seven hours to get back to & check. :(

[Charles RB]

I also dont think this statement is corect.

...you don't think the statement "natural selection is undirected" is correct? But that's one of the defining parts of the natural selection concept, that it's random, undirected and occuring naturally without anyone running it. If you're saying it's not undirected, you're arguing for a different theory.

[titanfan]

I need to get to a show in a bit so I just want to quickly note that the so-called rules of evolution are determined in a closed system that requires no creator but rather relies on the interaction of existing species in a given environment. Evolution by natural selection asserts that advantageous mutations (i.e., mutations that give an animal a reproductive advantage over other animals, mutations that better allow animals to evade predators, mutations that allow for greater cognitive ability, etc.) will be passed on to a subsequent generation, and that subsequent generation will inherit these genes and the advantageous trait, thus giving that new generation an advantage over other members of its species without that mutation. And so on, and so on.

Intelligent design asserts that all species were designed by a creator. It seems to undercut the entire notion of a gradual process over a long period of time.

I know someone who believes in both evolution and intelligent design and this is what he explained to me once:

If you believe in an omnipotent and omniescent creator, then it would be possible for him to create a universe which in which evolution was the best system, and since he is omniescent, he was able to forsee that humans would eventually take root and become what we are.

I hope we are able to see other terrestrial planets in my lifetime, I can't wait to see what evolution has cooked up on other worlds other than our own.

[OzBat!]

I know I own a book that refutes that, and of course it would have to be one of the many that it would take me over seven hours to get back to & check. :(That would be good to see. I've seen a few refutations that rely on looking at different eye types, examing how the simpler ones work, then making the leap that one could turn into the other.

[Infra-Man]

No, Intelligent Design appeals to irreducible complexity. There's parts of the eye that will not operate without others and could not have mutated as such by themselves.

Good point. I oversimplified the intelligent design position, so I should restate that assessment. So make that final paragraph...

In intelligent design, the eye is an organ that is so complex that it seems as if it would require a designer for it to function properly. Given that, it is unlikely that the eye came into being through a series of mutations that are not overseen by some sort of designer. As a result, the eye does not come into being as a result of some process, but rather, the eye is designed as it currently is in all animals.

Hopefully that's a better representation of the position.

I know someone who believes in both evolution and intelligent design and this is what he explained to me once:

If you believe in an omnipotent and omniescent creator, then it would be possible for him to create a universe which in which evolution was the best system, and since he is omniescent, he was able to forsee that humans would eventually take root and become what we are.

That's an interesting position that tries to have it both ways and it sounds a lot like a deist position (i.e., a first cause that sets things into motion but does not interfere in the process after the first domino is flicked, so to speak). I think some of my rudimentary questions about this particular position would be:

1) If evolution is the best system and the creator believed it to be the best system, does the creator exercise any influence on the system or does that system operate outside of the creator's influence?

2) An addendum to the first question, if the creator does exercise influence over the evolutionary process, does the creator then bear any responsibility for disadvantageous traits in an animal that may cause the animal to a) not be able to mate, b) not be able to evade predators, or c) are so disadvantageous that it causes the animal undue suffering (e.g., severe deformities or defective parts of an animal's anatomy)?

3) What privileges human beings as the peak of evolutionary scale? Is it simply because we are the creator's favorite animals? Is it because the creator foresaw a situation in which evolution would effectively halt (so to speak) once humanity organized, developed civilizations, and developed modern medicine?

4) For the sake of expediency and to prevent the undue suffering of many generations of animals, why did the creator not simply create animals as they currently are rather than use such a gradual process? And, similar to the second point, does the creator bear any responsibility for the possible suffering of many generations of animals that came before?

I hope we are able to see other terrestrial planets in my lifetime, I can't wait to see what evolution has cooked up on other worlds other than our own.

Same here. I'd love to see what types of life exist on other worlds, particularly to find out in what way the environment of a given planet shapes the appearance and traits of that planet's lifeforms.

[Stressfactor]

Good point. I oversimplified the intelligent design position, so I should restate that assessment. So make that final paragraph...

In intelligent design, the eye is an organ that is so complex that it seems as if it would require a designer for it to function properly. Given that, it is unlikely that the eye came into being through a series of mutations that are not overseen by some sort of designer. As a result, the eye does not come into being as a result of some process, but rather, the eye is designed as it currently is in all animals.

Hopefully that's a better representation of the position.



That's an interesting position that tries to have it both ways and it sounds a lot like a deist position (i.e., a first cause that sets things into motion but does not interfere in the process after the first domino is flicked, so to speak). I think some of my rudimentary questions about this particular position would be:

1) If evolution is the best system and the creator believed it to be the best system, does the creator exercise any influence on the system or does that system operate outside of the creator's influence?

Okay, I'm gonna take a stab at a few of these but keep in mind, I'm a bit rusty...

1) Does the creator exercise any influence? No, simply because the creator does not NEED to exercise any influence. It's the same argeument as "God gave humans brains -- he expects them to use them". There is no reason to think that evolution is not proceeding fine all on its own.

2) An addendum to the first question, if the creator does exercise influence over the evolutionary process, does the creator then bear any responsibility for disadvantageous traits in an animal that may cause the animal to a) not be able to mate, b) not be able to evade predators, or c) are so disadvantageous that it causes the animal undue suffering (e.g., severe deformities or defective parts of an animal's anatomy)?

a) Are you speaking of ENTIRE species here? Because I am not aware of an ENTIRE species of animal that does not have the ability to mate -- except for mules (a crossbreeding of a donkey and a horse) and, really, humans and not the creator were responsible for those. If you are speaking of INDIVIDUAL animals which may be born with defects then... this gets chalked up to "sinful world". Because this world is imperfect crap happens -- it happens to humans and it happens to animals.

b) Just because a trait is disadvantageous to one species does not mean it is disadvantageous to another. Not being able to avoid predators may mean that those predators are able to eat better. But, once again, I really am not aware of an ENTIRE species of animal that does not have SOME form of coping mechanism that helps them to evade predators. In modern times there may be cases where what was once an ADVANTAGE is now becoming a DISadvantage but that is almost universally due to human influence on the climate or environment.

c) Once again, I can think of no SPECIES where the entire species suffers from deformities. In cases of individual animals see my answer to point a).

3) What privileges human beings as the peak of evolutionary scale? Is it simply because we are the creator's favorite animals? Is it because the creator foresaw a situation in which evolution would effectively halt (so to speak) once humanity organized, developed civilizations, and developed modern medicine?

The creator wished to create a being which would have a reasoning mind and the ability to develop? Really, I'm afraid this one falls under the heading of "Who presumes to know the mind of God?" This is why (as I've said before) science is science and belief is belief. Science insists that there must be reasons for things there is cause and effect there are proven things but the will of a creator is soemthing that cannot be proven. Really, how is this any different than with humanity? Sometimes people do things for no good reason -- or for reasons known only to themselves. If I, say, started a forest fire and I had no pyromanic tendencies, no signs of mental illness or disorder then would anyone really be able to tell WHY I did it? It follows in the wake of Chaos Science as well. As my high school physical sciences instructor put it -- modern medicine KNOWS aspirin works but they don't really know HOW it works. There are actually lots of things like that in science -- or as my teacher put it "It works. Why? We don't know! It just does!"

4) For the sake of expediency and to prevent the undue suffering of many generations of animals, why did the creator not simply create animals as they currently are rather than use such a gradual process? And, similar to the second point, does the creator bear any responsibility for the possible suffering of many generations of animals that came before?

Once again, "who can know the mind of God" stuff here. Put possibly, as in anything, it may be to give the world a chance to develop -- to reach points on its own with only guidance where necessary from the creator. We follow it all the time in educating our own children -- which is better -- to help the child come to a conclusion all on his/her own or to simply give them the answer? We do not know what the eventual outcome of humanity may be -- we are still evolving ourselves. This may all be part of some grand plan the outcome of which we do not yet know. Keep in mind -- if the Creator is an immortal being well what is a few million years to such a being? Imagine if your own lifespan was 10,000 years? A mere 50 years would be little more than an hour to you. As for the "suffering of animals" -- I'm not sure you can say that they "suffered" -- each set of animals were created to exist at a certain time and they were adapted to fit well during that time period and in that climate. As the situations changed yes, some died but some also adapted. But in the wild, in nature, animals die all the time from disease and illness -- once again, imperfect world. Also, by that token, when a human scientist is trying to create new drugs and new treatments to save human lives are they guilty of whatever outcomes these have on the animals they use for testing?

So, there's my two cents. But keep in mind, I'm a liberal Christian who finds no problem in believing that both God created this world and watches over the people in it BUT also that the scientific process of evolution is in effect every day all around us. Like I said before, God gave us brains, he expects us to use them. He expects us to ask the tough questions.

[Infra-Man]

I see what you mean with your answer on point one. I think the one thing that wasn't quite working in my head is the notion that evolution was designed as part of the system, which I was perhaps incorrectly inferring from titanfan's post about the friend who makes evolution and intelligent design compatible. Really, it's the latter portion that throws me, since it seems the two are rather antithetical and it does raise the question to what extant someone believes there is an interaction of the two and why such an interaction would be necessary.

a) Are you speaking of ENTIRE species here?

No. Simply an individual animal. I'd have used the word "species" if I were referring to an entire species.

If you are speaking of INDIVIDUAL animals which may be born with defects then... this gets chalked up to "sinful world". Because this world is imperfect crap happens -- it happens to humans and it happens to animals.

b) Just because a trait is disadvantageous to one species does not mean it is disadvantageous to another. Not being able to avoid predators may mean that those predators are able to eat better. But, once again, I really am not aware of an ENTIRE species of animal that does not have SOME form of coping mechanism that helps them to evade predators. In modern times there may be cases where what was once an ADVANTAGE is now becoming a DISadvantage but that is almost universally due to human influence on the climate or environment.

c) Once again, I can think of no SPECIES where the entire species suffers from deformities. In cases of individual animals see my answer to point a).

I think one issue with the notion of the sinful world is I wonder to what extent the creator would interact with the world, if at all. If the creator exercises any influence on the world (say in the form of miracles, disasters, or whatnot), it would make me wonder why the creator would intervene in one sphere and take a hands-off approach in another sphere. And given any intervention, would the creator bear the moral culpability for actions that cause suffering?

My other issue of the notion of the sinful world is the language seems to suggest only one possible creator, the Judeo-Christian one. Perhaps the better way to put it was how Paley (if I remember right) framed part of his teleological argument: That if a watchmaker makes a watch and it functions well at first but then malfunctions due to the internal workings of the watch, the watchmaker is not responsible for the malfunction of the watch.

The creator wished to create a being which would have a reasoning mind and the ability to develop? Really, I'm afraid this one falls under the heading of "Who presumes to know the mind of God?" This is why (as I've said before) science is science and belief is belief. Science insists that there must be reasons for things there is cause and effect there are proven things but the will of a creator is soemthing that cannot be proven. Really, how is this any different than with humanity? Sometimes people do things for no good reason -- or for reasons known only to themselves. If I, say, started a forest fire and I had no pyromanic tendencies, no signs of mental illness or disorder then would anyone really be able to tell WHY I did it? It follows in the wake of Chaos Science as well. As my high school physical sciences instructor put it -- modern medicine KNOWS aspirin works but they don't really know HOW it works. There are actually lots of things like that in science -- or as my teacher put it "It works. Why? We don't know! It just does!"

But would the creator do something for no good reason? It seems more like actions would be taken for hidden reasons rather than no good ones. Furthermore, if you did start a fire for reasons known only to yourself, you would still be held accountable for that action. Following a series of interviews and interrogations, one would eventually arrive at a reason. Even if the reason is a bizarre one--think of Meursault in The Stranger shooting the Arab because there is sun in Meursault's eyes--one would learn the process of your reasoning. It could have been temporary insanity in the case of the fire, sure, but I doubt one would wish to ascribe such a justification for action to the creator since it makes the creator's thought process seem arbitrary and as imperfect as human reasoning.

Part of this may be my need to understand the justifications for actions and thought processes.

I would amend your teacher's statement thusly:

"It works. Why? We don't know yet, but it does. Let's continue to research it."

Once again, "who can know the mind of God" stuff here. Put possibly, as in anything, it may be to give the world a chance to develop -- to reach points on its own with only guidance where necessary from the creator. We follow it all the time in educating our own children -- which is better -- to help the child come to a conclusion all on his/her own or to simply give them the answer? We do not know what the eventual outcome of humanity may be -- we are still evolving ourselves. This may all be part of some grand plan the outcome of which we do not yet know. Keep in mind -- if the Creator is an immortal being well what is a few million years to such a being? Imagine if your own lifespan was 10,000 years? A mere 50 years would be little more than an hour to you. As for the "suffering of animals" -- I'm not sure you can say that they "suffered" -- each set of animals were created to exist at a certain time and they were adapted to fit well during that time period and in that climate. As the situations changed yes, some died but some also adapted. But in the wild, in nature, animals die all the time from disease and illness -- once again, imperfect world. Also, by that token, when a human scientist is trying to create new drugs and new treatments to save human lives are they guilty of whatever outcomes these have on the animals they use for testing?

On the children bit, I don't know that teaching a child is analogous to a protracted evolutionary process. Something about that strikes me as incongruent. I can see the analogy making more sense on a small scale, in the notion of the creator giving people free will, for instance, and focusing on a single interaction between one moral agent and another moral agent; but when dealing with cosmic time and given that an individual is subject to the limitations of his or her own lifespan, what lesson does that indivdual child learn? Or, more so, what is lesson-like about evolution?

As for the suffering of animals, think of individual animals that are severely deformed or of human babies with severe conditions. The creator is absolved from moral culpability if the creator never interacts with the world. If the creator does interact with the world and chooses not to in that instance, is the creator not culpable for the result?

I think that last bit about scientists is not quite analogous to the creator scenario since the creator (in this scenario) already knows that human beings will be the end result and did not necessarily need to experiment on previous lifeforms in order to reach this current evolutionary peak

I don't know that we're evolving per se given that modern medicine and continuing technological advances are allowing us to overcome diseases and conditions that would have weeded out certain traits while privileging those among us who had the genes to naturally overcome such diseases and conditions. And I don't know that we are necessarily evolving intellectually either since that doesn't necessarily give humans a reproductive advantage. Then again, worldwide pandemics may change all of that, though it seems that the reliance on technology will again help overcome such catastrophe rather than a reliance on natural selection.

So, there's my two cents. But keep in mind, I'm a liberal Christian who finds no problem in believing that both God created this world and watches over the people in it BUT also that the scientific process of evolution is in effect every day all around us. Like I said before, God gave us brains, he expects us to use them. He expects us to ask the tough questions.

Keen by me. Good discussion. I'm an agnostic and I think the notion of a creator as a initiating agent for the existence of the universe is one of the more compelling reasons to believe in the existence of a creator, though I'm still not convinced that one needs to exist.

[JKCarrier]

There's parts of the eye that will not operate without others and could not have mutated as such by themselves.

For a very thorough (and funny!) debunking of this claim, see Jay Hosler's graphic novel/textbook Optical Allusions (http://activesynapse.com/letsshop.html).

[Jack Zodiac]

Yes, and Bronty said it was good.

I'm actually a bit partial to this picture of a dinosaur on Noah's Ark:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7007/noahsarkny7.jpg

That is awesome. Because God can tame the savage lions and wolves and shit, but dinosaurs? They don't play by God's rules!

Maybe I dont realy know what ID mean.

All i'm saying is that someone set-up the rules of evolution.

Just compare the Marsupials that used to/and still live in Australia.
There was cat-like,dog-like,bear-like,mole-like,rodents-like.

Not related at all but mostly shaped the same,as placentals Mammals,to fill the same roles.

I don't think anybody should point to Australia and use the words "intelligent design." Even if God were real, Australia's obviously where he put all his fuck-ups. The kangaroo? Cute, right? So cute, it kicks like a Mack truck and has a razor sharp dewclaw to tear your stomach open. It'll kick the shit out of ya' and then stuff ya' in its pouch. Koala bears? Cute, right? So cute, they have big fuckoff dangerous claws to climb trees with and look all adorable eating their eucalyptus leaves... and then they drop right on your fuckin' head and eat your face! Dingos? Just cute wild dogs, right? Cute dogs with an uncanny taste for the flesh of babies! And then there's all the crocodiles and snakes and funnel web spiders! But perhaps most ridiculous of all... the platypus. A beaver with webbed feet and a duck bill? Who'd be afraid of that? That's why it has crazy fucking poison claws!

Seriously, Australia's like the Thunderdome of continents. All it's missing are lava geysers and random cracks in the Earth that open up and swallow people then close again. Or cacti with needle cannons. In the future, all reality television will be filmed there, and instead of shipping convicts off to die there, we'll flood the Blight with our unwanted pop stars.

I love you.

I don't blame ya'. I love me, too. ;)

Great! Run off with him.LET OVE FLY!
Then Helllokittykat will be mine.ALL MINE! MWAHAHAHAHA!
...

Ain't happenin', fella. :p

Wait! did he actualy told those kids that the T-Rex was inteligent and could pray?O_o

Sure, why the hell not? Is it that much crazier than believing "The Flintstones" was a documentary?

[Stressfactor]

Infra-Man, on the whole issue of deformities and the "creator" intervening, once again, I do not really believe in "miracles" -- I know some who do. It seems that a lot of your points fall under the heading of the old "why does God let bad things happen to good people?"

I look at it like this: A "deformity" in some creature may have other effects. For example, parents who have a child born with Downs Syndrome may become activists or they may learn some things about themselves that they never knew and never would have known. In the end this has no effect on EVOLUTION but it does not mean that such a thing does not have another, non-evolutionary purpose. This is again why science is science and faith is faith. Science looks at the practical value of things, not the philosophical. A scientist looks at a diamond and sees a lump of carbon. It has atomic weight and mass, it can be used to cut various substances which otherwise might be uncuttable or else cuttable only with a greater degree of difficulty. A man buying an engagement ring for his finacee sees a beautiful and expensive gemstone that will be utilized to symbolize his love for her and the promise that he will always love her.

In this way, while the creator may hold some "moral" culpability there is nothing to say that what he does is not for some greater good and, keep in mind, many religions hold that there is an afterlife and whatever suffering is tolerated here on Earth will be more than made up for elsewhere. The best analogy I can think of is -- a person who has to have their toncils taken out. You put up with some pain for a certain length of time but its for your own good and, in the end, you get ice cream!

Also, in your analogy of the watchmaker... Okay, so the watchmaker may not be responsible for the watch going wrong... BUT the watchmaker has the ability to fix it and put it right.

As far as the "creator" intervening in the world... well, once again, this is my own PERSONAL view... I think the divine intervenes in ways that are subtle and unknowable -- ways that most would brush off as coincidence -- You miss being in a car accident by seconds, or you run into an old friend you haven't seen in years and they end up pointing you in the direction of a great new job -- stuff like that -- stuff that we attribute to luck or good fortune. But see, none of this stuff is quantifiable, none of it is proveable on a scientific basis.

As for the "lessons" of evolution -- again I have to say that the fact is, this is something that we may not know in our lifetime BUT what we learn gets passed along to the next generation. We are always building on what people have learned before us. If the creator simply TOLD people what the answers were there would be nothing to strive for -- nothing to keep us pushing forward. As you said in reply to what my teacher said "Let's keep researching". WE may never see achievements in our lifetime but there are those who come after us who will.

And yes, humanity IS evolving -- we are already growing taller and that is a proven fact. Currently the "average" height for men is 5'10" and yet more and more men are growing to 6' -- pretty soon 6' will be the "average" and 200 years ago the "average" height for men was 5'6" to 5'8". It is more than just the influence of medical science and, really, isn't all of that ALSO a part of evolution? The creation of soceities and tools that allow people to live longer and eat better is part of a social and mental evolution that is also a part of natural evolution.


But, at any rate, those radical evangelicals are just crackpots. Science is science and faith is faith. Like I wrote above -- you don't expect a scientist to look at the world the same way a philosopher would. What science has proven is fact but there is still room for "God among the gears" so to speak. And even if it were not, kids need to learn EVERYTHING about the world around them whether they (or their parents) choose to believe it or not. There are somethings you understand with your head and some you believe withyour heart and the Rad. Evan. group just do not get that.

PLUS -- those idiots almost always insist on putting things in "human" terms -- they try to tie the divine to HUMAN notions of time and thinking. I mean, really, if you are dealing with a nearly omnipotent being you simply CANNOT judge or limit that being to human terms. It would be like meeting a blobby, ten tentacled alien creature and expecting it to have the same types of social rules as humanity.

But, again, I'm not going to claim my views for all of Christianity. Like I said before, I choose to think that God is "among the gears" acting as the oil that keeps everything running as its supposed to. And if bad things happen? Well, sometimes the end result, in the long run, turns out to be something good.

But at least this thread shows that there is room and a place for dialog and discussion and thoughtful thinking... something those who are narrow minded can never understand. This had made me consider stuff that I haven't thought about in a long, long time.

[MacQuarrie]

Adam and Eve had 2 sons and one killed the other. The End.
How are we here?
We don't know how many children Adam and Chava had, but we do know that after Abel there was Seth.

I belive the Bible is a record of historical events.But we cant take everything literaly...
Right. You take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, the symbolic parts symbolically, the allegorical parts allegorically, the poetic parts poetically....

Inteligent design and evolution do work togetter.Some peoples just need to open theyre eyes.

People need to not let other people do their thinking for them.

It's worth noting that last year scientists discovered a genetic mutation that occurred in the human brain 5,800 years ago which had exactly the effect on the human race that's described in the story of the Tower of Babel. This spontaneous mutation caused people to feel the urge to spread out, settle cities, and develop written language, which resulted in the differentiation of languages and cultures.

We need to change how we read the Bible, and recognize that it was written to explain complicated processes to uneducated primitive people. Of course it's not going to be detailed and in-depth in its explanations, and that isn't its purpose anyway. It's not a science textbook.

Science addresses the "how" questions. It's the detective who tells you how the suspect killed the victim. Religion addresses the "why" questions; it's the police psychologist who figures out the suspect's motive. They're two separate and complementary subjects, and you get the best results when they work together rather than trying to pit them against each other.

[JKCarrier]

As far as the "creator" intervening in the world... well, once again, this is my own PERSONAL view... I think the divine intervenes in ways that are subtle and unknowable -- ways that most would brush off as coincidence

There's a great episode of the Simpsons, where Homer decides to stop going to church so he can sleep in on Sundays. Later, Homer falls asleep on the couch while smoking a cigar, and the house catches fire. The volunteer fire department (consisting of Christian Ned Flanders, Jewish Krusty the Clown, and Hindu Apu) arrive in time to save him. Homer thinks that the house fire was God's way of punishing him, but Reverend Lovejoy tells him different: "God didn't set fire to your house. But he was working in the hearts of your friends when they came to your rescue."

I think that's a nice way to look at God: Not as some magic genie who stops the sun in its tracks or drowns the dinosaurs in a flood, but as a spirit that inspires people to do the right thing.

[MacQuarrie]

I dont think i ever heard about Seth.

I was mostly commenthing about peoples taking the bible to literally.
Like all humanity come from Adam and Eve.
Is Adam supose to have had childrens with Lilith?I dont remember where she came from.
Scientifically speaking, we did all come from "Adam and Eve", in that the human race originated with one breeding pair that had the DNA that identified them as the first example of Homo Sapiens. The problem is that religious texts do not acknowledge the presence of all those pre-human primates.

Personally, I believe it was the presence of all those sub-humans that required God to isolate the pair in "the Garden" where they couldn't breed with them and pollute their brand-new human gene pool.

[Hybrid2]

But, again, I'm not going to claim my views for all of Christianity. Like I said before, I choose to think that God is "among the gears" acting as the oil that keeps everything running as its supposed to. And if bad things happen? Well, sometimes the end result, in the long run, turns out to be something good.

But at least this thread shows that there is room and a place for dialog and discussion and thoughtful thinking... something those who are narrow minded can never understand. This had made me consider stuff that I haven't thought about in a long, long time.

I am not alone!!!

[Solaris]

I find it compelling that the museum curator, a fossil researcher, was raised in the same kind of setting---and says he rejected it, because he saw emperical evidence that evolution truly is science, and creationism a faith. [paraprhased]

Yes, it sucks that these people are so hell-bent on their rejection of any science that conflicts with their world-view, and their take on religion---but hopefully, many of the kids will have done a little reading of the exhibit stuff on their own, and will question it later when they get older.

BTW, did you notice that the tour guides rely heavily on the "parrot" technique? They ask a question, and after a short pause, give the answer---then encourage the children to parrot back that answer, often multiple times.

Parroting is good for memorization, like the multiplication tables, spelling rules ("i" before "e" except after "c")---but it doesn't do anything for thinking and drawing conclusions.

Parrot technique results in rote answers. Anyone can tell you what you want to hear. Many of these children, as they begin to *think*, may well question those parroted answers.

I certainly hope so.

[Solaris]

There's a great episode of the Simpsons, where Homer decides to stop going to church so he can sleep in on Sundays. Later, Homer falls asleep on the couch while smoking a cigar, and the house catches fire. The volunteer fire department (consisting of Christian Ned Flanders, Jewish Krusty the Clown, and Hindu Apu) arrive in time to save him. Homer thinks that the house fire was God's way of punishing him, but Reverend Lovejoy tells him different: "God didn't set fire to your house. But he was working in the hearts of your friends when they came to your rescue."

I think that's a nice way to look at God: Not as some magic genie who stops the sun in its tracks or drowns the dinosaurs in a flood, but as a spirit that inspires people to do the right thing.

Bravo! I haven't seen that episode---but somebody got it very, very right. :)

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

Should be noted, there are 'Young Earth' and 'Old Earth' Creationists.

The 'Young Earth' Creationists believe the Earth was created no more than ten thousand years ago in six twenty-four hour days and all evidence to the contrary is Satan's plot to deceive the unwary. Every animal that ever existed --Dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, trilobites, etc.-- co-existed with man and with each other. In Noah's time, the Earth was surrounded with a huge canopy of water which prevented harmful radiation from reaching us, allowing the Patriachs to live thousands of years and animals to grow to tremendous sizes. When God decided to cause the Deluge, he caused the requisite number of animals to migrate to Noah, then flooded the entire Earth. The entire fossil record is a remnant of the Flood. It suggests evolution because first the water-bound animals were drowned, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then finally man, going by their proximity to oceans and their ability to flee. After the Flood, which might also have caused Pangea to break up into the seperate continents, the animals all went back to where they were before.

'Old Earth' Creatonism is slightly less lunatic. It admits most of the above is ludicrous, but posits a series of seperate creations, all wiped out by God, until the present one. Both admit 'micro-evolution', or evolution within the limits of a 'created kind', but not 'macro-evolution', or evolution from one form of life to another. Fossils of pre-human ancestors are dismissed as either ancient apes or deformed humans, or sometimes both by different Creationists.

Yes, it is a pip, isn't it?

[Charles RB]

The creator wished to create a being which would have a reasoning mind and the ability to develop?

Doesn't mean He'd want humans though - He could want something else that we'll evolve into. Or maybe we're a fluke that wasn't expected, which would make more sense when mammals evolved at the same time (approx) as dinosaurs and yet it was the latter that were the dominant lifeform for 150 million years. You want humans, you don't wait that long.

[MacQuarrie]

Should be noted, there are 'Young Earth' and 'Old Earth' Creationists.

The 'Young Earth' Creationists believe the Earth was created no more than ten thousand years ago in six twenty-four hour days and all evidence to the contrary is Satan's plot to deceive the unwary. Every animal that ever existed --Dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, trilobites, etc.-- co-existed with man and with each other. In Noah's time, the Earth was surrounded with a huge canopy of water which prevented harmful radiation from reaching us, allowing the Patriachs to live thousands of years and animals to grow to tremendous sizes. When God decided to cause the Deluge, he caused the requisite number of animals to migrate to Noah, then flooded the entire Earth. The entire fossil record is a remnant of the Flood. It suggests evolution because first the water-bound animals were drowned, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then finally man, going by their proximity to oceans and their ability to flee. After the Flood, which might also have caused Pangea to break up into the seperate continents, the animals all went back to where they were before.

'Old Earth' Creatonism is slightly less lunatic. It admits most of the above is ludicrous, but posits a series of seperate creations, all wiped out by God, until the present one. Both admit 'micro-evolution', or evolution within the limits of a 'created kind', but not 'macro-evolution', or evolution from one form of life to another. Fossils of pre-human ancestors are dismissed as either ancient apes or deformed humans, or sometimes both by different Creationists.

Yes, it is a pip, isn't it?
That's not the Old Earth version. That's one I've never heard of before.

Old Earth Creationism holds that the Universe is ancient, the six "days" of creation are actually six steps in the process which can each be millions of years long. See "The Genesis Question" and ""the Fingerprint of God" by Dr. Hugh Ross for more information on that.

Within the "Old Earth" camp, you have further divisions that favor "directed evolution" (the evolutionary process is exactly as science says, except that it was all under God's direction so that it eventually ended up with the humans he wanted to create), the "staggered creation" view (the fossil record doesn't actually show all these species deriving from a common ancestor; it actually shows punctuated bursts of creation, wherein large numbers of species suddenly appear all at once, then a lull followed by another burst, all corresponding to the "days" of Genesis), and a few others.

In any case, it's safe to say that the creationists who favor a six-day universe and Adam hanging with herbivorous t-rexes are far from the majority.

[MacQuarrie]

Doesn't mean He'd want humans though - He could want something else that we'll evolve into. Or maybe we're a fluke that wasn't expected, which would make more sense when mammals evolved at the same time (approx) as dinosaurs and yet it was the latter that were the dominant lifeform for 150 million years. You want humans, you don't wait that long.

Sure you do, if you know that's how long it will take to do it right.