Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 55 of 83 (522946)
09-06-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jaywill
09-06-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Is it possible that some birds could exist before 150 mya which for some reason did not appear in the fossil record ?
I'm not a paleontologist, but - no.
You could try to say birds existed further back than 150 mya, but the evolutionary tree of birds is pretty well known - far back enough and you get things-that-aren't-birds-but-sort-of-have-some-bird-traits.
Further back than that and you don't get feathers at all. Not to mention the whole "coming out of the seas" evolutionary thing.
The scientists are quite clear on that - with a good amount of evidence. oceans, land, air.
No one was actually there. So we don't know when the birds appeared. We can make statments about the factual state of the present evidence only.
Oh, well - were you alive 6000 years ago? No? Okay - then it's time to play the evidence game.
Oh look - dating techniques which agree, a wealth of fossils (which can be dated using techniques which agree), starlight and the speed of light (which gives us distance, and therefore age and size of the universe), a clear evolutionary track of animals from form to form (with gaps, yes, but pretty small gaps)...
and you've got...a book. Written by various people, none of whom were actually alive 6000 years ago, many of whom could neither read nor right.
I really don't mean to sound sarcastic, it's just - this is how science works. You look at the evidence, and you come to a conclusion. If you want to pull out Last Thursday-ism, it becomes a pointless exercise.
Tell me, how do you know anything about your great-great grandparents? How do you know they were your great-great grandparents?
You have a letter or two? a picture or two?
...but you weren't alive then, and you don't have ALL their letters, you don't have ALL their pictures, do you?
You don't KNOW anyone who was alive then - so...what do you REALLY know about your great-great grandparents?
Or your house was broken into - there was no witnesses! The police are called and they collect some DNA samples - the DNA samples match a guy they caught selling stuff that looks surprisingly like the TV and the video that were stolen from your house.
You can't be SURE that they're yours. You can't be REALLY sure, can you?
I mean there were no witnesses - the fact that your DNA and fingerprints are on the stuff he's selling, and that his DNA was found in your house are...what...coincidence, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 5:47 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 10:53 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 58 of 83 (522962)
09-07-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by jaywill
09-06-2009 10:53 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
jaywill writes:
No I was not there either. But I freely admit that I don't know.
ah, so you weren't there either.
then we'll have to use deductive reasoning - and fashion up a theory that is explained by the facts.
I don't know. I don't claim to know.
Oh now, you DO claim to know based on what you've been taught from the bible, otherwise why are you arguing for the position you are?
If you HAVEN'T looked at the facts and/or are selectively ignoring them, then shame on you.
I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation.
so, you basically believe what somebody else has told you at face value.
Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence.
Maybe if you looked at the facts, you'd disagree. I don't know how old you are, I don't know if you're being homeschooled by somebody who doesn't know the facts or whether you're being sent to a school that is ignoring the facts. If you are, I feel sorry for you.
The rest of my paragraph which you so kindly cut tried to give you a viewpoint on why we believe (in the non-theistic use of the word) what we believe - the theory explains all the facts. Please read it if you haven't.
Neither of us may ever know for sure.
Well now you went and pulled out Last Thursday-ism. As I said before, once you pull out that canard, then it's no longer scientific, it's philosophical. This being the "social and religious issues" forum, that's probably fair - but if you want to talk about Granny Magda's facts, it's a different ballgame, surely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 10:53 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 09-17-2009 12:40 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 62 of 83 (522979)
09-07-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Arphy
09-07-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Yes most geologists and biologists disagree with my position.
I'd hazard a guess and say "all".
Back then however these people that were critical of Uniformatrism or Darwinistic viewpoints had criticisms that were not answered, rather their voices were just drowned out.
No they weren't drowned out, all that has EVER been asked is that some proof and some scientific examinations of the facts come to the fore. Despite 150 years of IDiots and creationists telling us that evolution is a passing fad, it's only getting better.
arphy writes:
granny magda writes:
So in a nutshell, you think that scientists spend their days doing research, getting it completely wrong and not noticing? You think they spend all their time interpreting a philosophy? You think that you know better, despite your lack of expertise? When was the last time you were in a lab or on a field trip?
I wouldn't say completely wrong. However their extrapolations are often very fanciful.
You're an armchair quarterback, Arphy. Shame on you. Just why do you think you are capable of dismissing hundreds of thousands of people, working over hundreds of years, to build up a mass of information the like of which has never before been collected in one place in all of antiquity as "often very fanciful"?
You don't know the first thing about their work.
They also don't "spend all their time interpreting a philosophy". It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview.
Quite the opposite. They have taken a look at the EVIDENCE and that has shaped their world-view.
Only IDiots, Creationists, YEC's, OEC's and that ilk decide on a world view and pervert or ignore the evidence.
Do you know why I can say that? Because creationism has had it's day. Faith alone has been the stake set in the ground to determine truth for over a thousand years and look where it got us? Precisely nowhere.
A thousand years of darkness versus a few hundred years of enlightenment. I think the progress in our understanding speaks for itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 6:40 AM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 68 of 83 (523135)
09-08-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Arphy
09-08-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
I'd hazard a guess and say "all".
Well your guess is wrong.
"reputable". bam!
Seriously though, ID is sincerely lacking in anything approaching serious scientific papers. The real heavyweight seems to be...the paper that got retracted because it was sneaked in the back door.
Despite 150 years of IDiots and creationists telling us that evolution is a passing fad, it's only getting better.
Really? Well maybe in terms of popularity, but not in terms of evidence.
yes, very much SO in terms of evidence.
prepare for link-spam:
humans:
Archaeology
the horse:
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia
archaeopteryx:
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia
tiktaalik:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
That's the evolution of man (a real cursory first-found-link, there are better and more detailed), the evolution of the horse and two "transitional fossils".
That's only scratching the surface.
And support for ID has...? Some arguments for incredulity and zip that hasn't been refuted. I'm sorry, but all I see from the creotards are the same drab arguments that have been refuted all of a hundred years or more ago. I'm hesitant to call them lies, but the willingness to NOT correct the mistakes (and I can find you examples of AiG and other such sites willingly ignoring corrections) makes me call them "lies".
a mass of information the like of which has never before been collected in one place in all of antiquity as "often very fanciful"?
You don't know the first thing about their work.
Sure I don't know and understand everything, but neither do you. I do know enough however, to make an informed decision.
Judging by your handwavium in ignoring the mass of evidence (it's quite possible you've been homeschooled and/or have only been to institutions that don't expose you to real facts - I really don't know) you don't know it's there.
If you don't know it's there, and how well it fits together and how powerfully compelling it is, you are NOT able to make an informed decision.
I'm sorry, but either you say there is a massive conspiracy that every single scientist is in on (and apparently willingly) or they really all do believe what they say.
I find it extremely unlikely that all those people, dedicated to explaining the facts in a consistent manner could either deceive or self-deceive on such a massive scale.
I do NOT find it extremely unlikely that people told stories from birth who do NOT see the facts for themselves believe something else without proof - why would they when they've been taught to believe that the only proof they need is the one book they have before them?
Anyway it isn't just Me vs the rest of the world. There are others including many who are highly qualified who believe the same things that i do.
From what I've seen, these are many people taught in diploma mills of no standing in the scientific community from which they purport to belong, or the people themselves get a doctorate in another wholly unrelated area "soft" enough to be agreeable to their beliefs, which they then piggy-back on and use as an argument from (false) authority.
"dr" dino - MISTER Kent Hovind - springs immediately to mind. The banana guys (a really BAD example - it was genetically engineered by humans) Kirk Cameron (an actor) and Ray Comfort (evangelist) don't seem to have any scientific training either. One of the highest-trained is Ken Ham...with a Bachelor's degree in "applied science". It's not really stellar. AiG at least are honest about their intentions and many have basic degrees...just not often very good ones and not in the areas they evangelize about (evolution, cosmology, paleontology, genetics...).
They also throw in the card of saying that they are NOT scientific in their endeavour - they believe prima facie in the truth of the bible! That's more than enough to dismiss the lot.
By "mass of information" I'm guessing you mean science in general. Not all science directly relates to evolution, in fact a lot of it doesn't.
It's like this - all the many myriad dating schemes agree where they have overlap. The science behind the dating schemes proves these schemes are efficient and accurate. These all prove the date of the Earth itself and the things found in it.
The things found in the Earth (fossils, rocks, etc) can be accurately dated. The things show change over time in a consistent manner. The theories about how this change occurs is called "natural selection" and "evolution".
the theory predicted a mechanism whereby positive (or at least non-negative) traits get passed down to the next and the next and the next generations, whereby this change would occur and species develop.
This mechanism is the genetic code and mutation (and nit-pickers, yes I know that's not the only factor!). The genetic code tells us a lot about how animals, plants, fungi and more are all put together - and how they are related.
A synthesis of ALL this evidence tells us not only how old the Earth is, but when all the creatures on it now or in the past appeared - and often when they died out.
We can measure the distance from the Earth to the moon, to the sun, to the planets. We can measure the distance to the furthest galaxies we can see, and figure out they're moving (accelerating even).
Using all that evidence, it backs up the ideas put forwards (with the evidence as proof) supporting the age of the Earth, the age of our sun, the age of our universe...
What you're saying is, that all that evidence is faked or the scientists are ALL wrong, continuously, that there's a better, simpler, fuller explanation.
Well, I'm all ears. You'll get a Nobel prize in every single category if you have the theory, backed up with evidence, peer-reviewed, that trumps all of that.
Quite the opposite. They have taken a look at the EVIDENCE and that has shaped their world-view.
Or so debaters for evolution like to say
Yup. I've just shown you a tiny, tiny piece.
You can't even refute THAT - you'll be too busy. I don't blame you - that's a LOT of evidence. That's what I mean - this endeavour the human race is on to explain it's own history and place in the universe has gotten far too big for one person or even one single theory to encompass.
The theory that "godidit" had better have some major balls to back up that claim - it really has to refute a hell of a lot of work by a hell of a lot of people. So far, it's failed utterly, except in the minds of people who (and no insult is meant here) do not know any better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 6:40 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Arphy, posted 09-09-2009 8:22 AM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 72 of 83 (523319)
09-09-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Arphy
09-09-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Well guess who's been watching Youtube videos ?
Yep, I saw the infamous "bananaman" video - and they couldn't have been more wrong about plantanes and bananas if they'd tried. Or do you disagree?
and yes, I think I do know the creationist viewpoint - god created the world over a certain amount of time, the YEC viewpoint is 6 days about 4004 BC.
icr, for example, says this:
quote:
Our Mission
ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.
Get that? It says it provides believers with evidence of the bible's accuracy...within a...biblical framework
i.e. they presuppose the correctness of the bible! NOT scientific. By definition.
I'm glad you've pointed me to some alternate viewpoints though, but sadly they're lying about tiktaalik not being "transitional".
It has limb bones and joints somewhere between fish and tetrapods (including shoulder, elbow and wrist) and it has a prehensile neck. Of course, it also lived almost exclusively in the water and had a fish-like tail...
Archaeopteryx is NOT a bird - it has teeth, three fingers with a claw and a long bony tail. It's also not quite a classic dinosaur (it has feathers and other changes that are "bird-like"). It's also NOT a hoax, which they grudgingly agree with. Scientists have "moved on" because it is literally case closed for them. They're sure. With all their questions being answered, please account for them all some other way. The long bony tail (for example) is just flatout ignored by ICR.
If the one's not a fish and not a reptile (demonstrably true!), and the other not a bird and not a dinosaur (again, demonstrably true!), what are they?
And as for the treatment of Lucy and the rest of the hominids, icr should be ashamed because it's wrong almost from top to bottom. There are far more than just one example of Australopithecus Afarensis, WITH the jawbones and skulls intact perfectly fine (try List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia for a picture of a Lucy-type-hominid skull, intact).
The only thing they get right is that Piltdown man was a hoax - which the SCIENTIFIC community debunked fine all by itself. Nebraska man was never more than a fanciful idea which never HAD any real scientific basis.
The horse lineage fallacy you present is nothing short of made up from whole cloth - the horse is a really, really well-known lineage and the pitiful attempt to debunk it ignores all the evidence and fails to understand what it represents at the same time - they complain that horse evolution "looks more like a bush than a tree". Well DUH, it should!
You should try TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy for a debunking of every single one of your examples - specifically because creationists are trotting out the same, tired, debunked, useless arguments as if they are fact, which people like you who don't know any better are swallowing whole.
I HAVE looked at the evidence - both sides - and the falsehoods are so far universally on the side of the ID and creationist side. In my opinion, with ALL the examples you've given being debunked, it is not I who hasn't looked at the evidence. You might like to know that the author of the "mythical horse" webpage (which quotes no sources, describes no facts and is patently an opinion piece and nothing else) holds, apparently, a Ph.D in "geological engineering" (and I applaud him for that, so long as it's not a diploma mill he got it from). However, quite why he feels himself qualified and able to talk about paleontology, taxonomy and evolution is beyond me - he isn't.
As for creationist websites not fixing mistakes, the following link is amusing at least: http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=228253
of course, TO has this: Lucy's Knee Joint which is interesting, and many others.
whilst probably not what I read a while ago, this link: Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone Solutions (go to "Gish Impaled on the Horns of a Dilemma") shows exactly how (some, at least) creationists often react when confronted with evidence they don't like.
You talk, too, about real bona-fide scientists who disbelieve in certain commonly-held truths - yes they exist, although many people on the list you showed are dead, or have been for a long time and would have grown up before evidence to the contrary existed. Many of these types of lists are also wrong and in places irrelevant. The fact still remains that the majority of scientists (by a large margin), especially those qualified to talk in their field, do NOT believe in the literal accounts in the bible (many of the ones that do are weakly deist rather than theist in any account).
No. I/we don't dismiss any actual evidence (i.e.observations made by scientists).
I'll just say "do to" and pretend we have an ad-nauseum to-and-fro on that one already, ok?
you probably mean "Show me another materialistic, naturalistic, explanation (i.e. something that excludes God and the Bible) and I might believe it."
So no I am not going to put such a theory out. You have already rejected YEC theory that is backed up with evidence, has peer-reviewed articles, and "trumps all of that".
No, I honestly haven't rejected it! I have just so far seen nothing to support it! Your "I'm taking my toys and going home" response does nothing to set me on the straight and narrow.
Prove it to me - show me the big letters in fifteen mile high granite that says "IT WAS ME - GOD" and I'll gladly believe you're right.
I have seen no evidence - there are no little tags on creatures saying "made in heaven, (c)yahweh", no problems with the fossil record, no problems with the evolution of the horse, the whale, humans, dinosaurs, birds, amphibians, mammals...
why do you creationists always insist that atheists and agnostics and the rest of us haven't read creationist literature? I have! I can't believe we've read the same text when you agree with it!
I just read the ones you pointed out, and they get archaeopteryx wrong, tiktaalik wrong, Lucy wrong, the horse wrong, and I believe I've just shown you WHY it's wrong as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Arphy, posted 09-09-2009 8:22 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 8:07 AM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 74 of 83 (523566)
09-11-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Arphy
09-11-2009 8:07 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Arphy writes:
And there is no evolutionary framework? This is like saying that darwin knew everything there ever was to know about evolution.
You do realise what you're saying, don't you?
Who came up with the theory of natural selection? Of evolution itself? Who created the framework?
DARWIN.
Darwin DID know everything there was to know about evolution - when he created it.
I'll add that his theory has been improved and expanded far beyond his original idea to illustrate the fact that knowledge only increases.
bible literalists, however, will NEVER step outside their already-held beliefs.
Do you, yet, understand the difference?
Tiktaalik: So you think that the arguments made in the article aren't enough?
No, I dont. ICR are wrong.
Fish don't have wrists, elbows, shoulders and prehensile necks.
Tiktaalik did.
Tetrapods don't live and breathe underwater.
Tiktaalik did.
It is not fish. It is not tetrapod. It is transitional between the two. That is the very definition of the word.
There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird.
Then Dr Alan Feduccia is wrong, expert or not. Scientists, I hasten to add, disagree a lot - but they agree about much more.
Birds don't have teeth, claws (of that sort), OR a long bony tail.
Archaeopteryx does.
It is not a bird. These facts are not "technobabble", they are not excuses. They are not hoaxes. They are true, undeniable, authoritative facts.
If you're not happy with the methods that a creationist came up with to classify animals then I can't help you - you'll have to come up with something better.
as for why horse evolution should look like a bush, think about it for a second - if evolution were obviously continuously guided by the hand of god, there would be no mistakes. What we see, however, are evolutionary dead-ends. The horse species branches out in it's ancestry into different paths, and not all of them were successful.
That's why it's a bush.
It's not a straight line. It's not always successful. This sort of result is expected from natural selection and random mutation. That's what we see. That's a good indicator that evolution is what we think it is.
I'm sorry if you and ICR can't understand that - I'd tell you to research more but you've been telling me and anyone else who would listen how much you know better.
freeratio.org link - well it's amusing, but what the result of that is, is that creationists CANNOT point to a single article that is without major mistakes. Read into that what you will.
Gish: yes, I read this bit:
quote:
To this day, in spite of additional oral and written rebuttals by scientists over the years, Gish continues to claim during debates and lectures that Triceratops has no transitional ancestors and that proposed ancestors do not occur early enough in the fossil record. (Debates: Shermer, 1995; also see Gish, 1994). This falsehood is also repeated in several subsequent books (1985, 1990a, 1995).
What didn't you understand? We can go through it again slowly if you'd like.
Gish was shown he was wrong.
Gish ignored these facts.
Gish still talks about these facts that have been proven wrong to people who don't know better.
Gish is unwilling to admit his mistakes.
Gish is a liar.
There are also no tags on fossils saying "I'm X million years old"
So,the dating techniques (which all agree with each other, despite being based on totally different substances) don't equate to "tags".
And you said you didn't ignore evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 8:07 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 9:03 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 78 of 83 (523707)
09-12-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-11-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
This discussion has really gone off on a pretty big tangent. While I am happy to go on discussing these matters, I think we should take this topic elsewhere if you want to continue.
Yes, I agree. The things you're going over (quote mined arguments from authority, a basic ignorance of what "transitional" means) have probably been gone over before but are interesting nonetheless.
I appologize for apparently hijacking the thread...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 9:03 PM Arphy has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 79 of 83 (523709)
09-12-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Has anyone encountered this topic's theme recently?
Let's look at it in context:
KJV Bible, Mark 10 writes:
2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
The Pharisees at that time thought the Moses wrote Genesis and were familiar with the story, of course. Jesus is simply using something that they are familiar with to answer their question. This does not mean that Jesus must be making statements about his own opinion on the matter.
I don't see why this (or any other passage in the bible that I know of) has anything at all to do with evolution.
the closest I've heard so far is Genesis itself, and even that doesn't preclude evolution, even when read literally.
If you read it as a parable, it's instructive of the power and glory of a creator as well as just a story.
If you insist on reading it literally you either have to accept that not everything in the world, plant or animal, is described literally therein, OR you have to accept evolution by fiat (because all the animals and plants NOT listed must have evolved from those that were).
Even if you're happy with it being a literal account, where does it say that god made everything unchanging? You can then happily discount all pre-human ancestors as monkeys and apes, all fantastic beasts as dying in the flood, and evolution happens because that's the way god made it, surely?
If you're arguing design, there's nothing in the bible that says god designed things either to change or not to change, so why not accept (as people had happily done even before Darwin) that things changed and evolved, and still do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2009 1:02 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 83 of 83 (524705)
09-18-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
09-17-2009 12:40 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hi Jaywill,
I don't know the exhaustive details of how life arose upon this earth. I have an understanding that God is ultimately reponsible. And the Bible tells me that it is by faith that I know this.
"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear" (Hebrews 11:3)
The information provided me that instills faith is economical and apparently limited.
I actually like your attitude to the bible, it is actually open-minded. My objections aren't to people who are open minded, merely those who are close-minded about the bible being literally, completely, exactly, unalterably, unarguably true in and of itself.
Your following evaluation shows you don't necessarily think that.
Others do, and that's where it gets teeth-grating because they insist that everything else match up to such a narrow view.
I will be 60 years old in another month. I have raised two children who are now in thier lower thirties.
Well done and happy birthday in advance!
You sit somewhere between biblical literalist and naturalist, by the sound of it - I would suggest this as an answer you may agree with, or at least not vociferously disagree with:
there's no reason that god can't be guiding evolution, or have just plain used evolution (presumably knowing where it would lead - not a scientific viewpoint, but it doesn't have to be).
then his creation of everything would lead to man, who would concoct (in some form of concert with god) a story to explain the origins.
This is, essentially, what most theists believe (I'm assuming of course that most theists aren't dyed-in-the-wool bible thumpers).
If Genesis and many of the other parts aren't literal, and/or if Jesus was essentially god in human form, there's nothing particularly anti-evolution in the bible (when taken like that).
I don't think Jesus said anything specifically anti-evolution - even saying "and god made man" doesn't say evolution can't happen, as it could be more metaphorical than literal.
If you're a biblical literalist YEC (which, from your own words, you are not) you would heartily disagree.
You're right this isn't the science forum, so I need to rephrase my answers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 09-17-2009 12:40 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024