Hugh Ross

Baraminology is a non starter when it comes to science. It is simply a failure from the gitgo. As soon as it makes the assumption that the "Kinds mentioned in the Bible" are a significant classification it moves out of the realm of science and into the realm of theology.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

As a Christian that fully accepts the old earth, Big Bang, Evolution, that there has never been a world-wide flood like that described in the Noah Fable, that there was no Fall, that death existed even before Adam was placed in the garden in the story, that Adam & Eve were not real people and the story in Genesis 2 & 3 is simply a "Just so story", that there was no Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah or an Exodus as described in the Bible; I can tell you for a fact that my position was not based on wanting to fit in but rather that the evidence I have seen has been so overwhelmingly convincing that the only honest conclusion I could reach was that the Bible was factually wrong on those points.My position is NOT taken to just fit in, it is the only way I could continue to be a Christian and maintain any honest belief.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How did the church do so? How did "Evangelicals" embrace science over scripture to fit in?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

When you say stuff like "As I suspected, none of you has any evidence at all for your versions of evolution, you only have what you feel is evidence for common descent. " it is a clear indication that you are lying to yourself."Descent" is evolution. It is your family tree. It is the evolution from the earliest life down to all of us primates living today.To try to pretend that when they give you a link like that that it is not pointing to evidence for evolution is simply false.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

One of the problems is that there is no culture of ethics in theology similar to the culture of ethics in science.In the world of science, if a scientist is caught fudging data, even simply withholding data, then the whole scientific community sanctions that person, rebuts that person, places that person's whole body of work under detailed review and in most cases, expels the individual from the profession.In theology though, lies, misrepresentation, withholding data, fudging data is simply not criticized. Not only is there no sanction for "Lying for Christ", the practice is often applauded and the liar praised.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Huh?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Huh?Freud did use pseudonyms to protect identities, also some composites, characteristics of more than one person to illustrate a point, but I am not aware of him making up data or subjects.BUT...regardless, Freud is a great example of how science practices ethics. His conclusions were criticized, pretty often and often quite publically. His papers and materials have been examined in depth.There is NOTHING, particularly withing modern Christianity, that even begins to parallel what happens in Science. When clergy promote absolute falsehoods like the Noahic Flood or the Exodus or Special Creation, or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah there is no outcry from the rest of the clergy. There is no demand for retraction of the falsehoods published.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!