quote:Probably more than many Christians, certainly enough to know that the Genesis creation myths, the Flood myth, the story of Adam and (St}Eve, the Exodus stories and many other parts of the Bible were never meant to be taken literally.
What I don't understand about this way of thinking is, if all these are just stories, not to be taken literally, then why do you believe in the life of Jesus Christ as it is written in the New Testament. Why do you believe in his death, burial, and resurrection as payment for your sins, which would make you a Christian. So you're now going to pick and choose which parts are allegorical, metaphorical, or whatever u want to call them, and which are fact? How are we to know which is which? You have to take the Bible as all truth or no truth at all, there's no in between. You give credence to atheists to deny the Bible. By saying part of its not true, they have no reason to believe any of it is true.
As Nosy says, Off Topic for this thread but always a great idea for a topic. It's always an interesting discussion every time it's been covered and one we haven't repeated for weeks. If you'd like to explore it start a thread in Proposed New Topics and I'll see if I can get it promoted.Aslan is not a Tame Lion
quote:An excellent argument, however, in my opinion flawed. In such cases there is concrete evidences that point toward the murderer. Such as DNA or semen matching. It links man and chimp in the same way that DNA methods can match father and son, mother and daughter, distant ancestor and living descendant.
There is concrete DNA matching that supports a common ancestor between chimps and humans, by the very same methodologies and technology. One of those pieces of evidence is endogenous retroviral insertions (abbrev. ERV, or in humans as HERV).
quote:Now as far as the case for evolution goes there isn't clear cut, exact, evidence that proves evolution to be true. This is shown obviously by this website in the fact that there is debate over the issue. It isn't as clear cut.
You will notice that scientists are not arguing with one another over whether evolution is accurate or not. The only argument is between scientists and those who reject evolution because of religious reasons. You don't need to answer this, but ask yourself if you believe evolution is false because it has been falsified or because you don't want to share a common ancestor with any other animal on Earth.
quote:I also just came across this excellent interview between Dr. Gary Habermass, philosophy professor at Liberty University, and professor Antony Flew, a long time leading philosophical atheist that has turned to theism. There are some excellent points but I will simply point out one reply.
In science, someone's opinion means nothing unless the opinion is based on sound evidence. This seems to be a rampant problem amongst the anti-evolution camp, using opinion as data, and quotes as evidence. Evidence is evidence, not some philosophy professor's opinion.
quote:DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution. While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.
What scientific evidence do we have that a designer existed when life arose on earth? None. Therefore, ID fails at the very beginning, since the first premise, the existence of a designer, is not evidenced. What we do have are natural mechanisms which we can test today. These are evidenced and may very well be capable of producing life on their own.
quote:While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.
Stating the obvious, we will never know what the earliest life on earth looked like since they did not leave fossils. However, if life can arise through natural processes, we really don't need a designer to interfere in the process. It amazes me at times that Christians don't realize that ID actually constrains God, confines His creative power into something Man can accept. Why couldn't God create the natural laws knowing that they will, by themselves, result in intelligent life? Because Man wants to feel special, and coming about by such mechanisms injures Man's pride. Man wants to tell God how He created instead of letting the creation tell Man how He created. Evolution is just that, the study of the Creation.