Christian Evolutionists: How does that work? A Q&A session

Since there is no real evidence that Moses wrote Genesis then it is speculation to say he did. And you misrepresent the consensus of scholarship quite considerably - tothe best of my knowledge the Cocumentary Hypothesis which places the Pentateuch as a compilation put together during the Babylonian Exile is still the most widely held view. So I must ask you to support your claim that "almost all scholars" hold that Moses wrote Genesis.Now if you can offer any significant evidence that Moses wrote Genesis I'd be interested in seeing it. But if all you have is traditions of unknown provenance and date - which is all I've seen - I can't see that there is any firm basis for assigning the authorship of Genesis to Moses. Or indeed, anybody known to history.

Explainations for facts. Read your own definitions:

quote:

---

Theory- a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain fact

---

Don't crawl up my ass because you can't read. Theories are explanations of facts. Your own definition says so. They're not suggestions. They're suggested explanations of facts.

In the beginning.....it does not say whose beginning.....it says what the earth looked like in that beginning......dark and waters covered it........
I believe the earth is very old.....beginning with God who has no beginning and no end.

(damm I lost this whole thing to yet another server error -- when will i learn)I think that Zach and Crash are fighting over a small semantic nit.They've both agreed that a theory is an "explanation of facts".Of course, a theory is "suggested" in the sense of this defintion:(Miriam Webster online)

quote:

---

1 a obsolete : to seek to influence : SEDUCE b : to call forth : EVOKE c : to mention or imply as a possibility d : to propose as desirable or fitting e : to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis

---

I think that d and, especially e are pertinant to this case.That is, there may be any number of theories "suggested" as an explanation for the same set of facts.Can you not both agree to that?I think the real issue is: "Is this a good explanation of the facts?"How would you each suggest determining which one of a number of suggested explanations is the better one?

Simple. Between two theories, that which explains the greatest number of facts.Between two theories that explain the greatest number of facts, the one that makes the most accurate predictions.Between two theories with accurate predictions, the one with the least number of undetectable entities.It's a kind of hierarchy; kind of a "seive" for sifting through theories. The one that emerges explains data, makes accurate predictions, and makes reference to the least number of entities that we can't test for.

It makes me no difference actually. I just like to fight. I understand that each word has multiple definitions (often). I just get fired up when I see people attempting to take (what I feel to be) a not fully without-a-doubt proven idea, theory, hypothesis, etc... and try to say its a fact. The evolution Theory has not been proven to be fact. I have heard plenty of scholars give there reasons why they believe evolution to be error prone and when I come here to use them to drive home my case they are dismissed by the secular science groupies here. So we will call a peace and agree to disagree. -Z

It has already been explained that neo Darwinian theory is better than a fact. It will never be proven as a fact. It isn't that kind of thing at all.The fact is (in a summary sense) that evolution of life on earth has occured. Period, full stop. Now that fact needs to be explained.A theory is an explanation of facts. The ToE is the only explanation of the facts that we have.What reasons have been "dismissed"? That is not something that you should let drop. I seem to note that your ideas have been fairly carefully refuted with reasons given not just dismissed. Is there something we missed?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-08-2004 11:21 PM

Most christian scholars believe Moses is the author of the Torah. The Torah (old Testament), would you agree, is considered to be the "law" as refered to in the bible. Would you agree that the Torah is made up of the first 5 books of the bible Gen, Exo, Lev, Num, Deut?
If you do and you also believe in Jesus Christ himself being perfect and without fault, then you have to agree that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. WHY? Because Jesus Christ himself refers to the Torah as the "Law of Moses". Unfortunately there are no (as far as I know) remaining original documents with Moses signature stating he wrote them so we'll just have to have faith ot I will anyway. Check out Henry M. Morris, "The Genesis Record" -Z

I'm not going to go back to what was dealt with close to a year ago. When it comes to those who have views (mainly Christian scientists) that say the ToE is wrong you and others have already dismissed the scientists I listed as "wackos" Why? I say the bible is quite clear. It mentions NO evol. because GOD created EVERYTHING. If you wish not to believe in a creator or what the bible says that is completely up to you. There are tens of millions of people that do not agree with a word you have said. Yes, tens of millions on your side say what you do also. So, like I said we will have to agree to disagree. -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-08-2004 11:37 PM

You are completely correct about my missunderstanding of the semicolon. Thank you. I still feel that the word "then" or in my case "now" doesn't mean as much as the "had" which gives a past tense. That the garden was already done. Then he put man there. My interpretaion of the Em Dash after the word "ground" in Gen2:6-7 ["...watered the whole surface of the ground- the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."] is that it was written not with the intent to say what order or when it occured, but instead to focus on the fact that it DID occur. The (-) Em Dash: Use the em dash sparingly in formal writing. Don't use it just because you are uncertain about correct punctuation. In informal writing, em dashes may replace commas, semicolons, colons, and parentheses to indicate added emphasis, an iterruption, or AN ABRUPT CHANGE OF THOUGHT. -Z
p.s. sorry about all the edits. I should probably read over it more carefully before I submit.
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-09-2004 12:02 AMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-09-2004 12:03 AMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-09-2004 12:04 AM

Because it doesn't explain the facts as well. It doesn't explain the facts at all well actually.To be a competing theory it has to match in explanatory and predictive power. It was taken as the leading theory about 200 years ago. It failed to be supported as facts were uncovered and was dropped before there was a good replacement explanation. The needed replacement theories have been developed over those 200 years and have been supported by a vast number of additional facts uncovered since then.

I don't understand. We covered this. Did you just take the last two pages' worth of posts and block them from your mind?The theory of evolution is not a fact, but it is made out of facts. Just as a house is not a brick, but is made of bricks. I know I've only told you that 3 or 4 times, and explained how your misuse of the word "theory" is a perversion of its original scientific meaning.

Are you going to sit there and try to tell me that people out there in the world are not trying to tell students that and others that evolution is a fact. I heard what you said. I know it is based on SO CALLED facts, what I am saying is people treat it as the truth and it's not. As you have stated. -Z

That is great. You don't like the fact that the bible doesn't speak clearly enough for you and others so you take it upon yourself to better try to explain the bible without using it. That is why it's called faith. You and all the scientists of the world can't explain it correctly because you aren't giving any creadance to the bible or the Creator. It's pretty funny to listen topeople like you and frog that have no faith but you think that your soo intelegent that you can figure out the way life exists and goes on. Instead of seeing that it is all from the Creator you think you can do a better job by making up your own story. You guys crack me up, it's a pitty, so many lost, blind souls trying to teach others the lies they believe. Later. -Z

Or as close to a fact as anything we are likely to ever find. It certainly has an enormous body of physical evidence.The Theory of Evolution is not a fact nor is it being taught as a fact. The name is even Theory of Evolution and not Fact of Evolution or did you miss that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion