|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 4:05:54 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If I understand you right, that would really fall under the umbrella of what I consider allegorical, even though the words would be exactly as they were divinely dictated.
What is your definition of allegorical?
In this case literal means exactly as the author (Moses) saw it.
For example, I could dictate an allegorical story to you, and you can literally transcribe my words exactly as I say them, but the story itself isn't literally true. Is that what you meant by saying Genesis could be literal (ie words were literally transcribed as they were divinely dictated), but not a scientific account?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 4:12:40 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Unfortunately, DanJ, these folks are dead serious. Amazing how evolutionism can brainwash them so! I would have never thought that I'd see so much ignorance in the face of so much intelligence on a Christian discusson board - what an eye-opener! It gives a whole new meaning to 1 Cor 1:20 and 3:19.
Well give me some of your special insight then?
Newton believed God occasionally intervened to nudge planets back into their orbits, because his theory could not account for the irregularities. We now have better explanations. IMHO, this is quite similar to modern ID, albeit ID is dressed up with a lot of scientific lingo to mask its nature as an elaborate God of the gaps argument.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 4/14/2008 4:19:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 4:39:41 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well give me some of your special insight then? Sorry, drj11, my "special insight" comes from the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. While I'm good, I'm not that good!
quote:
IMHO, this is quite similar to modern ID, albeit ID is dressed up with a lot of scientific lingo to mask its nature as an elaborate God of the gaps argument. Yes, then you should have no difficulty understanding how evolutionary theory is "dressed up with a lot of scientific lingo to mask its nature as an elaborate godless naturalism argument"! Surely you see the similarity 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 4:46:30 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Well give me some of your special insight then? Sorry, drj11, my "special insight" comes from the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. While I'm good, I'm not that good!
And you misinterpret his word, and it leads you to incorrect conclusions, just like it did for Isaac Newton.
quote:
quote:
IMHO, this is quite similar to modern ID, albeit ID is dressed up with a lot of scientific lingo to mask its nature as an elaborate God of the gaps argument. Yes, then you should have no difficulty understanding how evolutionary theory is "dressed up with a lot of scientific lingo to mask its nature as an elaborate godless naturalism argument"! Surely you see the similarity
Doubt evolution, natural selection and common descent all you want... it doesn't make creationism correct or viable. Its simply false.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 4:52:48 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And you misinterpret his word, and it leads you to incorrect conclusions, just like it did for Isaac Newton. And you misinterpret the evidence from His created world, and it leads you to incorrect conclusions, just like it did for Darwin.
quote:
Doubt evolution, natural selection and common descent all you want... it doesn't make creationism correct or viable. Its simply false. Yes, that's your religion of evolution speaking, isn't it!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/15/2008 6:13:06 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7877
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
For example, I could dictate an allegorical story to you, and you can literally transcribe my words exactly as I say them, but the story itself isn't literally true. Is that what you meant by saying Genesis could be literal (ie words were literally transcribed as they were divinely dictated), but not a scientific account?
Well, no, I was thinking more along the lines that I could show you something, you could describe it literally, but the description constitute a scientific description by current standards.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/15/2008 6:40:30 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3949
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Do you really not comprehend the impact creationism had on the history and development of modern scientific methodology? Why don't you do a little research into the lives of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Agassiz, Cuvier, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, and those are just a few of the God-fearing, Bible-believing scientists I remember off the top of my head. Do you think they thought it was a waste of time to explore God's wonderful creation?
In these cases, creationism led them astray, and caused them to draw false conclusions... especially in Newton's case, who could only account for oddities in planet orbits by acts of God... that is until Einstein came along with relativity.
So no... creationism wasn't much use to us after all.
Whoa, cowboy. A bit over the top. No matter how brilliant they may have been, they couldn't see into the future or be expected to have all the knowledge. As big a critic as I am of YEC, I don't see the logic of blaming this or any other idea or philosophy on incorrect conclusions. They worked with the knowledge of the day. Blaming YEC for their shortcomings is as illogical as blaming evolution for World War II.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 12:41:50 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Whoa, cowboy. A bit over the top. No matter how brilliant they may have been, they couldn't see into the future or be expected to have all the knowledge. As big a critic as I am of YEC, I don't see the logic of blaming this or any other idea or philosophy on incorrect conclusions. They worked with the knowledge of the day. Blaming YEC for their shortcomings is as illogical as blaming evolution for World War II.
I wasn't trying to say that any great catastrophe's were caused by YEC... I was simply pointing out how, in Newton's case, theistic assumptions about natural phenomena lead him to wrong conclusions. This was all originally brought up because someone was making a case for YEC saying what a wonderful influence it has been on all these scientists work... and I'm saying that at least in one case, its not true at all. Surely the oddities in planetary orbits may have been out of the grasp of what Newton would be able to discover, given the time he lived in, but making a theistic explanation about an oddity certainly didn't help him find the answer. Just as it doesn't help us one iota when studying biology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 2:17:33 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just as it doesn't help us one iota when studying biology. You really don't get this, do you drj! If plants and animals did not reproduce according to their kinds (written seven times in Genesis 1 by the great YEC Moses!), then we would have no basis for discovering, understanding, and applying the disciplines of population genetics, animal husbandry, and genetic engineering, to name just a few! Now, why don't you name one field of biology that requires evolutionary theory for its application.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 2:32:45 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I see the same influence of theistic belief that resulted in the scientific discoveries of the past as responsible for the scientific discoveries of the present day...There are many religious reasons for accepting the discovery of evolution that one might consider. (and no drmark, before you pull your stunt and quote me, I'm not refering to the "religion of humanistic naturalism" ).
Moses wasn't a scientist, nor is the Bible a scientific authority, so to say that Moses was a YEC is a little ridiculous. I'm sure Moses also had many other scientific-related questions that he was ignorant about due to his, well, ignorance since he lived in a pre-scientific age.
In a recent book entitled Conversations with Children a breakfast dialogue between father and six-year-old daughter was reported which I am forced to quote from memory. It ran something like this:
"Father, why was I born?"
"I don't know, my child; only God knows."
"Did God want me to be born?"
"I think so."
"Was God born?
"No, God was not born."
"If God was not born, why did he want me to be born?"
"Now be quiet, you little busybody."
"Why don't you answer my questions, you old lazybody?"
These simple questions of a little girl are perfect examples of childlike profundity. They all concern themselves with the problem of ultimate meaning: "Why was I born?" and with the relation of the infinite to the finite: "If God was not born, why did he want me to be born?" The questions of the meaning of life and of the relation of the finite to the infinite fairly exhaust the whole range of religious thought and life. The second question is suggested by the first, because every conception of meaning points to sources and fulfilments of meaning which transcend the finite world.
Religious literalism seeks to preserve childlike profundity in religion by giving simple and childlike answers to childlike questions. It thinks that the mythical answers to childlike questions are adequate scientific answers. It tries to insist that, because the idea of creation is true, it is also true that God created the world in six days; and that because the story of the Fall is true, therefore the account of the serpent and the apple in the garden is actual history. Thus it corrupts ultimate religious insights into a bad science. It tries to make mythical explanations of the ultimate "why" into scientific explanations of the immediate "how." This is a form of cultural primitivism as baneful as the social primitivism of reactionary politics.
< Message edited by Nothingman -- 4/16/2008 2:40:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 2:36:10 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
and drmark, if you reply, I'd appreciate if you'd reply to the whole post, and not just pull out random individual sentances to reply to. It would be an excerise you might want familarise yourself with - replying to a concept as a whole - if any progress is to be made in our discussions.
< Message edited by Nothingman -- 4/16/2008 3:01:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 3:03:01 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
If plants and animals did not reproduce you're saying plants and animals don't reproduce?!?
quote:
we have no basis for discovering, understanding, and applying the disciplines of population genetics, animal husbandry, and genetic engineering what?!? of course we do! its called science!
quote:
why don't you name one field of biology ok, zoology
quote:
requires evolutionary theory yes, we do require evolutionary theory...good point drmark.
ok I'm being facetious but I hope my point is made....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 4:56:21 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ok I'm being facetious but I hope my point is made.... The only point you've made is your ability to use poor grammar. If you have found some of my exerpts which butcher conditionals, dependent clauses, and proper syntax (like your facetious examples), please share them. I post the relevant text to avoid filling up these threads with extraneous verbage, not to compromise your intended communication.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/16/2008 6:33:49 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
fair enough. point taken. Now how about what I have posted?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 8:58:23 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are many religious reasons for accepting the discovery of evolution that one might consider. Please name one.
quote:
Moses wasn't a scientist, nor is the Bible a scientific authority, so to say that Moses was a YEC is a little ridiculous. YEC is not only about the scientific evidence supporting a 6000 year old created universe. It is also a worldview based on the common sense, straightforward reading of the historical narrative account of the origins of the world. You cannot possibly think that Moses had no idea what God was inspiring him to write down, can you?! That would be way more than ridiculous, Nothingman! So Moses was indeed a YEC.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 10:08:30 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3949
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
There are many religious reasons for accepting the discovery of evolution that one might consider. Please name one.
quote:
Moses wasn't a scientist, nor is the Bible a scientific authority, so to say that Moses was a YEC is a little ridiculous. YEC is not only about the scientific evidence supporting a 6000 year old created universe. It is also a worldview based on the common sense, straightforward reading of the historical narrative account of the origins of the world. You cannot possibly think that Moses had no idea what God was inspiring him to write down, can you?! That would be way more than ridiculous, Nothingman! So Moses was indeed a YEC.
Moses was not a scientist and Genesis is not a scientific text. Moses wrote down or compiled the oral histories passed on. I agree that there are no religious reasons to accept ANY scientific theory. YEC is worship of the words of Bible. Everything that humans touch will be imperfect. There is no denying the human involvement in the compilation of the books of the Bible.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 11:52:10 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
drmark, I thought we were going to reply to entire posts? All this discussion is fruitless it seems if I'm going to keep having to repeat myself.
If you want some arguments as to the religious reasons for evolution I recommend you look up the hundreds of theologican/scientists out there. A good one I recommend is John Haught, born again Christian.
The issue is how we read the Bible. I provided a quote above of a theologian whose points you didn't reply to. The issue of God is completely different than science. We are finite, He is infinite. As such our understanding of Him is limited. But as humans, we must discuss him, and try to describe him. Would you not agree that any decription of God falls short? I do. I think the idea that we can understand and fully comprehend God and his works by putting Him into neat little logical categorical boxes for our easy consumption completely limits the God I worship. As such, any descriptions of God and the "supernatural" are inherently limited as well. This I believe is what is going on in the Bible. What occurs then is the use of metaphors, analogies, and myths to convey truths greater than itself. Think of it like this. When I paint a picture, I do so on a one-dimentional canvass. I may paint a scene of a house with people and a yard etc. The object of my painting is to provide an illusion of a three-dimentional depth that, if viewed only in a literal sense, fails, since literally the canvass is merely one-dimensional; the portrayal though is not. This I believe is what Genesis is. We have stories here of creation and the fall whose depictions are told through Adam and six-day creation. Through those stories a deeper understanding of the nature of life may be conveyed but which can only be conveyed using myth. Can any of us really undersand how God created the world? The problem occurs when we take that myth, which repesents a deeper meaning and is chock full teleological truths about us, (which is all we need as humans, to know God's will) and view it in a one-dimensional sense. We lose the depth. And frankly we get into problems where we refuse to accept common sense on such issues as the age of the earth and purposely limit and distort our discovery, explorations, and understanding of God's earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 12:13:11 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
drmark, I thought we were going to reply to entire posts? All this discussion is fruitless it seems if I'm going to keep having to repeat myself.
If you want some arguments as to the religious reasons for evolution I recommend you look up the hundreds of theologican/scientists out there. A good one I recommend is John Haught, born again Christian.
The issue is how we read the Bible. I provided a quote above of a theologian whose points you didn't reply to. The issue of God is completely different than science. We are finite, He is infinite. As such our understanding of Him is limited. But as humans, we must discuss him, and try to describe him. Would you not agree that any decription of God falls short? I do. I think the idea that we can understand and fully comprehend God and his works by putting Him into neat little logical categorical boxes for our easy consumption completely limits the God I worship. As such, any descriptions of God and the "supernatural" are inherently limited as well. This I believe is what is going on in the Bible. What occurs then is the use of metaphors, analogies, and myths to convey truths greater than itself. Think of it like this. When I paint a picture, I do so on a one-dimentional canvass. I may paint a scene of a house with people and a yard etc. The object of my painting is to provide an illusion of a three-dimentional depth that, if viewed only in a literal sense, fails, since literally the canvass is merely one-dimensional; the portrayal though is not. This I believe is what Genesis is. We have stories here of creation and the fall whose depictions are told through Adam and six-day creation. Through those stories a deeper understanding of the nature of life may be conveyed but which can only be conveyed using myth. Can any of us really undersand how God created the world? The problem occurs when we take that myth, which repesents a deeper meaning and is chock full teleological truths about us, (which is all we need as humans, to know God's will) and view it in a one-dimensional sense. We lose the depth.
What you are suggesting is that because we cannot fully comprehend God, we cannot truly know anything about him, and therefore any explanation is good enough. I could say that God is made of Hershey's Chocolate and there's nothing you could say to refute me because we can't understand God through reading the Bible. No, we can't fully know God until the promised moment when we see him and we know him as we are fully known; but we can know what is revealed through scripture and bow our knee before what is revealed, just like we can know some things about the house that you painted, though not everything.
Besides all this, Genesis is completely out of order with what is being taught in the textbooks, so no, it is not Uniformitarianism and Evolution for Dummies. Myth is NOT necessary to understand the history of the world. If God wanted to portray the history of the universe, and he DID use BB and UCD to do it, then he could have dumbed it down sufficiently for us to understand. He didn't need to tell us he did something so clearly NOT uniformitarian in order to portray the history of the universe.
quote:
And frankly we get into problems where we refuse to accept common sense on such issues as the age of the earth and purposely limit and distort our discovery, explorations, and understanding of God's earth.
WHAT LIMIT?! What distortion of discoveries?! What exploration has been stifled?! What understanding has been undermined?! There is no rejection of common sense! Do you block out the entire discussion when you make comments like these? Have you not listened at all? Nobody here is trying to reject science. We reject YOUR flavor of interpretation of data.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 1:28:37 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
What you are suggesting is that because we cannot fully comprehend God, we cannot truly know anything about him, and therefore any explanation is good enough. I could say that God is made of Hershey's Chocolate and there's nothing you could say to refute me because we can't understand God through reading the Bible. No, we can't fully know God until the promised moment when we see him and we know him as we are fully known; but we can know what is revealed through scripture and bow our knee before what is revealed, just like we can know some things about the house that you painted, though not everything.
Besides all this, Genesis is completely out of order with what is being taught in the textbooks, so no, it is not Uniformitarianism and Evolution for Dummies. Myth is NOT necessary to understand the history of the world. If God wanted to portray the history of the universe, and he DID use BB and UCD to do it, then he could have dumbed it down sufficiently for us to understand. He didn't need to tell us he did something so clearly NOT uniformitarian in order to portray the history of the universe.
quote:
And frankly we get into problems where we refuse to accept common sense on such issues as the age of the earth and purposely limit and distort our discovery, explorations, and understanding of God's earth.
WHAT LIMIT?! What distortion of discoveries?! What exploration has been stifled?! What understanding has been undermined?! There is no rejection of common sense! Do you block out the entire discussion when you make comments like these? Have you not listened at all? Nobody here is trying to reject science. We reject YOUR flavor of interpretation of data.
You do reject science and science has uniformly rejected your interpretation of genesis. Thats fine if you want to believe that, but you don't get to cry atheistic conspiracies when its laughed and rejected in the science curriculum. The majority of Christians have grown in their understanding of God that allows both science and creation story to coexist in harmony.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 2:04:58 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
What you are suggesting is that because we cannot fully comprehend God, we cannot truly know anything about him, and therefore any explanation is good enough. I could say that God is made of Hershey's Chocolate and there's nothing you could say to refute me because we can't understand God through reading the Bible. No, we can't fully know God until the promised moment when we see him and we know him as we are fully known; but we can know what is revealed through scripture and bow our knee before what is revealed, just like we can know some things about the house that you painted, though not everything.
First off, calm down.
No I did not state that at all. Quite the contrary. I did not say we "cannot know anything about him". Please read the post again for you obviously completely misunderstood. I said by our very constitution as humans and relation to God, as finites to infinite, it is impossible for us to fully understand God and his works. That is a very basic and simple theological truism. It does not follow from that that we cannot know anything about God. You completely missed the entire point. My point is we can, but only to a point. That point being up to where our finite capacity as humans allow us. As such, because of the relationship of finite to infinite, and our inability to fully understand God, we must work within our limits as humans to understand as best we can. That doesn't mean God is a Hershey Bar for crying out loud. Now, our understanding of God is predecated on the limits of our thoughts and language. As such we use myths, alegories, analogies etc to try to point to a greater truth than what those literary devices would portray if only taken literally. Can you understand that? Here's an example: in the Bible it says God loves us like a Father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, friend etc. All those human relationships are used to try to get us to understand, to try to give us an idea of, to point us in the direction toward, to give us a sense of, what God's love is like. But in reality, God's love is infinitly greater than any human love and his relationship to us is purer and greater than any human relationship. It is greater than the most genuine love between any two humans. So in reality God's love is not literally the love a father, mother, husband etc, it is infinitely greater than that. But in describing his love as like those we are able to get a sense of what his love is. But to take it literally, to say God's love is the love of a husband is to do a grave injustice to the infinite love of God. It limits God's love to that of human love. Does this make sense?
quote:
Besides all this, Genesis is completely out of order with what is being taught in the textbooks, so no, it is not Uniformitarianism and Evolution for Dummies. Myth is NOT necessary to understand the history of the world. If God wanted to portray the history of the universe, and he DID use BB and UCD to do it, then he could have dumbed it down sufficiently for us to understand. He didn't need to tell us he did something so clearly NOT uniformitarian in order to portray the history of the universe.
sorry, I'm not sure what BB and UCD mean?
But as to what you're saying: "if He wanted us to understand the history of the universe as evolutionary etc, then he would have dumbed it down."
Well I would just say if he wanted us to understand the history of the universe, and if the history of the universe was encapsulated in the Bible, then we wouldn't need science to discover what is going on. It would all have been in there. The point is, the Bible is not a Science. Its a history of God's revelation and teleological purposes for us. Divorce the idea that ANY Science is contained inthe Bible. The Bible contained God's purposes for us. I'm not sure why people need to elevate it anything more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 2:08:53 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
sorry, didn't see this part:
[/quote]WHAT LIMIT?! What distortion of discoveries?! What exploration has been stifled?! What understanding has been undermined?! There is no rejection of common sense! Do you block out the entire discussion when you make comments like these? Have you not listened at all? Nobody here is trying to reject science. We reject YOUR flavor of interpretation of data. [/quote]
MY interpretation of data? Or you mean the entire Scientific communites interpretation? There is not one non-literalism scientist who think the world is young. The ones that are have accepted their conclusions from the outset and desperately are trying to bend the data to that conclusion. If you really think the age of the earth is a hotly contested debate simply with different interpreations, some thinking old, some new, then you're - and pardon my french - simply deluded and ignorant.
The ONLY reason people don't accept OE is because of their dogmatics. It isn't a science issue, its a religious issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 2:11:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
You do reject science and science has uniformly rejected your interpretation of genesis. Thats fine if you want to believe that, but you don't get to cry atheistic conspiracies when its laughed and rejected in the science curriculum. The majority of Christians have grown in their understanding of God that allows both science and creation story to coexist in harmony.
Yes, of course. I appear to have left my aluminum helmet off and you've read my mind and now know that I actually hate science despite the fact that I am seeking a biology major, and currently putting off doing research for a project in my Plant Anatomy and Development class.
These debates really do bolster me in my belief that evolution is a world-view alone and therefore cannot be disproven. You came here with these claims, you've had the discussions, you now make the same claims. We've talked about how there are scientists in the community that believe what the Bible says as it is written, but you continue to group the entire scientific community together and claim that they all uniformly reject "my" interpretation of Genesis. There is no amount of discussion that can change your mind on even this minor point that there are some who are actively involved in the scientific community, intelligent people, who reject evolution. If this kind of rejection of presented material exists in you on this small point. No doubt it happens in many people on the larger issue of Evolution in general. Young Earth Creation is laughed at and rejected because it does not agree with the world-view of the person doing the laughing, regardless of the data presented. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/17/2008 2:29:52 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
