Originally Posted By Dabob2 "For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're trying to say there." <Neither do I know what you're refering to.> Refering to your post 29. It just kind of jumped all over the place. But to take another point, many people believe there isn't a contradiction between God and evolution, woody. (And not just Catholics, cmpaley!). Many people believe that the old testament, like the new, is filled with metaphor and allegory. In the new, it's mostly introduced as such. Jesus says "I'm going to tell you a parable now." He doesn't say it was historical fact that there was this man set upon and then a good Samaritan came along... he tells it as a story to make a point. Many people believe that the old testament is likewise full of parable and allegory that is not introduced as such. And that each of the 6 creation "days," for instance, could have been millions of years long. Now some people believe that you must believe in the Bible literally. If it says 6 days, then 6 literal days it is. But others believe that the old testament is also full of metaphor.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: I wrote each paragraph in Post 29 as a distinct thought. If you don't get it, then I can't help you. I should not have to respond to each comment with rebuttals. That method of response gets a bit tiring to read. I reposted your comment below as a starting point. >>But to take another point, many people believe there isn't a contradiction between God and evolution, woody.<< Wow. Imagine that. A belief based on consensus, which is neither Biblical or scientific. Sometimes fact is fact. I may not be agreeing with some people with this, but I definitely think there is a contradiction. I think you overstate metaphor and allegory. When it is used, it is very clear. Otherwise, we should accept it as literal. I can accept the 6 days as NOT 24 hour days. The Bible is clear that time and space can be many things. Yet evolution describes a nature driven creation of the earth and life over millions of years. And how natural selection and random chance is the impetus, leaving no room for a creator. Even the Bible as methophor should have supported evolution, yet the principles don't even come close.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Why can't we accept that "evolution" is the process that God created, and subtly guided, to create man? We don't necessarily have to accept that true randomness resulted in our being who we are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob2: I wrote each paragraph in Post 29 as a distinct thought. If you don't get it, then I can't help you. I should not have to respond to each comment with rebuttals. That method of response gets a bit tiring to read.> I can accept distinct thoughts, obviously. I just thought that none of yours made any particular sense. They seemed like random musings, assertions with no back-up. But I'm sure you knew what you meant. >>But to take another point, many people believe there isn't a contradiction between God and evolution, woody.<< <Wow. Imagine that. A belief based on consensus, which is neither Biblical or scientific.> That's not what I said. I said nothing about "belief based on consensus," just that many people don't think there's a contradiction. <Sometimes fact is fact. I may not be agreeing with some people with this, but I definitely think there is a contradiction.> Why? The Bible doesn't really speak to how creatures got here, except in Genesis, and then it says God created them all in one day, and humans the next day. If you accept the premise that those "days" were millions of years long... well, that's all the Bible really says about how creatures got here. <I think you overstate metaphor and allegory. When it is used, it is very clear. Otherwise, we should accept it as literal.> I was about to say that was wrongheaded, but admirable in a sort of bullheaded way, until you came right back with... <I can accept the 6 days as NOT 24 hour days. The Bible is clear that time and space can be many things.> So which is it? The Bible doesn't say the 6 days of creation is metaphor. It says it was 6 days. And fundamentalists insist is WAS 6 literal days. So if the Bible doesn't state that that is metaphor, according to you, we have to "accept it as literal." Except you say you accept it as NOT literal. So it seems to me you made a point to disagree with me, before agreeing with me. <Yet evolution describes a nature driven creation of the earth and life over millions of years. And how natural selection and random chance is the impetus, leaving no room for a creator.> I don't see that at all. What may seem "random chance" to us may have been God's design all along, no? Certainly natural selection could have been. And "God" and "nature" certainly don't have to be contradictory. <Even the Bible as methophor should have supported evolution, yet the principles don't even come close.> What principles? Again, all we really have is Genesis. If you insist on reading it literally then I'd agree; there's a contradiction between that and what we can see with our own eyes - forget evolution per se, just look at the fossil records in general. But if you accept Genesis as metaphor, there's no contradiction.
Originally Posted By woody >>So if the Bible doesn't state that that is metaphor, according to you, we have to "accept it as literal." Except you say you accept it as NOT literal. So it seems to me you made a point to disagree with me, before agreeing with me.<< I should make my clear. Only until Genesis 1:14 does it get literal. "Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," This is the fourth day. Then God made the sea creatures and birds in the fifth day (literal). The land animals and man are created in the sixth day (literal). >>Certainly natural selection could have been. And "God" and "nature" certainly don't have to be contradictory.<< Natural selection may be contradictory in the following conditions. 1. It played a role in the creation of living creatures and man. 2. It created new species. >>But if you accept Genesis as metaphor, there's no contradiction.<< Maybe there is. In the fifth day, there is sea and air creatures. In the sixth day, there is land creatures. The "missing link" fossil studies are saying there is a link between sea and land creatures. What about sea creatures first, birds second, land creatures third, then man?
Originally Posted By woody I found this link by an evolution advocate. Here's what he said... "Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days." <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional/part2c.html</a> In his opinion, the Genesis account is completely without merit, even if interpreted metaphorically.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Post 20 DVC--College Chris or chemistry? What do you do for a living? I still haven't figured it out? >>> Well my good friend cape cod joe, I have told you this I thought. But let me be real clear. Alas, I will tell you. I sit in my trailer all day, drinking beer, watching TV, while my wife works three jobs. My kids play around about the outside of my manly trailer with my widescreen tv (which I usually watch all things Nascar) but they better stay outside or not get between me and my TV! *BELCH*
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Lol, that's Georgia fer ya, eh? With 6 kids, I think we *know* what he does fer a livin'!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Did you see the end of Monsters Inc? That was me and my wife! "Hey maw, theys a gator in the trailer again!" "Fetch me that shovel!" *&^*^% POW! *^&$##$BONG! (*^*%$Ping! #$#&^%BAM! (&^&^$ # %$#^$%THUD!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad For the last time...cape cod joe. I don't work. I don't have a job. I have 5 kids, will be 6 next month, I take care of them. I am up to my elbows in Young'uns!
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy You 'n me both, _dad! Especially when I've had a rotten lousy stinkin' day and LP is sooooooo slooooooow! (Why do people do stuff on Fridee nights? They need tuh entertain me!)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>So if the Bible doesn't state that that is metaphor, according to you, we have to "accept it as literal." Except you say you accept it as NOT literal. So it seems to me you made a point to disagree with me, before agreeing with me.<< <I should make my clear. Only until Genesis 1:14 does it get literal. "Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," This is the fourth day. Then God made the sea creatures and birds in the fifth day (literal). The land animals and man are created in the sixth day (literal).> I think you'll see the word "literal" is not in the Bible. It says what it says - whether we TAKE it as literal or metaphorical is up to us. >>Certainly natural selection could have been. And "God" and "nature" certainly don't have to be contradictory.<< <Natural selection may be contradictory in the following conditions. 1. It played a role in the creation of living creatures and man. 2. It created new species.> Huh? I don't see what you're getting at there. How is that contradictory to God? If God could create species out of whole cloth, why could He not direct the evolution of one into another? Or create another out of whole cloth well before our recorded history? >>But if you accept Genesis as metaphor, there's no contradiction.<< <Maybe there is. In the fifth day, there is sea and air creatures. In the sixth day, there is land creatures. The "missing link" fossil studies are saying there is a link between sea and land creatures. What about sea creatures first, birds second, land creatures third, then man?> What about it? As far as we know, there was some overlap in all cases, no? We've found just ONE "new" (to us) species lately, that we didn't know of before. Presumably, we'll find more. <I found this link by an evolution advocate...In his opinion, the Genesis account is completely without merit, even if interpreted metaphorically.> In his opinion.
Originally Posted By woody >>I think you'll see the word "literal" is not in the Bible. It says what it says - whether we TAKE it as literal or metaphorical is up to us.>> Your opinion. I accept what the Bible is saying. The Bible is saying one thing. The science of evolution is making a case for another explanation. Some scientists do not think there is any compatibility between the two disciplines as do I. With this, I agree with the scientists. >>Huh? I don't see what you're getting at there. How is that contradictory to God? If God could create species out of whole cloth, why could He not direct the evolution of one into another? Or create another out of whole cloth well before our recorded history?<< Why would God require a mechanism that will do the job when the Bible is saying God is doing the job? Isn't the Bible "our recorded history"? No one has disputed the genealogy in the Bible as truth in a literal sense. >>What about it? As far as we know, there was some overlap in all cases, no? We've found just ONE "new" (to us) species lately, that we didn't know of before. Presumably, we'll find more.<< As I was doing the research in this debate, I was wondering if the scientific fossil discoveries is siding with the Biblical explanation. It does not appear to be happening. Most scientists are more firm in their belief of evolution. The creationists and ID are not doing anyone any favors by trying to integrate the findings in explaining possible compatibility. They are in full dispute mode. Your argument will only find life in the Catholic Church or other such sects. It will remain a philosophical debate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I think you'll see the word "literal" is not in the Bible. It says what it says - whether we TAKE it as literal or metaphorical is up to us.>> <Your opinion. I accept what the Bible is saying. The Bible is saying one thing. The science of evolution is making a case for another explanation. Some scientists do not think there is any compatibility between the two disciplines as do I. With this, I agree with the scientists.> Some other scientists believe that if Genesis is taken metaphorically, there is not necessarily uncompatibility. So you are siding with some of the scientists. >>Huh? I don't see what you're getting at there. How is that contradictory to God? If God could create species out of whole cloth, why could He not direct the evolution of one into another? Or create another out of whole cloth well before our recorded history?<< <Why would God require a mechanism that will do the job when the Bible is saying God is doing the job?> Why couldn't the "job" be ongoing? <Isn't the Bible "our recorded history"? No one has disputed the genealogy in the Bible as truth in a literal sense.> Sure they have. The Bible says Methusula and Noah each lived to be over 900 years old. Obviously, that's disputed. There's a huge gap between Adam and Eve and their kids and the next scenes in the Bible when the earth is fully populated. And the whole reason some fundamentalists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old is the geneology in the Bible, largely from Matthew (though that only goes back to Abraham). So yes, plenty of people dispute the literal truth of the geneology in the Bible. >>What about it? As far as we know, there was some overlap in all cases, no? We've found just ONE "new" (to us) species lately, that we didn't know of before. Presumably, we'll find more.<< <As I was doing the research in this debate, I was wondering if the scientific fossil discoveries is siding with the Biblical explanation. It does not appear to be happening. Most scientists are more firm in their belief of evolution.> The "Biblical explanation" is mute on transitional species, because it says all species were created in two days. But that's only if you take those as two literal days. <The creationists and ID are not doing anyone any favors by trying to integrate the findings in explaining possible compatibility. They are in full dispute mode.> From what I've seen creationists haven't been trying to integrate the findings. Hard-core creationists have disputed fossil records for years, some of them even believing they were placed by Satan to trick us. Less hard-core ID believers, at least the ones I've read since this most recent discovery, have been in "wait and see" mode. <Your argument will only find life in the Catholic Church or other such sects. It will remain a philosophical debate.> I'm not Catholic, so there goes that theory - although I can't wait till cmpaley reads your characterization of the RCC as a "sect." Happy Easter, woody.
Originally Posted By woody >>Why couldn't the "job" be ongoing?<< There isn't enough evidence that evolution has happened much in recent history. The argument is predicated on the origins. However, since you asked about "ongoing", maybe there should be more research about the young earth theory, which scientists doubt as possible. I find it strange that there is only one human species. The difference in races is not a separate species. Why are humans an exception to other animal creatures that have many species? >>So yes, plenty of people dispute the literal truth of the geneology in the Bible.<< You're doubting the time spans and the possible gaps, but the genealogy from Adam is harder to dispute in terms of the names shown. Certainly, people have questioned it, but no evidence has been found to dispute that the generations did not happen. However, in this link, the disputing studies may be faulty. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=12&itemid=2185" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or g/modules.php?name=Read&cat=12&itemid=2185</a> >>The "Biblical explanation" is mute on transitional species, because it says all species were created in two days. But that's only if you take those as two literal days.<< If you're trying to prove evolution, there may be transitional species. Yet, maybe they are just extinct creatures. >>Less hard-core ID believers, at least the ones I've read since this most recent discovery, have been in "wait and see" mode.<< In other words, they are passive aggressive. Still they are hostile to the concept and doing nothing to advance or disprove the theory. >>I'm not Catholic, so there goes that theory<< I did say "other such sects" to cover you.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I find it strange that there is only one human species. The difference in races is not a separate species. Why are humans an exception to other animal creatures that have many species?" Well, there have been several different species of humans that lived alongside early man. Here is a link to such a species that lived in asia. <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html</a> These were not predecesors of humans today either, these were living alongside, and ultimately died out. Another example would be the pygmies in Australia. Oh, also from National Geographic, there is evidence that these different species of humans interbred... <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Why couldn't the "job" be ongoing?<< <There isn't enough evidence that evolution has happened much in recent history. The argument is predicated on the origins.> You should read National Geographic sometime. There's plenty of evidence of ongoing evolution. <However, since you asked about "ongoing", maybe there should be more research about the young earth theory, which scientists doubt as possible.> I'm all for research. But if they're trying to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old, they're not going to be happy with what they find. <I find it strange that there is only one human species. The difference in races is not a separate species. Why are humans an exception to other animal creatures that have many species?> gurgitoy2 handled part of that. I'll add that humans aren't the only ones with a single species. Generally the higher, larger, more intelligent species have fewer types; AFAIK, for instance, there are only two species of elephant, only one of orangutan, etc. - while there are dozens and dozens of bats for instance. >>So yes, plenty of people dispute the literal truth of the geneology in the Bible.<< <You're doubting the time spans and the possible gaps, but the genealogy from Adam is harder to dispute in terms of the names shown. Certainly, people have questioned it, but no evidence has been found to dispute that the generations did not happen.> You're asking the impossible. It's like saying nothing has been found to dispute the Norse geneology. We know what their written record says - but how to prove or disprove it? Impossible. <However, in this link, the disputing studies may be faulty. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.or" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.or</a> g/modules.php?name=Read&cat=12&itemid=2185> I found that unconvincing. Again, the geneology from Abraham to Adam, in particular, is impossible to prove or disprove in the literal sense. >>The "Biblical explanation" is mute on transitional species, because it says all species were created in two days. But that's only if you take those as two literal days.<< <If you're trying to prove evolution, there may be transitional species. Yet, maybe they are just extinct creatures.> Maybe. I'm the first to say there's plenty we don't know yet. >>Less hard-core ID believers, at least the ones I've read since this most recent discovery, have been in "wait and see" mode.<< <In other words, they are passive aggressive. Still they are hostile to the concept and doing nothing to advance or disprove the theory.> I was referring to their reaction to this latest creature, which was discovered - what? - two weeks ago? That they haven't formulated an official response - especially considering ID believers are not monolithic in themselves - is hardly an example of "passive agressive." >>I'm not Catholic, so there goes that theory<< <I did say "other such sects" to cover you.> The correct word is "denomination." And you also overlook the fact that Catholics, for instance, are all over the map in what they believe about creation vs. evolution, as are people in most denominations.
Originally Posted By woody >>You should read National Geographic sometime. There's plenty of evidence of ongoing evolution.<< Except when National Geographic is accused of doing faulty work. The evidence should be read and reviewed with a critical eye. >>gurgitoy2 handled part of that. I'll add that humans aren't the only ones with a single species.<< He didn't add much. That article has one major flaw. How is being short a new human species? >>I found that unconvincing. Again, the geneology from Abraham to Adam, in particular, is impossible to prove or disprove in the literal sense.<< I would at least hope you might be open minded to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which could, at least, make your faith more fulfilling. As a Christian, that would be a good thing. >>Maybe. I'm the first to say there's plenty we don't know yet.<< So why are you so quick to dismiss the genealogy line from Adam? Your belief in the Bible should be the default position as a Christian. If you have doubt, doubt Evolution or at least be more critical. Afterall, evolution should be tested by its own scientific rules. >>The correct word is "denomination." And you also overlook the fact that Catholics, for instance, are all over the map in what they believe about creation vs. evolution, as are people in most denominations.<< I would not call Protestants a denomination of Catholics. Sect would be a better use of the word to describe the difference between the Catholic Church and the Protestant sect. I would call Evangelicals and Southern Baptists a denomination of Protestants, which has no central leadership. The Catholic Church has a common leadership hierarchy. They've made their position on Evolution known. I am aware that individual Catholics or regional denominations have different positions; however, they differ from the Catholic Church official position. ------------- <a href="http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html" target="_blank">http://www.cuttingedge.org/n10 34.html</a> "In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith."
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I would at least hope you might be open minded to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which could, at least, make your faith more fulfilling. As a Christian, that would be a good thing." That same thing could be flipped around to have a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. It can go both ways, and who's to say somebody who doesn't take it literally is less fulfilled? I'd say that's pretty arrogant.
