Evolution is not improbable nor is it based on "chance"

Lanakila · #11 24th June 2002, 04:51 PM

I wasn't making a false claim about time, but thank you. What I meant about time, was it takes time to dig through the information and respond back point by point. That is why I stopped on the no evidence thread. I spent hours already on that discussion, as did my hubby, and he said give it up, they aren't listening, and you don't have time to dig through all the books. See I don't cut and paste from the web, I really do research with actual books in my hand, including Behe, Spetner, Gitt and the others I have put in my bibliography in the past.

My statement about Christian's being primarily creationists is based on experience and since most people I know are Christian Creationists I can make a statement like that. I am the born again type of Christian (fundamentalist) who would consider mainline Protestants and many other claimants to Christianity not actually saved. So my implication was born again, type Christians are primarily Creationists. Sorry, I didn't qualify my statement more clearly before.

Morat · #12 24th June 2002, 04:59 PM

Ah, yes. The "not a true Christian" bit. Well, as best I can tell, the Catholics view you literalists as horribly misguided, if not out and out idolators. (Biblical idolatry being a sin, you know).

So what goes around, comes around. What I find funny, of course, is that your husband claims we weren't listening to you, but as best I can tell, all my reponses were full of questions you kept refusing to answer and complaints you weren't listening to me. Ironic, at the very least.

Jerry Smith · #13 24th June 2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Lanakila
I am the born again type of Christian (fundamentalist) who would consider mainline Protestants and many other claimants to Christianity not actually saved. So my implication was born again, type Christians are primarily Creationists. Sorry, I didn't qualify my statement more clearly before. [/b]

heheh. Lanakila knows which of the professing and practicing Christians are "saved." That's good. She can assist Peter at the pearly gates.

Jerry Smith · #14 24th June 2002, 05:38 PM

I wonder if Keith Miller of Kansas State U is, by Lanakila's criteria, saved...

Simply stated, my position is that there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and a Christian faith with a high view of scripture. By evolution I mean the theory that all living things on Earth are descended from a common ancestor through a continuity of cause-and effect processes. I believe that there are no necessary breaks or gaps in causal explanations. That is, all transitions in the history of life are potentially explicable in terms of "natural" cause-and-effect processes. This theory is no mere guess or hunch, but an extremely well-supported explanation of the observed record of organic change. It has great explanatory power in drawing together an incredibly wide range of data from many disciplines in an explanatory framework. It has been very effective in generating fruitful and testable hypotheses that have driven new discoveries and advanced our scientific understanding of the universe.

I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate. However, simply accepting the truth of the Biblical writings does not indicate the meaning of those writings. Just as our observations of the natural world must be interpreted within some explanatory framework, scripture also must be interpreted. There is no such thing as an objective reading of scripture. The question for the Christian is then - What is the best interpretive framework for any given passage of scripture. I am convinced that the best interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor chronology is part of the intended message.

Finally, I fully and unhesitatingly accept the doctrine of creation. God is the creator of all things and nothing would exist without God's continually willing it to be. God is intimately and actively involved in all natural processes. Every natural process is as much an act of a personal creator as any miracle.

http://www.kcfs.org/kmiller.html

Lanakila · #15 24th June 2002, 06:15 PM

You ignored the word primarily ( didn't say all). I wouldn't presume to know a persons heart, but the doctrines of a persons church do have something to do with this, you know. This is getting ridiculous.

Jerry Smith · #16 24th June 2002, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Lanakila
You ignored the word primarily ( didn't say all). I wouldn't presume to know a persons heart, but the doctrines of a persons church do have something to do with this, you know. This is getting ridiculous.

My parents are born again Christians, and they think acceptance of grace through the atonement of Jesus' death and ressurection has a lot more to do with it than the doctrines of the church.. but then again maybe they aren't "really" saved either..

RufusAtticus · #17 24th June 2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Lanakila:
I wasn't making a false claim about time, but thank you. What I meant about time, was it takes time to dig through the information and respond back point by point. That is why I stopped on the no evidence thread.

Can you or can’t you address the criticisms of the "no new information" argument?

I spent hours already on that discussion, as did my hubby, and he said give it up, they aren't listening, and you don't have time to dig through all the books.

I’ve also spent hours on it, researching DNA sequences, gene families, and other things. I also tried to make very detailed points about the problems in your argument. It’s not nice for you to simply brush them off then claim that we’re the one’s not paying attention. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe we aren’t buying your argument not because we aren’t listening but because it has some serious flaws that you haven’t addressed.

See I don't cut and paste from the web, I really do research with actual books in my hand, including Behe, Spetner, Gitt and the others I have put in my bibliography in the past.

Well do you happen to use any scientific resources? Any peer-reviewed journal articles perhaps?

My statement about Christian's being primarily creationists is based on experience and since most people I know are Christian Creationists I can make a statement like that.

That of course assumes that the people you know are representative of Christians everywhere. Generalizing from your experiences is as valid as estimating the winner of an election by polling the members of Augusta National Country Club.