The tip of the ice berg

[ottawak]

It does not ....

Microevolution - variation within the Biblical kind.

Macroevolution - the changing of one Biblical kind into another kind.

The difference in the meaning of the term microevolution as used by an evolutionist in contrast to a creationist is that an evolutionist thinks microevolution requires the addition of new genetic information to a species' genome, but a creationist thinks microevolution requires the expression of genetic information already present.

Here is what the Discovery Institute itself has to say.
Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same

 

[eleos1954]

Which proposition is an interpretation.

Scripture is not intended as a moral guide book or a collection of propositions to believe. Its purpose is to reveal God’s plan and purposes throughout human history. According to the Apostle Paul, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

While disagreements abound about how best to interpret various Scripture passages, we can rest in the fact that our salvation does not depend on attaining perfect knowledge. As Christians our faith is grounded in Jesus Christ—not in the perfect interpretation of Scripture. Yet salvation is not the end of the Christian experience, but the beginning: delving deep into Scripture can help us see God’s larger plans and purposes for restoring creation and dwelling among his people.

 

[ottawak]

Scripture is not intended as a moral guide book or a collection of propositions to believe. Its purpose is to reveal God’s plan and purposes throughout human history. According to the Apostle Paul, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

While disagreements abound about how best to interpret various Scripture passages, we can rest in the fact that our salvation does not depend on attaining perfect knowledge. As Christians our faith is grounded in Jesus Christ—not in the perfect interpretation of Scripture. Yet salvation is not the end of the Christian experience, but the beginning: delving deep into Scripture can help us see God’s larger plans and purposes for restoring creation and dwelling among his people.

That does not mean that it should be understood without reference to any other source of knowledge.

 

[eleos1954]

Here is what the Discovery Institute itself has to say.
Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank ... no religious or spiritual basis.

 

[eleos1954]

That does not mean that it should be understood without reference to any other source of knowledge.

I would agree, as long as those sources do not compromise or dismiss the truth of His written Word.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.

so in that regard I'd say yes ... the awareness of who we are as created beings, our relationship with the Lord and how we should relate to one another. That awareness is revealed through His Word.

Certainly not limited to that ... contains a lot of history and prophecy about the future.

Incorrect. The correct answer is:

No. The bible isn't sentient.

Some interpretations might be obvious in plain text, but the bible does not self interpret. People do that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank ... no religious or spiritual basis.

Wrong. The Discovery Institute (sic) is not secular, but it exists for a specific *religious* purpose: to lie about the nature of "Intelligent Design" which is a cleaned-up version of "creation science".

 

[ruthiesea]

No theories can be proven?

By definition. There is always room for doubt. Even if a theory is 100% correct there is, in science, always room for questioning. That is how science works. Our senses tell us that things exist or act in a certain way. Theories are explanations of what we observe. However we don’t know what we might discover in the future.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How so?
Please do support your claim.

Given that the theory of evolution, has never been demonstrated to be false...

The ToE has fatal flaws, even Darwin saw that. Just one of countless examples: symbiosis. Evolutionists are are unwilling to accept the evidence.

 

[ottawak]

The ToE has fatal flaws, even Darwin saw that. Just one of countless examples: symbiosis. Evolutionists are are unwilling to accept the evidence.

Why is symbiosis a fatal flaw in evolution?

 

[ottawak]

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank ... no religious or spiritual basis.

No, it's a religious organization under the skin, run by a group of radical Calvinists on Dominionist money.

 

[eleos1954]

Incorrect. The correct answer is:

No. The bible isn't sentient.

Some interpretations might be obvious in plain text, but the bible does not self interpret. People do that.

The only sound approach to Bible study is to let the Bible interpret itself.

Two things are evident: Either God gave us a book that we cannot understand and therefore left it up to us to decide what he had in mind (NOT), or God gave us a book that we can study and come to a knowledge of the truth (over time).

It can be dangerous to blindly follow the interpretation of Scripture by men if we have not studied the Word for ourselves to check that what they teach is true. Like the Bereans, we need to search the Scriptures for ourselves with a heart open and yielding to the Spirit.

This is a profound concept to be sure. But here is an even deeper truth: Scripture not only interprets itself but also interprets us. As we read and hear the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and then points us to Christ so we can be comforted by the Gospel. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart”

 

[Aussie Pete]

It does not ....

Microevolution - variation within the Biblical kind.

Macroevolution - the changing of one Biblical kind into another kind.

The difference in the meaning of the term microevolution as used by an evolutionist in contrast to a creationist is that an evolutionist thinks microevolution requires the addition of new genetic information to a species' genome, but a creationist thinks microevolution requires the expression of genetic information already present.

" Evolitionists" are not some small cult of scuence deniers,
though if the existrd those who cling despite disproof wouo be the
laughing stock. As creationists are today.

Few in the international science dont accept evolution.
If anyone could disprove it, there a Nobel awaiting them.

The majority of Germans thought that Hitler was leading them to the promised land. The majority of Russians believe that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine. The majority of North Koreans believe that Kim is the greatest leader ever and some kind of demi-god. The majority is often wrong. And evolution is taught in schools as if it was fact, at least in the education systems that I know of. Teachers in the US have been fired even for pointing out possible objections to evolution. If the theory is so sound, why the fear of examining possible flaws?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why is symbiosis a fatal flaw in evolution?

It's 4.20 am here. I'm tired. Surely you can figure it out?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why is symbiosis a fatal flaw in evolution?

Sorry, 4.50 am.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The ToE has fatal flaws, even Darwin saw that. Just one of countless examples: symbiosis. Evolutionists are are unwilling to accept the evidence.

Name one of these "fatal flaws".
Symbiosis is not a flaw, let alone a fatal flaw. It is a trait found among some species.
Evolutionists remain imaginary boogiemen.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank ... no religious or spiritual basis.

No. Its a young earth creationist propaganda mill. Entirely devoted to an american christian fundamentalist religious agenda

 

[Hans Blaster]

The only sound approach to Bible study is to let the Bible interpret itself.

Two things are evident: Either God gave us a book that we cannot understand and therefore left it up to us to decide what he had in mind (NOT), or God gave us a book that we can study and come to a knowledge of the truth (over time).

This is what's known as a false dichotomy. You are assuming that these are the only two possibilities. Even if you assume God is responsible for it in some fashion your dichotomy has left out very common interpretations about the writings being *inspired* by God (rather than given or dictated), plus there is the question about the humans choosing which inspired (or God-written) texts to include or exclude. (I suspect my bible has more books than yours. It has 70 some books.) Then there is the possibility that you will likely completely reject which is that some or all of the books were written by men without any intervention or inspiration from God.

Now I'm not here to debate the origins of the biblical texts, but your "evident" things list is incomplete and I can tell you that the *last* thing my old church would have wanted anyone to do is unguided self-study and interpretation of the Bible.

 

[ruthiesea]

It's 4.20 am here. I'm tired. Surely you can figure it out?

No one can at any time.

 

[ottawak]

The only sound approach to Bible study is to let the Bible interpret itself.

Is that how it was translated (one of the processes of interpretation) into English? It translated itself?

Two things are evident: Either God gave us a book that we cannot understand and therefore left it up to us to decide what he had in mind (NOT), or God gave us a book that we can study and come to a knowledge of the truth (over time).

Yes, it is being studied, has been studied fo millenia. The question is, who are you to tell us what the truth of it is?