suppose Darwin deeply wrong

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 29, 2020

coffee4u said:
It is their expression as we can see the Gospels often show different sides to an event, but it is still God working through them. Each word is there because God wanted it there. Each word is breathed or inspired. The Bible is the final authority is all matters of faith and doctrine.

To me an interpretation occurs when we read a passage of scripture and are not sure what it means or if on first glance it seems to contradict another passage of scripture or if it can mean more than one thing. We then look up other scripture to see if it agrees or if we misunderstood what it meant. A good example of that would be passages about the role of women in the church, that is very much open to interpretation because many scriptures do seem contradictory on first glance. I can see how people come to different conclusions over this.

If the scripture is very plain I do not see it needing an interpretation.
For example. Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." means exactly what it says.
Saying something plain needs 'interpretation' sounds to me like people are trying to make scripture say things that it is not. That would be like trying to debate if Jesus died for our sins. Some things are not and should not be debatable. God wants us to understand his word, it is not one giant riddle.

Most times when someone tries to interpret scripture as something else it is not an interpretation at all. An interpretation means you have looked up other scripture to see if it is harmony. A further step might be needed if the passage is difficult such as the culture in which it was written and to whom it was written to. Obviously, if we are reading Deuteronomy we should be aware that God was giving the law to Israel.

An interpretation is not taking outside knowledge and applying it to scripture and because we now 'know better'. Preconceived ideas from outside of the Bible should be put aside to the best of our ability.

If you think that me believing what the Bible says is arrogance then so be it. I will stand for what it says. I know that I am not always right, there are plenty of scriptures that I do not understand in Revelations and other places. I am very open to being shown other scripture to shed light on a topic and as of yet, on this topic, I have been shown none.

In support of your post:

Jesus said that unless we become as little children, we cannot be His disciples. What this means is that a little child will believe what is being told to them without trying to analyse it and put an interpretation on it. If a child doesn't understand something, he or she will ask "why?" And then the point will be made more clear so that the child will understand.

Also, it has to be noted that the first time the Word of God was made subject to human judgment was in the garden of Eden when Satan, speaking through the snake, asked, "Has God said?" What he was doing was for Eve to use her own judgment about the command God had given. In response, she gave her interpretation of God's command, which was a little different to what God had actually commanded. Then Satan told her, "You will not die, but you will become like God, knowing what is good or evil", making God to be a liar - that He didn't really mean what He said.

Ever since that event, skeptics and contentious folk have been subjecting God's Word to their own judgment instead of believing exactly what God has said in His Word. In other words, they have put their own interpretation on it which suits them better than what God literally said in plain words.

Satan misrepresented God's purpose in His command - God said that if they ate of the tree, they would die, period. He didn't give any reasons; He said to just not do it. Satan informs Eve that God has a hidden agenda - that He was prohibiting them eating of the fruit because He knew that they would become like Him, knowing the difference between good and evil. One could say that Satan was accusing God of being jealous of His own position of being the sole Person who knows good from evil.

So, this is why I believe that the assertion, "You have your interpretation and I have mine" actually originates from Satan. God's attitude is: "I have said it, and it is up to you to decide to believe it or not, and take the consequences."

coffee4u · Feb 29, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Sure, I don't think you have to approach the bible through academic writing to get something from it. I do think it's important however to have a solid understanding of anything the particular church or group you are part of teaches, and that takes a bit of work. Churches and their members do tend, in my experience, to simply take for granted whatever ideas are central to that denomination, and those can sometimes be based on dubious foundations. I don't think it is necessary to understand every part of the bible from every possible angle to gain something useful by reading it. Whether or not a person takes the genesis narrative 'literally' (although what that actually means doesn't really fit the meaning of that word) has no effect on whether or not that person can absorb what is important in the text. To state the obvious again, stories are a very effective way of conveying ideas. I do think however that learning about the original context and intent of the writers can lead to a much deeper and richer understanding.

While I am a member of a church I do not call myself by that denomination. I am just an evangelic Christian and follow these tenants. Evangelical Beliefs I will attend any church where I hear correct teaching. I came to faith directly from the Bible not from a preacher or a church or a meeting. This is why my beliefs come directly from scripture. I did not grow up attending church and don't have any particular loyalty to any except to the body of Christ which is the one true church. I am sure there are many believers spread throughout every church. If the church I attend starts teaching wrongly I would leave in a heartbeat.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 29, 2020

coffee4u said:
While I am a member of a church I do not call myself by that denomination. I am just an evangelic Christian and follow these tenants. Evangelical Beliefs I will attend any church where I hear correct teaching. I came to faith directly from the Bible not from a preacher or a church or a meeting. This is why my beliefs come directly from scripture. I did not grow up attending church and don't have any particular loyalty to any except to the body of Christ which is the one true church. I am sure there are many believers spread throughout every church. If the church I attend starts teaching wrongly I would leave in a heartbeat.

The role of a Bible preacher or teacher is to make the literal words and teaching of the Bible more clear to his listeners. It is not to subject the Word of God to his own judgment by making it say what he wants it to say according to his own interpretation of it.

But there is nothing wrong with asking the questions: "Who, what, where, how, when, and why?" when examining Scripture to make it clearer and more understandable to the listeners.

Tom 1 · Mar 1, 2020

As there are a few people responding about the idea of literal and figurative or symbolic interpretations, this is addressed to anyone interested.

For myself, I didn't grow up in a religious household, so when I first read the text I didn't bring with me any preconceptions about it. I was vaguely aware that it had something to say about God creating the world, but that was about it. From that perspective it seemed obvious to me that it is not meant to be a literal account; I can't see how it can be said to make any sense if read in that way.

For starters, what is meant by a day? In English we divide this into two ideas, the day as opposed to the night, or a day as in a 24 hour period. The first is marked by the rising and setting of the sun, the second by marking time according to modern usage from the beginning of one day at a specified time until that same time 24 hours later. Which of these definitions is actually in the text?

It says -

'..so there was evening, and there was morning, one day' - there was evening and there was morning? What is the literal interpretation of that? What period of day is being referred to?

Secondly, the sun and moon are not 'created' until the 3rd or 4th day, depending on how you read the text. So whatever is meant by there was evening, and there was morning on days 1-2/3 it cannot mean a day as we conceive of it, since, in a literal interpretation of the text, such a thing did not exist.

Then come the various ideas about what else is meant by 'day', and so interpretation, made necessary by the text, begins.

Presbyterian Continuist · Mar 1, 2020

Tom 1 said:
As there are a few people responding about the idea of literal and figurative or symbolic interpretations, this is addressed to anyone interested.

For myself, I didn't grow up in a religious household, so when I first read the text I didn't bring with me any preconceptions about it. I was vaguely aware that it had something to say about God creating the world, but that was about it. From that perspective it seemed obvious to me that it is not meant to be a literal account; I can't see how it can be said to make any sense if read in that way.

For starters, what is meant by a day? In English we divide this into two ideas, the day as opposed to the night, or a day as in a 24 hour period. The first is marked by the rising and setting of the sun, the second by marking time according to modern usage from the beginning of one day at a specified time until that same time 24 hours later. Which of these definitions is actually in the text?

It says -

'..so there was evening, and there was morning, one day' - there was evening and there was morning? What is the literal translation of that? What period of day is being referred to?

Secondly, the sun and moon are not 'created' until the 3rd or 4th day, depending on how you read the text. So whatever is meant by there was evening, and there was morning on days 1-2/3 it cannot mean a day as we conceive of it, since, in a literal interpretation of the text, such a thing did not exist.

Then come the various ideas about what else is meant by 'day', and so interpretation, made necessary by the text, begins.

The problem is that you are trying to figure out a miraculous event through human logic. Can't do it.

Tom 1 · Mar 1, 2020

Oscarr said:
The problem is that you are trying to figure out a miraculous event through human logic. Can't do it.

The question isn't what happened, but what is meant by a literal interpretation.

Presbyterian Continuist · Mar 1, 2020

Tom 1 said:
The question isn't what happened, but what is meant by a literal interpretation.

The problem about just believing the actual words of the record is the desire to subject the record to human judgment.

Tom 1 · Mar 1, 2020

Oscarr said:
The problem about just believing the actual words of the record is the desire to subject the record to human judgment.

Yes, well, that is the point. What do you take the text to mean by day, and why?

JackRT · Mar 1, 2020

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This research focused on societies which were largely illiterate. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.on the theme.

JackRT · Mar 1, 2020

Presbyterian Continuist · Mar 1, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Yes, well, that is the point. What do you take the text to mean by day, and why?

I believe that God meant 24 hour days. He said it, and He was the only eye witness to the events.

If we don't God at His literal word, then we have to doubt that He meant what He said and that He said what He meant. We then have to subject His Word to our human judgment.

If we cannot take His Word literally in the first two chapters of Genesis, how can we rely on His Word anywhere else in the Bible, especially where it concerns the promises of our salvation if we trust in Christ?

We have to bear in mind that the first doubt about God's literal Word came from the talking snake in the garden of Eden when he said, "Has God really said that?"

So, the comment, "Did God really create the whole universe in six 24 hour days?" is more likely to come from God's adversary.

Anyhow, who among us is so arrogant that we would subject the Word of God to our pathetic judgment?

The truth is that the creation of the universe was an absolute miracle. God created everything out of nothing by just speaking it into being. I think we underestimate the awesome power of God. He is All-powerful, and to create a universe and our world, and making it to date millions of years old, is as easy for Him as me making my breakfast in the morning.

The big question is: How big is your God? I believe in the God of the Bible to whom nothing is impossible. Those who believe that their God used evolution and chance to create the universe are believing in a much lesser God of their imagination.

We can't imagine God in our own finite minds, because He is infinitely greater than anyone we can ever imagine. All we can do is to worship Him with wonder and awe.

coffee4u · Mar 1, 2020

Tom 1 said:
As there are a few people responding about the idea of literal and figurative or symbolic interpretations, this is addressed to anyone interested.

For myself, I didn't grow up in a religious household, so when I first read the text I didn't bring with me any preconceptions about it. I was vaguely aware that it had something to say about God creating the world, but that was about it. From that perspective it seemed obvious to me that it is not meant to be a literal account; I can't see how it can be said to make any sense if read in that way.

Interesting. Our house was kind of neutral and I believed in evolution until I got saved and a few months later I watched a Video by Ken Ham. I spent a lot of time going over the scriptures after watching and it made so much sense that mankind was made without sin and that when Adam sinned it brought in death which is why a saviour's sinless death was needed to pay the price for our sins. To me that fits together perfectly. So I can't see it as anything but literal.

How does it not make sense?

For starters, what is meant by a day? In English we divide this into two ideas, the day as opposed to the night, or a day as in a 24 hour period. The first is marked by the rising and setting of the sun, the second by marking time according to modern usage from the beginning of one day at a specified time until that same time 24 hours later. Which of these definitions is actually in the text?

It says -

'..so there was evening, and there was morning, one day' - there was evening and there was morning? What is the literal interpretation of that? What period of day is being referred to?

A day means a day. If I told you I took 6 days to sew a quilt I assume you would think it took me 6 literal days and you wouldn't ask me what I meant by a day. Why can't God simply mean a day?

There is plenty of teaching around on why Genesis does mean a literal 24 hour day.
Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days? | GotQuestions.org

The word day in Genesis is Yom. What it means depends on the context and how it is used, the same way we can use the word day. When Yom is used with a number it always means a 24 hour period. Not only did Mosses (we assume Mosses) use a number but he also said evening and morning.

I would ask you, how much more should he have explained it was a literal day? He used the word day along with evening and morning as well as saying day 1, day 2 etc, what else should he have put?

Secondly, the sun and moon are not 'created' until the 3rd or 4th day, depending on how you read the text. So whatever is meant by there was evening, and there was morning on days 1-2/3 it cannot mean a day as we conceive of it, since, in a literal interpretation of the text, such a thing did not exist.

Day 4, yes it's very interesting. Now here is something that people could actually have a discussion on since we are not told how God did this.
We are told there was evening and morning so it had to be there, but it wasn't caused by the sun itself, so it was caused by something else. That 'something else' is open to speculation. I believe God himself was the light shining on the earth.
If we ask why didn't he just create the sun first? Perhaps because ancient civilisations tended to worship the sun, and by creating it on day 4 its importance was lessened.

However God did it, it was a miraculous event. It doesn't have a scientific logical answer. It just is. The very nature of miracles is that they can't be explained by science or reason.
-or perhaps us in our earthy form simply don't have the capability to understand them. Could be like a 2-dimensional man trying to understand the 3-dimensional man, he simply can't.

Then come the various ideas about what else is meant by 'day', and so interpretation, made necessary by the text, begins.

What about the text makes you think it is anything other than a regular day?

Presbyterian Continuist · Mar 1, 2020

coffee4u said:
Interesting. Our house was kind of neutral and I believed in evolution until I got saved and a few months later I watched a Video by Ken Ham. I spent a lot of time going over the scriptures after watching and it made so much sense that mankind was made without sin and that when Adam sinned it brought in death which is why a saviour's sinless death was needed to pay the price for our sins. To me that fits together perfectly. So I can't see it as anything but literal.

How does it not make sense?

A day means a day. If I told you I took 6 days to sew a quilt I assume you would think it took me 6 literal days and you wouldn't ask me what I meant by a day. Why can't God simply mean a day?

There is plenty of teaching around on why Genesis does mean a literal 24 hour day.
Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days? | GotQuestions.org

The word day in Genesis is Yom. What it means depends on the context and how it is used, the same way we can use the word day. When Yom is used with a number it always means a 24 hour period. Not only did Mosses (we assume Mosses) use a number but he also said evening and morning.

I would ask you, how much more should he have explained it was a literal day? He used the word day along with evening and morning as well as saying day 1, day 2 etc, what else should he have put?

Day 4, yes it's very interesting. Now here is something that people could actually have a discussion on since we are not told how God did this.
We are told there was evening and morning so it had to be there, but it wasn't caused by the sun itself, so it was caused by something else. That 'something else' is open to speculation. I believe God himself was the light shining on the earth.
If we ask why didn't he just create the sun first? Perhaps because ancient civilisations tended to worship the sun, and by creating it on day 4 its importance was lessened.

However God did it, it was a miraculous event. It doesn't have a scientific logical answer. It just is. The very nature of miracles is that they can't be explained by science or reason.
-or perhaps us in our earthy form simply don't have the capability to understand them. Could be like a 2-dimensional man trying to understand the 3-dimensional man, he simply can't.

What about the text makes you think it is anything other than a regular day?

In support of your excellent post:

If the first chapters of Genesis are not literally true, then Adam and Eve were not real people who disobeyed God and brought sin into the world, it would throw the whole basis for our salvation right out the window! To be genuinely converted to Christ, one has to believe in the literal interpretation of the whole of Genesis without exception.

On Sunday at church, the sermon was by a visiting Catholic priest who said that Adam and Eve were not real people, but they were part of the Genesis 'myth', and that Adam and Eve stood for humanity as a whole. (I am part of a Methodist/Presbyterian union church, and it is a mixture of liberal and evangelical depending who comes to lead the services and preach). I said quietly to the Lord, "What rubbish! I don't believe that for a minute!" After that, the guy's sermon meant nothing to me so when I got home I gave myself a good dose of John MacArthur's Bible teaching to wash that "brown stuff" out of my mind!

I assert that those who don't believe that Genesis is the literal and direct word of God, no matter how religious they are in their profession of Christiany, are not saved, and when they stand before the Lord in the judgment, He will say, "I never knew you. Depart from Me you workers of iniquity!" And they will ultimately perish in the lake of fire with the devil and all his angels.

LoG · Mar 1, 2020

coffee4u said:
Day 4, yes it's very interesting. Now here is something that people could actually have a discussion on since we are not told how God did this.
We are told there was evening and morning so it had to be there, but it wasn't caused by the sun itself, so it was caused by something else. That 'something else' is open to speculation. I believe God himself was the light shining on the earth.

Since the remnants of the first creation Gen 1:1-2 were already there then I would say the sun was there also but no longer shining and in a ruined state. Day 4 was restoring it to its proper function but its orbit around earth(or earth's around it) still served to set the time of day.

coffee4u · Mar 1, 2020

Oscarr said:
In support of your excellent post:
If the first chapters of Genesis are not literally true, then Adam and Eve were not real people who disobeyed God and brought sin into the world, it would throw the whole basis for our salvation right out the window! To be genuinely converted to Christ, one has to believe in the literal interpretation of the whole of Genesis without exception.

On Sunday at church, the sermon was by a visiting Catholic priest who said that Adam and Eve were not real people, but they were part of the Genesis 'myth', and that Adam and Eve stood for humanity as a whole. (I am part of a Methodist/Presbyterian union church, and it is a mixture of liberal and evangelical depending who comes to lead the services and preach). I said quietly to the Lord, "What rubbish! I don't believe that for a minute!" After that, the guy's sermon meant nothing to me so when I got home I gave myself a good dose of John MacArthur's Bible teaching to wash that "brown stuff" out of my mind!

I assert that those who don't believe that Genesis is the literal and direct word of God, no matter how religious they are in their profession of Christiany, are not saved, and when they stand before the Lord in the judgment, He will say, "I never knew you. Depart from Me you workers of iniquity!" And they will ultimately perish in the lake of fire with the devil and all his angels.

Goodness, I might have got up and left. Although someone like that here would probably have the entire church up in arms. Apart from teaching literal creationism one family here is family friends with Ken Ham and he always comes and stays with them when he is over here. I'm sure you felt like your mind needed a good scrubbing after that!

I will differ slightly from you Oscarr in that I think people can be saved without understanding Genesis, but I picture it as if their eyesight is dimmed around the edges. They see Christ in the centre but beyond that, they are missing out on so much beauty of the picture.
I also think it's possible for that darkness to crowd in and eventually lead to a loss of faith. If they cannot believe in the miracle of creation I think it would be easy to move onto questioning other miracles. Was there a global flood? Did a donkey talk? Was Paul really struck blind on the road to Damascus? I have even heard of Bishops who question the virgin birth and the resurrection. A slippery slope. Then all they are left with is their church traditions or they fall away completely.
This is why I appeal to them with scripture because I hope it will strike something in their spirit to look at it again with fresh eyes.

coffee4u · Mar 1, 2020

LoG said:
Since the remnants of the first creation Gen 1:1-2 were already there

That is your assumption not mine.

That opens up a lot of questions.
If there was more than one creation, what was the purpose of this?
Did this first creation have death and bloodshed?
Are you saying God made a mistake, wiped it off and started again?

I believe that there has only ever been one creation taking place over 6 days.

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Verse 1 and 2 only tells us that God created the heavens and the shape of the earth as a formless empty dark lump and that there was deep water. Verse 2 may have happened immediately after verse 1 or there may have been a gap. The spirit may have hovered over the waters for a short or a long time. Nothing there says that this was a remake.

What verses do you use to back up the idea that there were remnants of a first creation?

then I would say the sun was there also but no longer shining and in a ruined state. Day 4 was restoring it to its proper function but its orbit around earth(or earth's around it) still served to set the time of day.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

First, you need verses that point to a ruined first creation before you can have a ruined sun.
The sun itself is not mentioned until verse 16 and it simply says God made two great lights. It doesn't say remade.
Since the Bible says God made the sun on day 4 I assume him to mean exactly that, he created or made it on day 4.

On the other thread, you made a case for the words 'create' and 'made' being different, which I answered by giving a list of scriptures that used either created or both made and created within the same verse. Post#367 Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?
Genesis 2:4
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
The Dictionary may make a distinction between the two but the Bible doesn't.

Bara to shape or create does not always mean to create out of nothing. The Bible says of Adam that he was 'created', 'made' and 'formed' and that Eve was 'fashioned' over different verses.
Neither was created out of nothing, God used dirt of clay to make Adam and his rib to form Eve.

Colossians 1:16 says
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (ἐκτίσθη, ektisthay) by and for Christ.

Presbyterian Continuist · Mar 1, 2020

coffee4u said:
Goodness, I might have got up and left. Although someone like that here would probably have the entire church up in arms. Apart from teaching literal creationism one family here is family friends with Ken Ham and he always comes and stays with them when he is over here. I'm sure you felt like your mind needed a good scrubbing after that!

I will differ slightly from you Oscarr in that I think people can be saved without understanding Genesis, but I picture it as if their eyesight is dimmed around the edges. They see Christ in the centre but beyond that, they are missing out on so much beauty of the picture.
I also think it's possible for that darkness to crowd in and eventually lead to a loss of faith. If they cannot believe in the miracle of creation I think it would be easy to move onto questioning other miracles. Was there a global flood? Did a donkey talk? Was Paul really struck blind on the road to Damascus? I have even heard of Bishops who question the virgin birth and the resurrection. A slippery slope. Then all they are left with is their church traditions or they fall away completely.
This is why I appeal to them with scripture because I hope it will strike something in their spirit to look at it again with fresh eyes.

I agree that we don't have to understand the first two chapters of Genesis. All we have to do is to take God at His Word and just believe it. We could never understand a miraculous event with our mortal, finite minds. It's like trying to understand where the fire came from that burned up the Baal altar after the prophets of Baal couldn't bring the fire down. Or how Elijah prophesied that it would not rain anywhere on earth for three years, and then when the time was up he prayed and immediately there was a downpour so strong that he told Ahab to get into his chariot and get to where he is going before the road would be so muddy he would get bogged down!

We also can't explain how the sun stood still in the sky until Joshua had won a battle, or the sun going back 10 degrees for Hezekiah. Or how Jesus healed a man born blind by just getting him to wash in a Jerusalem pool of water, or how Naaman was healed of leprosy by just washing in the Jordan river.

We can't explain these miracles and many others that are recorded in the Bible, except that there is an all-powerful God, to whom nothing is impossible, is involved.

LoG · Mar 2, 2020

Posting gone wrong

Tom 1 · Mar 2, 2020

coffee4u said:
What about the text makes you think it is anything other than a regular day?

Well, a day without a sun or a moon is not, by definition, a day in the sense that you mean.

Anyway. The thing that puzzles me in your post, and in some other posts here, is the idea expressed that you are somehow not ‘interpreting’ the text, when that is plainly what you are doing. You are interpreting it according to what you think it means, not what it actually says. You are of course free to read it in any way that you like, but where does the idea come from that you are not interpreting the text?

Jamsie · Mar 2, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Well, a day without a sun or a moon is not, by definition, a day in the sense that you mean.

Anyway. The thing that puzzles me in your post, and in some other posts here, is the idea expressed that you are somehow not ‘interpreting’ the text, when that is plainly what you are doing. You are interpreting it according to what you think it means, not what it actually says. You are of course free to read it in any way that you like, but where does the idea come from that you are not interpreting the text?

One only need to look through the subjects and various threads to note that on many issues the Bible does not seek to be precise. A brief tour of "General Theology" will prove that very point. As to Genesis the salient point is that "In the beginning God created..." beyond that the text is quite open to interpretation. This can be applied to the meaning of "day", Gen. 1:1-2, God spoke as the sole agency of creation, what "Let the land produce..." implies, etc. Ultimately some humility is required to accept that the details of "how" are not definitively set forth.

suppose Darwin deeply wrong

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Senior Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Senior Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads