Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please be specific. How were Haeckel's drawings "fake"? Tell me which ones and which editions too. You are buying a pig in a poke when you make this claim. I know what Haeckel did wrong and why. I doubt if you know. You would not have used the words "fake" if you did.The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.
You don't have to have to wear a label. What you have to to is to stop being hostile to Christians whose theology differs from yours on inessential matters, like a dispensational view of scripture, for example, or the insistence literal inerrancy which goes along with it.I refuse to wear any label other than Christian. If someone can work out what label to put on me from what I say, they are welcome. I just won't wear it.
Please know that I'm not trying to be hostile to Christians when I say that I've grown to the place where I consider the literal inerrancy of the Biblical creation story as a lie. It's gotten that black and white for me. I know that the Biblical creation story is based on theology. But when the facts that the earth itself is showing us and is staring us in the face and we deny what our own eyes are showing us, in my mind the denial of those facts becomes a lie. I'm sorry I'm being so straight forward here. I'm not trying to bash Christianity. The Biblical creation story has nothing to do with one's Salvation. Many of my spiritual heroes are Christian. I'm at present doing a deep dive into the Beguines who were a Christian monastic Medieval women movement created by women and for women and not affiliated with or supervised by a male order. I truly believe that I'm not alone in this feeling this way. But I also feel that the insistence of literal inerrancy of the Biblical creation story has had a major negative impact on the Christian religion.You don't have to have to wear a label. What you have to to is to stop being hostile to Christians whose theology differs from yours on inessential matters, like a dispensational view of scripture, for example, or the insistence literal inerrancy which goes along with it.
Well, either:For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry. I've yet to see a comparable explanation for these observed patterns in biology, other than if God didn't use evolution, well, things were created with the appearance thereof. There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why those patterns otherwise exist*.
2.5. Could an omniscient creator not have known that in the environment he created an intelligent self-aware creature suitable to His purposes would eventually emerge--without intermediate tinkering.Well, either:
1. God created all life forms fully formed, and is continuing to do so as species become extinct and new species appear, but does it in a way that gives the appearance that species evolve from other species, giving a trail of genetic similarities and markers and following a geospacial proximity path, in order to fool scientists into thinking evolution is true.
2. Evolution is true but god guides it, because god has a plan for certain species to have specific forms.
3. Evolution is true and ever continuing, there is no plan for specific forms, forms match environments based on which forms are more successful and more likely to survive and procreate. No guidance necessary.
The only requirement is a creative universe.3. Evolution is true and ever continuing, there is no plan for specific forms, forms match environments based on which forms are more successful and more likely to survive and procreate. No guidance necessary.
Are you claiming that Christians understand Gods creation? Because no one does, no matter the persons beliefsIn my adjacent thread about whether God could have used evolution to create a diversity of species on Earth, a couple creationists responded in a way that suggested evolution was an inherently atheistic idea.
In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?
For starters, in all the discussions I've had regarding evolution and biology, things generally come back to the fact that life does have an appearance of shared ancestry. I've yet to see a comparable explanation for these observed patterns in biology, other than if God didn't use evolution, well, things were created with the appearance thereof. There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why those patterns otherwise exist*.
(* And for the record, simply claiming that God used common parts doesn't do it. Just using common parts wouldn't necessarily yield patterns that suggest hereditary origins and common ancestry. If just using common parts was the answer, we'd more likely expect nature to be full of evolution-defying chimeric organisms. But we don't see that in nature.)
I've also noted that creationists seem at best apathetic if not hostile to the idea of learning about evolution. This is reinforced by various threads I've started in this forum, including a recent one asking creationists which sources they've used to research evolution (over a hundred posts in and no creationists have provided specific sources).
If this apathy and/or hostility is driven by the idea that evolution is an atheistic (or worse, anti-theistic) idea, then I can see why they don't want to learn about the subject. But if God in fact used evolution to diversify life, this creates a catch-22 whereby creationists are inherently dismissing the very means by which God diversified life.
There is also nothing inherently un-Biblical about God using evolution as a means of producing life's diversity. The descriptions of the process of creation in Genesis seems to suggest such a process. Rather than arbitrarily creating every living thing, the descriptions in Genesis involve the Earth and waters bringing forth life. Likewise, God tells the organisms to be reproduce after their kind. This is perfectly in line with biological evolution, since evolution is dependent on differential reproduction and organisms are effectively constrained by their kind; e.g. constrained by their hereditary ancestry.
My father was an aggressive atheist, mostly a reaction to ill treatment by a Catholic priest at the school he attended. He was keen to teach me evolution as best he could. That included doing my homework for me one time to ensure that I was suitably educated! I went to entirely secular schools until secondary school. I went to the oldest continually operating school in England. There was religious education, one period a week, for the first term. That was it.
Haeckel was not above taking extremely creative licence. He used the same woodcut 3 times to "prove" that embryos were the same in the early stages. I know some Creationists are not squeaky clean in that area either.
Not quite true. Haeckel was pressed to meet a deadline. He did not have time to prepare the illustrations needed before his article was to be published. He did use the same woodcut 3 times. It was not to "prove". Please do not use that term. It was to be used as evidence. At that stage the differences were very minor and he did not think that it mattered that much. The oversight was fixed in later editions. I could find articles explaining this if you need me to. Creationists dishonestly reported what Haeckel's error was (and it was an error in judgment, nothing more). There was no attempt to deceive.Haeckel was not above taking extremely creative licence. He used the same woodcut 3 times to "prove" that embryos were the same in the early stages. I know some Creationists are not squeaky clean in that area either.
In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth
indeed - but wouldn't that be a circular argument where the salient point is assumed at the start?
No, because evolution isn't an assumption; it's a conclusion based on observations of biological populations.
It is called a hypothetical where a point is agreed for the sake of argument without any necessary agreement that the point is true. In this case the hypothetical point was that God had used evolution.In your OP did you not present a scenario where you proposed that as the starting assumption?
In your OP did you not present a scenario where you proposed that as the starting assumption?
Ontogeny does recapitulate embryological phylogeny, to a limited extent, but it's not a reliable guide.Regardless of Haeckel's creative licence, I can only repeat that the biology books that I read during the 1950s and 1960s were dismissive of his ideas of recapitulation and ontogeny repeating phylogeny. I suppose that biologists found Haeckel's embryological evidence unconvincing.
The assumption in the context of the OP was that God had used evolution as a means of diversifying life on this planet. .
It is called a hypothetical where a point is agreed for the sake of argument .
No it would be the beginning of a discussion to see where this hypothetical leads. In formal logic you often start in this way and if in the end it leads to a contradiction, you have just proven that your hypothesis was not true.True and in the proposed OP scenario we have the circular argument that if we assume A is true - would not rejection "of A" be rejecting what is true, wouldn't it be a rejection of what is true?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?