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.
Did Gould say the evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks are based on inference or the evidence of the fossils?So no, you don't know what the context was, what Gould was actually arguing, and (more importantly) you don't care. I'll just leave you with Gould's own comments about this issue:
Did Gould say the evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks are based on inference or the evidence of the fossils?
It seems you're the one who's unconcerned with caring...about accurate citation of Gould's quote.
I think it's important that we don't fail to appreciate the gravity of Gould's statement...were not all of us taught from since we were knee high to a bullfrog that the evolutionary trees of life in our school textbooks are based on the fossil record? I WAS!Some of us do care, and so we go shopping for better explanations than settling for those all too abruptly and all too often pulled out as strong claims for this or that. Where Gould is concerned, you might keep in mind that his "criticism" of evolutionary trees and the way those diagrams are conceptualized have certain contingencies, such as presented in the following article:
Understanding Evolutionary Trees - Evolution: Education and Outreach
Charles Darwin sketched his first evolutionary tree in 1837, and trees have remained a central metaphor in evolutionary biology up to the present. Today, phylogenetics—the science of constructing and evaluating hypotheses about historical patterns of descent in the form of evolutionary trees—has...evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com
Keep in mind too that where Gould is concerned, he (along with Niles Eldridge) promoted the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, and he also pushed the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, and those ideas, among others, have to be taken into account when we evaluate the overall work and thought of Gould.
Here's the thing: If you feel that supporting the idea of a literal 6-Day Creation is the way to go, then by almost all means, feel free to support it! But maybe cut other fellow Christians some slack with all of your hoity-toitty agenda about how you're going to expose the alledged "Satanic Lie of Evolution" for what you think it is. Because, that's all it will be---simply what YOU think it is, not what it actually is: an explanation that doesn't by any necessity destroy the Christian Faith.
Once you realize this, you can focus on the real issues (like those presented by C.S. Lewis in his book, The Screwtape Letters). Then we --------that is, you and I--------can work on common Christian ground.
See how that works? That's how it works!
I think it's important that we don't fail to appreciate the gravity of Gould's statement...were not all of us taught from since we were knee high to a bullfrog that the evolutionary trees of life in our school textbooks are based on the fossil record? I WAS!
The fact that Gould has to make this statement at all speaks volumes about the need for it.
Evolution is plagued with unfounded claims that are treated as fact, such as Haeckel's embryo drawings which attempt to show common ancestry via "early" embryonic development, but have been shown to be no evidence at all because his depictions were "mid stage" development - a flat out lie that continue to adorn textbooks like the trees of life which Gould has to clarify as unsubstantiated by the fossils.
Science shouldn't have to play fast and loose with the truth in order to establish itself, right or wrong?
There's one thing that is a fact about mutation it is part of life. Along with adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis and other things of the design of life.Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH
In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.
Man came from the dirt eg, plants trees grass animals microorganisms sea coral lots of species, rocks etc. Humans are walking ecosystems hosting some 10,000 different species in and on the body.Surely you know man didn't come from either of them. Nor from pond scum, nor from any other explanation of millions of years of magickal transformation from one species to another.
Hmm, God would like to know?When you invoke anything other than God's will, authority and power, God might dislike it. It's not just that God knows that He is the only reality that is self-existent and can generate other existences, but He also has certain attributes such as being Persons, Living, Holy. So, you have to ask yourself whether you want to risk being judged by God, and waste your time generating an infinite progression (or so). Just how an infinite progression of events is a problem intended for the Christian, a Righteous and Personal God is a problem for the atheist or even creationist. God would like to know, firstly, if you simply comply with Him; your line of reasoning is not important to God because it glorifies yourself.
theistic evolution of course understands God to be the driving force behind it all, which would be the answer to your remarks. God is the influencer of mutations and it happens because he wills it, which is no different than intended mic-drop remarks for creationism. You may disagree with theistic evolution but you cannot deny purpose when God is at the helm.Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH
In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.
Theistic evolution is even more absurd than Darwinian evolution. It denies the word of God. When did some evolved being become human? How could an evolved creature be God conscious? How could such a being evolve into God's image? What happened to the other beings that did not have God's image and so could not sin?theistic evolution of course understands God to be the driving force behind it all, which would be the answer to your remarks. God is the influencer of mutations and it happens because he wills it, which is no different than intended mic-drop remarks for creationism. You may disagree with theistic evolution but you cannot deny purpose when God is at the helm.
Do you not think God is powerful enough to figure that out?Theistic evolution is even more absurd than Darwinian evolution. It denies the word of God. When did some evolved being become human? How could an evolved creature be God conscious? How could such a being evolve into God's image? What happened to the other beings that did not have God's image and so could not sin?
God is also powerful enough to say exactly how He created everything, which He declares in His word. It is feeble minded men who find fault with God's word because they are not spiritual. "The natural man does not understand the things of God".Do you not think God is powerful enough to figure that out?
I read the creation account and see deep spiritual truth, that is affirmed throughout scripture. I find no fault in the text. God is indeed powerful enough but you seem to think that means the bible explicitly declares the "exactly how" of creation. Who told you that? Where does the bible say this? Do you not agree with Paul's focus on creation in 1 Cor 4:6? I don't recall Paul commenting on the litteralness of the account, but he certainly does the spiritual. Should our focus not be the same?God is also powerful enough to say exactly how He created everything, which He declares in His word. It is feeble minded men who find fault with God's word because they are not spiritual.
Man you must really dislike people who believe in God with different views on creation.Theistic evolution is even more absurd than Darwinian evolution. It denies the word of God.
It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of truth. Either people love truth or they do not. God's word is truth. I don't know why people have so much trouble believing God. Some seem to prefer worldly science to God's truth. I am not anti science. I am anti pseudo science such as the theory of evolution and so-called social science.Man you must really dislike people who believe in God with different views on creation.
To understand what any text says, we must understand the cultural context of the society that wrote it.It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of truth. Either people love truth or they do not. God's word is truth. I don't know why people have so much trouble believing God. Some seem to prefer worldly science to God's truth. I am not anti science. I am anti pseudo science such as the theory of evolution and so-called social science.
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”I don't see any theological problem as regards the evolution of man if the story goes like this:
God guided evolution until he produced a (souless) creature called a human being ... at which point God infused that human being with a soul (as per Gen 2:7) and placed him (Adam) in the Garden of Eden. The infusion of a soul means that human being is now created in the image of God and now has free will. The rest of the Genesis narrative about Original Sin then proceeds as normal.
P.S. The above narrative is not necessarily what I believe.
21st century science denies the existence of God. God is far above culture and science. He is well able to communicate to men His truth about anything. Do you have proof as to the date that Genesis was written? If it was Moses, he was raised in Egyptian culture, which he rejected. According to the Bible, Moses heard directly from God. The words "created", "formed" and "made" mean the same thing in any culture. Either you accept that the Bible was inspired by God or you reject that. If you reject the Bible's inspiration, then you have no basis for faith.To understand what any text says, we must understand the cultural context of the society that wrote it.
The cultural language of ancient Israelites was the Babylonian creation mythology. Not the 21st century western science.
your silence is deafeningIt's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of truth. Either people love truth or they do not. God's word is truth. I don't know why people have so much trouble believing God. Some seem to prefer worldly science to God's truth. I am not anti science. I am anti pseudo science such as the theory of evolution and so-called social science.
Nope.21st century science denies the existence of God.
I see that you leave out the human element completely. Do you believe in some kind of automatic dictation, regarding inspiration? Thats not how it works and can be easily seen in comparing for example Gospels.God is far above culture and science. He is well able to communicate to men His truth about anything.
There is a difference between saying that it was their cultural language and that the stories are similar.Have you read the Babylonian creation myths? They are as much a reflection of the Bible account as a Road Runner cartoon is of animal life in the desert. How you can begin to compare the two is beyond my comprehension. The only event that is anything like Genesis is Noah's flood. I believe that it is comparable because it was an actual event, well known in all cultures of the time.
That's fine but you think being a atheist is less absurd than a believer regardless of their creation belief is messed up.It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of truth. Either people love truth or they do not. God's word is truth. I don't know why people have so much trouble believing God. Some seem to prefer worldly science to God's truth. I am not anti science. I am anti pseudo science such as the theory of evolution and so-called social science.
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?