Evolution's Brick Wall

[expos4ever]

Did a Christian really just say that? You don't trust God's word?

I respect truth. I suggest that Biblical inerrancy of the type I suspect you subscribe to is not itself really a Biblical concept, but rather a cultural one. I can believe that Scripture is inspired and profitable without necessarily believing it is inerrant.

In any event, when it comes to the whole evolution thing, the issue is not so much “trust” in Scripture as it is the question of whether metaphor has been used in the Genesis creation account.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did a Christian really just say that?

IF he is a child of Catholic parents, then he would be taught that he is Catholic by birth and once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic drilled into his head.

Add to that that Catholics teach Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, and it can produce people who go through life thinking they are Christians, who don't even know how to spell the word.

My wife is an excellent example.

Baptized into the Catholic church as an infant, she went through life thinking she was a Christian, until a worker from our church (Independent Fundamental Baptist) showed her differently from the Bible.

She then accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Saviour, but her mother still claims she is a Catholic.

 

[DavidFirth]

I respect truth. I suggest that Biblical inerrancy of the type I suspect you subscribe to is not itself really a Biblical concept, but rather a cultural one. I can believe that Scripture is inspired and profitable without necessarily believing it is inerrant.

In any event, when it comes to the whole evolution thing, the issue is not so much “trust” in Scripture as it is the question of whether metaphor has been used in the Genesis creation account.

If you research Genesis you will find that it does not and cannot mean billions of years. Creation took 6 actual days.

 

[AV1611VET]

I respect truth. I suggest that Biblical inerrancy of the type I suspect you subscribe to is not itself really a Biblical concept, but rather a cultural one. I can believe that Scripture is inspired and profitable without necessarily believing it is inerrant.

In any event, when it comes to the whole evolution thing, the issue is not so much “trust” in Scripture as it is the question of whether metaphor has been used in the Genesis creation account.

Spoken like a true pope.

 

[DavidFirth]

IF he is a child of Catholic parents, then he would be taught that he is Catholic by birth and once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic drilled into his head.

Add to that that Catholics teach Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, and it can produce people who go through life thinking they are Christians, who don't even know how to spell the word.

My wife is an excellent example.

Baptized into the Catholic church as an infant, she went through life thinking she was a Christian, until a worker from our church (Independent Fundamental Baptist) showed her differently from the Bible.

She then accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Saviour, but her mother still claims she is a Catholic.

I would guess that depends on individual experience. In my Catholic Church we are not a 'subset' of anything. We are Christians. Period.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you research Genesis you will find that it does not and cannot mean billions of years. Creation took 6 actual days.

He's probably college educated ... meaning he doesn't know the difference between:

1. ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers
2. IN THE BEGINNING and ONCE UPON A TIME

An academian in the truest sense of the word.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would guess that depends on individual experience.

You don't have to answer this, but did your "individual experience" start out by being sprinkled with "holy water"?

In my Catholic Church we are not a 'subset' of anything. We are Christians. Period.

Ooookay ... there goes mathematics and set theory out the window.

 

[expos4ever]

If you research Genesis you will find that it does not and cannot mean billions of years. Creation took 6 actual days.

Please make your case; why must it be 6 days?

 

[expos4ever]

He's probably college educated ... meaning he doesn't know the difference between:

1. ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers
2. IN THE BEGINNING and ONCE UPON A TIME

An academian in the truest sense of the word.

Here’s the thing: since the actual science is so overwhelmingly against you, you and your ilk are forced to resort to mean-spirited, baseless, pontification and character assassination.

You attack the character and motives of those who think differently from you, starved as you are of actual evidence to support your position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here’s the thing: since the actual science is so overwhelmingly against you, you and your ilk are forced to resort to mean-spirited, baseless, pontification and character assassination.

Because I gave you credit in Post 144 for "speaking like a true pope"?

 

[expos4ever]

Because I gave you credit in Post 144 for "speaking like a true pope"?

Do you really want me to list all the sleazy low-ball statements you have made?

And by the way, i am not Catholic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really want me to list all the sleazy low-ball statements you have made?

May I go first?

 

[USincognito]

Why not? And if the theory of evolution isn't 100% right then it is wrong.

That's not quite how science works, but you're almost right - if we ever find something that falsified evolution it would be replaced or discarded. However thus far we have found nothing that falsifies it

 

[expos4ever]

May I go first?

Be my guest. Good luck finding anything that remotely qualifies as sleazy or low-ball.

And, no, to state the plain fact that you reject scientific consensus does not count, as it is a matter of plain fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really want me to list all the sleazy low-ball statements you have made?

May I go first?

Be my guest.

Thank you.

[/thread]

 

[inquiring mind]

Ok, my turn. There are 30-foot tall three-headed women living in the Amazon river valley. But don’t ask me to support my claim, you can google it yourself.

Wow, that was easy.

Now then: please stop evading. Support your claim by giving us names.

Since you’re apparently unwilling to google, it wouldn’t do any good for me to provide a name for you to research, and even though this goes against my better judgement (because its just giving you talking points to twist), I’ll give you a good documentary to watch (doesn’t involve anything once you’re there accept watching and listening) that has names in it: “Dawn of Humanity” on Netflix right now. These scientists obviously believe in evolution (so you should love it), and even remain optimistic, yet in their closing comments they too seem to realize the “brick wall” (however, they speak in terms of “it may be impossible” to find a direct line) I speak of in the OP. But, you have to watch the last 16 minutes to see the connection with what I opened with. After you watch this, maybe you’ll feel the desire to do some googling on your own.

 

[pitabread]

It still represents a trait, why do you guys constantly correct things that are not errors.

Because it is an error. The terms allele and trait refer to two different things. Yes, there is a relationship between genes, gene expression and physical traits. But they are not the same thing and they are not interchangeable terms.

 

[expos4ever]

Thank you.

[/thread]

You back down because, of course, ya got nuthin’.

 

[mark kennedy]

Because it is an error. The terms allele and trait refer to two different things. Yes, there is a relationship between genes, gene expression and physical traits. But they are not the same thing and they are not interchangeable terms.

In short Id say you're obviously correcting something thats not an error. Typical of your posts though and the confrontational insistence is less then impressive. It simplebdpesnt provide an effective mecanism for adaptive evolution. Mutations are the worst explaination possible, they are simple copy errors and failures of DNA repair. The deleterious effects of mutations are a stone wall to adaptive evolution is a wall at best and otherwise irrelavat to adaptive evolution.

 

[sfs]

In short Id say you're obviously correcting something thats not an error. Typical of your posts though and the confrontational insistence is less then impressive. It simplebdpesnt provide an effective mecanism for adaptive evolution. Mutations are the worst explaination possible, they are simple copy errors and failures of DNA repair. The deleterious effects of mutations are a stone wall to adaptive evolution is a wall at best and otherwise irrelavat to adaptive evolution.

Mutations are patently the source of many cases of adaptive evolution. Everything you wrote here is false.