And 3-D vision too.
This just in. With a good science education you can learn to come up with stories like this.
This just in. With a good science education you can learn to come up with stories like this.
-
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.
Fear of snakes will give you a big head...
- Thread starter Smidlee
- Start date
- Status
That's a fairly interesting article. Something certainly drove early primate evolution, but it surprised me that many scholars suspect snakes may have been that very force.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Not surprising... predators and prey often drive each other's evolution in a sort of "arms race." I'm just curious how the determined that snakes were the main predator which drove human evolution...
Although we'll soon see the next step in this battle... The snakes become smart enough to get on the plane, and in an evolutionary response, we all turn into Samuel L. Jackson.
Although we'll soon see the next step in this battle... The snakes become smart enough to get on the plane, and in an evolutionary response, we all turn into Samuel L. Jackson.
Upvote
0
It was probably deduced by examining the evolutionary progresses of primates and snakes alongside one another. It wouldn't be difficult to observe that when snakes developed a predatory advantage, primates developed a defense shortly (relatively speaking) thereafter. Of course, this is a corrolative link at best, but probably the most evidenced explanation at this point.The Lady Kate said:
Upvote
0
Ave Maria
Ave Maria Gratia Plena
- May 31, 2004
- 41,136
- 2,039
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
notto said:
I am assuming that you do not take the story of Genesis literally. However, I do have a question. Do you take the story of Jonah and the Whale literally or how about Jesus turning water into wine? I'm just curious because I always wondered if liberal Christians interpret just parts of the Bible literally or none of it.
Upvote
0
SpiritFilled02 said:
I accept the possibility that the story of Jonah and the Whale is true because it has not been directly falsified by evidence. I certainly have doubts that it could happen the way a literal interpretation would set the stage. The miracles of Jesus are accepted as possibly true for the same reasons but again, I'm fairly convinced that the Bible doesn't give us all of the minute details of the event.
Biblical literalism as applied to a young earth and the Genesis creation story are directly falsifed by studying the creation. When our interpretation of the Bible directly conflicts with what we find in the creation, we can be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect (or it shows us that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally with regards to describing the history of the natural world).
Do you believe that a snake actually talked and the reason that snakes don't have legs is because God took them away from a talking snake? How did the snake talk?
A non literalist will look at the story of the talking snake as an interesting device to relate the consequences of mans sin to a visible reminder. Whether the event actually happended or not doesn't remove this reminder of our sin everytime we see a snake slithering across the grass.
Upvote
0
I got a chuckle out of the thread title.
I have nothing else to add to the discussion though so carry on....
I have nothing else to add to the discussion though so carry on....
Upvote
0
Well if Smidlee makes a joke at a theory's expense then it must be a pack of lies.
I'm a what-now Christian?? Taking some of Genesis metaphorically doesn't mean we don't believe in miracles. It just means that scientific evidence and the writing style of the book mean it makes more sense to us to take it metaphorically. The miracles of Jesus have no conflicting scientific evidence and the writing style persuades us to take them literally.SpiritFilled02 said:
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Melethiel said:
that is one of the things i really appreciated about the book
Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence
Ted Peters and Marinez Hewlett
They introduce the issues of TE as a continuum from the conservative BB.Warfield to the most liberal. A recognization that there simply is no consistent party line in the field is something YECists just don't seem to understand being from a very consistent and internally coherent theological community with surprisingly narrow boundaries.
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
SpiritFilled02 said:
It is a mistake to equate "liberal christian" with all christians who accept evolutionary theory.
I have always wondererd if biblical literalists interpret just parts of the Bible literally or all of it. Do biblical literalists believe that the earth is literally immobile, and that it literally rests on pillars, or that the earth is literally the center of the univers and that the sky is literally solid? Actaually, some literalists do interpret those verses as literal - but many do not.
It seems to me the biggest difference between the two groups in not IF the bible is literal, but HOW MUCH of it is.
Does interpreting particular passages as literal or not affect anyone's salvation? Before you answer remember that if you say "yes" you are basically saying that everyone has to be a biblical scholar.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
