What about those who are devout Christians but believe that the interpretation of Genesis as literal and inerrant is shallow, theologically inadequate and a grotesque misuse of the divinely inspired Word of God? They really don't fall into either of those categories.
I will acknowledge that truth can be subjective; if you will concede that my original statement made no mention of it.
Do you expect someone to reproduce several research papers here? Anyway, I’m sure that you are aware that fossilization is a rare thing. You should probably start with How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds. Please note that I said “start with”.
If you are saying they believe God created us through evolution and the bible just doesn't spell it out, and even though I disagree, wouldn't they still be in the first camp? Who's trying to complicate here?
You pretty much relegated anyone who disagreed with you about Genesis to the second camp, Christian or not. Or maybe you are just trying us on with the usual creationist distraction of turning the creation/evolution discussion into a theism/ atheism debate.
No, I think you did that... the distinctions I made are pretty straight-forward.
(emphasis added) I don't see how you could have intended anything else but to divide the world into two camps: those who agree with you about Genesis and those who don't. What else could you have meant by "correct God's word?"
Maybe you're complicating it??? God and Creation per the bible/God and Creation through evolutionary means (that I disagree with) vs. Evolution without God (correcting God's word, and needless-to-say I certainly disagree with). If I'm missing something, throw it out there.
So what you are doing, then, is nothing more than trying to create a distraction by trying to turn the creation/evolution discussion into a theism/atheism debate. Whether people believe in God or not and whether they accept the theory of evolution as plausible or not are two entirely separate questions.
Well, you read everything I said. I included belief in God/Creation and God/Evolution (even though I disagree) in the same camp, and No God/ Evolution in the other. Unless you believe No God created us that’s about it… and it technically falls in the second camp also. As I said that's about as simple as it gets.
I don’t think that would be possible to test scientifically, and that there is a difference (but I will not argue with believers about it). But, to me, it’s like they say yes to everything in the TOE, none of which acknowledges God, all the way back to the point we supposedly crawled out of a mud hole, and then they say, oh no, but God created us. I just don’t get it.
Probably don't have the theology for it--one of those babies that got tossed with the bathwater of the Reformation. A fully naturalistic explanation for a natural phenomenon does not rule out active divine causality. This has been known to philosophers for millenia and has been part of Christian theology forever. That is why Traditional Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.--those who do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura) tend not to have so much trouble with naturalistic origins theories.
