I accept that evolution has occurred...

[Baggins]

AV will be upset, his mini me has accepted something that is flatly contradicted by the bible. Genesis states that the animals on earth were created as seen it doesn't say anything aboutthem changing or evolving,.

Just another backslider, he'll be an atheist before the end of the year mark my words

 

[Psudopod]

On the subject of eye-witnesses, while they are evidence, you have to be very, very careful. It is becoming increasingly apparent how easy it is to mess with people's memories. The person in question can be utterly convinced they are remebering an actual event, when in fact things never happened.

Of course, this says nothing on who the eyewitness to Genesis is, of course.

 

[RedAndy]

When eyewitness evidence and physical evidence contradict, go with the physical evidence. Reality doesn't lie. People do.

 

[FoeHammer]

I was more making a point that there is vast amounts of data in support of evolution over geologic time. You have arbitrarily decided that 6000 years ago was your limit. And you are willing to take into account data, both non-biblical as well as biblical.

I was merely asking that you take into account all the other data that show evolution in the rock record.

That will also mean keeping track of the data which show an old earth.

I have chosen to accept and believe the eye witness account as given in The Bible. I see no reason to believe that it is untrustworthy.

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have chosen to accept and believe the eye witness account as given in The Bible. I see no reason to believe that it is untrustworthy.

FoeHammer.

On the contrary, some, if not all, eye-witness accounts in the Bible contradict empirical evidence. Therefore, it is logical to reject said accounts as at least partially incorrect.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have chosen to accept and believe the eye witness account as given in The Bible. I see no reason to believe that it is untrustworthy.

FoeHammer.

Who is the eyewitness?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I have chosen to accept and believe the eye witness account as given in The Bible. I see no reason to believe that it is untrustworthy.

FoeHammer.

Basically, what Wiccan child said... there is (allegedly) eye witness testimony in the Bible, given from a subjective, personal point of view, that contradicts empirical, objective, evidence.

When this happens in any sort of scientific setting, science will take the empirical objective view over eyewitness testimony every single time

 

[Psudopod]

As RedAndy said - weigh the eyewitness account against reality. People lie, and people don't always do it deliberately. Even if a person is uttery convinced of something, it doesn't mean that it happened.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As RedAndy said - weigh the eyewitness account against reality. People lie, and people don't always do it deliberately. Even if a person is uttery convinced of something, it doesn't mean that it happened.

For some excelent discussion on precisely this phenomena, I suggest you look at the TLE (temporal lobe epilesy) related alien sitings, and the Hypnotic regression related accusations of child molestation/ritual satanism

 

[Psudopod]

There was a very interesting article about inducing false memories in new scientist a few weeks ago, unfortunately I think I threw it out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There was a very interesting article about inducing false memories in new scientist a few weeks ago, unfortunately I think I threw it out.

Or maybe you falsely remember throwing it out?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The aliens implanted a flase memory of her throwing it out as a "masking" memory to hide their "probing"

 

[Psudopod]

Pesky aliens. Just because it was a good issue. Grr.

Now, if I could just undo the mind blocks that are preventing me from finding a pair of socks in the morning...

 

[OdwinOddball]

Wanted to apologize to FoeHammer and others for my earlier post. When I read this thread late yesterday afternoon, it came across as a slightly sarcastic attempt at a new creationism argument, and not an actual admission of understanding.

This forum has greatly increased my already cynical nature.

 

[FoeHammer]

Wanted to apologize to FoeHammer and others for my earlier post. When I read this thread late yesterday afternoon, it came across as a slightly sarcastic attempt at a new creationism argument, and not an actual admission of understanding.

This forum has greatly increased my already cynical nature.

When I used the term evolution in the OP what I meant, of course, was adaptation:

4.Biology. a.any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

I do not, for one moment, accept the notion that the first organism, as a consequence of abiogenesis (which, whether one likes it or not, can be termed evolution) over vast amounts of time via genetic mutation and environmental changes/pressures ‘’evolved’’ into the many and diverse forms of life that we see on the earth today.



FoeHammer.

 

[Pesto]

When I used the term evolution in the OP what I meant, of course, was adaptation:

4.Biology. a.any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

I do not, for one moment, accept the notion that the first organism, as a consequence of abiogenesis (which, whether one likes it or not, can be termed evolution) over vast amounts of time via genetic mutation and environmental changes/pressures ‘’evolved’’ into the many and diverse forms of life that we see on the earth today.



FoeHammer.

Except that you do believe in abiogenesis.

See: Genesis 1:11

 

[FoeHammer]

Except that you do believe in abiogenesis.

See: Genesis 1:11

I believe the whole of Genesis.
However I don't think Gen 1:11 is referring to abiogenesis.

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

When I used the term evolution in the OP what I meant, of course, was adaptation:

4.Biology. a.any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

What dictionary is that from?

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

From dictionary.com

I do not, for one moment, accept the notion that the first organism, as a consequence of abiogenesis (which, whether one likes it or not, can be termed evolution)

Not the biological definition. There is no change to the structure or function of an organism, because there was before no organism to have them. The problem is better exemplified by the correct definition, of course. Without genes, there can be no evolution. You are absolutely, categorically, wrong.

over vast amounts of time via genetic mutation and environmental changes/pressures ‘’evolved’’ into the many and diverse forms of life that we see on the earth today.

Why not, apart from the Bible and time? Any reason at all?

 

[FishFace]

I believe the whole of Genesis.
However I don't think Gen 1:11 is referring to abiogenesis.

FoeHammer.

Technically, no it isn't, since I believe abiogenesis generally refers to the spontaneous occurrence of life from non-life. It could possibly be used to cover non-spontaneous, as well, I suppose.

 

[TheBear]

The author of Genesis is said to be Moses, who, according to the storyline, did not come along until 2,500 years after everything was created. The author was obviously not an eyewitness to the creation story he wrote about.