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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 satanismAs 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.
There was a very interesting article about inducing false memories in new scientist a few weeks ago, unfortunately I think I threw it out.
When I used the term evolution in the OP what I meant, of course, was adaptation: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.
Except that you do believe in abiogenesis.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.
I believe the whole of Genesis.Except that you do believe in abiogenesis.
See: Genesis 1:11
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.
I believe the whole of Genesis.
However I don't think Gen 1:11 is referring to abiogenesis.
FoeHammer.
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?