I don't care whether it "fits well into the ToE" or not. If the ToE was overturned tomorrow it would not change the way I read Genesis. I believe what it says, I just don't believe that it is accurate literal history--nor that it was intended to be by it's author(s).
None of it is. Much of it is historical in the sense that narrates the life and times of real historical people, but that's a far cry from "accurate literal history," what historiographers call "historical positivism," which no one wrote in biblical times or expected to read, especially in a holy book. Bald, factual historical narrative is in any case too confining to do justice to spiritual truth.
So? the Two options aren't evolution and design. If you want a third, then eternal life from another dimension is one. Or, yet another third option (which is actually the default of choice in Science) is "We don't know."
No they don't... well, not scientifically valid evidence, at least.
No they're not. Take the time to read them.
Correct. we will not ever be anything other than human from here on, even if we do survive a billion years as a race. Surely you would have understood evolution by now, so why haven't you taken the time to understand it properly already?
No, they aren't scientists because they're not doing science.
Apart from not being peer reviewed science, this is a great big fancy argument from irreducible complexity - which is not an argument. I can see why it didn't make a scientific peer reviewed journal, and I'm not even a Biologist, nor do I play one on TV.
Argument from Ignorance. That, and it isn't peer-reviewed science either.
Michael Behe was in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, he quite embarrassed himself when he insisted there was no evidence for the blood clotting cascade evolving, or that it was possible to lose parts of it and still be functional (i.e. his irreducibility argument) , only to be presented with entire university text books and research papers on the very subject which he claims he'd never seen... so much for being a molecular biologist worth his salt. His definitions were such that by his criteria, Astrology (you know, Horoscopes, tarot & palm reading, etc.) would qualify as science.
Another book of "not peer reviewed science". Again, argument from ignorance. "We don't know any other reason, therefore Intelligent Designer!" doesn't actually cut it in Science.
Hi Kenny, well I sure am glad you looked up the definition of rampant for yourself, and posted it to confirm to the folks around here that the OP and I used the word properly!
If that were the case, it would be untrustworthy, for man is untrustworthy. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" and 2 Peter 1:21 says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." we should understand that the Scripture is not man's words, but God's words. The word "inspiration" (Greek "theopnustos") is not the natural inspiration of a beautiful sunset inspiring a painter, or the good life of one person inspiring another. "Theopnustos" inspiration was when God came upon the writers he chose to pen the scriptures, and supervised (micro-managed) what they wrote down, using their own vocabulary mostly (though not totally), their own personality, writing style, and background, but did so in such a way so that they did not make any mistake, typo (if you will), contradiction to any other scripture, error in science, or anything other than perfection. Thus the scriptures are not the work of Moses, Paul, or any of the other writers, but of God upon these men to speak (write) through them. Much more could be said, but this is the jist of the origin of the Scriptures. God is their true Author. Men were only writers. Psalms 12:6-7; 2 Peter 1:16; Colossians 3:16.
The point is, you could have a million evolutionists, and only 10 creationists; you could have the first with many more hours of "schooling", but this doesn't prove who is right or wrong. All of the educated people in the world once agreed together that the planet Earth was the center of the rest of the heavenly objects in the sky. For a time, only one person realized they were all incorrect as he gazed through his telescope over a period of a few nights, and could see that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, not the Earth. The rest of the world later would admit they had been wrong, and that this one man was right. His name was Galileo.
yes, I believe that is the traditional interpretation, not just for you Bible Christians, with the caveat that the degree of "micro-management" may vary. Certainly it is pretty much what my church teaches.
Here is where we differ. You have made some assumptions about what constitutes "perfection" which are not necessarily widely shared by all Christians.
Yes we differ, and I am not concerned with what all Christians may believe. I am concerned with what the Bible really says and teaches. Many Christians are off on a lot of things in regards to the Scriptures, and all of us are going to be wrong at least on some minor things, for none of us are perfect, and all of us are limited in our understanding. It will be nice when we all are well into eternal glory, and no longer make mistake or are under misunderstandings or believe in any misinterpretations. Wishing you well.
LIES... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?
(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)
There is no evidence, and you have not presented me with any "evidence" to prove that the original writings of the Bible were not true. On the contrary I know of evidence that proves the Bible is true, though people that are set on not believing the Bible will not accept that evidence for themselves. I don't want to debate such people that have already made up their mind. What's the point? People have been having such debates for centuries, running around in circles, getting nowhere, not winning people to either side. Now those that have honest questions, and are open to finding out the truth, even if it is not what they currently believe, that is a different matter. I think we both know which group you are in.
Sigh.
I started a whole thread brimming with evidence for evolution (specifically for them) that was ignored by them.
