Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[[serious]]

I could be wrong. If so, I'm fairly sure that evidence will eventually show itself to lead me to that conclusion. It's happened before and it's how I came to my present conclusions.

 

[shernren]

If I am wrong there will be evidence that can prove me wrong. It is only fair that until then I see my views as provisionally correct.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

How are these Catholic doctrines in variance with the Bible?

especially if you are a wesleyan methodist, nazarene, or salvation army. (all are perfectionist churches following wesley)

 

[Baggins]

Perhaps micro-evolution is. But I have to question how macro-evolution would be repeatedly observable.

What is macro-evolution, and how does it differ from micro-evolution?

Is macro-evolution speciation? If so what is the unknown barrier that stops multiple episodes of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution?

If you don't think macro-evolution/speciation can happen then you obviously just haven't investigated the large amounts of evidence for speciation in the lab and in the wild.

A good starting point might be to google " ring species " and have a think about what happens when a link in that chain disappears.

Good luck

 

[tocis]

The article loses credibility with this statement.

They never learn, do they?

 

[VinceBlaze]

VinceBlaze



Infallible, no. Correct, yes.

Grumpy

What's the difference?

 

[VinceBlaze]

The process itself does not have to be repeatedly observable. As long as the evidence that leads to it concluding it is.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means. I don't wish to be disrespectful.

There are lots of processes that cannot be directly observed. However, the evidence can be.

How so?

 

[VinceBlaze]

No my stance is not infallible, none of us are perfect and all are prone to mistake. This includes text books, the bible [all versions of it] and those who wrote them.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Creation vs. evolution.

I am dissuaded to various aspects of each of these lines of reasoning.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Yes the 1611 KJV had 80 books.

I have difficulty seeing how the 1611 KJV could be infallibly inspired, if it started with 80 books and then was cut down to 66 books.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Evolution talks about how life changes. Abiogenesis talks about how life started.

Oh okay. Quite interesting.

Concerning abiogenesis: It's my personal perspective that life had no beginning. I believe that the human race and it's related species are infinitely eternal and eternally infinite. No beginning or ending. (This is not to say that the human species hasn't changed or won't change again.)

Concerning evolution: It's my personal perspective that the human species (and all other life forms) travel through various evolutionary stages. However, I believe that evolution may seem to travel either forwards or backwards. Hence, I find it equally likely that apes may descended from early humans as vice versa. Or that our current human species may have descended from greater celestial beings as opposed to neanderthals.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Perhaps micro-evolution is. But I have to question how macro-evolution would be repeatedly observable.

There really isn’t such things as “micro” and “macro” evolution. There is only evolution. You’ll begin to understand the flaw in utilizing these fictional words if you try to concisely define them. Here is a great thread to drive the idea home.

I am dissuaded to various aspects of each of these lines of reasoning.

I encourage you to start a thread about an aspect of the TofE that you do not agree with. There are quite a few knowledgeable participants that may persuade you.

 

[Skaloop]

Hence, I find it equally likely that apes may descended from early humans as vice versa.

While evolutionary theory does not rule out the possibility of a "higher" lifeform evolving into one that appears to be "lower," the genetic and fossil evidence clearly shows that apes preceded humans.

(ps-the quotation marks are used to indicate that there is no such thing as "higher" or "lower" life forms. Humans could, in the future, evolve to be more apelike. However, that possibility would be quite remote due to population size and the selective benefits of intelligence.)

 

[Soul Searcher]

I have difficulty seeing how the 1611 KJV could be infallibly inspired, if it started with 80 books and then was cut down to 66 books.

Well add to that the fact that there were literally thousands of corrections/revisions made to the text between the real 1611 version and the 1850 version.

Unknown to many people is the fact that the KJV actually was revised many times between the date of its first publication in 1611 and the publication of the Revised Version, which was published between 1881-1885. Those early KJV revisions were published without being labeled as a "revision." That today's KJV editions are revisions can be seen from the title page to the last verses of Revelation, which in the 1611 KJV was written, "Reuelation." The 1611 KJV text of the title page was written:

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#5

SINCE 1613, PROOF OF ACTUAL WORD CHANGES IN KJV REVISIONS AFFECTING THE SENSE OF MANY PASSAGES. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many THOUSANDS of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_147.htm


One thing I find interesting is that what people now refer to as the 1611 KJV actually seems to be based on a reprint of a late 1700s version but without the 14 books which were removed in the late 1800s so for all intents and purposes what is now known as the 1611 version is not even close to the true 1611 version.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I try to do then, is look it up myself,

What I want to do is, read this in whole: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Then read Ashby Camp's rebuttal : http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

I'll see what I think after I finish...

Though I do have a great zeal for creationism, the bible(KJV), and christianity...

You might also want to read the rebuttal to Ashby Camp's critique. It exposes some of the more outrageous errors that Camp makes.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means. I don't wish to be disrespectful.

The process itself does not have to be observed. Indirect evidence pointing to the process or fact is enough.

How so?

We have never observed the process of germs making us ill. We have observed indirect evidence of this, ranging from people having the germ that become ill, people making anti-bodies against the germs etc. The process itself does not need to be observed to conclude that it happens from the evidence.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I could be wrong. If so, I'm fairly sure that evidence will eventually show itself to lead me to that conclusion. It's happened before and it's how I came to my present conclusions.

Okay. But what if counter-evidence doesn't otherwise present itself?

For example, there is no evidence that rules out the existence of a god. Should we then just assume that there is a god, with no evidence to the contrary?

 

[VinceBlaze]

If I am wrong there will be evidence that can prove me wrong.

Why do you assume this?

It is only fair that until then I see my views as provisionally correct.

What does 'provisionally' correct mean?

 

[VinceBlaze]

What is macro-evolution, and how does it differ from micro-evolution?

I was referencing an article that someone had provided earlier in this thread. Perhaps it will best explain it's own terminologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Is macro-evolution speciation? If so what is the unknown barrier that stops multiple episodes of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution?

Why would you assume that there is an unknown barrier?

If you don't think macro-evolution/speciation can happen then you obviously just haven't investigated the large amounts of evidence for speciation in the lab and in the wild.

Why do you assume that I think macro-evolution can't happen?

Good luck

 

[Baggins]

I was referencing an article that someone had provided earlier in this thread. Perhaps it will best explain it's own terminologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Why would you assume that there is an unknown barrier?

Why do you assume that I think macro-evolution can't happen?

I assumed it from your post, If yours was a reply to an earlier post I apologise for butting in.

I thought you were saying that you accepted micro-evolution but not macro-evolution - which is clearly a non-sensical position as they are the same thing over different time frames.