New early hominid fossil...

Mallon · Oct 2, 2009

Critias said:
I was amused by seeing a sketch and people commenting on it in amazement. It was a connection I made.

You're being overly cynical. Two people commented on the thread before you made your snarky remark: one made explicit reference to the article, and the second simply said "fascinating". Why you suppose everyone accepts the fossil as evidence for evolution on the basis of the sketch alone, I don't know.

Critias · Oct 2, 2009

Mallon said:
You're being overly cynical. Two people commented on the thread before you made your snarky remark: one made explicit reference to the article, and the second simply said "fascinating". Why you suppose everyone accepts the fossil as evidence for evolution on the basis of the sketch alone, I don't know.

You're being too serious. Sometimes you need to take a step back and relax.

There was nothing cynical, diabolical, offensive, or vicious about what I said. It was meant in jest, in good fun, and not at all serious.

Didn't I put a winking smiley face on that? I thought that would be an obvious hint to a jest. Guess not.

On a serious note, I don't for one second believe that people with intelligence would look at a picture and say, evolution is fact. That's just silly. While our beliefs differ, I'd never assume you or anyone here to be that gullible.

So, I'm sorry if you felt offended or attacked. I was just trying to lighten the mood. Sometimes you have to laugh in life - it's just too short.

pgp_protector · Oct 2, 2009

Critias said:
I sir, am outraged!! Vista is a bad word! PGP and Vista in the same profile... That's like blasphemy!

Just think, I'm getting Windows 7 Next week

Critias · Oct 2, 2009

pgp_protector said:
Just think, I'm getting Windows 7 Next week

I heard windows 7's outlook not only sends the public key but the private key as well, by default!

pgp_protector · Oct 2, 2009

Critias said:
I heard windows 7's outlook not only sends the public key but the private key as well, by default!

That's what Thunderbird is for

Critias · Oct 2, 2009

pgp_protector said:
That's what Thunderbird is for

Mozilla is the work of the devil!

pgp_protector · Oct 2, 2009

Critias said:
Mozilla is the work of the devil!

Runs & Hides their Firefox Browser

Critias · Oct 2, 2009

pgp_protector said:
Runs & Hides their Firefox Browser

And they're embedded with google.

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on evolution. I studied biology in college and I understand the tenets of the theory.

There is a big problem with it though, a problem so big that it led me not be able to accept it. It does conflict with Genesis.

You're stretching the Bible to it's breaking point when you try to reconcile the Genesis account with evolution. The order of appearance of organisms in Genesis is even different from what evolution would try to tell us. No where does it say one type turned into another and changed over time, those are just inventions to try to reconcile the Bible to science.

Why reconcile the Bible though? The Bible is perfect, it is science that needs reconciling.

I know that evolution is an attractive theory, it would seem to explain a lot, but when the choice is between believing the Bible or science, I know which i pick

Willtor · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on evolution. I studied biology in college and I understand the tenets of the theory.

There is a big problem with it though, a problem so big that it led me not be able to accept it. It does conflict with Genesis.

You're stretching the Bible to it's breaking point when you try to reconcile the Genesis account with evolution. The order of appearance of organisms in Genesis is even different from what evolution would try to tell us. No where does it say one type turned into another and changed over time, those are just inventions to try to reconcile the Bible to science.

Why reconcile the Bible though? The Bible is perfect, it is science that needs reconciling.

I know that evolution is an attractive theory, it would seem to explain a lot, but when the choice is between believing the Bible or science, I know which i pick

It wasn't thought that the two were necessarily so contradictory 100 years ago in conservative circles. A number of famous conservative leaders accepted (or at least entertained the possibility of) evolution as not in conflict. B.B. Warfield, one of the founders of modern fundamentalism wrote a famous journal article that reconciled evolution with a literal reading of Genesis.

It certainly is true that evolution is irreconcilably opposed to the modern literal interpretation of Genesis (as begun by Pastor McCready Price). But it is not necessarily opposed to a literal reading.

All that said, I think most of the TE's, here, don't accept a literal reading of the creation account.

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

A decent metaphor should at least maintain the order of creation and Genesis does not maintain the same order as evolution. Nowhere in creation does it even hint at change over time, It just says that God created. Why would God wait billions of years for things to evolve, suffer and die when he could have just created them the way we see them, he sets up the laws, of course!

I understand these great men of the past trying to reconcile evolution and creation, but I can make one thing a metaphor for just about anything else, but that doesn't make it true, or even plausible.

God must win out over science in this case. Yes evolution is a decent theory - there can be no doubt. But, God isnt a theory, he is real and he didnt say anything about things changing over time.

Willtor · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
A decent metaphor should at least maintain the order of creation and Genesis does not maintain the same order as evolution. Nowhere in creation does it even hint at change over time, It just says that God created. Why would God wait billions of years for things to evolve, suffer and die when he could have just created them the way we see them, he sets up the laws, of course!

I understand these great men of the past trying to reconcile evolution and creation, but I can make one thing a metaphor for just about anything else, but that doesn't make it true, or even plausible.

God must win out over science in this case. Yes evolution is a decent theory - there can be no doubt. But, God isnt a theory, he is real and he didnt say anything about things changing over time.

God hasn't told us a lot of things about a lot of things. Not everything is contained in the Bible. If even a small fraction of everything were contained in the Bible, who could read it? How would we know what was essential? Also, I don't think it's a question of one "winning out" over the other. God's Word is in the Bible, His works are in the world. We read both imperfectly. But ultimately, how can they conflict?

Assyrian · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
A decent metaphor should at least maintain the order of creation and Genesis does not maintain the same order as evolution.

Genesis 2 doesn't even maintain the same order of creation.

gluadys · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on evolution. I studied biology in college and I understand the tenets of the theory.

There is a big problem with it though, a problem so big that it led me not be able to accept it. It does conflict with Genesis.

No, it conflicts with some assumptions people make about Genesis.

Why reconcile the Bible though? The Bible is perfect, it is science that needs reconciling.

Science is constantly being reconciled with creation. Do you think God's creation conflicts with holy scripture?

I know that evolution is an attractive theory, it would seem to explain a lot, but when the choice is between believing the Bible or science, I know which i pick

False dichotomy. You are assuming only two points out of four.

What we have are scripture, creation, human interpretations of scripture (hermeneutics) and human interpretations of creation (science)

The point of conflict is not science and the bible; it is science (an interpretation of creation) and hermeneutics (a human interpretation of the bible).

Why would you choose a human interpretation of the bible over a human interpretation of creation? If a human interpretation of creation can be wrong (and science has sometimes been wrong) is the same not true of a human interpretation of the bible? In fact, do we not have many historical examples of human interpretations of the bible that were wrong and had to be changed?

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

No ones telling me how you can cram evolution into the Bible and have it make sense. And i would think giving a basic outline of how he actually did the first things to create us wouldnt be too much to ask. Thankfully, he did and it's right there in the Bible.

"God hasn't told us a lot of things about a lot of things. Not everything is contained in the Bible. If even a small fraction of everything were contained in the Bible, who could read it? How would we know what was essential? Also, I don't think it's a question of one "winning out" over the other. God's Word is in the Bible, His works are in the world. We read both imperfectly. But ultimately, how can they conflict?"

What else did he leave out? That the whole thing is a metaphor? That hes just kidding about the whole
thing?

Where's the imperfect reading? its very specific. Creation doesnt leave things up to be misunderstood.
Why would God want to confuse us so much?

laconicstudent · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
No ones telling me how you can cram evolution into the Bible and have it make sense.

You don't take Genesis literally.

<3God said:
And i would think giving a basic outline of how he actually did the first things to create us wouldnt be too much to ask. Thankfully, he did and it's right there in the Bible.

<3God said:
What else did he leave out? That the whole thing is a metaphor? That hes just kidding about the whole
thing?

Likely Genesis is allegorical. It doesn't have to be literally true.

<3God said:
Where's the imperfect reading? its very specific.

Your mistake is taking the creation story literally.

<3God said:
Creation doesnt leave things up to be misunderstood.

Neither does science.

<3God said:
Why would God want to confuse us so much?

Scientists aren't confused. People who can't get over the fact that their literal interpretation of Genesis is contradicted by empirical evidence are the one's who are confused.

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

What other parts of the bible are just allegories?
Creation reads as a list of events. The story of Jesus reads much more like an allegory.

What's a reasonable understanding of creation that could account for it being a metaphor for evolution?

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

I could make the lyrics of a rap song into a metaphor for creation, but that doesnt mean it is.

laconicstudent · Oct 3, 2009

<3God said:
What other parts of the bible are just allegories?

The parables of Jesus, probably.

<3God said:
Creation reads as a list of events.

But it contradicts physical proof

<3God said:
The story of Jesus reads much more like an allegory.

And yet it doesn't contradict any physical proof.

<3God said:
What's a reasonable understanding of creation that could account for it being a metaphor for evolution?

I don't know. Something like the first hominids that had the cranial capacity for reason had a special revelation from God, and worshiped him until they decided to reject him.

The point is that Evolution doesn't contradict SCRIPTURE, it contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION of it.

<3God · Oct 3, 2009

It contradicts a reasonable interpretation of it, but not an unreasonable one.

New early hominid fossil...

Senior Veteran

Critias

Guest

Noted strange person

Critias

Guest

Noted strange person

Critias

Guest

Noted strange person

Critias

Guest

Active Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Active Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Legend

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency