I guess there is solid evidence for UFO’s in a literal sense, i.e. people have seen unidentified flying objects. Whether those objects are extraterrestrial space craft is what is in question. To say that the evidence for ET’s is on a par with that for evolution is to show almost utter ignorance of at least one of those subjects.
My bad, I see your and sigung86’s point. I was thinking of the term UFO’s as meaning the extraterrestrial aliens who delight in rectally probing us, instead of it’s real meaning. I chalk my mix up to my once held belief in that utter hogwash (I was young).
To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s what sig meant or not, I’m just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure if he’s trying to make a case for ET’s or against evolution or neither, but whatever his intent is, the evidence is not remotely comparable.
CJ, found a couple of sites about Bible interpretation that may help clarify some what I was trying to say.
His4Ever, you said it fine. The sites you provided are interesting. Some of this sounds like what I’ve said to you a few times about looking at things in context, rather than as stand alone verses. I believe the Bible is the True Word of God. However, I don’t believe every word of it is literally true.
Here’s an example. Your first link contains a reference to the book of Jonah. I don’t believe he literally lived for three days in the belly of a “great fish” because I can’t work out how he would have survived. Even fish use acids to digest their food, let alone worries about oxygen supply, etc. However, to me, the larger story, about a man refusing to obey God’s word because he didn’t think the people he was being sent to were worthy of it, then finding out he was going anyway, and, in the end, learning that God’s mercy exceeds man’s has a great deal of truth in it, especially with regard to the way we are obligated to treat our fellow man. (Come to think of it, on rereading the book, am I the only one who thinks Jonah comes across as rather whiny and arrogant?)
I’m inclined to take the New Testament more literally than the Old Testament, Revelations excepted, and I’m aware of contradictions throughout the Bible. After all, what were Christ’s last words on the cross? On the other hand, how much does that detail matter? There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, one of which is strikingly similar to the Sumerian creation story which I think would have been contemporary with some of the earliest versions of Genesis.
My parents put a great deal of emphasis on reason, logic, and working things out for oneself when I was growing up. One of the things my father said to me time and time again was, “You’ve got a good head. Use it!” As a result, I almost can’t resist trying to reason things out. Evolution, to me, makes more sense than trying to reconcile two conflicting accounts of creation, not to mention the old chestnut, “Where did Abel’s wife come from?” That reason is tied deeply into my faith, so much so, that I can’t separate it without severely damaging my soul. On the other hand, I figure God made me this way; he must surely be used to me by now!
I dig at things. If a verse bothers me, I go back and read it in context. If the immediate context bothers me, I go back and try a larger context, and there are somethings I set aside in the hope that I’ll understand them later. Quite frankly, this applies to almost all of the book of Revelations. You and I have both heard good old 1 Corinthians 14:34, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.” Neither one of us is all that good at being silent, although I don’t think the SDMB technically qualifies as church. Since that passage bothers me, and it led to me outright disliking Paul for some years, I would take occaisional digs at it until I finally came up with an explanation that satisifes me. Earlier the Bible, talks of the women of churches rising up and throwing Paul out of the churches because of his preaching. I think this happens in Acts. This, to me accounts for it. If a fallible and rather fanatical human being has been thrown out of places because of the words of women who were regarded as clearly inferior to men, it’s no wonder he might not want people to listen to them. If Christ had said it, that would be a different matter, but He didn’t appear to share Paul’s attitude towards women.
As I’ve said many times, I’m just a very fallible human being myself, doing the best I can to make sense of all this. I’ve got my own set of ingrained biases, and I’m sometimes generally surprised to find out someone doesn’t think the way I do. Just a week ago, I found myself arguing that teaching my own Episcopalian principles in schools would not solve all the problems of racism, violence, etc. If I’d had more sense and listened, I might have learned something, if not necessarily agreed.
CJ
I started a thread on how to properly interpret Scripture over in the Pizza Parlor’s Kitchen, which I moderate, by linking to the first link that His4Ever provided – I think there’s some good stuff in that that deserves discussing. You both are invited to join in, along with anyone else that wants to.
Evolution is an accepted scientific theory. “Creationism” is just Christian Mythology trying pass itself off as an alternative to science.
Thanks for the invite! 
I’ve gone over to the Parlor and shared my simplistic opinion. As I said over there in response to CJ’s problem with a literal interpetation of the story of Jonah, I have no problem in believing this really happened. There’s nothing I see in the passage that indicates this is anything other than a true happening plus Jesus confirms the story in Matthew 12:40. That’s my humble opinion anyway.
I’ve posted what I posted here and a longer follow up in the thread Polycarp set up. I thank you for the invitiation, too, by the way. I’m not going to duplicate two posts on two message boards, but basically, I talked about what I know of the difficulty of accurate translation, speaking as a former translator. For openers, my Japanese dictionary lists four translations of the word “peace” alone.
Concerning Jonah, I did a quick search on where his name appears in the Gospels at Bible Gateway and, as I suspected, when Christ mentions him, He focuses on Jonah’s message, not what he went through to deliver it, although Matthew does do his usual bit of tying Christ into this prophet as well. Three days in the belly of a whale is a good story, but to me, it’s not the important part of it.
CJ
I’ve always found the book of Jonah rather curious for the fact that Jonah is the only prophet I’m aware of who proselytizes animals.
Cows wearing sackcloth and ashes? Folktale, maybe?
Apparently Jonah was sent to bring both Homo sapiens and Bos bovis to repentance:
Hmmm…Ninevah sounds like West Texas.
I wonder if Jonah ministered to sheep. That would give a whole new meaning to “tending the flock.” 
H4E –
I can allow you the fact that a) you don’t care about science/scientists and you don’t want to learn about the subject and b) you want to believe in something other than science to provide you with information about origins and so forth. Your earlier comments about avoiding the argument altogether are, to me, the most honest a creationist can be when in dealing with evolution. However, it is highly dishonest for you then to revert to the “transitional fossils” argument when you know you are unable and unwilling to equip yourself to debate that issue. Do you want to learn about science or not? If not, then please don’t appeal to it in your argumentation.
The reality is that transitional fossils are very much a part of evolutionary theory and always have been. If you don’t “buy” it, that’s a scientific argument which it seems you have already said you don’t want to get into. So, you’re tying the hands of the other position by saying you don’t care to deal with science and then use something that looks and feels very scientific to defend your position. The moment someone else says, “hold on a minute, let’s look at the science behind transitional fossils,” you leave the table. You claim you’re not interested. Then why did you mention the transitional fossils in the first place if you are not about to argue the scientific validity of the theory?
It’s these kind of drive-by “facts” that I really dislike. They only serve to make you seem like a liar when I know that’s not your intent.
Now, I’m certain that you’ve heard any number of preachers who have droned on and on about the lack of transitional fossils, the second law of thermodynamics, etc. I have come across them myself. What I find disingenuous is IMMEDIATELY upon an “evolutionist” (like myself) addressing these issues the topic is changed as follows: “Well, I’m not a scientist, I just know that evolution is wrong. I can’t argue with you on the scientific facts.” Then why did you pretend to argue using scientific facts in the first place?
It is your right to believe in whatever you want. It is also your right, in all honesty, to be hypocritical and turn around and use pseudo-scientific arguments and try to pass them off as science when you claim you don’t want to be scientific. Just know that upon doing that you’ve basically invited the “other side” of the argument to label you a liar.
My advice to you is to either learn about evolution and the scientific evidence or don’t talk about science. Putting in these nonfactual jabs at “lack” of scientific evidence just proves that you’re being inconsistent in your beliefs.
I’d say creation science is trying to pass itself off as an alternative. You can believe in evolution and creation, it’s just that the common vernacular has all creationists being ID’ers or YEC’s.
I think the notion of creation “science” is ridiculous to begin with-it’s inviting bias into everything they study. Also, you don’t see creation scientists looking into gravity, or atomic theory, it’s only interested in being anti-evolution and to a lesser extent anti-BB and anti-abiogenesis (btw-anyone know how to pronouce abiogenesis?).
To me, it’s fine if a scientist wants to figure out the God question, or to see if there are holes in evolutionary theory, where I draw the line is when they make up fraudulent data, misconstrue findings, and set up an organization to debunk a theory.
[quote]
Meatros
(btw-anyone know how to pronouce abiogenesis?)
[quote]
uh-bye-oh-genesis (with the accent on the “gen.”)
Because there is no coherent “theory of creation.” Nobody, not Morris, Gish, Hovind, Johnson, and Behe, has been able to frame a theory that explain all the evidence.
It’s a conspiracy. The entire scientific community just has to hold this falsehood called evolution up.
I also have some prime property on Mars for sell. Excellent bargain.
What about the new four winged dinosaur found in China? Can creationism explain this, at all? Hmmm?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**
[quote]
Meatros
(btw-anyone know how to pronouce abiogenesis?)
Thanks! You don’t know how many times I’ve butchered that word!