No, pretty much everything you said about evolution is just wrong not because I disagree with it, but because whatever it is you’re describing, it ain’t evolution.
And this is just a dumb thing to say; there are plenty of folks here who at least comprehend Bible concepts, even if they don’t personally subscribe to them. When you’re debating something, you should take the trouble to understand what it is, in fact you can’t effectively debate it without doing that.
And I disagree with your Bible/Evolution dichotomy, but I don’t expect that counts for much.
Actually, that is a late 19th century view that distorts the biblical view. The two separate and contradictory stories regarding creation that appear in the first chapters of Genesis indicate that the authors and redactors of those stories were aware that they were intended for religious edification, not historic treatises. Faced with information (originally discovered by Christians reconciling physical discoveries with scripture) that indicated an ancient earth and, later, a system of evolving life forms, most adherents to the bible recognized the ways in which the biblical stories were not contradicted by science and moved on with their lives. One group of people rejected science and began to complain that science was opposed to religion. It is hardly our fault that some people are so determined to put limits on God that they reject the way that He has spoken so as to misunderstand what he has said, both in scripture and in the geology and biology surrounding us
You post as if your primary concern was the Truth, and yet your posts indicate that you have closed your mind for the most part in order to embrace and support a certain set of beliefs. Of course that is your privilege. There must be some emotional need to be so unwavering in the face of actual evidence. I encourage you to examine yourself and make the Truth your actual primary concern. Keep in mind that tradition is not the Truth. Something isn’t true because your preacher said it or your parents or denomination taught it. Read the Bible but examine all the evidence available to you and look within yourself to discern what you truly value most. Is it the Truth?
As I have said repeatedly, your very base beliefs, that inspiration means the original text of the scripture was dictated by the Holy Spirit, or that the Bible was protected by God and not distorted in any meaningful way by the many hands it passed through, has absolutely no scriptural or reasonable basis. It is a tradition passed down by men and stands in violation of the concept of free will and all the available evidence. If you really care about the truth you will summon the courage to honestly examine the evidence available.
You are free to choose but you have to ask why people who believe in the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit believe so differently than you.
Some time after his “marriage” to Eris, Wotan-1 smote various things, by force of His Fist of Divine Removal, into various other things. There were Yeti and Xists and G’broag’fran features in the story, as well. That, of course, brought us to our current state, a race that’s mostly Pink, trapped in a sea of Consiracy influence. But those of us who still have traces of Yeti blood in our veins… we can use our third nostrils to whiffread reality and smell what truly is. Something tells me that you’re not able to do that. (Book of the SubGenius, May 15, 1987)
There are many interpretations of Biblical concepts, none of which can be demonstrated logically because they all depend on readings and on the intent of people long dead. There is one major view of evolution, since it depends on evidence. Some Biblical concepts conflict with evolution, and some do not. My view of the Bible - that it was written by people for specific political, cultural and theological purposes, and some of it came from legends, does not conflict with evolution at all.
I see, all my “descriptions” about a certain theory’s failure to produce one documented case of macroevolution had nothing to do with evolution. My mistake.
Your theory collapsed long ago from its lack of basic scientific integrity, not to mention lack of proof. You’re a member of a “dead theory society”, kind of like a kid’s club that gets together here and pretends, and debates, and imagines all kinds of magical stuff. Have fun in your little playhouse while you can, but there’s a real world out there and your dead theory is useless to help it, only God’s Word can do that.
It does, and I’ve put a check mark in the “disagree with” column on my notepad with your name beside it.
You’re quite the expert in false theories, now you’re trying to present the Documentary Theory like it’s a proven fact when there is no evidence at all for its imaginary writers. These speculators must really love you - everytime they make something up, you believe it.
Further, there are no separate and contradictory Genisis stories regarding creation, and no real conflict between the Bible and science. Any apparent scientific conflicts are due to the nature of the creation event and on a daily basis science is beginning to catch up with the Bible’s account. All your assertions, once again, are undocumented and completely false. Pretty much SOP for all your posts.
That was beautiful Dan, and I took your advice and looked deep inside and Jesus told me that He is still the Truth, and evolution is false.
Took your advice again Dan, Jesus again told me that all your bizarre personal beliefs about the Bible are also false and come from listening to the doctrines of demons. The spirit you are listening to is not the Holy Spirit but a lying spirit, and to claim otherwise is blasphemy on your part.
Pretty deep stuff alright, piled really deep. Thanks for sharing, hope it changes some lives out there.
The author of the Bible is alive (Rev1:18), He still interprets His writings for us, and the meanings are timeless and eternal. Further, since evolution stands in direct contradiction with the Bible’s Author regarding origins, the two can’t be reconciled. You might be willing to compromise with the Truth, but the Bible’s Author can’t because it’s against His nature.
Please define ‘macroevolution’ in this context.
More than communism and syphilis, combined!
(I’d rather have multiple choice than essay questions.)
Microevolution: the beaks of succeeding generations of finches will adapt to their environmental conditions.
Macroevolution: Frogs will eventually sprout wings and fly away, monkeys will all turn into men, and given enough time and chance that chair you’re sitting in will eventually get up and walk out of the room.
The first type has happened on a daily basis since creation. The second type has never happened and never will. Further, if all species had been formed this way as the theory postulates, there would be massive evidence for it literally at our feet - there is none. It’s a hopelessly bankrupt theory while ironically, anyone who believes it might actually be the only slim chance to validate it - obviously having somewhat less evolved reasoning powers.
Right - and that illustrates my point rather nicely; the reason that nobody has produced evidence sufficient to satisfy you that macroevolution (as you defined it there) has happened is that nobody is claiming that such nonsense ever did happen.
As I said, what you’re describing and criticising, simply isn’t evolution.
We have gone over this in the past and you hand-waved away the very real contradictions, at that time, so I suppose you will continue to avoid the issue with grand declarations of your belief unsupported by the bible’s words.
I guess we can put this down as “Pretty much SOP for all your posts.”
Actually, there is not one place in which the pseudo-science put forth by the Young Earth Creationists has overturned a single point discovered by genuine science. Every attempt by Creationists (or their odd companions, the Intelligent Design folowers) has been thoroughly disproven (claims for dinosaur tracks alongside human tracks, claims that Neandertals were only old men with bone disease, claims that the sun would exhaust its fuel in too few years for the world to have existed for four billion years, claims that a flood would have deposed all the discovered fossils in exactly the same layers that demonstrate the age of the Earth, etc.) or demonstrated to lack scientific rigor as genuine science chips away at their God of the Gaps, (blood clotting “cannot have evolved” proven false, bombadier beetles “cannot have evolved” proven false, flagellum require 40 simultaneous protein interactions (not “parts”) proven false as scientists have discovered that seventeen of them are missing from one or another bacterium that have flagella).
In fact, the flagellum issue is one in which genuine science is clearly advancing away from the Creationist model, because studying the evolution of motile flagella has led to new information regarding pathogens that can be used in fighting disease–whereas, had science stopped short at Behe’s “Designer” we would be making no headway in understanding that sort of virulence.
Evidently it only takes you a few minutes to look deep within. That tells me all I need to know.
Yeah, guy, I’m rolling off my chair in hysterical laughter. But why stop there? Haven’t you heard about a serpent-like creature being transformed into the currently-observed type, forced to travel on its belly for lack of legs?
Oh, yeah. I just remembered. Wasn’t there something about a man named Balaam, who had a standard form of transportation… until it morphed into a new form, with both vocal cords and intellect enough to have a dialogue with said master?
Very clever, and, considering the source, very “ironic.”
TBJ
P.S. I can’t wait to see what response you’ll have for Magnetout’s and Tomndebb’s rebutting posts yesterday, especially the lattter’s last paragragh. -TBJ
Please link to a single current scientific source that defines macroevolution like you do, or even says that it could happen. If we ever saw this happen, in fact, it would pretty much falsify evolution, which works by relatively small jumps.
This pretty much answers my question about if you had ever read a book on evolution by a scientist. The answer is clearly no. Yet you discuss it as if you knew something about it, which is dishonest.