Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Plenty of room in Ark.

Hey don't be too harsh on him IFF. I've read "they might have" numerous times as explanations of the most sacred theologies. ;-)

ROFL!

Trilobyte wrote:
"Then again, scripture clearly tells us that God didn't use evolution."

One of your biggest weaknesses TB is that you really don't know scripture.

Please quote chapter and verse. I'll be waiting with a scalpel to dissect your response.

Soilguy ... TB doesn't even know what an allele is. He is, at most, a high school student trying to imitate an adult.

I hate to admit that I am guilty of trying to communicate with him. But I think he is at least a decade away from that being possible.

I would also be very interested to know where scripture tells us anything about the method of creation. Everything I have seen so far from the Anti-Evolutionists is inconclusive and is used to back up a position that has been formed centuries ago and has not moved one inch despite any evidence to the contrary.

It's a good thing that scripture doesn't contain anything that could be interpreted as telling us the earth is flat or hollow with demons inside, because there would be whole Christian ministries devoted to defending the position.

If the Bible, without doubt, told us that God created the earth and all life in six actual periods of 24 hours and we clearly knew it wasn't allegory or parable then I would have more respect for those who push the ideas.

Trilobyte, can you show me without any doubt that scripture says God did not use an evolutionary mechanism to create life on earth?

Blacknad.

The other thing Trilobyte, is that you take the anti-evolution position from a faith position and then go from there to rationalise your position by critiquing the science (which you obviously don't understand).

This is dishonest. Just say you don't accept evolution because you believe God created without it.

It is far too complex a discipline for you to come to an honest conclusion without being an expert in the field. You are no expert I am sure.

You seem to think you are defending the Christian position - but in fact you are bringing Christianity into disrepute by displaying a narrow minded ignorance and attempting to talk conclusively about matters you clearly have no real understanding of.

You could stop embarrassing Christianity further by just having one iota of humility and admitting there is room for doubt in your position, and also stop insulting people with derogatory terms like 'YOU EVOS'.

Blacknad.

Well said Blacknad. No doubt we can discusss this and the state of affairs in Lebanon in November.

GEN 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

GEN 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

GEN 2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

...now that sure doesn't sound like evolutionISM does it Morgan?

I just did...read the above post.

Unfortunatly the evos who post here seem to lack an education, especially when it pertains to the religion of evolutionISM.

Their lack of a scientific reply to questions and the use of ad-hom attacks is a very, very clear indication.

Trilobyte posted:
...now that sure doesn't sound like evolutionISM does it Morgan?

Repost your statement in an adult manner, using real words, and I will reply.

"Their lack of a scientific reply to questions and the use of ad-hom attacks is a very, very clear indication."
You don't know the first thing about science.

Trilobyte. You suggested the koalas got back to Australia via the Torres Strait landbridge. Unfortunately for your argument this would merely help them to move between New Guinea and Australia. If the ark finished up anywhere else they could not have got to Ozzie.

Your duck ideas. What you have called "subfamilies" are a mixture of subfamilies and tribes. More to the point though do you mean to say that ducks as different as shelducks, diving ducks, dabbling ducks, pochards, perching ducks, eiders, etc. all evolved from just one pair of birds with a maximum possible genetic variation of just four genes for each characteristic, no mutations involved?

Sorry, another one. Trilobyte wrote:

"Perhaps a lion like and a tiger like animal represented the cat kind...they both can breed together with all kinds of traits."

This solves nothing. Hybrids between lions and tigers are infertile, no chance of offspring. Also no matter how different the two parents there is still a maximum variation of just four for any given gene. Of course that is assuming both parents are heterozygous for that gene.

If you don't understand even high-school level genetics you pretty much have TB's understanding of biology.

Every bit of evidence we have is that he is a caucasian male roughly 13-15 years of age. I think it is time to just ignore him until he becomes an adult. Both chronologically and emotionally. I hope, from now on, my responses will reflect this fact.

Trilobyte,

There is no hard and fast or universally accepted understanding of these verses. You just happen to take an unswerving literal view.

The Catholic Church's present understanding rests upon the 'Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June 1909 On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis'.

Where you will find the following paragraph:

"...that not each and every word and phrase in these chapters need necessarily be interpreted "in a proper literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used figuratively, that is, metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the proper sense" (DS 3516); e) that, since it was the intention of the sacred author of the first chapter of Genesis " to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adapted to the senses and to man's intelligence," we are not strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters, " to seek for scientific exactitude of expression (scientifici sermonis proprietas)".

Now I will wager that the 'Pontifical Biblical Commission' were far better versed in scripture than you are.

All you need to do is admit that there are grey areas and that you might not be the ultimate purveyor of the truth, then we shall all be happier. When people are as entrenched in their opinion as you are, we call it fanaticism - and fanatics are at the root of many ills.

Scripture does not tell us that God did not use evolution.

Blacknad.

So how literal do you want to get, Trilobyte?

Let's talk about how you 'literally' make a woman out of one rib.

Because that's literally what it says. It doesn't say that God added anything, or that he used, amongst other things, a rib. It says he made her out of a rib.

Of course Eve was four inches tall. Adam and his little rib-sized woman.

Where do YOU wish to depart from a literal understanding of the text?

Blacknad.

And lets add an additional layer of complexity to your well thought out posting Blacknad.

Literal interpretation in 2006 English based on the translation into the King James from Greek which came from 2000+ year old Hebrew which came from Aramaic which likely came from Sumerian is meaningless.

If you don't have the original text you are just guessing, or praying, that those that came before you got it right in terms of meaning.

What TB is doing is a zero-synapse literal explanation of something for which he can not verify the providence.

If the police evertreated a crime scene so sloppily no one would ever be convicted of any crime. Surely we should demand of a theological text at least the level of proof we demand of a prosecutor presenting evidence at a murder trial.
After all ... people's lives depend on the outcome.

Translation...trilobyte just spanked me on this issue.

Good day Morgan!!!!!!!

Notice I said a lion like and a tiger like animal...not what we know today as a tiger and a lion.

Please get it right next time.

Translation....I can't defend my faith in evolutionISM so I must try to win with ad-hom remarks.

Sorry Morg, your indoctrination methods don't work on the intelligent.