Making waves (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, June 20, 2013, 04:50 (3981 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, June 20, 2013, 05:05

dhw: In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless..... You and Tony have stated categorically that it is not anti-evolution, and that is the statement I'm disputing. In the Genesis account, even according to Tony's interpretation, the text clearly argues for separate creation, as against the theory that ALL SPECIES including humans are "the lineal descendants" from the earliest organisms. I've challenged you to find a way of interpreting this particular text to show that it is not opposed to Darwin's theory. If you cannot do so, then none of your justified generalizations and none of your references to other passages concerning swarms of creatures, eons and the Big Bang can alter the fact that the only biblical version we know is pro separate creation of species and anti common descent, and is therefore anti-evolution.
> -That is why I specifically made clear precisely which version, or sub-version, of evolution is acceptable in biblical terms: all things change, all things evolve, but within constraints that can not be crossed. -You are making distinctions that need not be made. To evolve means to change. The biblical writings do not argue against change. They argue against abiogenesis. They argue against cross-species boundary crossing, i.e. a bird from a reptile. But you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change happens! It has been observed! However, abiogenesis has not been. Species spontaneous generating or morphing into other species has not been. -Common decent, in a more limited scope than is generally applied is also acceptable. For example, there are hundreds of 'breeds' of dogs, and it is reasonable to conclude that they all derived from a common ancestor. However, we have never seen a dog become more than a dog of a different type. I am not sure why anyone would think that science and theism are mutually exclusive. That would, by definition, be insanity. -To address the later topic of specially created human, I have no doubt that was the case, but I also can not substantiate it with anything other than this one thought: -All documented discoveries of the 'homo' variety show traces of being distinctly human, even if they are humans of different stature, culture, or build.-All recorded discoveries of simians have been consistent with what we would expect of simians. -In those few cases where it was claimed that they found missing links, they have invariably either been discovered to be Hoaxes, or later discovered to actually be simian fossils. -In short, there is no OBSERVATIONAL evidence to support the CONJECTURE of common decent between humans and simians.-This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.