chipper,

You are now in another thread about evolution. So I am curious about what you know about it. My OK state brother had so many misconceptions that I could not believe in what he described as evolution either. Just as someone with so many misconceptions about a Religion would do that religion an injustice when stating that it could not be true, so with any bit of any other system. I really did not want to burden that already extensive thread with this discussion, so I started another one.

I want to start with a few leading questions. And I acknowledge that the questions have an obvious answer, but if you want to debate that, well that is fine. Part of this debate may be to bring your understanding of what you are condemning to a level where I feel you are competently condemning it. Once that is done, then this thread should cease.

I feel that the evidence for evolution and the evidence for God are both strong. So I must reconcile these, and I do so by saying that God is an artist, and mostly works with the medium of the world. In this viewpoint, God would use the mechanisms in the world to advance the world. And God would not lie by placing false to fact clues in the rocks, the stars, the biology. A lying God is not one I will give my allegiance to. But this paragraph of how I see things is largely not relevant to our discussion. It is just a statement of my bias, that both shows that God and science IMO must be considered as real, and as an honest statement that I have such a bias.

Does evolution state that a cat will ever change into a dog? What is the evolutionary relationship between these two animals? Is Pokemon evolution really evolution as Darwin et al suggested? What is the changes that marching bands go through called? How long does evolution take to make a species, typically?

And finally, please describe the mechanisms of evolution according to its theory.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004

Answers

I hope you don't mind my butting in but I figure that Chipper is probably gone. I think I know how he would respond, though.

I don't think that Chipper has any problem with a conflict between evolution and God. The problem he sees (and I agree with him) is a conflict between evolution and the Bible. God created the world in 6 days. He created Adam from dust. He created Eve from Adam. All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. And because the Bible lists each generation from Adam down to Jesus, we can figure that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

As you can see, there is no room in the Bible for any version of evolution. You have to re-interpret Genesis to the point where its words no longer have any meaning. If we do that then what good is the Bible? If we can't believe the story of creation in the Bible then how can we know what to believe in the Bible?

And if we can't believe the Bible then what are we to believe about God? All we know about God is what the Bible tells us. But we can't believe what the Bible tells us so we're back to square one. We can conjure up any kind of God or Gods we choose.

I give Chipper credit because he recognized the problem immediately.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.

Bozo: If someone were to write an analogy in say 2004 and then someone find it 1500 years later and not realize it was a vehicle to tell a truth instead of actual fact, you would have a parallel situation to the genesis story as history. If you read the Bible as is recommendedyou will find many genres. We need to understand the genre in order not to mistake fable for history.

D. Murphy

-- David Murphy (jmmurphy@grolen.com), December 13, 2004.

I ran into a end of a psalm where they state something about the flat earth. Which, considering the shape of the land in Israel is a bit strange. But the point is that this could be interpreted as the earth is flat. Which is actually how it appeared in that translation.

There are some parts where the bible sings poetry or song. There are some parts where the Bible is reporting history. These should not be confused with each other. So there is room, and in a sense, there better be room.

I have heard 'may be god created it all in a second and we just have memories of what has been'. These memories would be false, and I would not respect such a god. So when God puts lies in the rocks, the stars, the biology, and just about everyplace else, either these are lies or evolution is the mechanism that God used to craft us.

The ones that do not consider a reason for all the evidence and believe in God, are thereby believing in a God that would lie to them.

BUT! THAT IS NOT the point of this thread. Another thread was done to debate all this. And this thread is just to see if the non-evolutionist has his theory right. When my brother got done explaining what he understood of evolution, I did not believe his evolution either. His explanation of evolution was as bad as explaining Christianity as God the Father insisted that God the sun get killed. No correspondance. So Sir, what do you know of what you attack?? Can you answer the questions that chipper is not answering?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

"God created the world in 6 days"

A: Yes He did. The Bible says so. But your unauthorized, unauthoritative interpretation of that fact is in direct contradiction to the known facts. Therefore it is wrong.

"He created Adam from dust"

A: Yes He did. The Bible tells us so. But the Bible does not describe the natural process through which He did so. Evolutionary biology simply examines the natural process through which God created living things from non-living matter ("the dust of the earth").

"All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve"

A: Yes that's right. The Bible tells us so. And current research in genetics, specifically studies on mitochondrial DNA, appears to support that fact.

"And because the Bible lists each generation from Adam down to Jesus, we can figure that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old"

A: That interpretation is in direct contradiction to the known facts. Therefore it is obviously wrong. Truth cannot contradict truth, much as you try to force the Bible into that position. But it is only your own personal interpretations that conflict with truth, not the Bible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2004.

First of all, I have to say that it's really a shame that the thread "How would YOU write Genesis 1 & 2?" is no longer available because I submitted a killer post yesterday morning that really kicked butt. I took on Paul M., ZAROVE, eugene c. chavez, Lesley, the whole lot of ya. Modesty prevents me from saying how good it was, but I guess it was so awesome that not even the server could handle it. I kid you not, it was that good.

And now it's gone. GONE!!! I should have copied it so that I could post it again for the board's enlightenment. What a loss!!! It was truly "inspired."

Sean Cleary wrote:

...this thread is just to see if the non-evolutionist has his theory right... So Sir, what do you know of what you attack?? Can you answer the questions that chipper is not answering?

I don't know who you are addressing because I accept evolution and I think everyone else on this board except Chipper does, too. What I do not accept is the idea that evolution does not conflict with the Bible. I say that you have to make a choice between evolution or the Bible. On that both Chipper and I agree. I chose evolution. Chipper chose the Bible. The rest want to have both their evolution and their Bible, too.

David Murphy wrote:

Bozo...

How insulting!!! It's not "Bozo," as in the clown, it's "Bonzo," as in the chimpanzee.

If you read the Bible as is recommended you will find many genres.

Recommended by whom? By those who insist at the outset that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be read in whatever manner does not conflict with what we know or generally accept to be true? That's stacking the deck, wouldn't you say?

We need to understand the genre in order not to mistake fable for history.

So you agree that the creation story in Genesis is fable, not history. What else is fable? Is the story of the 10 Commandments fable? Is the story of the Incarnation fable? Is the story of the Resurrection fable? My answer: Yes. Why? Because science has destroyed the Bible's credibility.

Paul M. wrote:

That interpretation is in direct contradiction to the known facts.

Translation: Reading the Bible literally is in direct contradiction to the known facts.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

putains!

-- Raymond (raymond1972@msn.com), December 14, 2004.

""""If you read the Bible as is recommended you will find many genres.

Recommended by whom? By those who insist at the outset that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be read in whatever manner does not conflict with what we know or generally accept to be true? That's stacking the deck, wouldn't you say?

We need to understand the genre in order not to mistake fable for history.

So you agree that the creation story in Genesis is fable, not history. What else is fable? Is the story of the 10 Commandments fable? Is the story of the Incarnation fable? Is the story of the Resurrection fable? My answer: Yes. Why? Because science has destroyed the Bible's credibility.

Paul M. wrote:

That interpretation is in direct contradiction to the known facts.

Translation: Reading the Bible literally is in direct contradiction to the known facts. """"

I agree with you about this,but the whole idea about the creation of people i agree with paul m

-- robert (tulenedoispasconnaitre@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Bozo, I read your "Liller" ppst, and repsonded. sadly, my repsonce killed the thread. I swent too long, an if you go too long it often interfered with this.

You mentioend, for instance, the dome or firmament argument.

Accordign to you ( or rather, your soruces you use to discreit the Bible, since, lets face it, you are nto interested in the truth, only in discrediting the Bible, thereore only seek arguments to suport your discredition) the Hebrews beelves the earth was the centre of the Universe, and the sky was a solid dome.

Sadly, this only dispalys your blinding ignorance f he Hebrew langaufe, which I spend three years studying and actually can read and speak.

So before you say im ignorignt he facts, let me first ask, can you read and speak hebrew?> if not,pelase offer me the benefit of a doubt...

Actually THINK for a minuet, rather than asusme tou where right all along and we are just makign excuses.

I want to address the firmament argument.

You see, the toruble is alinguistic one, not a factual one. The Hebrew language in biblical times wa a primative langiage, and incapable of certain expressions. rivers had Lips rather than banks, and lands had emideate boarders rather than beign an open plain. The Hebrew angage is incapabl of expressing an infinite.

As a result of this lack, it is also incapabl of exptressiong open space. it must be a difinitive.

Therefore, the sky MUST be desciirbed as a limited surface in order for it to be undetsood in primative Hebrew.

There is no way for you to re0write Genesis in ancient Hebrew and correct the mistake of the firmament. Youw ikl either have to avod mentionign he sky at all, or sle mention it as a limited surface.

Go on, try, I dare you. Do another re-write of Genesis, and try, in HEBREW to extpress the oepn, endless expance rather than referign to a dome.

You cant.

Its linguisticlaly impossible.

Siting the limitaitons fo the Hebrew language, however, does not prove the Bibel false. It only proves the language incapable of properly expressing the true nature of things, soemthign we in a much more complexe and descriptuve language such as english take form granted.

By the way, th Hebrew neve descripbes the "Dome" as a "Solid Dome" as you had formerly asserted.

It merely refers o it a a firmament, or dome. It does not clal it solid at all.

Now, becfore sayign Im wrong and then saing that the ancent peopes beelivesd the sky was a dome and rain happened when the windows wher opened and poiign to a vauge reference to Noahs flood, can you olease just address the simpley orgional queatsionof how you woudl rewrite the Creaiton acocunt and remove the Firmament refernece in Hebrew? If not, and if you accept my argument for a change and actually listen to it, you will relaise that the truth is more ocmplexe han you are makgn out.

I manages to save the thread in queatsion in my Cashe files, I sall report it for you if you like.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 14, 2004.

I was addressing any non-evolutionist, like "Bonzo's Cousin", and trying to get them to tell me what they know of the other side's arguements. And now it looks like I may have to start another thread just to get there. Basically, are you against evolution because of your own igonrance? or is there anouther cause?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

""""If you read the Bible as is recommended you will find many genres. Recommended by whom?

{By anyone who wants to understand it. een Atheists if Honest will tell you the same... its standard in all forms of Academia.}-Zarove

By those who insist at the outset that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be read in whatever manner does not conflict with what we know or generally accept to be true?

{Askign oen to undertsand Genre is not an unreasonable requeast. In any work, ancient or Modern, rather or not you agree or disagre, you shoudl understand at least the Authors intent. its standard for any literary reading. Try to undertsand what is beign said. Its so basic it should be tauhg tin all english sclasses, and I beelive is.}-Zarove

That's stacking the deck, wouldn't you say?

{No, since oen must do thr ame for all books.even Mein Kempt, by Adolf Hitle, in which I storngly disagree with, shoidl be read as its author, Adolf Hitler, intended in order ot be understood. even Homer needs ot be read acording to his Genre. why is it that you want us to read these works based on examination of genre and tryign to understand what the auhtors say, and yet excempt the Bible? why is ths stakcing the deck?> Its standard literary proccedeure. You MUST try to undertsand what is bein said before readong anyhting, or else you will make all kinds of assumptions.}-Zarove

We need to understand the genre in order not to mistake fable for history.

{Yes. Or poetry for fable...}-Zarove

So you agree that the creation story in Genesis is fable, not history.

{This is false analogy.You only give two choices, fable or Histry. There are others.

I maintain that it is a Poetic descriptuon of Creation, inwhihc the language is peotic, but the events are noenthelesshoistorical.

The Creation acount is Hisotry and not fable, bu tis poetic hisotry, and not direct.

This wa a common mean of conveyance of informaiton in ancient times, and shoudl not be confused with fable.

And by makign an artificial duality when indeed a lethra of genres exist, you dispaly further your inability to think beyond the scope of your limited intentions.}-Zarove

What else is fable?

{If you read above, you will relaise I do not claim that Genesis is a fable. Your artiuficial statemen that it is either fable or hisotry, and its fable, is wrong.}-Zarove

Is the story of the 10 Commandments fable?

{No. Nor is creation. I di wish you woudl listen though.}-Zarove

Is the story of the Incarnation fable?

{No. Nor is creaiton, again I repeat, I do wish you woudl listen, and open your midn to acutsl examination fo texts, genres and topics. }- Zarove

Is the story of the Resurrection fable?

{No, nor are the others. But the creaiton acount, though not a fable, is also not intended to be taken on the same way as the other events sicne they are hisotical narratives, written in lving menory, and not compelxe poems dsigned to convey the awesome granduere of somthing.}- Zarove

My answer: Yes.

{Then you are a fool. I can say this becaue you think that its either hsoitry or fable, and since we do not think it wa an actusl 7 day creaiton week, then its a fable. Your limited intellect an unwilingness ot learn limits our interet in your belif on what is an isnt a fable.

You cannot hoenslty say to us your anwer is more intellegent than ours when you constantly make stuoid mistakes liek this and reuse to even get straight our arguments.}-Zarove

Why? Because science has destroyed the Bible's credibility.

{No, it hasnt. and I do beelice I know more about sicnece or the Bibel than you know. I eman, rellay, do you htink Im ignorant of sicnece? Are you in possession of more knoedg ehtan I on sicnece? doubt it. You clealry don undertsand literature either, or hisotry, or the difference between peotic dispaly and fable.

Scece as yet to destory the Bible, as many Christaisn who happen to be sicnetists attest. What is , however, destoryed is your own credibility when youmake syc fololish claims as these.}-Zarove

Paul M. wrote:

That interpretation is in direct contradiction to the known facts.

Translation: Reading the Bible literally is in direct contradiction to the known facts. """"

{No, its not.Further, which oart of the Bible? The Bible isnt a book but sevedral. even if oen part, such as the creaiton acocunt, wa sin error, the remainign books can still be correct. Another oprion you ovelook.

Likewise, the creation acocunt is undertsood poeticlaly, not as a fable, but not direclty as meaign a 7 day week.

Im sure you will miss thr poitn altogather though...}-Zarove

I agree with you about this,but the whole idea about the creation of people i agree with paul m

{ I doubt it since Paul M agrees wththe Bible...Soemthign that if you poaid closer atention to you woudl know.}-Zarove,

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 14, 2004.

I think we all have to consider the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy answer to the problem of the geological record... the idea being that there is Planet which manufactures planets. Yes, and that depending on who is asking for what, they will add in fossils and minerals and other features to suit whomever wants the job done.

Thus the earth was produced in 5 days with oil and fossils and tectonic plates, mountains and erosion planes, etc. and then peopled.

For those who believe that complexity rose from simplicity - that life rose from inorganic compounds without a guiding spirit, this idea isn't far fetched.

The real dilema comes from trying to figure out who or what made this planet making planet and who financed it! ;-)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Joe,

Cute.

It works as manufacturers can put in false artifacts without care that they are lies. As long as we do not worship such, I have not much of a problem with that.

Would you have a problem with them manuafacturing a planet with people on it who have had a false memory of the Incarnation? Who believed that they had original sin when they were just clones? Who believed that they needed and had got redempption when that too was a lie? Is one lie from the manufacturer any worse than another?

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Who believed that they had original sin when they were just clones? Who believed that they needed and had got redempption when that too was a lie?

Why wouldn't a clone have original sin or the possibility of redemption? Think about what you are saying, if a clone doesn't have a soul, there's no reason not to clone people and harvest them for organs, is there?

Frank

Personally, if I had a clone, I'd think of him as my "soul brother".

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 14, 2004.

Evolutionism: An infant religion still gathering, evaluating, and refining revelation and speculation. Yes, I must commend the scientific priests and priestesses -progress is being made!

Evolutionism solely based upon visual comparative assertion is not necessarily guesswork requiring faith until proven definitively so by genetic study as is the case in these 'modern' times.

Unfortunately, secular geneticists are publishing studies that are causing deep schisms in Evolutionistic religious communities. The scientific reformation will be taking its toll -especially on athiestic Evolutionists.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 15, 2004.

Zarove, I'm know I'm going to come across as a grammar-Nazi, but your spelling is pretty bad... maybe you could slow down and type more clearly?

-- RW (me@here.com), December 17, 2004.

RW-I am Dyslexic. slowing down wont help...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.

Ok, we have lost the point of the post, and I accept that. We are now writing Science Fiction, and I added a germain point to the SF and to the discussion. Again ignored, but maybe there is a communication problem here.

" Why wouldn't a clone have original sin or the possibility of redemption? Think about what you are saying, if a clone doesn't have a soul, there's no reason not to clone people and harvest them for organs, is there?"

Lets review context. We have a made up world, with the people in the world made with memories of the fall and the redemption. But (Douglas Adams kinda style) the memories are false -- they never fell, nor need redemption. They remember Jesus dying for them, but that is also a memory artifact. So is this situation built on a LIE? I would say so.

i believe we should treat all life as best as we can. And the more intellegent, the more respect we should give it. So Human clones should be treated as though they have a soul, as there is no test for such a thing, and as you note, saying that X does not have a soul is prelude to treating them as animals.

On another thread we can debate souls, as I have not a single clue that makes any kind of sense as to what a soul is. We have them, the animals do not. A human baby does, a critter with the intellegence of a 3 yr old human does not. The word comes from the hebrew word for breath, IIRC. Would intellegent aliens have them? Would we grant this to them? I would.

" Personally, if I had a clone, I'd think of him as my "soul brother"."

Tend to agree. Not my point, but tend to agree. I am a long time SF reader. I would grant a soul to anyone/anything that is intellegent. At least untill proven otherwise. And (see above) there is no basis for noting that anyone/anything has a soul, as it does not weigh anything, does not alter behavior, and generally does not have a touchable/proveable existance, it will be hard to say yea or no.

Sean

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 14, 2004.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.