Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
Flood explained here (not yet recognized by ‘official geology’):
http://www.threeimpacts-twoevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/COMET-IMPACT-ANALYSIS-AND-EFFECTS-20Aug2013.pdf
When it happened is uncertain (450 kybp? 5.4 kybp?).
The flood, banishment from the Garden of Eden, the need for clothing, and the seeming re-start of humanity are all understood in the context that a massive comet hit in what is now the Southern Ocean and that it delivered a nearly incomprehensible amount of water. It appeared to survivors that the water came from the firmament; it actually made its way from the Southern Ocean impact site.
Atlantis existed. Its inhabitants were advanced, and they had water craft. (See Ignatius Donnelly’s book: ‘Atlantis, The Antediluvian World’ for a scholarly account.). The city was buried under more than two miles of water delivered by the comet. Almost everyone from Atlantis perished. We happen to call a lucky survivor Noah.
Now try this one on for size: we are an invasive species. We occupy lands that were mostly uninhabited prior to the comet impact.
You are saying "the real scientists" expect and encourage questioning, which has not been any more true than Christians who have often said the same thing. As far as I can see, there is more dogma and faith required in the present "scientific" community as in the Christian community, and that's simply an unfortunate fact. Academics and the present political theories make sure it's a fact.
I tend to be skeptical of dogma myself, of any kind, but you really ought to be just as skeptical of the dogma in the scientific community as you are of the community of faith.
I personally don't see them as irreconcilable in any way, most of our scientific traditions in the West were brought forth by giants who could reconcile with both communities, who saw both positions, faith and science as reconcilable. Truth is truth, both communities claim to say that.
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory; it's fascinating, has some evidence as well as multiple holes, what is abundantly clear is that most of the "scientific community" today dares not speak of the problems. As to why this is, I'll leave that up to you.
“Is there anything other than theological doctrine preventing them from both being right? As near as I can tell, the only thing standing in the way of finding common descent from common design is insistence on assuming the literal phrasing of the Book of Genesis is scientifically accurate description of events.”
Saying there is some insistence on Genesis “scientifically accurate” is a pretty silly thing, and just clouds the issue. Nobody insists that Genesis is a biology textbook, telling us how cells formed, or how sexual and asexual reproduction works, or anything like that. It’s much simpler to just say “accurate”. You can either believe the Genesis account is a true account of actual events, or that it isn’t a true account of actual events.
If it’s true, then there were separate acts of creation, and no common descent. If you think that there was only one act of creation, and everything in existence descended from that, then Genesis can’t be true, scientifically or otherwise.
Now, you could say that Genesis is not “true” in this sense, but still believe it has some religious value, and there are plenty of Christians who take that position. It’s not a position I can respect though, because it opens the door to “interpreting away” any part of the Bible that is inconvenient for you.
See post 82 on this thread. Helps to reconcile some of your argument.
Right - the Scope's trial "age of rocks" debate which is irrelevant to intelligent design and creation. The Bible doesn't date the age of the earth, only the age of the (re)creation of which man is a part.
But like I said, I really don't care either way. However God did it, He did it.
“From this description, the term “Darwinism” seems to have been arbitrarily and unnecessarily assigned, since the basic theory admittedly has not undergone any significant revision or divergence to make it necessary to designate or group the theories by lineage.”
No, that’s certainly not true, since we in fact do label many of the revisions of the theory “neo-darwinian”, to distinguish them from the classical version of the theory. The source simply says that the theory hasn’t changed so much that the ONLY point to using the name is to connect it to its origin.
“As a philosophical designation, it appears to be indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism, which again seems unnecessary, and potentially confusing and ambiguous.”
No, naturalism is a much more general term. You could say that Darwinisim is a subset or outgrowth of philosophical naturalism, but the two terms are not synonymous.
There is plenty of evidence of evolution WITHIN certain animal groups. The issue is evolution as “the origin of the species” which requires transference between basic animal groups for which there is no evidence.
When I said I was skeptical of dogma, I meant anyone's dogma. That includes from the scientific commmunity, although I find that more often than not it's the journalists doing the writing rather than the scentists themselves and the science behind it that's to blame.
The evidence appears to be there in the fossil record. You can accept it or not as you choose, but you can't make that decision for anyone else.
I consider that a fallacy of false dichotomy. You either have to believe it's literally true in every aspect, or that none of it is true at all. Those are not the only choices you have.
No, that really doesn’t help reconcile anything. That’s just a different way to argue that the Bible narrative is deceptive. If it’s deceptive, then it doesn’t have any religious or spiritual value to us, at least not more than any other myth or legend.
If you don’t believe the Bible account, that’s fine, go believe what you want, I don’t care too much. What I have a problem with is when people want to say the Bible account is “kinda-sorta” true. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but they are not being logically consistent.
So you're rather they be outright enemies than simply agreeing to disagree on the details.
No fossil records have evidenced transference between basic animal groups. Relevant evidence is essential to prove an argument. It’s not a matter of “making a decision for someone else” it’s a matter of knowing your “decision” is based on good reason and not an illusion.
All conclusions are based on assumptions.
Even if we all follow the exact same process to reach our conclusions, if our starting points are not the same, those conclusions will be different.
In the end, the use of “shaming” or looking bad” seems to be the last but most effective weapon of Darwinian despots. It induced a lot of folks to do horrible things in the 20th century and the use of ‘shaming” will probably bring us close to annihilation in this century . Better hope that the “flying spaghetti monster”, (or dare I say it...the God of Abraham and Isaac)intervenes before all life is lost!
Fossil records show a increasing complexity of life forms, starting with simple single celled organisms and progressing to more complex and diverse types and species of animals. It doesn't support simultaneous appearance of all species at once.
You’re missing the point. To have a valid argument your assumption or assertion must be backed by some kind of coherent and relevant reasoning to have a valid conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.