Posted on 04/12/2005 11:29:22 AM PDT by presidio9
OK, let's make the discussion a matter of Christianity.
Questions for you:
1. Is Jesus Christ, God, Himself? If Jesus Christ is God, by definition the perfect God cannot lie, and therefore cannot contradict Himself. Do we agree?
2. Jesus Christ declared that if you do not believe the writings of Moses, you will not believe Him (John 5:45-47). Jesus Christ affirms the writings of Moses as believable. Do you believe Moses?
3. Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel of John, is the Creator, Himself (John 1:1-5). Jesus Christ declared that in the context of man, " Have you not read He that made them in the beginning made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4). Jesus Christ is quoting the book of Genesis written by Moses. Is Jesus Chist credible to speak with regard to His Creation?
4. Do you believe what Jesus Christ says about His Creation?
5. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). They are the Law. The finger of God wrote plainly that the entire Creation came to be in the space of six literal days. If we agree that question #1 is true, and that God wrote the Ten Commandments, it is equally true to say that Jesus Christ wrote the Ten Commandments. The writer of the Law is clear. Do you believe the writer of the Ten Commandments?
One believes in Evolution, or one believes Jesus Christ. The two cannot both be right; therefore, the one is indeed completely incompatible with the other.
Which do you believe?
"We know evolution occurs."
Without simply tossing the question back at me, you know evolution occurs as well as what?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
The march of the luddites continues.
Sure. But at this point in our development, every human living on this planet belongs to a distinct species.
Well how very DU of you. Start by calling names. If not prepared to discuss intellectually, maybe this isn't the place for you.
Again distinct (and even the concept of species) doesn't mean anything. Just a convenient naming convention to classify.
Maybe when compared to the difference between humans and slugs, humans and chimps are relatively close. But in actuality, the two species are distinct and different.
What did you mean by "Strawman"?
Your claim that people who support the TOE don't see a real difference between humans and apes is a strawman argument.
Really?
"Without simply tossing the question back at me, you know evolution occurs as well as what?"
"I'm not sure I understand the question."
Yes, it's good to seek clarification.
We'd probably agree that knowing is relative.
What level of knowing would you compare your knowing that evolution occurs?
Yes, they do.
The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.
Genesis does contradict itself in specific sequences of actions. The second story is not as obvious in the sequence, as it does not use "day one", "day two", etc. Yet it is still explicit in sequence when it says that certian things had not yet happend because other things had not yet occured.
I've covered explicit verse by verse descriptions in these threads before. Sorry you missed it.
To maintain that the Bible is not inconsistent, it is necessary to interpret Genesis creation stories to have the very general meaning that "God did it".
There are several places in the old books of the Bible where two different versions of the same story show up. The likely explanation is a split between the tribes if Israel where early translations of the Bible diverged, and were later merged into single collection.
The bottom line is that we disagree on major interpretations of the few verses in Genesis pertaining to the Creation. How can you possibly be so certian of any particular interpretation that you wish to insist on teaching your theory in a public school? That's a place for science, not religious dogma that you and I can't agree on.
Well since life is evolving, changing from one species to another the distinct = nothing. And the classification describes a snapshot in time.
The creationism issue is a stick that the left routinely uses to bash us. You may miss the tactic if you don't read many publications, but the criticism exists and congresscritters are aware of it.
The creationism issue takes our focus off the other genuinely important issues such as judicial nominees. It is divisive, as this thread proves, and the left knows how to divide and conquer.
My motivation in posting is an attempt to at least defuse the issue here, among conservatives, before any more of it gets into the public domain and does real damage.
"Your claim that people who support the TOE don't see a real difference between humans and apes is a strawman argument."
Not my argument. That was 3dognight.
I guess you're right. It does look like a strawman.
Then again, they both look a lot like the typical secularist.
Probably on the same level as plate tectonics or that planets exist in other solar systems.
No it doesn't.
Cite one single example.
Now, when the creationists and IDers can actually present data and evidence to SUPPORT their particular positions (and sniping away at evolution IS NOT data and evidence) then they might have a dog in this hunt. To date though we have yet to see any of it.
Do you have any positive evidence in support of ID or creationism? If you are simply going to snipe at evolution, I'll dismiss you out of hand as irrelevant.
If there were genuine scientific issues that would totally discredit evolution, science would be gleeful. It would open up entirely new areas of study, new doctorial thesis, and above all, new funding to study the new phenomenon.
The problem is that there really isn't any scientific evidence that actually challenges evolution. Just a few meaningless objections sold to the non-science population.
What is happening is that a mob of practically half the population with pitchforks and torches is coming after scientists yelling "blasphemy"!
Darn straight they're scared. Scared for their entire field of interest that they've spent a lifetime working at.
Much of it is the fault of bad science education. And much of it is sciences own fault for taking money offered by followers of the Religion of the Environment. But that's another story.
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.