Posted on 01/18/2007 1:00:43 PM PST by scottdeus12
Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.
The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."
(Excerpt) Read more at darwinismrefuted.com ...
Sure.
I have also asked ThisLittleLightofMine if he'd like to join in the discussion as well.
Once he responds, we can begin.
The first place I will start is a little bit before the text. Do we agree that we are just going to use the King James Version, and that we're not going to go to any OTHER translation to "clarify" the King James text? I am assuming that you don't read ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek, and are not able to directly read the various ancient texts in their original languages, but must rely - as must I - on a translation.
This being the case, I just want to be sure that we are on the same page and agreeing to use the identical translation, and that we're going to stipulate that knowing what the word of God really IS does not require that we obtain doctorates in ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek and Aramaic. (I presume you agree?)
This is an important point, because once we stipulate to the King James Version text, we have A text, and ONLY that text. That's what we're looking at. We're not doing a comparison of what the Catholics think Genesis reads versus the Lutherans versus the Evangelicals versus the Jews.
We're assuming that the King James Version faithfully translates the word of God as it is in Genesis.
Agreed?
If we can't agree on this, then we have to decide what Scripture really IS, and in what language, etc. I am willing to use the King James, because it is the oldest Protestant version that is generally accepted by all Protestant English speakers. I am not going to insist on using a Catholic translation because the fact that it is Catholic gives some people the willies and causes them to think that it is perhaps tainted by error. No other Protestant translation has anything like the age and respected authority as the KJV. So I figure that you're going to accept the KJV text and we can go from there. If you don't care which Bible we use, then we can use the Catholic NAB. My preference, if you don't care which we use, would be to use the Jewish Publication Society translation of the TaNaKh, which translates the same Masoretic Text as was translated by the KJV scholars. The JPS TaNaKh is, in my opinion, the most LITERAL translation of the Hebrew into the English.
But we don't have to use that. I am willing to use a Protestant Bible, specifically the KJV, as our sole text. Agreed?
(If ThisLittleLightofMine wants to be involved in this, he can agree too.)
So, we have a text: the KJV, and we've all agreed that we're going to just read that text? We're not Greek or Hebrew scholars and aren't going to start doing our own translations of the various manuscripts. And we can't be using a bunch of different translations because the words are different, and we're interested in specific content.
I pick the KJV because I know how much Protestants love it, so why not use the most beloved and best? I think the KJV is a pretty good translation of the literal Hebrew, and certainly it is fine for Genesis.
So, are we all agreed? KJV Alone?
And that typically is the bottom line reason for the debate. Biblical literalists are unwilling consider the idea that Genesis is an allegory, or that it was the first compilation of a tradition of oral history that had been passed down for generations until it became a set of core beliefs for a tribe.
As long as one believes that each word in the Bible was directly whispered in the ear of the person who merely was acting as a scribe, then that person can not, as a matter of faith, believe that each word is not factually accurate.
So you get light with actual days and nights before the sun and the rest of the universe is created days later. God was really busy on the 4th day of creation. That's when He created the sun, the moon, and the rest of the universe, having chosen to only create earth's plants on the previous day.
But if you're a literalist, you have to accept, believe, and defend all this and much more. It's not an enviable task.
"Intelligent Design" is neither intelligent or a design.
Actually, Genesis can support evolution if taken word by word..
It says on several 'days' things like.. Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation....
...And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds...
.. Throughout the creation story there are references to 'the land producing..' or in some interpretations.. let the earth bring forth..'
In other words, this could easily be interpreted as the earth itself creating... ie, something a product of nature or natural laws... all still a part of God's design..
Be careful. The FRaliban is out tonight. Must be a full moon.
"Don't be ridiculous. There are no parables in the Bible."
Not true. There are many parables in the New Testament.
Throughout history the Jews have interpreted this, like Job, as what is known as a Pesher, an allegorical story meant to describe & teach a lesson or moral law, not a scientific or historic description.
Your insight about relating this to a parable is very accurate.. Jesus actually used the Pesher tool quite often in his teachings..
It would appear that some posters here think Islamist propaganda is good for you. That, or they don't care what sort of doubletalk is used to bash scientific theories they don't like.
Nope. Not on board with Muslim theology. I'm a Christian.
You failed to detect the obvious sarcasm in AK's comment.
What makes either side of this issue a 'conservative' position?
Are you SURE George is a George, and not a Georgia?
So you post Muslim religious sources that openly admit they exist to convert people to Islam ... why?
Sure it can. But Genesis doesn't hold up logically within itself if taken word-by-word (as we will see), and there is a real problem with the water above the stars and planets which flooded the earth during the flood.
Worthwhile to note is that objection to/rejection of the science of evolution uniformly devolves to an essentially religionist POV, and is expressed exclusively via populist, non-scientific/academic - largely vanity/self-published - out-of-the-mainstream, minority/contrarian literature, media, and websites.
While there exist within the legitimate scientific/academic community points open questions and assorted of dispute pertaining to certain particulars of the mechanics of evolution, there exists no dispute or question of the fact of evolution.
Quite simply, there is nothing in science which contradicts the Theory of Evolution, and ongoing research and discovery serve only to broaden understanding and to further confirm evolution, at all scales from the cosmologic to the sub-molecular.
Those who perceive there to be a "Problem" with evolution in fact have no science, no evidence whatsoever, in support of their specious, ill-informed, logically absurd objections, but rather they have a problem stemming from whatever religio-spiritual belief set they happen personally to embrace.
"maybe it's just his manly good looks?"
Looks like a mo to me!
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.