[Ahban]

What's the difference between conceding that amphibians evolved and humans evolved? There are serious philosophical consequences from believing "an boy is a fish is a rat is a pig is a dog". It is a big deal whether or not you beleive human life is created in the image of the Almighty or is a Cosmic Accident. It has implications that boil over, conscoiusly and subconsciouly, into how we treat the people in our life. It has implications on the just limits of government power too.

When the stakes are that high, we have to be sure. We need more assurance than the contrived diagram presented here.

Genesis Chapter One uses the strongest creative word possible in only three places. The creation of the universe, the filling of the sea (and later in the period of the verse the sky) with life, and the creation of man. In all three places, at a minimum, a fiat miracle is presented as having occured. Its not limited to those verses, but the Hebrew term used is less strong and does not demand creation of a new thing from nothing.

You asked me, so I told you. No doubt you will say my committment to the Word is blinding me. What is blinding you to the possiblity of its Truth?

[VadeRetro]

There are serious philosophical consequences from believing "an boy is a fish is a rat is a pig is a dog" ...

This is almost like admitting that there's something going on within you when the evidence goes in certain ways. You could have stopped here.

You asked me, so I told you. No doubt you will say my committment to the Word is blinding me. What is blinding you to the possiblity of its Truth?

Science and science education have to follow the evidence. I mainly argue on these threads for simply letting that happen. I've been an agnostic since before I knew the proper word for it, but I've actually been open to little tugs of religious inclination at various points of my life. Lately however, arguing with creationists on FR has shown me that not all the effects of "faith in things unseen" are to be desired.