"I don't care where the evidence leads. If it were to lead elsewhere, I would follow it there..."
I don't think we have a disagreement there. You haven't answered the questions I've proposed. I've admitted that my beliefs are based on faith. However, you've not explained why you have faith in evolution and not the Scriptures. And you have to have a certain degree of faith to believe in evolution. I gave you an example of thoroughbred horses vis a vis your grass/wheat conjecture. Mine is the same conjecture. Did you not see it?
I agree that the "flesh" Scripture does not necessarily preclude the possibility of speciation--from a microevolutionary point of view. However, I don't get your point about this is "twisted".
LOL! Yeah, the mellon thing was a stretch, but one to demonstrate that commonalities do not equate realities--best I could come up with at 1AM.
Well, if God lied, then what's the point of any of it? And what else is "incorrect"? Either God has transcribed His word properly and is right and evolution is incorrect or the Bible is wrong and evolution is right. Based on the references of "creation" used in the Bible, I lean to the later obviously.
"There's the problem. I was trying to have a discussion of science -- not belief systems."
I see no incompatibility with science and the Scriptures. In fact, I think it goes hand in hand--although you're well aware of my thoughts on evolution. If God is the Creator, He certainly created the laws of science. And tho the Scriptures aren't science based, per se, there's many scientific truths disclosed in the Scriptures--much undiscovered by Man until recently.
Heck, even Richard Dawkins is compelled to comment on the "evils" of religion and Christianity. So apparently he believes it's germaine to the topic, eventhough obsecure.
When I asked if "God is a liar", it's a rhetorical question. Not specific to you.
"This whole nonsense about producing radically different species in one generation has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The fact that you argue in this way says nothing against the theory, but it does say something about yoru lack of understanding of just what it is you are arguing against. "
Well, you boil it down and what do you have? Evolutionist do their darnest to avoid the question--where did we come from after the primates? I understand it quite well. Darwin, in his Orgin of Species, speculated that..."all the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." I'm paraphrasing, but that was essentially his doctrine. So the basic premise, or it's basic original tenent included this "idea".
I never concluded that "producing radically different species in one generation" was part of my argument. You came up with that one on your own. Besides, I don't believe it would happen in one generation or 10,000 generations.
Sure, what's your point about ring species? It's Darwin's birds and different beaks--based on geographic restrictions. They're still birds--and probably related to the concept of "microevolution" or evironment adaptation. If I recall, they used to tie this into "natural selection". The conjecture is that these critters have not inter-breeded--based on geography. But I don't believe its been observed whether they inter-bred or not. If they had, it wouldn't take too many times. And I think any biologist would agree that speciation would be difficult to prove, in this case, as it would exceed his lifetime to observe the process--given the essence of time required for the theory.
"You haven't answered the questions I've proposed."
You are proposing religious and philosophical questions that have nothing to do with the topic if the thread. If I wanted to argue different religious perspectives, I would have joined a religous thread. You are the one making the mistake of turning a science thread into a religious one -- the classic creationist mistake.
"I've admitted that my beliefs are based on faith. However, you've not explained why you have faith in evolution and not the Scriptures."
I explained that I do not have "faith" in evolution. I accept the evidence so far. That's it. You won't even consider the evidence, because you are convinced it will conflict with your religous "faith." Fine by me.
"And you have to have a certain degree of faith to believe in evolution. I gave you an example of thoroughbred horses vis a vis your grass/wheat conjecture. Mine is the same conjecture. Did you not see it?"
Emmer grass to wheat evolution is not conjecture. It's evidence. And horse evolution is based on very strong evidence, too.
"I agree that the "flesh" Scripture does not necessarily preclude the possibility of speciation--from a microevolutionary point of view. However, I don't get your point about this is 'twisted'."
You are a Christian, and you want to use the Bible in your arguments, and you don't know what "scripture twisting" is? Tell you what -- this is way off topic, but if you are interested, I would be happy to send you a list of good references, privately, on hermeneutics. I'll even include only conservative sources. Just let me know.
{Snip irrelevant religious philosophizing]
"I see no incompatibility with science and the Scriptures."
Oh, yes, you do! You refuse any evidence that threatens to contradict what you think the Bible says. And you argue about scientific issues that you clearly do not understand, and that you clearly have not studied -- except for some creationist propaganda designed to protect a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
"If God is the Creator, He certainly created the laws of science. And tho the Scriptures aren't science based, per se, there's many scientific truths disclosed in the Scriptures--much undiscovered by Man until recently."
That's nonsense. If you believe the literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis are scientifically accurate, you are not looking at science at all -- and you probably never will. It's not my goal in life to try to argue people out of their religious beliefs. I just wish they would stop trying to cram those beliefs in where they do not belong -- such as science class.
"Heck, even Richard Dawkins is compelled to comment on the 'evils' of religion and Christianity. So apparently he believes it's germaine to the topic, eventhough obsecure."
He's an aggressive atheist. I am not. Nor are most people who accept evolution -- including many Christians. You are in great error in your attempt to couch this issue in the terms of a religous conflict -- but that IS the only pony the creationists can ride.
"When I asked if "God is a liar", it's a rhetorical question. Not specific to you."
That question has so many assumptions in its foundation that we would be discussing them for weeks before even getting to the question itself. That is why I am leaving it alone, as it has nothing to do with the scientific issue of this thread. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is simple in comparison!
"Well, you boil it down and what do you have? Evolutionist do their darnest to avoid the question--where did we come from after the primates?"
Evolutionists are not avoiding anything. The family tree of living things is pretty well filled out, even though we will continue to learn more and more. No one has avoided saying where "primates" came from.
"I understand it quite well."
I don't believe you. I am not saying you are lying, but I don't believe you really understand it at all. Your arguments are evidence of this.
"Darwin, in his Orgin of Species, speculated that...'all the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form.'"
Ah -- so now we are back to abiogenesis. It really gets tiring. The two fields are not related, and the fact that some evolutionists address abiogenesis, even in passing, does not make a lack of answers for abiogenesis an issue at all. Life IS here -- and things have progressed quite a bit since Darwin was on the scene.
"I'm paraphrasing, but that was essentially his doctrine."
No, it wasn't. You said he said he "speculated" and said "may." That ain't doctrine, unless you are ready to concede that when you say, "Maybe Jesus was freckle-faced" you are preaching doctrine.
"So the basic premise, or it's basic original tenent included this 'idea'."
No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter how life started. Evolution happened, and is happening, whatever got life started, and HOWEVER it got started. You are beating a dead horse.
"Besides, I don't believe it would happen in one generation or 10,000 generations."
Fortunately for science, your personal incredulity does not constitute evidence.
Look -- rather than continuing to argue ridiculous points like this -- let me just suggest that you at least try to study the actual evidence more objectively, instead of looking for loopholes in order to attack it from a narrow, specific, religious perspective. Talk Origins is the most comprehensive site on the net that explains all these issues in some detail, and it gives plenty of references for further study.
You seem to think you have found the "magic bullet" unanswerable question that destroys evolution at its core -- but you haven't. You haven't brought up one thing that hasn't been brought up -- and answered -- a hundred times before.
I was a YEC for twenty years, and I was right where you are. I thought I was so clever and could "trap" the stupid evos so easily with my killer questions that destroyed the theory. But I was just making a fool of myself.
You will never understand this until -- unless -- you decide to examine the evidence more objectively, rather than as an apologist for your religious ideas. You may never do so; plenty never do. But I dare you to try.
But if you don't -- it's no skin off my teeth -- unless you try to force your own narrow religious view into science class. That I will resist.