"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.
"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."
Look, what I'm saying is the so called evidence is open to interpretation. You're right about the point about Darwin--given he speculated we came from one source--that the "evidence" changes. And I suspect the "evidence" will continue to change--evolve, so to speak. Personally, I'm not ready to put my money on that horse. And honestly, you've not answered much other than pose questions.
I'm not trying to convince you of one thing. You've made you're choice. You've put your faith into Man. If you're right, then when we die, we're just dead. If you're wrong, then we're subject to the wrath and judgment of God. If God is God, then He is supreme to "science" as He created it. I have no problems with anyone who wants to believe in evolution. But I take exception to the idea of "mountains of evidence". It's mountains of conclusions based on a theorized or supposed outcome, not evidence of proven or observed fact. I hear people talk about "mountains", but I never see much of anything but a mole hill. Whether you think I've "looked" at the "evidence" or not, is not material to me. I have admitted my beliefs are faith based, you won't--and believe me, I'm not looking for you to do so. Not important to me.
I don't know anything about this "YEC" you reference, but earlier I admitted I originally considered majoring in paleontology. Primarily because of love of history, anthropology, etc. I choose to bag this as a career because the conclusions that were made were so obsecure and full of conjecture, I couldn't see how anyone could come to these conclusions. When someone found a bone fragment, a skull cap, piece of tooth--all of a sudden we could get a idea of their culture, how they lived, what they thought and even how they looked. Nonsense. If God wants to make evolution a process of life, that's ok with me. He is supreme. He can do as He wants. But it's not clear to me why God would tell us that there was no death until it was introduced by Adam (man) and yet, use "evolution" that is in contradiction to what He said. Either God has lied or told us the truth. That doesn't take weeks of discussion.
I'm not interested in religion, only the word of God. Religion and God, are two different items, in my opinion. So I'm not an apologist on "religious" ideas. I could care less about "religion". What I care about is precisely what God says.
Yes, I've actually read the Orgin of Species. And despite all the howlings that "I didn't have a clue" about the "theory" of evolution because I made the comment about "goo to man", these were the charges. And I think you've demonstrated this was and is a basic platform--given it was a speculation from Darwin himself. Whether or not it still is, or has been edited out of other editions--I couldn't tell you, the trained evolutionists still avoid the question 'where'd we come from before the primates'--thus it's not part of the theory. So when you claim "No one has avoided saying where "primates" came from." They most certainly have! Scroll up and review the charges of "you don't know anything about the theory of evolution".
I know what "twisting" is and I haven't a clue what you're saying about that in relation to 1 Corinthians 15:38-39. It's pretty clear to me.
When are people expecting the "population" of eskimos to evolve fur? They've supposedly been living around the artic circle for 20,000 to 100,000 years--you pick the time, everyone else does. Maybe they need millions of years. Heck, throw a billion in there. Since evolution has been "observed", then we can base a reasonable projection when this will occur.
I think God and science are not contradictions. We've obviously cross paths on the spectrum of belief. I have gone from one side of the spectrum toward the faith in God. You've gone from that point toward evolution. It's not really germaine what each of us believe. We'll find out soon enough when we "croak". Either the Scriptures are right or they're wrong. Either God told us the truth that all things were created by Jesus or it's wrong. Either we came from a heap of goo or we were created in one day as God says. Either Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation or this is wrong. That's the only elements material to this entire discussion. As I mentioned earlier, if I'm wrong, then I'm just dead. But if the Scriptures are right, then we have the promise of salvation and ever lasting life. It's not a bet I'm willing to take.
Seriously, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But I have enjoyed talking with you. You'll believe what you want, and I will as well. I don't think any less of you, regardless--or any other evolutionist, for that matter. Time and life is too short. My only point to you and other evolutionists asks the question "Did God lie"? I believe the answer is "no". You see this as a contradiction to the theory or the debate, I see it as no contradiction. If God is the supreme being, He created everything. And why would He need to use evolution? Surely, for a God that created all the wonders of the universe, He can certainly get the creation of man right on the first time around.