Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, the cant will be adjusted to include argumentation such as: "biologists cannot agree on the the meaning of the word species so...blah blah blah" never realizing the specific meaning of scientific terms; the concept of genetic species v. cohesion species would cause a melt down...

LOL, now you know what some of us think when we must continually correct the same misstatements over and over made by folks who comment on Christian doctrine when it's clear they don't know anything about it..."They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, ..."

 

[MikeFerrara]

I agree. And to me your post illustrates one of the big divides between creationists and evolutionists, that you are seeking out further information when you have doubts or don't have knowledge in a certain area. I have not seen that from the creationists in this thread.

Either you haven't read the thread, are unable to understand what you read or you are just not telling the truth.

 

[Soggy]

LOL, now you know what some of us think when we must continually correct the same misstatements over and over made by folks who comment on Christian doctrine when it's clear they don't know anything about it..."They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, ..."

Part of the problem is that there are as many different interpretations of Christian Doctrine as there are people studying it, so while I may make statements that don't summarize your beliefs, they likely do summarize someone's.

 

[Sas]

Either you haven't read the thread, are unable to understand what you read or you are just not telling the truth.

Just my opinion Mike. It is not surprising you have the opposite opinion. However, I'm yet to hear of the research you have done into evolutionary theory. Because of the fact you confuse abiogenesis and evolution, it really indicates to me you don't know anything about it.

So yea, prove me wrong

LOL, now you know what some of us think when we must continually correct the same misstatements over and over made by folks who comment on Christian doctrine when it's clear they don't know anything about it..."They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, ..

Well interpretation of the Bible varies WILDLY even between people of the same denomination. I have noticed here that every time I put forward an opinion of a part of the Bible I have read, many of the believers here say I haven't read it and if I have I don't understand its real meaning. However, the meaning I take is what I was taught in Biblical school so... Christians do not agree on the Bible you realise? Therefore, it would be nice for people here to stop accusing anybody who takes a negative interpretation of the Bible as wrong.

Evolutionary theory, at least the fundamentals, is not open to interpretation like the Bible (there are still some unanswered questions, sure), unlike how some of the creationists here seem to think. It is a fact, and one that you can see all around you. Not a book about the supernatural written a long time ago by various people, often a long time after what they were writing about occurred.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm still waiting for you creationists to come up with something, anything. You've had a couple of days now and still nothing. Shall I give up expecting something from you?

I think I was clear about that.

What does your failure prove? It proves, at least, that you've not a creative bone in your body.

Nonsense. It proves that I refuse to let you fram the discussion and choose my position in that discussion for me.

It also may prove that you question was ignored by every one but you because you are the only one who sees relevance in it. Which...goes along with the other point I made. that being that relative to any position I've taken in the discussion, your question is irrelevant and nonsensical.

If the answer is not pre-chewed or pre-digested for you on the web of from the pulpit you can't deal with the question.

A reasonable description of many taking part in the thread who are on all sides of the discussion.

I pose a new question that your puppeteers have not pre-recorded a stupid answer for and when your string is pulled ... all we get is Simon and Garfunkel:

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, the words of the prophets

Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence.​

Talk about creative...using somebody elses song. Why not another quote from Harris? LOL

 

[MikeFerrara]

Just my opinion Mike. It is not surprising you have the opposite opinion. However, I'm yet to hear of the research you have done into evolutionary theory.

I repeat...then you haven't read the thread, didn't understand it or aren't telling the truth. A review of the thread will demonstrate that I not only did some research on many things from evolution to red-shift to genetics and dating methods. In our discussion of some of those top and since, I did not turn myself into a biologist...ect, I placed most of mys discussion in the form of questions.

Because of the fact you confuse abiogenesis and evolution, it really indicates to me you don't know anything about it.

So yea, prove me wrong

I don't confuse the two at all. However, because of the context of the thread, I'm just not willing to le you or anyone else dismiss the topic from discussion because it isn't part of the theory of evolution.

In a recent post I tried to be very clear in explaining why. If you are having trouble understanding the explanation...you must be because you have arived at a false conclusion...just ask, and I'll try to further clarify it for you.

I think the problem here is that you don't want to pay attention to the post of someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old (you said that) and thus are not willing to address (or understand?) the question that was really asked.

Well interpretation of the Bible varies WILDLY even between people of the same denomination. I have noticed here that every time I put forward an opinion of a part of the Bible I have read, many of the believers here say I haven't read it and if I have I don't understand its real meaning. However, the meaning I take is what I was taught in Biblical school so... Christians do not agree on the Bible you realise? Therefore, it would be nice for people here to stop accusing anybody who takes a negative interpretation of the Bible as wrong.

Lets put it this way. Your interpretation of the parts of the Bible that we have discussed is as far out in left field as you think "creationism" is.

If you can direct me to the "Bible school" you attended or provide a copy of their doctional statement, maybe I can help straighten some of this out.

For starters, comparing scrpture with scripture will help validate your own interpretation/understanding.

Evolutionary theory, at least the fundamentals, is not open to interpretation like the Bible (there are still some unanswered questions, sure), unlike how some of the creationists here seem to think. It is a fact, and one that you can see all around you. Not a book about the supernatural written a long time ago by various people, often a long time after what they were writing about occurred.

I think your wrong. The vast majority of Christians agree on the meaning and significance of the vast majority of scripture. The amount of dispute is probably very comparable to amount of dispute in regard to the theory of evolution.

 

[Sordello]

 

[Sas]

I don't confuse the two at all. However, because of the context of the thread, I'm just not willing to le you or anyone else dismiss the topic from discussion because it isn't part of the theory of evolution.

It isn't. End of story. So you trying to get people to say it is, is a bit weird.

In a recent post I tried to be very clear in explaining why. If you are having trouble understanding the explanation...you must be because you have arived at a false conclusion...just ask, and I'll try to further clarify it for you.

Or, perhaps you didn't explain it well?

I think the problem here is that you don't want to pay attention to the post of someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old (you said that) and thus are not willing to address (or understand?) the question that was really asked.

I pay attention but I don't take them seriously. Yeah, I don't really respect people that don't find reality convincing.

Lets put it this way. Your interpretation of the parts of the Bible that we have discussed is as far out in left field as you think "creationism" is.

If you can direct me to the "Bible school" you attended or provide a copy of their doctional statement, maybe I can help straighten some of this out.

I attended study at:
- Waverly Christian Fellowship (now Citylife - one of the biggest churches in Australia - statement of faith About CityLife Church)
-Good News Fellowship where I was also in charge of teaching Sunday School so was required to do a course for that (not sure if this is a requirement everywhere though) EDIT: removed incorrect link though doctrine is the same as Citylife
-Dandenong Church (that was when I was very young though so wouldn't classify it as proper study).
-I was also mentored by a guy who attended Kinsley College - you can read their statement of faith here--> Kingsley College - Statement of Faith. That was more a home biblical school though.

So yea, so far I am yet to see a convincing argument that I have misinterpreted or do not know the Bible, other than that I have taken a different interpretation to your own. An example please?

For starters, comparing scrpture with scripture will help validate your own interpretation/understanding.

For example? I know the Bible well, as do you, but we both interpret it differently.

I think your wrong. The vast majority of Christians agree on the meaning and significance of the vast majority of scripture. The amount of dispute is probably very comparable to amount of dispute in regard to the theory of evolution.

Sure, tell that to the Anglican Church at the moment. I am sure many Christians agree on the fundamentals such as 'there is a God'. But I doubt there is a consensus about the theory of evolution though, as many Christians reconcile the theory with their own belief system so there is a big split between Young and Old Earth Creationism for one thing. Young Earth Creationists are in the minority (well at least in my country - and I hope yours as well). Also previously you dismissed the Catholic church's views, however where I live, they make up the majority of Christians, so yeah, more Christians support MY views on evolution than yours. However, abiogenesis seems to be were the split lies, but as many people have pointed out to you, that is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Part of the problem is that there are as many different interpretations of Christian Doctrine as there are people studying it, so while I may make statements that don't summarize your beliefs, they likely do summarize someone's.

The statements about Christian doctrine that I have tried to correct are so far in left field that they don't match the doctrine of any group or even individual that I know of...they are just the the same old statements we always hear paroted...usually the regergitation of what they've heard other athiests say.

I think that you'll find my explanations very compatible with the views of the vast majority of Christians...much of it was, in some way, regarding the bottom line that salvation is by Grace through faith in Christ. Still, I was careful to include plenty of Biblical references. I do that specifically so people can read it themselves in it's full context and offer correction where needed. Note, that no christian, in public or in private, has offered any such correction regarding this thread.

Given that there have been quite a few Christians in and out of this thread, including several who are ministers and/or teachers, and no such correction has been offered, I think we can take that as an indication that they are of the opinion that I have accurately represented Christian doctine.

The catholic church puts a little more emphasis on works (the sacraments, for example) and the authority of church tradition but I don't recall our discussion here going into anything where those differences would come into play.

 

[MikeFerrara]

wow ... i'm blown away by this

did you say you were a science teacher? it sounds like you just don't understand science at all, and evolution even less

seriously ... dude ...

Personally, I would not take such a tone...especially if I had once started a thread on scubaboard asking if water could be used in place of lead as ballast when scuba diving.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...I told you that you should have tried to have that thread removed. LOL