Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Sorry, this was a pretty crappy post. It was late at night and I wasn't really reading very carefully.

​

Creationists are touting that kinds are the limit to evolution. I don't think creationists are close to coming up with a definitive answer, but they are at least trying. (The reason that the hybridization only works one way is that mutations could cause the original created kind to not be able to hybridize, despite being from the same created kind.)

---

How can they honestly be attempting to understand the issue if they can't even define the word "kind"?Please tell me how I can tell one "kind" from another. What methodology is used, and what criterion?Why do all cats, from a Bengal tiger to my housecat, tend to be classified as the same "kind", yet humans and chimps are never considered to be the same "kind"? What is the scientific rationale for this?

Brad, please do not reply to my posts any more. I grow weary of your complete and utter full of crap-ness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Fair enough.

​

I agree theistic evoltuion is a possoble scenario. But that viewpoint of scipture suffers from the problem of not knowing where to stop allegorizing. It trivialises Solomon's writings where Father and Son are described as craftsmen together (Prov 8), some of Jesus' references to Genesis and certainly the writer of Hebrew's references to Noah's role in 'condeming the earth'.

​

It's a liberal possibility but I find it implausible that God either directed or watched evolution and still got man in his image. I put it in the same boat as macroevolution and am aware that mny Christians subscibe to this point of view. You still haven't provided any mechanistially different alternatives.

---

You know, there are other religions out there other than Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and these other religions have stories about the natural world too which have just as much evidence to support them as Christian stories.You need lots and lots of positive evidence, entirely independent of Biology, to support Christian Creation Science if you think that it should be considered a legitimate science.If the ToE was shown to be false in all ways, it still wouldn't make your particular interpretation of the Bible correct.Wow, are you sure you are a scientist. You certainly make a lot of logic errors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I never said I could prove anything schrafinator. I believe the Bible for non-scientific reasons that made me then go and see how good the Bible was scientifically. The global flood distinguishes the Judea-Christian faith from some others (although not all).

---

So, how good is the Bible scientifically?Also, flood mythology is extremely common in many world religions and is not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition in the least. See: http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamscape.com%2Fmorgana%2Fpuck.htmhttp://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybercomm.net%2F%257egrandpa%2Fcretion3.html%23yoruba------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I agree about the flood myths schrafinator. We believe they all originated from the same historical event (which for us was a global flood). I agree the flood does not distinguish all faiths although the Bible's description is amongst the less fanciful and is certainly the most detailed.[/QUOTE]

​

Well, I am glad you have (sort of) retracted your statement that the Flood myth is rather unique to Christianity.

​

What you still haven't done is produce evidence that it did, indeed, occur.

​

quote:

---

The Bible is good scientifically and historically if one can accept the global flood.

---

​

Historically? Care to provide some independant historical evidence for every event described in the Bible??

​

Why should one accept the global Flood when no evidence suggests that there was one?

​

For example, why do flowering plants appear only in the later geologic layers? There are no known examples of flowering plants in the lower layers. If there was a global flood, and all fossils were laid down in this one catastrophic event, shouldn't all kinds of plants be mixed up throughout the layers? Wouldn't the sorting be by density, not by the means of reproduction?

​

Why is this the case?

​

quote:

---

On the supposed bloopers it often comes out that a little more study shows that the Bible as right.

---

​

Oh, I get it. You just take certain parts as literally true, but other parts which, if taken as literal, are flat out wrong, you just "study" them (i.e. freely interpret) until they come out right.

​

Gee, I wish real science was that easy.

​

So, how do you know when to interpret and when to take literally?

​

[QUOTE]People tried to show me that the Bible had the wrong value for pi but it turned out the Bible paassage gave the inner diameter and the outer circumference of a fairly thick vessel!
[/b]

---

The Bible also lists bats as "fowl" and asserts that rabbits chew the cud.The Bible also refers to a "firmament" into which the stars are set, and the existence of waters above this firmament.

[QUOTE] Of course, the passages have absolutely no significance for the redemption of man from sin or the acceptance of Jesus, and him crucified. It's difficult to believe anyone would find this error a a barrier or challenge to their faith, compared to say, the problem of evil, unless that faith happened to be in a linguistically unsustainable literalism.[/B][/QUOTE]And this is my point precisely.If one's faith is based upon taking some parts of the Bible as literally true, then why not all parts of the Bible? How does one know which parts are to be taken as literal and which are to be figurative or allegorical?If you want to believe that the Flood occurred, sans evidence, then you must also be willing to believe that rabbits chew their cud, just like ruminants do. You must be willing to believe that the stars are literally "set" into something like a firmament, and there is water above this firmament.The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as a person who believes the Bible 100% literally. Everyone interprets the Bible, and once you start to interpret, then it's simply a matter of who's interpretation you like.I mean, Creationism based upon the Bible anyway, not evidence found in nature. Why else would there still be such a thing as a YEC and a OEC? The evidence found in nature rules what is accepted in science, not what a particular interpretation of a certain religious book says is true.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"