What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

yes, and then there is that.

since the quote was mine, i'll answer.it's not a false dichotomy. id is nothing but one logical fallacy after another (including, btw, false dichotomies). any apparent clarity has nothing to do with it being logically sound -- or even factually correct. it's not even a good argument, for those who are paying attention to what's really being said.it just SOUNDS nice. actually, when computer systems are programmed with evolutionary algorithms to generate structures, they routinely come up with systems that behe would call irreducibly complex. i find the exact opposite to be true in my debates here. the people who want it to be true the most often understand it the least. they are usually unwilling to accept that the bible could be wrong about something, and are then forced to change what the bible says or means in order to make it factually correct. they are not so much interested in understand the bible, but in proving the bible to be true.often, they severly limit themselves in other manners. how can we begin to talk about the cultural context, how the text was read, written, and compiled, and the structure of the various collections within if people just want to run it through the blender and come out with "word of god" paste? they are so interested in making it consistent, that they rob all flavor from the text, all differences, and all the various voices and opinions presented therein.

---

well, yes, it did. that is the nature of creating a model. someone has to make it, and using some tool. the "design" of it is meant to replicate natural occurances: variation in reproduction, and selection based on success at some factor.the point is that these two process alone -- evolution as darwin proposed it -- are more than capable of producing things that id'ers would easily call "ic," and so irreducibly compliexity is not an argument for design. and yet, we are all bad trees, saved by grace, endevouring to yeild good fruit in spite of ourselves.jesus is not talking about order and chaos, but false prophets.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

no, i just proved that something designed by humans was designed.we know scientifically that human beings exist as part of the natural world and subject to its laws. we know that they create things like computers and software.if we want to demonstrate something happening in the natural world, YES, we need to design the experiment. and we designed this particular experiment to replicate things that happen without any intelligent intervention -- random variation, and selection based on degree of success.saying that "creation needs a creator" in this case is about like requiring belief in god to study mathematics -- because someone had to set those rules, too.

---

considering that i am a theistic evolutionist, i think you have less argument with me than you think.

---