by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends
Funky,
Well I guess that is your interpretation of Genesis.
I personally think that a ancient documents like this is very hard to translate correctly, let alone interpret its meaning. At best all are best guesses, some being more correct than others.
Myself personally, I think a closer look at this, reflects what we would expect from a superiour being telling very primative man about his origins. Using a very limited (at that time) language.
Well, DWiltshire, there's no arguing with reasoning like yours.
I personally think that a ancient documents like this is very hard to translate correctly, let alone interpret its meaning. At best all are best guesses, some being more correct than others.
I guess that pretty effectively ends the discussion.
Pat
Pat,
Why argue? Both sides have uncertainty. You pick one according to what seems the most correct to you.
If someone makes a valid point use it, no one can have all the right answers. Some may like to think they have all the right answers, but the best we can do is to try and get the important ones right,"if possible".
I haven't seen proof enough to give up on the Bible. But I do see alot of dogmatic view points on both sides that don't have enough proof to justify such a stance. The world is too complicated for me to or anyone else to be sure they are 100% right.
hooberus,
what makes you an expert on the field of genetics or molecular biology?
both fields describe exactly how evolution works!
Hooberus isn't an expert himself, but has access to the experts of the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Science Quarterly, The Dallas Theological Seminary, and so forth.
AlanF
AlanF,
thank you!
uh hu the Institute for Creation Research ... i think that comes right after rockefeller, MIT and haward! :))))
do they believe in the existence mutations????
hooberus,what makes you an expert on the field of genetics or molecular biology?
both fields describe exactly how evolution works!
I never said I was an expert in these fields, I'll provide some information to D Wiltshire from Michael Denton who has a Phd. in microbiology and was not a creationist at the time he wrote his book.
Well you see, Realist, the Young-Earth Creationist community does boast of members with degrees from such high-falootin' institutions. The eminent creation scientist Walter Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, Arizona, for example, has a Ph.D in mechanical engineering. This qualifies him to expound on the mechanics of Noah's Flood and many other Bible truths.
Most YECs these days do believe in the existence of mutations. However, they dispute that mutations working in conjunction with natural selection or any other mechanism has the necessary creative force to create life.
Hooberus, Michael Denton has pretty much given up on the arguments he made in the 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. But even when he wrote that book he accepted that Darwinian natural selection operates at an intermediate scale, such as in the evolution of three-toed to one-toed horses. He rejected the claim that Darwinian natural selection can account for the broad picture of life, though. According to a review ( http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm ) of Denton's 1998 book Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology reveal Purpose in the Universe, recent DNA studies have caused Denton to accept a completely different idea of how evolution works, namely, that the universe was created in such a way as to make the evolution of life inevitable (this has overtones of the ideas of the quack Rupert Sheldrake). This of course is completely consistent with what scientists call "the fact of evolution" (i.e., the observation in the fossil record that life has evolved over time) although it differs in mechanism, and is completely inconsistent with the creationist claim of direct creation of every kind of life. So, Hooberus, Denton no longer provides any comfort to YECs, or "Intelligent Design Creationists".
AlanF
One more instance where AlanF shows he has the patience of a saint,and has the relevant research to back up his post...OUTLAW
For those who believe God used evolution to "create"/form man - have you considered the issue of consistency you have now set?
For instance:
How do you reconcile any of those beliefs with evolution?
Jack
