I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

How many commas did you use? Ever heard of a (period).

What the heck are you talking about. What your responded two doesn't have any commas in it but does have 4 periods and a question mark.

respective positions is

Gracious, the things a would-be grammar Nazi will post!

I don't know what the rest of this is either. I sure hope this isn't going to continue. BTW I am a grammatical train wreck and so almost never call grammar to the attention of others so you're wasting your and what is infinitely worse, my own time.

 

[1robin]

There are 2 domestic old world camel species.

Genetically identical to their wild cousins.

I only know of one wild camel species that can't breed with
domesticated camels or at least I think they can't and they are considered two separate species. Also this would be an example of genetic manipulation by humans and so would be irrelevant anyway. Why don't you just post your conclusion so I can consider what it is your driving at?

 

[1robin]

No, it's you that has got in a muddle and replied twice to the same post of mine (no. 623).

That's disconcerting, I even went back and checked. The only "muddle" I have been in is with the volume of posts put out by others in this thread. However it appears I have caught up and will not have to type at a furious pace to respond to everyone.

 

[Audie]

What the heck are you talking about. What your responded two doesn't have any commas in it but does have 4 periods and a question mark.

I don't know what the rest of this is either. I sure hope this isn't going to continue. BTW I am a grammatical train wreck and so almost never call grammar to the attention of others so you're wasting your and what is infinitely worse, my own time.

The first line there, the one about commas, is our own words
sent back to you, wirh your errors in bold.

Then I put in bold several more from your post.

You at least realize your English usage is very poor.

Maybe you will realize you should refrain from playing
grammar Nazi, lest it backfire.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't say how God created all these creatures, except that He gave the command: "Let the waters be alive........ let the earth produce (or bring forth)......."etc. So the process by which creation took place would seem to be one of the waters and the earth producing all these different types of creature.

There are al manner of interpretations concerning the creation story of Genesis. What you refer to is in fact one of these. However I am not sure what your asking of me, if you believe the genesis account is accurate I no longer have a mission here.

It seems to me this is entirely consistent with both the theory of evolution and the scientific idea of abiogenesis from the inorganic chemistry of the early Earth.

Do you object to construing Genesis in such a way?

I certainly do not know that another interpretation is correct and yours wrong. I simply believe Genesis is right even if I am unsure exactly how to interpret it. In general I believe a few things that Adam was the first primate that had a soul, that common descent is untrue (and has never been observed, and God (through some mechanism) created the archetype creatures of each "kind". This new debate would be intercollegiate in nature and in a different context but I am fine with having it.

 

[1robin]

Wow, what a slam! I feel so bad that I didn't meet your high standards on English usage.

That is what makes it so bad, I am a grammatical train wreck and don't have a high standard. Ok at this point I am sure I have told you our discussion in this thread has been concluded. So I no longer feel obligated to respond to your posts in this thread. However our discussion in the other thread will continue.

 

[1robin]

The first line there, the one about commas, is our own words
sent back to you, wirh your errors in bold.

Even though they don't apply? Why?

Then I put in bold several more from your post.

You at least realize your English usage is very poor.

Maybe you will realize you should refrain from playing
grammar Nazi, lest it backfire.

It only backfires if you can show I was being hypocritical but you have yet to show this. Why don't we stick to the actual subject under discussion instead of this off-ramp?

 

[metis]

Ok at this point I am sure I have told you our discussion in this thread has been concluded. So I no longer feel obligated to respond to your posts in this thread. However our discussion in the other thread will continue.

And what you have again established is your disingenuousness, as you have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for micro not going into macro, and yet you repeatedly claimed that you didn't have enough time. And yet you have shown with your many posts since then, some quite lengthy, that you indeed did have the time after a while. Instead of admitting that you can't provide such evidence, you have simply resorted to a lack of forthrightness.

1robin, one is not any less a man nor less intelligent if they admit that they can't provide evidence, and your actions have made it abundantly clear that you can't but that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. That's truly unfortunate.

 

[1robin]

And what you have again established is your disingenuousness, as you have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for micro not going into macro, and yet you repeatedly claimed that you didn't have enough time. And yet you have shown with your many posts since then, some quite lengthy, that you indeed did have the time after a while. Instead of admitting that you can't provide such evidence, you have simply resorted to a lack of forthrightness.

1robin, one is not any less a man nor less intelligent if they admit that they can't provide evidence, and your actions have made it abundantly clear that you can't but that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. That's truly unfortunate.

I am doing exactly what I said I would do about a week ago. See post #542.

 

[metis]

I am doing exactly what I said I would do about a week ago. See post #542.

And you are doing exactly what I said you were doing, namely lying.

Well, since you can't be honest about this, and since you refuse to answer a very simple question, conjuring up a clearly phony excuse, I guess we're done on this.

A suggestion: maybe when you're at church this weekend, think and pray about whether being dishonest, as you have been on this, is compatible with your Baptist faith? I know that it's not, so I guess we're done, at least until you abide by the teachings of your own denomination on this.

 

[1robin]

And you are doing exactly what I said you were doing, namely lying.

Well, since you can't be honest about this, and since you refuse to answer a very simple question, conjuring up a clearly phony excuse, I guess we're done on this.

A suggestion: maybe when you're at church this weekend, think and pray about whether being dishonest, as you have been on this, is compatible with your Baptist faith? I know that it's not, so I guess we're done, at least until you abide by the teachings of your own denomination on this.

To know I am lying you must know something you have no access to whatever. You must know that I knew that what I said was wrong yet said it anyway. You don't know this because you can't know this. Yet your willing to make false claims anyway. I only give a person a single strike when it comes to claims about lying. You have now had yours. Do so again and I will end all debates with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am doing exactly what I said I would do about a week ago. See post #542.

Right, running away from any post that you cannot answer. A lame excuse is still running away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To know I am lying you must know something you have no access to whatever. You must know that I knew that what I said was wrong yet said it anyway. You don't know this because you can't know this. Yet your willing to make false claims anyway. I only give a person a single strike when it comes to claims about lying. You have now had yours. Do so again and I will end all debates with you.

Actually we know that you are wrong, but you do have a bit of a point. Technically a lie involves an intent to deceive and it can be difficult to tell the difference between utter ignorance and extreme dishonesty. Granted, you may not be lying. That does not help you much.

 

[1robin]

Right, running away from any post that you cannot answer. A lame excuse is still running away.

I am doing exactly what I said I was going to do a week ago. See post #542.

 

[1robin]

Actually we know that you are wrong, but you do have a bit of a point. Technically a lie involves an intent to deceive and it can be difficult to tell the difference between utter ignorance and extreme dishonesty. Granted, you may not be lying. That does not help you much.

I am doing exactly what I said I was going to do a week ago. See post #542.

 

[exchemist]

There are al manner of interpretations concerning the creation story of Genesis. What you refer to is in fact one of these. However I am not sure what your asking of me, if you believe the genesis account is accurate I no longer have a mission here.

I certainly do not know that another interpretation is correct and yours wrong. I simply believe Genesis is right even if I am unsure exactly how to interpret it. In general I believe a few things that Adam was the first primate that had a soul, that common descent is untrue (and has never been observed, and God (through some mechanism) created the archetype creatures of each "kind". This new debate would be intercollegiate in nature and in a different context but I am fine with having it.

For me, the odd thing in your last post is the insertion of "common descent is untrue". The rest is self-consistent, but the rejection of common descent does not seem to fit with the logic of the rest.

The conventional Christian view would be that the Genesis account contains a true message about the nature of creation, but is told in allegorical form and does not describe in literal detail exactly how the process took place. I would argue Genesis seen in this way is quite consistent with a creator who set up the world and upholds the laws of nature, but allowed His creation to unfold, as a plant grows.

As for the human soul, we are told Man was created in the image of God and this I think refers to the human soul. However I don't see why this precludes Man arising from the apes, as science shows to be the case. The capacity for reasoning, moral awareness and love is undeniably far greater in man than in any other creature on this Earth and this would seem to have occurred, so science indicates, by an evolutionary process. I suggest Neanderthals would have had a soul, too, just as a mentally disabled child has a soul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am doing exactly what I said I was going to do a week ago. See post #542.

I know, I know, running away.

 

[1robin]

For me, the odd thing in your last post is the insertion of "common descent is untrue". The rest is self-consistent, but the rejection of common descent does not seem to fit with the logic of the rest.

Doesn't fit with the rest of my post or the rest of reality?

The conventional Christian view would be that the Genesis account contains a true message about the nature of creation, but is told in allegorical form and does not describe in literal detail exactly how the process took place. I would argue Genesis seen in this way is quite consistent with a creator who set up the world and upholds the laws of nature, but allowed His creation to unfold, as a plant grows.

Pretty close but let me clarify my own view.

1. Genesis is true but that does not mean any specific person has the proper interpretation of it.
2. However I interpret it the following way.
3. That God is ultimately responsible for everything. Animal life included.
4. That God created (through some process) all the original archetypes of each kind of Creature.
5. These "kinds" of creatures can evolve but not into another "kind" of creature. This is why I reject common descent.
6. And that it makes little difference if dirt or water is asserted to me a middle man for the creation of like. You still need God to ultimately creature everything the universe contains.

Disagree or agree I wanted you to know what it is I am defending. My view isn't exactly a YEC's view.

As for the human soul, we are told Man was created in the image of God and this I think refers to the human soul. However I don't see why this precludes Man arising from the apes, as science shows to be the case. The capacity for reasoning, moral awareness and love is undeniably far greater in man than in any other creature on this Earth and this would seem to have occurred, so science indicates, by an evolutionary process. I suggest Neanderthals would have had a soul, too, just as a mentally disabled child has a soul.

Well we first need to know what the bible (God) meant by men. My own view is that man was the first primate with a soul. Your right that that does not require that man be separated from the rest of the apes. But my view is that apes arose from apes and apes alone. Felines evolved from felines, K-9s from K9s, apes from apes, birds from birds, fish from fish, etc.......I believe that that is all that has ever been observed regardless of why that is. You are also right to observe that there is a quantum leap in intelligence between man and all other taxonomical categories of animal life.

What does "RC" under your religion mean?

 

[exchemist]

Doesn't fit with the rest of my post or the rest of reality?

Pretty close but let me clarify my own view.

1. Genesis is true but that does not mean any specific person has the proper interpretation of it.
2. However I interpret it the following way.
3. That God is ultimately responsible for everything. Animal life included.
4. That God created (through some process) all the original archetypes of each kind of Creature.
5. These "kinds" of creatures can evolve but not into another "kind" of creature. This is why I reject common descent.
6. And that it makes little difference if dirt or water is asserted to me a middle man for the creation of like. You still need God to ultimately creature everything the universe contains.

Disagree or agree I wanted you to know what it is I am defending. My view isn't exactly a YEC's view.

Well we first need to know what the bible (God) meant by men. My own view is that man was the first primate with a soul. Your right that that does not require that man be separated from the rest of the apes. But my view is that apes arose from apes and apes alone. Felines evolved from felines, K-9s from K9s, apes from apes, birds from birds, fish from fish, etc.......I believe that that is all that has ever been observed regardless of why that is. You are also right to observe that there is a quantum leap in intelligence between man and all other taxonomical categories of animal life.

What does "RC" under your religion mean?

Roman Catholic, though my mother was Church of England. But I have a degree in chemistry too, and spent a bit of time at university arguing through the perceived conflicts between science and religion, which - I concluded - are quite unnecessary. A lot of the science was done by churchmen in fact, until to the second half of the 19th, as these were the educated people with the time to think.

 

[1robin]

Roman Catholic, though my mother was Church of England.

Wow, good luck with that.

But I have a degree in chemistry too, and spent a bit of time at university arguing through the perceived conflicts between science and religion, which - I concluded - are quite unnecessary.

My degree is in mathematics but I have found I am far more inclined to philosophy. I wish I could go back to school for it. I also do not see any conflict between science and Christian theology. I use science more than any other field to make theological points. If there is an inherent conflict I have not found it.

A lot of the science was done by churchmen in fact, until to the second half of the 19th, as these were the educated people with the time to think.

Exactly, over 78% of Nobel laureates are Christians and most of the rest are Jews. Modern science was in fact founded on faith in a rational universe.

I have to go for now but I will check back next week. Have a good one.