ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 You should see how many jokes I make in the middle of heated discussions in real life. It's kind of a big issue for me, really. But I can't really help it. I'm funny and I embrace that. How many blackeyes have you enjoyed.
Duncan Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Oh absolutely! What I am saying is that that common ancestor was not a dog or a cat. Like the common ancestor of man and chimp was neither a man or a chimp."the common ancestor of man and chimp was neither a man or a chimp"when you wrote that were thinking of Mike Meyer's "Linda Richman" from SNL fame? if you weren't you should add"I'm getting a little ferklempt...talk amongst yourselves... talk about the common ancestor of man and chimp was neither a man or a chimp...discuss"!
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Oh absolutely! What I am saying is that that common ancestor was not a dog or a cat. Like the common ancestor of man and chimp was neither a man or a chimp.For Man the common ancestor is God and I can't believe he is an ameoba. Nor do I think he was the common ancestor of cats, dogs, horses, etc.A question for you to ponder. If God has created and populated "worlds without number" why would he need to evolve new ones for this planet?
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I do not know if I hold similar views as zerinious but I do subscribe to his conclusions. I suspect we have come to that conclusion by different paths. My biggest objection is that evolution nullifies the fall and with it the atonement. I know that there are those who think they are metaphorical but to me the atonement was real and not metaphorical at all and for it to be real the fall must also have taken place.In my view the man was made first and innocent but then given the knowledge and allowed to fall. The method is what is in question, and both still allow for the atonement. Both the fall and atonement are also real for me.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I don't have a problem with the fall being a metaphor for the descent from the premortal state to the mortal state. I don't see why believing in the fall requires me to believe that there was no death on this planet 10,000 years ago or earlier and to try to overturn all of the work of scientists for decades. I'd really rather engage in this type of a debate with opponents who are biologists or who at least have a good understanding of scientific theory or who could at least offer a viable alternative theory to evolution that accounts for the entire scientific community of the planet being so incredibly wrong on something so basic.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 For Man the common ancestor is God and I can't believe he is an ameoba. Nor do I think he was the common ancestor of cats, dogs, horses, etc.A question for you to ponder. If God has created and populated "worlds without number" why would he need to evolve new ones for this planet?It has nothing to do with why God would have to do anything. Just offer me a decent explanation for all of the dna and fossils that say that He did. Have you even looked at the evidence?
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I don't have a problem with the fall being a metaphor for the descent from the premortal state to the mortal state. I don't see why believing in the fall requires me to believe that there was no death on this planet 10,000 years ago or earlier and to try to overturn all of the work of scientists for decades. I'd really rather engage in this type of a debate with opponents who are biologists or who at least have a good understanding of scientific theory or who could at least offer a viable alternative theory to evolution that accounts for the entire scientific community of the planet being so incredibly wrong on something so basic.Don't worry, it won't be the first time. Edited January 18, 2012 by zerinus 1
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 LOL, that is true, it won't be the first time.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Don't worry, it won't be the first time.How about offering your explanation instead of your "clever" little quips?
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 How about offering your explanation instead of your "clever" little quips?Explanation of what?
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 LOL, that is true, it won't be the first time.What did you have in mind? I'm talking about a worldwide scientific consensus--not Eurocentric or any other "centric" type.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Explanation of what?Read the post you were responding to.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I don't have a problem with the fall being a metaphor for the descent from the premortal state to the mortal state. I don't see why believing in the fall requires me to believe that there was no death on this planet 10,000 years ago or earlier and to try to overturn all of the work of scientists for decades. I'd really rather engage in this type of a debate with opponents who are biologists or who at least have a good understanding of scientific theory or who could at least offer a viable alternative theory to evolution that accounts for the entire scientific community of the planet being so incredibly wrong on something so basic.I have no problem with death on this planet 10,000 years ago either. The scriptures do not say there was no death on the planet just that there was no death in the Garden of Eden. WhenAdam and Eve were evicted from the Garden they went into a world of death and chaos. I said in another post that I think there is a lot of misinterpretation of both scientific data and theological data.
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Read the post you were responding to.I did, but still don't know for sure what kind of explanations you are looking for. If you would be more succinct, I will try.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 It has nothing to do with why God would have to do anything. Just offer me a decent explanation for all of the dna and fossils that say that He did. Have you even looked at the evidence?Yes, quite extensively. I see much speculation and big holes that do not justify the conclusions.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Yes, quite extensively. I see much speculation and big holes that do not justify the conclusions.I don't think you've looked lately then or you don't want to see. At any rate, if believing in evolution would cause a person to lose their faith then they are better off walking away from science. They should choose the better part. However, I don't have a problem having faith and believing in evolution.
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think you've looked lately then or you don't want to see. At any rate, if believing in evolution would cause a person to lose their faith then they are better off walking away from science. They should choose the better part. However, I don't have a problem having faith and believing in evolution.It is perfectly possible to have faith and still err in doctrine.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think you've looked lately then or you don't want to see. At any rate, if believing in evolution would cause a person to lose their faith then they are better off walking away from science. They should choose the better part. However, I don't have a problem having faith and believing in evolution.I have never had any trouble with wanting to know knowledge. I don't think you have really looked at it with a critical eye. But then maybe you don't want to see.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I have never had any trouble with wanting to know knowledge. I don't think you have really looked at it with a critical eye. But then maybe you don't want to see.Sir. I look at it with a critical eye every day. I'm in the anthropology program at your local university. Edited January 18, 2012 by katherine the great
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) What did you have in mind? I'm talking about a worldwide scientific consensus--not Eurocentric or any other "centric" type.The scientific community did not originally accept Wegeners Continental Drift even when the evidence was incontravertibleIgnaz Semmelweiss was placed in an asylum when he argued that you as a doctor should wash your hands between women giving birth. He even carried out a scientific experiment which showed that washing your hands reduced the fatality rate by 70%. Science disagreed with him.In an evolutionary sense, the dinos were killed by volcanoes, but wait, no they were killed by an asteroid, but wait, it might have been the Siberian flats (volcanoes again).Science does not change its mind easily and often condemns before it accepts. The examples I gave all have prior theories that were adhered to as being indisputable, which of course we know is not true. One could say the same of evolution. Science doesn't turn just on evidence, it also is fueled by men with jealousies or distrust. The human condition is part of what drives science and indeed one might claim the same of religion, in a lesser sense. Edited January 18, 2012 by Jeff K.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 It is perfectly possible to have faith and still err in doctrine.Well then the best you can hope is that that is what I'm doing. Personally, I think you will be met by a long line of hominids in the afterlife wanting to know why you didn't believe they were your ancestors.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Sir. I look at it with a critical eye every day. I'm in the anthropology program at BSU.Just a little dig as you had accused me of "...or you don't want to see". I would let it go as a difference of perspective or do I have to agree with your side?
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 The scientific community did not originally accept Wegeners Continental Drift even when the evidence was incontravertibleTrue, but that was before there was a worldwide coalition of scientists.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Just a little dig as you had accused me of "...or you don't want to see". I would let it go as a difference of perspective or do I have to agree with your side?Just a little dig as you had accused me of "...or you don't want to see". I would let it go as a difference of perspective or do I have to agree with your side?Of course you don't. It's just annoying to see otherwise intelligent people dismiss evolution with a wave of the hand when they aren't even remotely up to date on the evidence that supports it. I do appreciate though that you don't accuse those who do accept human evolution of having no faith. So thank you for that.
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Even with incontrovertible truth, Wegener was not accepted by a world wide coalition until much later.
Recommended Posts