Philotic Web

Alright, I have no idea where to even start with this topic, seamusz.

You say you believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. How do you justify believing in one but not the other when both are based entirely on the same principles?

How do you explain complete (and near-complete) transitive fossil records?

Do you have any evidence--any positive, empirical evidence whatsoever--for the Creation myth?

What specific objections do you have to the Theory of Common Descent?

Answer those few questions and we'll move from there.

I know this isn't for me. I wasn't invited. I invite both of you to read the other thread first http://www.philoticweb.net/phpBB2/viewt ... 40&start=0

It's not like we haven't had the discussion, before, vendor. I mean, we've hashed this out in half a dozen threads on the old forum. And to be fair, that thread was kind of lame. It wasn't a discussion, it was a "here's my preference!" list-a-thon. Which, you know, is fine, if that's all you're after. But if you want a discussion, it falls pretty flat on its face.

I won't even touch on the fact that there were some serious problems in various claims that were lightly touched upon and then pushed aside.

That being said, if you'd like to participate in this thread, feel free. I'm interested in discussion. But, forgive me if I'm more inclined to use this new thread rather than one that consisted of the following:

Person One: I believe this.
Person Two: I don't.
Person One: Cool.
Person Two: Word.
Jebus: I love verbal irony! Watch me use my wit! Teehee!
Person Three: I love Jebus!
Person Four: Me, too!
Everyone: Word.

I used to be of the school of thought that objected to macro-evolution and not micro-evolution. This was based on the statement by one leader in our church in a book that the church did not endorse as a statement of church doctrine. He said that there could be no species to species evolution.

For those who are LDS, it was Bruce R. McConkie. I respect and love the man a great deal for what he contributed to our understanding of and ability to study the scriptures, but I do not believe he had a revelation on this matter. All church statements specifically regarding evolution have actually been neutral with the statement basically "We believe God created man and the world, but we don't know how."

But most of you are non-LDS and probably don't care about that detail.

I changed my mind because of the evolution of fruit flies in Hawaii. Hundreds of species exist there, because of being cut off from each other and having lots of physical stress (punctuated equilibrium) through the geological activity. Bacteria have actually been observed mutating into different species.

Again, forgive the LDS reference, but from Helaman 12:7-8.

7 O how great is the anothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.
8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.

The rest of this talks about how things follow God's commands without question. And so, why not evolution?

All the real observation we have supports it. One realizes, when reading scripture that if you come at it from the standpoint that God created life through evolution, the scriptures do not lose their power at all, but in fact gain from it.

Amka, if you haven't already, you should really read what Galileo has to say about science and religion. It seems that your view and his are essentially the same. I'm pretty sure most of them can be found in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.

One realizes, when reading scripture that if you come at it from the standpoint that God created life through evolution, the scriptures do not lose their power at all, but in fact gain from it.

- - - emphasis added - - -

Ok, I’ll take the bait. I have my stick ready, keep the horse near:

If YFD (= your favourite deity) created life through evolution, (and this interpretation is possible because the scripture is to be seen as a collection of metaphors mingled into an accurate history), then, what does Adam stand for?


A.

Sentience, perhaps. Soul. The ability to respond to God with more than plain instinct.

I'm not particularly attached to any of those answers, by the way.

This leads to curious implications about the sentience/soul of other living beings, except Adam’s descendents…

A.

then, what does Adam stand for?


A.

Come on, didn't you learn anything from OSC and WoG?

Adam stands for "many" because there were a bunch of apes and one of them was given the power of reason and then his hair fell out and he was able to walk perfectly upright and was a little ticked because God didn't cause that to happen to a female ape.

Because, come on, who wouldn't believe an anti-Mormon Mormon?