Two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door...
02 Nov 2011, 4:00 pm
I just find it so shocking, that so many people would rather put their faith in a bunch of scientists, who come up with these crazy theories, to distract everybody than to put their faith in JEHOVAH.
If evolution exists, then why isn't anybody better off? Truth is, these people DO NOT have the answer - so they come up with "possible" explanations to try and justify their own hypothesises. Hypothesises being an educated GUESS!
Rather than picking out a few lines of what i've said out of context - read carefully, what i've written. I wrote that the reason, why you may feel there's gaps, is because, JEHOVAH GOD hasn't permitted us to know those details, just yet. He's allowed all of what mankind needs to know and nothing more and nothing less. If your still putting your trust in evolution - then there's no way you'd be able to fully comprehend the passages of time, that occurred, during the events that had taken place in Genesis, if it were revealed to you in the bible. Only a humble heart will observe the bible's teachings.
I don't know how people can deny the CREATOR's involvement with the creation of all things. It just baffles me. The same people who your putting faith in, will grow old and die, just like the rest of us. Whereas JEHOVAH GOD WILL always be there to teach us and to help guide us to do what is good in his eyes. That alone is more than enough reason, to put your complete trust in JEHOVAH.
When that day comes, when we must answer to JEHOVAH GOD for our sins, I personally, wouldn't want to have to explain to him, why I chose to but my faith in evolution, rather than OUR FATHER, despiting knowing deep-down, that the evolution is a man-made theory.
kxmode
Supporting Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
02 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
That's not evolution, that's adaption. The kind of evolution scientist use to describe our origins is that they say a pool of goo evolved into a creature, who in turn evolved over a period of time into another creature, and then another, and another until finally man arrived on the scene.
No, this is absolutely false and the correct definition is easily available if you had any intention of educating yourself on the subject.
How is what I write "absolutely false" when what I described is the simplest form of what scientist called divergent evolution. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_evolution describes it this way:
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
Lecks wrote:
Quote:
So which is more believable? That a powerful almighty God created everything "according to its kind" or creatures cross-breed to survive and in doing so created mutations which eventually lead to the most complex of species on this planet: man.
The first has nothing to back it up and the second is a misrepresentation. Both are inferior to the current theory of evolution, judged by supporting evidence.
I think I was fair in my assessment. No matter what scientists say or how much it is taught in schools the theory of evolution is STILL a theory that hasn't been concretely proven. People can say the same thing about Bible, but the Bible goes well beyond the Genesis account and provides convincing evidence that everything was created. (Romans 1:20) Of course the theory of evolution AND the creation of everything by a living God - regardless of your religious or non-religious affiliation - in the end both require faith. I personally choose to believe in God... but that's my faith.
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."
Last edited by kxmode on 02 Nov 2011, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm
BraveFace wrote:
I just find it so shocking, that so many people would rather put their faith in a bunch of scientists, who come up with these crazy theories, to distract everybody than to put their faith in JEHOVAH.
"Crazy theories" that make more sense than any explenation given by your precious book.
Quote:
If evolution exists, then why isn't anybody better off? Truth is, these people DO NOT have the answer - so they come up with "possible" explanations to try and justify their own hypothesises. Hypothesises being an educated GUESS!
Guesses supported by observable and repeatable facts.
Quote:
Rather than picking out a few lines of what i've said out of context - read carefully, what i've written. I wrote that the reason, why you may feel there's gaps, is because, JEHOVAH GOD hasn't permitted us to know those details, just yet. He's allowed all of what mankind needs to know and nothing more and nothing less. If your still putting your trust in evolution - then there's no way you'd be able to fully comprehend the passages of time, that occurred, during the events that had taken place in Genesis, if it were revealed to you in the bible. Only a humble heart will observe the bible's teachings.
My interpretation differs from your interpretation, therefore you are wrong. RELIGION!
Quote:
I don't know how people can deny the CREATOR's involvement with the creation of all things. It just baffles me. The same people who your putting faith in, will grow old and die, just like the rest of us. Whereas JEHOVAH GOD WILL always be there to teach us and to help guide us to do what is good in his eyes. That alone is more than enough reason, to put your complete trust in JEHOVAH.
When that day comes, when we must answer to JEHOVAH GOD for our sins, I personally, wouldn't want to have to explain to him, why I chose to but my faith in evolution, rather than OUR FATHER, despiting knowing deep-down, that the evolution is a man-made theory.
When that day comes, when we must answer to JEHOVAH GOD for our sins, I personally, wouldn't want to have to explain to him, why I chose to but my faith in evolution, rather than OUR FATHER, despiting knowing deep-down, that the evolution is a man-made theory.
Prove it.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.
femme
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 198
Location: chicago illinois
02 Nov 2011, 4:06 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Are JW's required not to believe in Evolution? or is it just as religious folks they tend not to?
I seem to recall that after some JWs left "The Watchtower" here I was bored and browsed through it and it said something along those lines. "Lack of transitional fossils" "etc"
That is too bad Catholics, Mainline Xians, Jews and Mormons are allowed freedom on that topic.
Yes of cousre us Jews are silly
_________________
I wish I was a Succubus
02 Nov 2011, 4:13 pm
kxmode wrote:
How is what I write "absolutely false" when what I described is the simplest form of what scientist called divergent evolution. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_evolution describes it this way:
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
That's not at all what you described. You read "freely-interbreeding" and ignored everything else.
Quote:
I think I was fair in my assessment. No matter what scientists say or how much it is taught in schools the theory of evolution is STILL a theory that hasn't been concretely proven. People can say the same thing about Bible, but the Bible goes well beyond the Genesis account and provides convincing evidence that everything was created. (Romans 1:20) Of course the theory of evolution AND the creation of everything by a living God - regardless of your religious or non-religious affiliation - in the end both require faith. I personally chose to believe in God... but that's my faith.
Theories are the highest form of scientific understanding, they change as our understanding grows and our understanding grows as new facts are uncovered. The Bible provides no evidence outside it's own, unverifiable sources.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.
kxmode
Supporting Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
02 Nov 2011, 4:22 pm
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
How is what I write "absolutely false" when what I described is the simplest form of what scientist called divergent evolution. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_evolution describes it this way:
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
That's not at all what you described. You read "freely-interbreeding" and ignored everything else.
Quote:
I think I was fair in my assessment. No matter what scientists say or how much it is taught in schools the theory of evolution is STILL a theory that hasn't been concretely proven. People can say the same thing about Bible, but the Bible goes well beyond the Genesis account and provides convincing evidence that everything was created. (Romans 1:20) Of course the theory of evolution AND the creation of everything by a living God - regardless of your religious or non-religious affiliation - in the end both require faith. I personally chose to believe in God... but that's my faith.
Theories are the highest form of scientific understanding, they change as our understanding grows and our understanding grows as new facts are uncovered. The Bible provides no evidence outside it's own, unverifiable sources.
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."
02 Nov 2011, 4:40 pm
BraveFace wrote:
I just find it so shocking, that so many people would rather put their faith in a bunch of scientists, who come up with these crazy theories, to distract everybody than to put their faith in JEHOVAH.
A faith that is justified through proof is always justified no matter how much one tries to use argument from incredulity to say that scientists' theories are crazy. You blindly believe that your particular god somehow is true and undeniable. That is insane. You decide by fiat that it is true without saying why.
BraveFace wrote:
If evolution exists, then why isn't anybody better off? Truth is, these people DO NOT have the answer - so they come up with "possible" explanations to try and justify their own hypothesises. Hypothesises being an educated GUESS!
Evolution has nothing to do with wealth or personal happiness. Again you have made a strange argument that doesn't make sense. One can only imagine that you have never looked at the topic of evolution with any sense of comprehension.
BraveFace wrote:
Rather than picking out a few lines of what i've said out of context - read carefully, what i've written. I wrote that the reason, why you may feel there's gaps, is because, JEHOVAH GOD hasn't permitted us to know those details, just yet.
Again you are deciding that you are true by fiat. You aren't actually trying to refute evolution on grounds of reason. This is foolishness.
BraveFace wrote:
He's allowed all of what mankind needs to know and nothing more and nothing less.
Panglossian incompetence. Inability to understand that Humans have educated themselves by their own methods, not through some intervention of a great, powerful being. Inability to udnerstand evidence.
BraveFace wrote:
If your still putting your trust in evolution - then there's no way you'd be able to fully comprehend the passages of time, that occurred, during the events that had taken place in Genesis, if it were revealed to you in the bible. Only a humble heart will observe the bible's teachings.
An obsessive inability to even comprehend science on an objective level.A ttempts to use arbitrary claims of good characteristics with religiosit. Argument from false association. Argumentum ad honimem. Trying to insert the idea that day doesn't mean day. There is no suggestion in genesis of the time passed as being or not being a day as commonly understood.
BraveFace wrote:
II don't know how people can deny the CREATOR's involvement with the creation of all things.
I don't know why you keep believing this elementary rubbish that your chosen god is the particular god that exists when to be honest it's about as likely to exist as any other god. We have givena logical explanation of evolution already. Your only criticisms of it are illogical and have nothing to do with actual evolution or depend on you being right as an assumption.
BraveFace wrote:
It just baffles me. The same people who your putting faith in, will grow old and die, just like the rest of us. Whereas JEHOVAH GOD WILL always be there to teach us and to help guide us to do what is good in his eyes. That alone is more than enough reason, to put your complete trust in JEHOVAH.
Disgusting. Argumentum ad verecundiam from divine proportions. Again deciding by fiat that something exists and that something is right just because you say it is impressive.
BraveFace wrote:
When that day comes, when we must answer to JEHOVAH GOD for our sins, I personally, wouldn't want to have to explain to him, why I chose to but my faith in evolution, rather than OUR FATHER, despiting knowing deep-down, that the evolution is a man-made theory.
And so is your God. When you die you wont ever think anything again or be conscious, because the thing that allows you to live and experience will be dead.
Last edited by Gedrene on 02 Nov 2011, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 Nov 2011, 4:49 pm
kxmode wrote:
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
How is what I write "absolutely false" when what I described is the simplest form of what scientist called divergent evolution. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_evolution describes it this way:
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
"When people hear the word "evolution," they most commonly think of divergent evolution, the evolutionary pattern in which two species gradually become increasingly different. Divergent evolution occurs when a group from a specific population develops into a new species. In order to adapt to various environmental conditions, the two groups develop into distinct species due to differences in the demands driven by the environmental circumstances. On a large scale, divergent evolution could be responsible for the creation of the current diversity of life on earth from the first living cells. On a smaller scale, it could responsible for the evolution of humans and apes from a common primate ancestor. On a molecular scale, it could be responsible for the evolution of new catalytic functions of enzymes and membrane protein topology."
More specifically related to the point about the laws of procreation or "according to its kind" created by Jehovah this same article writes:
"There are many examples of divergent evolution in nature. If a freely-interbreeding population on an island is separated by a barrier, such as the presence of a new river, then over time, the organisms may start to diverge."
That's not at all what you described. You read "freely-interbreeding" and ignored everything else.
Quote:
I think I was fair in my assessment. No matter what scientists say or how much it is taught in schools the theory of evolution is STILL a theory that hasn't been concretely proven. People can say the same thing about Bible, but the Bible goes well beyond the Genesis account and provides convincing evidence that everything was created. (Romans 1:20) Of course the theory of evolution AND the creation of everything by a living God - regardless of your religious or non-religious affiliation - in the end both require faith. I personally chose to believe in God... but that's my faith.
Theories are the highest form of scientific understanding, they change as our understanding grows and our understanding grows as new facts are uncovered. The Bible provides no evidence outside it's own, unverifiable sources.
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
And you do this whilst ignoring the important criticisms he makes of your points.
If he is right then he wont change his mind.
To say that he wont change his mind because he believes what he does is amazingly arrogant and an attempt to suggest that somebody wont change his mind just because he says that he believes a certain thing.
If you actually make points to back it up and he can't defeat them and it ends up with him not accepting the truth then you know that, but before you do that if you say that he wong change his mind you are acting with preposterous self-sanctimony.
02 Nov 2011, 5:31 pm
kxmode wrote:
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.
02 Nov 2011, 6:12 pm
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
As I already said in defence of you lecks about this jehovah's witness that I forgot the name of:
If you actually make points to back it up and he can't defeat them and it ends up with him not accepting the truth then you know that, but before you do that if you say that he wong change his mind you are acting with preposterous self-sanctimony.
02 Nov 2011, 6:16 pm
Gedrene wrote:
Lecks wrote:
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
As I already said in defence of you lecks about this jehovah's witness that I forgot the name of:
If you actually make points to back it up and he can't defeat them and it ends up with him not accepting the truth then you know that, but before you do that if you say that he wong change his mind you are acting with preposterous self-sanctimony.
He's made it quite clear what his position is though, I remain hopeful that people like that will some day listen to reason. I simply object to being accused of holding a position I certainly do not.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.
02 Nov 2011, 6:28 pm
Lecks wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Lecks wrote:
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
As I already said in defence of you lecks about this jehovah's witness that I forgot the name of:
If you actually make points to back it up and he can't defeat them and it ends up with him not accepting the truth then you know that, but before you do that if you say that he wong change his mind you are acting with preposterous self-sanctimony.
He's made it quite clear what his position is though, I remain hopeful that people like that will some day listen to reason. I simply object to being accused of holding a position I certainly do not.
Aye and I am just clarifying why he is trying to manipulate the discussion by deciding that just because you hold a viewpoint then you can't be convinced. I was basically pointing out that he was presumptuous, which is a good right hook.
kxmode
Supporting Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
02 Nov 2011, 8:39 pm
One thing you can respect about JWs is the fact that they usually prepare relatively well for being at your door. They are also quite used to confrontation; due to their door-to-door training they tend to switch off when confronted so they can move on. In general, they are very polite; so if you wish to discuss their views with them; neither confrontation or impoliteness will get you particularly far. Even if you manage to stump them; in general they will be willing to say they do not know something and will actually go looking for the answer amongst their leaders and teachers. Since they take roadblocks to their leaders apologetics can be very difficult because you end up talking to a group through one of them.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
02 Nov 2011, 8:44 pm
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
I have a lot of objections to kxmode here also, but it looks like you all have done a thorough enough job beating those points up. I tend to be wary of attempts to make the Bible fit some pseudo-scientific agenda. It's not a scientific text. It is a religious text. Trying to understand it in any other context, in my opinion, is a corruption of that purpose. King David, for example, had no idea what DNA was. Nobody did back then, nor did they have the means to discover it.
I do agree with kxmode on one point: both sides are making closed arguments.
For me, I'm just not that interested in evolution to begin with. I just think the importance of it is exaggerated. I never said evolution is false. Just overblown.
The passing interest I have in evolution is from the Christian theist perspective, which is not something anyone has brought up yet. Christian theists who believe God is powerful enough to create the world as described in Genesis probably wouldn't care about it one bit if it were presented as one possible means by which life as we currently know it came to be. The problem arises when the issue is presented in such a way that it asserts God did NOT make the world as described in Genesis. So if you say God didn't create life, it just evolved, you are no longer making a scientific assertion but a religious one. If freedom of religion is a respected value within a culture, it stands to reason that theists would not wish non-theists to dictate to them what they ought or ought not believe.
02 Nov 2011, 9:03 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Lecks wrote:
kxmode wrote:
And that's why, as I wrote on page 3, "From my experience most of you are pretty solid in your beliefs so there's nothing I could write, or show from the bible, that would change your minds..." Basically this is an exercise in futility. I thank you for your time and kindly exit this topic.
It's my fault then, for wasting my own time. You clearly are unwilling to take anything we say and any evidence we present under consideration, since you've falsely acredited your own position to us; a position of faith.
I have a lot of objections to kxmode here also, but it looks like you all have done a thorough enough job beating those points up. I tend to be wary of attempts to make the Bible fit some pseudo-scientific agenda. It's not a scientific text. It is a religious text. Trying to understand it in any other context, in my opinion, is a corruption of that purpose. King David, for example, had no idea what DNA was. Nobody did back then, nor did they have the means to discover it.
I do agree with kxmode on one point: both sides are making closed arguments.
For me, I'm just not that interested in evolution to begin with. I just think the importance of it is exaggerated. I never said evolution is false. Just overblown.
The passing interest I have in evolution is from the Christian theist perspective, which is not something anyone has brought up yet. Christian theists who believe God is powerful enough to create the world as described in Genesis probably wouldn't care about it one bit if it were presented as one possible means by which life as we currently know it came to be. The problem arises when the issue is presented in such a way that it asserts God did NOT make the world as described in Genesis. So if you say God didn't create life, it just evolved, you are no longer making a scientific assertion but a religious one. If freedom of religion is a respected value within a culture, it stands to reason that theists would not wish non-theists to dictate to them what they ought or ought not believe.
I think the conflict between theism and Evolution is exaggerated.
I am not a man of faith but that has nothing to do with biology.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
