Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
"The Genesis creation story is/was law? How so?"
Even better, how did man procreate without incest? If you have Adam and Eve, how do you get past their kids without doing something the bible forbids? After all, it was only a short 4000 years or so ago that all this happened, right?
"Very scientific post on your part. Exemplary! You've obviously learned from the most scientific of scientists!"
And your feelings on that? Is science wrong?
"older but certainly much less old than billions of years, mind you."
So how old? How old would you say your typical dinosaur would be? I know that is a huge range, but would you say a couple of thousand years old? A million? A billion?
And what author was responsible for writing Genesis? Mind you, it had to be carved in stone (that is a lot of carving) if it was much older than 0-BC. So that would have made a stack of rocks that would fill a room at least. Then, they had to wait for someone to invent paper and a quill pen so they could rewrite the whole thing. And still my question, Does the bible accept incest as acceptable behavior? If not, how did we get here with White people, Black people, Chinese People, and a bunch of other people in just a few thousand years? And, what need was there in zapping a gazillion stars out there at distances like 200 million light years away? Just decoration? This just brings up more questions than it answers. I now know why you prefer "Poof" theory.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
"Think about all things - even religion - scientifically and you will draw closer to the truth."
Amen to that. I think most of the old testament is symbolic. I see more in scientific evidence for God than the literalists ever will. For instance, what is SCIENCE saying about the beginning of man? Common theory of SCIENCE says it all started with one common ancestor in central Africa. Sound familiar? And another thing. I can believe the world is billions of years old AND believe in Jesus as the Savior of mankind. Because in the end, even if I am dead wrong, I'm not any worse for believing he came to make us better men. What I won't do is tell anyone else (except Zarqawi and other terrorists) that they are going to hell if they don't believe what I believe. It is about a relationship, NOT a religion. If I am the man I think I am, I will share heaven with people from all over the world, not just fundamentalist Christians. (They may have a private resort in heaven and think they are the only one's who made it, but I'll get to eat Chinese.) I'll definitely be sharing something with all of them because I refuse to judge them (except Zarqawi and other terrorists).
I think you've misinterpreted my post. You may want to go back and re-read it.
"I think you've misinterpreted my post. You may want to go back and re-read it."
Oh no, I understood exactly what you were saying, I just used the last part to make a different point. Yes, I fully realize there are a group of people out there who think they can tell people that they either have to believe it word for word, all of it has to be false. I just don't believe that.
My remark was aimed at the comment, not the commenter. As I explained in my response to the other poster, whether Wolf e is a creationist or not is irrelevant, the comment he made was an example of comments made by those with a cursory knowledge of evolution. There are times when even the most ardent proponent of evolution makes a seemingly unknowledgable or incorrect statement reminiscent of something a creationist would say. This very well could be one of those times. That this is the case or not does not diminish the error in the statement made, which was the focus of my response.
"Contrary to what Liberal Creationists (TM) tell you, human evolution has never stopped. And yes, Hamiltonianism is the best theory on the evolution of sociability and altruism available.
I find it difficult to believe that some would think that any evolution, even human evolution, has ceased. Large populations make it more difficult for a specific allele to fix but says very little about the availability of variation. I suspect many that suggest human evolution has ceased are limiting their considered selection to environmental processes where human technology has had a limiting impact. They tend to forget technology can have it's own selective influence on the human phenotype. The human population has yet to meet the 7 Hardy-Weinberg conditions.
"As for estimating the precise "genetic impact" on our mental state, that is dependent on the environment,
Simply because as a ratio, any reduction in the environmental proportion increases the genetic proportion.
" as well as on precisely which variable is being studied. General intelligence is frequently estimated to have an hereditability coefficient above 60 percent, for instance. But keep in mind plasticity is also a trait coded for by our genes...
That very plasticity, a result of evolution itself, reduces the need for initial innate mental states to those necessary for the developmental period of ontogeny (including intelligence).
Depends on how you mean it.
I suppose Heinlein's nutty ideas in Stranger in a Strange Land would the best proof of his statement-- maybe as a fan of his you would know how much (if any) of that book was meant seriously rather than as satire.
Incidentally, it seems to me the premise of this thread fails the smell test for intellectual fairness. If someone made the criticism that liberalism (defined as the term is commonly used)equals Communism after listing the evils of Communism, I'd say that he was poisoning the well. A similar line of reasoning is often used by leftists--- list the errors of Shockley regarding race, declare that Murray and Hernstein are equivalent to Shockley; then, after poisoning the well, go on to make criticisms of Hernstein and Murray.
Of course, many Creationists are proponents of some form of Intelligent Design. Many atheists are Darwinians; that doesn't make Darwinism the same thing as atheism anymore than the fact that many Darwinians are Christians means that Christianity is a form of Darwinism or vice versa.
The only assumption that ID posits is that it's possible to make design inferences based on the specified complexity one finds. That's all there is to it. Creationism, as I understand it, is in its broadest sense the notion that God created the universe, more specifically that God in one way or another is responsible for life on Earth, and in Young Earth Creationism, that the sort of literal interpretation of the Bible that became popular among Seventh Day Adventists and spread from there, that the Earth is only six thousand or so years old and was created in seven 24 hour days. The differences are clear. A Creationist need not buy into the notion of design inferences at all--- he can simply say, "I take the Bible to be saying x and therefore x must be is the case and all science must be done within the constraint that x is the case". For his part, an IDer need not have any faith in the Bible to be an IDer-- certainly Aristotle and Voltaire, who each promoted different forms of the design argument, did not. So ID forms no necessary part of Creationism and no aspect of Creationism forms a necessary part of ID.
One may fairly present reasons why either ID or creationism or both are silly and stupid. One may claim that were Voltaire or Aristotle were alive today, they would recognize the error of their ways, or that the Bible does support the interpretation Creationists place upon it. But to conflate them is to either make a category mistake or to be purposefully sloppy-- to take a short cut when reasoned argument is determined to be too much trouble.
Ah, yes, all too frequent.
"and was created in seven 24 hour days."
Pre-Union. I'm thinking overtime must have been available. What is minimum wage x 6 billion years? No way that could have been done on a Union wage and a 40 hour week.
Creationists begin with the Bible and twist science to support it. Evolutionists Scientists begin with assumptions as well; a anthropocentric, naturalistic perspective, and then search for science to support it then follow where the evidence leads.
There, all better now.
You want evidence for twisting science? Your post claiming scientific evidence for a global flood is a prime example.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Notice he's already zotted?
Pre-Union. I'm thinking overtime must have been available. What is minimum wage x 6 billion years? No way that could have been done on a Union wage and a 40 hour week.
I think you're right! Fortunately, in the future, there will be no pesky unions, or as Dr. McCoy put it,
According to myth, God created the earth in six days.
(Did I say seven days? Whoops!)
Now watch out! Here comes Genesis, we'll do it for you in 6 minutes!
aequoanimo zotted? I didn't notice. So sad ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.