Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia
A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Indeed, but this is the monosaur . . . going from a 3ft s-based creature with legs/paddels to a 30-ft long sea-going monster.
How about a fish with feet, then? Would that do?
Ooops! Sorry, my bad.
I would agree that there are good examples of speciation. I would however say that there are only a handful of hotly debated examples of transitional forms.
I'm surprised the site wouldn't lead with its strongest arguments rather than bluegills. I'll have to go back and read the entire article sometime!
Or a lizard with fins!
http://www.unmuseum.org/monosaur.jpg
(The thread on this guy's transitional ancestor; a smallish shall-sea lizard dug up in DALLAS that looks a bit like a Kimodo dragon was posted here yesterday.)
Ouch! I hope none of my posts have suggested that one cannot believe in evolution and still be saved. If so, I ask forgiveness.
"It creates a real problem for those who want to say that God used evolution to create Adam and Eve!"
Indeed it does: for your interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, then -- since evolution is about as widely accepted among scientists as anything -- your interpretation is most likely be wrong.
It always boggles my mind that some Christians can readily accept some stories as symbols but other stories must be taken literally.
When Scripture says Jesus is sitting at God's right hand, must that be literally interpreted too? Must we accept that God is a physical entity in the clouds with two arms and has Jesus physically sitting next to him for all eternity?
You should read Scripture before quoting it. Here's the second half of Genesis 2:17, in various translations:
King James - "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Revised Standard - "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
New American - "the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."
I was initially looking at New American, but the other two -- the two most widely accepted versions -- clearly say he'll die that very day.
"Of course I'm fallible, daily in need of a Savior. Does that mean all my points are moot?"
Of course not. It means that when facts contradict your interpretation of something, it is your interpretation that should change, not the facts.
"the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish."
Do you know what a species IS?
Read about evolution before attacking it. You have no clue how it works. It occurs over millions of years; no one says a dog will come out of a cat.
Sheesh! Haven't we been through this before?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512465/posts?page=236#236
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512465/posts?page=283#283
"However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively."
The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?
It looks like from Theo's original quote that he uses the English Standard Version. Here's Gen 2:17 from that one:
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[a] of it you shall surely die."
Be aware that the [a] footnote in this version offers up 'when you eat' in place of 'in the day that you eat', apparently because someone took it upon themselves to edit God's word to remove the problem of a literal day reference.
You are implying, I am inferring that you don't think I do. I thought I did, but would appreciate your definition. Am I using an incorrect term?
If you're talking about Gen 2:17, when God says Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree of good and evil, God couldn't possibly be referring to a literal death, because Adam doesn't literally die that moment. Indeed, later in the Bible people are referred to as descendants of Adam.
That point is a bit difficult to refute. I see that it hasn't been.
No, they haven't (at least none that I have seen).
But it is a oft-repeated statement.
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.
