Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[Junior]

Which "innocent" did God kill, according to the concepts of God you are referring?

Jesus. And, once again, a truly omnipotent God does not have to resort to theatrics.

[Junior]

Not aware of who my "friend" is. And, if you want to give him a link, do so yourself. No one is going to stop you (paranoia aside).

[ToryHeartland]

Post Christian Europe is a great example of where all of western civilization is headed. The rejection of the God of the Bible as Creator has many more consequences than what is or is not said in a high school biology class. By the way, most Biblical Christians are not afraid to defend their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. If evolution is just a slam dunk, let both sides present their evidence and then laugh the Christians out of the class room. The problem with the evo's is that they only want one side presented and then they want to laugh the unbeleivers out of the classroom. And if you don't like it, they'll take you to court - like the leftists do on every other issue that they can't win on when ideas are freely exchanged. I hope this sheds some light. This doesn't cover everything but I hope it gives you some insight.

A genuine 'thank you' for this, it does indeed give me some insight. I don't subscribe to your analysis, but I accept that it is both cogent and sincere; you have given me more to think on, and that is appreciated.

[presently no screen name]

Jesus willing went to the cross to die for our sins in obedience to The Father so we can have eternal life with Him.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

Jesus. And, once again, a truly omnipotent God does not have to resort to theatrics.

Jesus was not innocent at death. That is the point.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Jesus was not innocent at death. That is the point."

?? When did he sin?

[editor-surveyor]

" Which again proves my point that the bible just isn't scientifically prescient."

What an absurd observation. The Bible has no cause to be 'scientifically prescient.' Science constantly changes, as each attempt by man to explain what is beyond human comprehension falls to the next, building upon the scrap heap of human science, while the Bible simply conveys God's message to his creation.

[wallcrawlr]

I have not been even directly engaged by a single post.

Does that make you feel lonely or inadequate?

[editor-surveyor]

Hi A-G! - We who have been here for very long know what junior is up to, and should know better than to even reply, but we all have our moments of weakness ;o)

[When_Penguins_Attack]

I'll give it all the consideration that philosophical musings deserve.

OK. Tell me again how your empirical observations are verifiable? Tell me how you can "prove" the sensory data you "receive" is not just the product of your brain, or the delusional mix of your brain and something which may or may not be out there? Tell me now you "know" that matter behaves in a uniform way, so that water will always boil at 100 degrees at sea level. You don't "know" any of these things. All you can say is that what appear to be sets of data appear to correlate with each other. You must make a HUGE set of assumptions on "philosophical musings" which are not scientifically verifiable at all just to DO science. The brighter scientists know this and will acknowledge it. The stupid ones think that assumption (aka "faith) is in itself "proof." Thus we have idiots spouting off about "proof" and "faith" as though science belongs to one realm and religion belongs to another. The true halfwits are technical people who have no idea that their whole approach to empirical data ("science") is based on scientifically unverifiable "philosophical musings."

[donh]

So you want to stick to informal, common usage? Aren't you getting off the plantation?

In what manner does "common", "informal", or scientific usage of the word "speciation" differ? Does it, or does it not mean the genetic separation of two populations so that their attempts at cross-breeding show little or no success?

[WildHorseCrash]

" Which again proves my point that the bible just isn't scientifically prescient."

What an absurd observation. The Bible has no cause to be 'scientifically prescient.'

Then maybe god-folk should stop marveling about how the bible supposedly got it right about the roundness of the Earth and so forth, years before secular science. Nothing in Job, Isiah or otherwise supports the argument that the bible indicates the correct shape of the Earth or reflects modern cosmology, yet that claim is repeatedly put forth.

[Diamond]

Let me tell you why Genesis 1 presents creation in terms of a 7 day period of time. Because the 7 day week was already in existence in the Ancient Near East. What Ancient Israel did during the Exile [or, at least, the leading lights of Ancient Israel] is to adopt an already existing 7-day scheme and "sanctified" it by showing that 1 day is to be set aside for the honor of the Creator

You are saying that Genesis was originally written during the Exile, but Jesus attributed the Pentateuch to Moses. The sheer implausibility of the notions that either the New Testament misrepresents Jesus' words, or that Jesus was in error or lying about Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch would tend to lead one to believe that Genesis was not written at the ridiculously late date of the Exile.

Cordially,

[Junior]

He was without sin. That's about as innocent as you can get. And, you still haven't addressed the "theatrics" issue.

[donh]

No, not biological science, but evolution, which like it's cousin astrology, is a boat anchor around the throat of science.

Astrology is a science? Interesting.

[Junior]

What I'm up to is showing that you have an agenda and are willing to distort facts to further it.

But hey, anyone who's been on these threads with you before knows this.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

"Jesus was not innocent at death. That is the point."

?? When did he sin?

Representational guilt is the essence of the gospel claim. Federal representation is at the core of Christianity. Thus the claim that "he who knew no sin BECAME sin on our behalf, so that we might be made the righteousness of God." Sorry to throw out bible verses. This was just one that went to the heart of the matter.

Good question.

[Virginia-American]

...so you can spew your silly little monkey theory. ...

Please explain why every genetic marker (ERV, pseudogene, etc) found in the same place in the genome of any species of Old World monkey and any species of New World monkey is also, without exception, found in the same place in the genome of all monkeys and all apes, including ourselves, and in no other species.

Please explain why every ERV found in the same place in the genome of a gorilla and a chimp will also be in ours.

...You know the drill..

The "silly little monkey theory" has a simple and obvious explanation for these and thousands of similar facts. There are many ways it could have failed, but it never has.

[editor-surveyor]

"The question is, would you want your child taught that 1+1=3 because God said so?"

No, the real question is why do so many fools attribute to God things that he has not said? - Your question is a Strawman.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

He was without sin. That's about as innocent as you can get.

Actually, no. He voluntarily took evil into himself, which is about as evil as you can get.

And, you still haven't addressed the "theatrics" issue.

I apologize. I thought it was just a gratuitous slap and ignored it. I should have thought better of you. I have to confess I don't know what you mean by this. Can you help me understand what you mean by "theatrics"?