Thank you for that. Just notified our church leadership of this event.
Check out my tag line.
FReegards!
Posted on 02/26/2017 3:49:04 PM PST by Slyfox
> Also was the first woman created after or before the animals? The two Genesis accounts seem to differ.
Oops, I shouldn’t have asked the question that way (with “first woman” — she’s after in both versions), but rather when was the first man created, before or after the animals?
After — Genesis 1:20-27
Before — Genesis 2:7-22
The discrepancy with the “first woman” is that in the first Genesis account man and woman appear to have been created at the same time. In the second, man is created first, then animals, then woman (when animals proved to be unsatisfactory companions for him).
I should add that I’m not saying that religious experience of the supernatural may not be reflected in the Bible, just that the Bible alone — without that experience — would not be convincing.
It doesn't - it would make you a "more reliable, on the plantation, scientist"....in case they needed another voice to tout some "settled" science.
“Also the breeding of animals by human beings (artificial selection) — which produces some rather dramatic changes — mirrors Darwinian natural selection except that human beings consciously select desirable characteristics (and, once again, use the currently available genes). The changes possible that way, though, are limited to the current gene pool.”
The changes are also limited by time. No one has ever used selective breeding over 10 million years to see what is or isn’t possible to bring about by selective breeding.
Freegards
Thank you for that. Just notified our church leadership of this event.
Check out my tag line.
FReegards!
We saw it in a theater, but I believe it was for one night only.
LouisIana: “Darwinism” strictly defined is... “
Sure, strictly defined, but as used by anti-”Darwinists” more often includes many pejorative claims, as we see in the article above, saying pretty much it’s the source of all evil today.
Osage: “You can make that kind of statement only when you have total knowledge of all things relative to science. It will never occur. “
Please remember that all of science today is merely a rough model of reality as we can detect it — not even as it is, but only as we see it.
And just a rough model, like a model ship, never exact.
So within natural-science **today** there is no alternative theory which remotely explains the physical evidence as well as evolution and all its related ideas.
Do you disagree?
Ransomed: “I guess it’s always only going to be a theory until we can observe it happening. “
Correct, by definition in science what we observe are called “facts” and explanations “hypotheses” or “theories” depending on the degree of confirmation.
Evolution is a confirmed theory, though many of its key tenets are observed facts.
What recent history tells us is that natural evolution can be hugely speeded up through humans using animal husbandry.
Recent years’ DNA analyses also show us precisely how closely or distantly various populations are related, then correlating with the fossil record, how long ago they branched apart.
But new discoveries and analyses every day throw old ideas into doubt and raise up new hypotheses.
That’s just one element making science the opposite of our religious faith.
Just mythoughts: “You are in for a mega surprise... Darwin was ticked off at God and Darwin devised his own explanation for what he saw. Darwin was spiritually blind as a bat. “
Perhaps not so angry or blind as you imagine.
Darwin did, after all wait decades before finally publishing his ideas, no doubt in deference to the furor he expected them to cause.
Again, what evolution theory provides is only a **natural** explanation of the available physical data, nothing else.
It makes no effort to explain spiritual matters because those are, by definition, outside the realm of natural-science.
Of course I “get” that some people make science itself into a form of religion, but that was **never** the original intention of natural scientists.
They believed instead they were discovering the Mind of God.
“...all of science today is merely a rough model of reality as we can detect it...no alternative theory which remotely explains the physical evidence as well as evolution and all its related ideas.”
Yes, I disagree. We detect scientific reality through the scientific method, not the theory of evolution. I wish I knew like how many articles I have read that use the scientific method merely as a means to explain evolution.
Reminds me of what Arthur Koestler said about how scholars for centuries studied Aristotle as the fount of all knowledge instead of studying nature. As a result, there was no scientific advancement at all while they did that.
Now, no scientist, intending to unlock new mysteries, would think to carry a manual on evolution into his lab when he does research. I had a chemistry professor at the start of a course where he said he taught his class from the standpoint of evolution and if you did not like it, drop his class. That was all he ever said about evolution, because the study of chemistry does not involve the study of evolution.
The natural world certainly is ruled by "fang and claw", as were our prehuman ancestors, until the moment described in Genesis where God breathed spirit into Adam and he became a fully living soul.
God's benevolence applied to nature simply means that despite many global disasters and mass extinctions, life clung stubbornly here, re-populated the earth and advanced, somehow, toward what we see today.
I believe God directed and directs every step of the way.
Osage: “...because the study of chemistry does not involve the study of evolution.”
Oh, but it certainly can, in natural history, the evolution of chemical compounds, especially organic compounds.
Indeed, the key fact here to remember is that virtually every branch of science, from A-astronomy to G-geology & P-physics to Z-zoology, touches on and helps confirm ideas related to evolution.
None of it today provides evidence for some confirmed alternative natural science theory.
Yep, there you go, shoehorning what has been uncovered by the scientific method into preconceived ideas about evolution.
Did you not read the article that started this thread?
The thing about animal husbandry is that we haven’t been doing it long enough to know what really can be done with it. It certainly seems like evolution could be speeded up by selective breeding. Could we breed smart dogs that could reason and talk? Maybe, but it might take longer than man has been around dogs up to now, it might take hundreds of thousands of years or longer if possible at all. Same with turning a reptile into a mammal or something.
Freegards
Ransomed: ** “Could we breed smart dogs that could reason and talk?
Maybe, but it might take longer than man has been around dogs up to now, it might take hundreds of thousands of years or longer if possible at all.
Same with turning a reptile into a mammal or something.” **
Natural evolution theory is all about “baby steps”, one step at a time, no great leaps of imagination.
So in nature, alligators do not suddenly spring wings and fly, and fish do not often take up mountain climbimg.
Instead, step by small step they make changes as dictated by their environments and genetic possibilities.
Humans can greatly speed up the process by selective breeding, and who knows what genetic engineering may lead to?
But nature is loathe to change what seems to be working just fine.
Odawg: “Did youu not read the article that started this thread?”
I read what is posted, was tbere more to it?
Odawg: “there you go, shoehorning what has been uncovered by the scientific method into preconceived ideas about evolution.”
No “shoehorning” here, merely factual reports on tbe nature of natural-science.
And your problem with that is wbat?
“Sure, strictly defined”
==
Words have meaning, at least to most people.
“often includes many pejorative claims”
==
I can tell you don’t find silly ad hominem style attempts to be very intellectual. “LouisIana”.
“saying pretty much it’s the source of all evil today.”
==
People who *may* (ahem, strawman) claim that are wrong; it’s the source belief system of much evil, but not all. Mankind has little trouble in finding enough excuses and reasons to commit wrong.
“The discrepancy with the “first woman” is that in the first Genesis account man and woman appear to have been created at the same time. In the second, man is created first, then animals, then woman (when animals proved to be unsatisfactory companions for him).”
==
One explanation/expounding I’ve heard on that is the first passage is a summary/heading/main point, with the second passage expanding & expounding on it.
e.g.
1. BAKING A CAKE
A) preheat oven
B) in a large bowl mix
C) this ingredient, that ingredient
and so on.
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.