He wrote it himself, no? Or at least agreed with it…? So do I. His letter wouldn’t be the grudging, half-hearted admission it is if he had.Suit yourself. He said what he said.
You have several unfixable problem if you believe in Theistic Evolution.
/QUOTE]Scientific problems, are they? Nope, that’s theological. Nope, not that either. A Freudian slip, perhaps? “Other” scientific theories? Sorry to break this to you, but YECism merely apes science to try to steal its kudos. It is pseudoscientific nonsense. It is refuted by the facts. Please be specific if you disagree. Why could God not have used evolution as his means of creation? Agreed. But since evolution – like atomic theory or gravity – says precisely nothing about the existence of deities, adding gods into the equation doesn’t matter. Ockham’s Razor might apply, but you can do it if it makes you happy. Most Christians do do it, and it seems to make them happy. LOL! Please show me the testable predictions that theology makes. Sez you. Not compatible with a literal reading, is what you mean, I think. Since when did the Bible have to be completely, literally true?
TTFN, Oolon
Since you are a non-Christian Rationalist according to your bio you are stepping in over your head. I take the Bible literally as far each Biblical genre is concerned. Poetry, Allegory, Narrative, Letters etc. I read it like I would read any other piece of literature - within it’s genre. And there are several different genre’s in the various books of the Bible. I don’t use it as a science text as it is not written as such.
Your bold assertions have not proven any of your points. you tossed out lots of names and scientifc jargon (nothing wrong with that of course) to exhibit your knowledge over and against mine and others. Then you go and try to tackle the theological issues with the same ignorance that you seem to believe creationists have. The number one weapon in the arsonal of non-theisitc Evolutionists like you is psuedo-intellectual scorn for opposing views. Victory by insult. I will be happy to address some of your other issues as soon as you actually engage an argument directly instead of using vocabularic evasion.
Further I would love to see you take on some of the logical problems and the scientific method problems as well. I think if you would study logic a bit you may find that evolution has some serious systemic problems in light of logical coherence. You cannot make leaps in logic and then try to establish your points on the finding of those leaps. Unfortunately that is what a great mnay in evolutionary science have done and do. If the starting point is flawed, and it is, no real science can exist if the rules of logic and method are ignored to arrive at certain conclusions. If that is not addressed then no other argument matters. One come up with the most well thought out and brilliant explanation regarding a flying machine - how fast it will go, how big it will be, how it will stay together in the air, how aero-dynamic it will be. But no matter how great and well thought out all those ideas on paper look and no matter how many experts in those areas confirm it all is utterly meningless if no one figured out how to get it off the ground. That is the exactly the evolutionary science works it builds this elaborate system with many plausible theories but it never bothered to actually start with the scientific method. It not begin with anything observable and build from there. It started with a theory then has spend countless millions to find or create the observable. Fundamentally unscientific.
Well I have to get back to work now. I can honestly see this going on forever if we let it.
Mel
) you have no basis for objecting to macroevolution.