Perhaps you’re right. Nevertheless, can you give me an example please, that has led you to this conclusion.
You must be confusing me with someone else. In post # 1263, I stated that “I only know the basics” of ToE.
The Church teaches that the faithful can believe in literal interpretation of Genesis. If you think it’s ok to malign a Church teaching with the pejorative, “fundamentalist”, then perhaps that is something you need to do some soul-searching about.
Evo-Catholics believe that in “the beginning of creation”, God created only simple forms of life (maybe unicellular organisms) and that billions of years of evolution later, human beings came into existence (except for Eve, who for some mysterious reason was created instantaneously). But Mark 10:6 says human beings were present at the “BEGINNING of creation”. I can’t see how your post in any way reconciles the Scripture with evolution.
You seem to have missed the point of the Scripture. It says the creature Behemoth was “made” (ie, created) at the same time as man. Evolution says man didn’t exist (evolve) until millions of years AFTER such a creature came into existence.
How dare you say such a thing!
The fact that black feathers exist in other birds doesn’t suggest budgerigars will one day have black feathers. Has anyone ever seen a sky-blue raven or a green-and-yellow magpie? There is no reason to expect that such birds will ever exist.
A seal has “fins on a stump” too - excellent fodder for another “missing link” fairy tale. Evolution rewards a vivid imagination like no other sphere of science.
Even the simplest form of life requires immense functional complexity. One essential function is reproduction. How “simple” do you imagine that might be? All this talk about “primordial simple cells” is science fiction invented by deluded atheists. They have to believe this unscientific nonsense because there is no alternarive.
And I cannot see how Mark 10:6 reconciles with Genesis 1 which clearly says that humans were not present at the “BEGINNING” but only came on the scene days later. And you also have to reconcile your Mark quote with 2 Peter 3:8 where a day is a thousand years. That puts thousands of years between the beginning and the origin of man.
New animals evolved before man. New animals evolved at the same time as man. New animals have evolved since man. Tell me what exact species “Behemoth” is, and I will look up the date it originated. You also need to nail down your “at the same time”. Are we in the same area as your Mark quote where two thing described as being simultaneous in one part of the Bible are definitely not simultaneous in a different part of the Bible?
Seals are a “fairy tale”? You have a very strange idea of what constitutes a “fairy tale”. Do you expect to go to an aquarium and see Tinker Bell in an enclosure next to the seals?
Oh look, an out of context quote. I can do out of context quotes as well:
I can also quote Dr. Patterson:
Did my Bible quote convince you? No, nor does your out-of-context Patterson quote convince me. You need to find a better way of arguing that a creationist quote-mine.
Very. A Lipid bilayer bag with some chemicals inside splits into two smaller lipid bilayer bags with the same mix of chemicals inside. Both bags then absorb more chemicals from the surrounding water and grow bigger, making more chemicals in the process. Then they split again. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Numerically you are closer to an atheist than I am. My scriptures have tens of thousands of gods in them. By insulting atheists here, you are insulting yourself more than you are insulting me.
People receptive to the evidence for evolution are likely to be receptive to the Big Bang theory or similar models for the history of the universe. Perhaps the Big Bang is the manifest sign of the initial work of creation? And the evidence is that the conditions of the universe at the time of creation, and for a considerable length of time thereafter, were not suitable for any form of life. Life appeared much later.
I don’t have time to go through this thread, but you basically declare that evolution is not even in the domain of science because you can’t do it in a test tube and a labcoat (well, you can, actually, but the results will never satisfy the requirements of a creationist because speciation cannot occur that quickly). And this in spite of the fact that:
“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.”
I dunno. I haven’t read the book, either.Gorgias:
Fair point. But why does Miller oppose the concept of Intelligent Design?
I haven’t the slightest idea of what you mean by Mass Transcription.