Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Thanks. That seems pretty clear.

As to your original question, could it simply be a rhetorical way for a people in a harsh environment to try to stamp some sense of predictability and order on their surroundings, as well as to emphasize the power of their God?

I don't know. I just wondered why it was important to repeat this phrase given that evolutionary theory was a complete unknown at the time.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

This really begs the question, doesn't it? Whether or not he or anyone else believes it, what does the evidence show? Given what evidecen we have, is there any evidence, aside from a belief system, that supports any approach other than evolution?

We have scientifically proven micro-evolution, whereas as far as I know, macro-evolution is still an unproven theory, even if it is nearly universally accepted as fact.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

We have scientifically proven micro-evolution, whereas as far as I know, macro-evolution is still an unproven theory, even if it is nearly universally accepted as fact.

What do you mean when you say "scientifically proven"? I think the science supporting the theory, especialyl at a genetic level, of macro-evolution is pretty good. You are using terms like "conclusive" and "scientifically proven". What do you mean by that?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's not the belief that is the problem, it's the "methodology" used to come to that conclusion.

If the best Sooner can come up with is "that's not the God I know" as a basis for ascertaining the literal veracity of OT-genocide accounts, then it's not a very persuasive argument.

That is a gross over-simplification of the approach he takes to the scriptures, as he carefully articulated over the course of many posts in that thread. And in any case, you seem to have neglected this quote by SC:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Have you prayed sincerely about God-endorsed genocide? I have. God told me he doesn't like genocide under any circumstances. Maybe He is saying something different to you.

What more would you like him to do in order to get his "genocide-testimony" in order?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Could you be a little more vague?! Who DOESN'T believe in "evolution" in that sense, in at least some degree? Of course your belief in that definition of evolution doesn't contradict with religion. Why would it?

As Indy puts it, let's speak in the context of macro v. micro evolution. Are you saying you believe man evolved from primitive microscopic life forms or not?

Yes, I believe in macro evolution.
I believe that humans evolved from primitive microscopic life forms.

And I don't have any theological heartburn about it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

What do you mean when you say "scientifically proven"? I think the science supporting the theory, especialyl at a genetic level, of macro-evolution is pretty good. You are using terms like "conclusive" and "scientifically proven". What do you mean by that?

Just one basic example

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/tarpan/

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Brian

Yes, I believe in macro evolution.
I believe that humans evolved from primitive microscopic life forms.

And I don't have any theological heartburn about it.

I don't really care about your lack of theological heartburn. What I am interested in is how in the world you arrived at this belief. Oh yeah, and are you an active member of the LDS church?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yet, you continue to evade my simple question: What is so outrageous about not believing OT-genocide accounts to be literal?

Answered by:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's not the belief that is the problem, it's the "methodology" used to come to that conclusion.

If the best Sooner can come up with is "that's not the God I know" as a basis for ascertaining the literal veracity of OT-genocide accounts, then it's not a very persuasive argument.

And to this:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That is a gross over-simplification of the approach he takes to the scriptures, as he carefully articulated over the course of many posts in that thread. And in any case, you seem to have neglected this quote by SC:

What more would you like him to do in order to get his "genocide-testimony" in order?

... I say what I've always said. It isn't his prerogative to decide what is not true in the scriptures. He doesn't have the authority to make that determination.

That's the problem.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

... I say what I've always said. It isn't his prerogative to decide what is not true in the scriptures. He doesn't have the authority to make that determination.

That's the problem.

That is a completely baffling statement. Every single person who cracks open the scriptures has the prerogative to decide for themselves what is and isn't true.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

I don't really care about your lack of theological heartburn. What I am interested in is how in the world you arrived at this belief. Oh yeah, and are you an active member of the LDS church?

Of course your last sentence is the exact question Brian preempted by his comment about heartburn that you dismissed. I guess you do care.

Here is the question: how can you not believe in evolution? What rational evidence do you have that it isn't the mechanism at work in our world? Yes, I am an active memebr, in case you are worried.