A couple of questions.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Who said anything about the story being literally true ... Me thinks you are projecting.

So your insistence that Adam and Eve and garden of eden all existed has nothing to do with Genesis? Are you ever going to actually come out and explain what you believe? Do you still believe that truth is fluid and always changing according to the beliefs of the day? I never really got you explain how that could possibly be correct.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

So your insistence that Adam and Eve and garden of eden all existed has nothing to do with Genesis? Are you ever going to actually come out and explain what you believe? Do you still believe that truth is fluid and always changing according to the beliefs of the day? I never really got you explain how that could possibly be correct.

Surely you will concede the idea that what you believe concerning evolution is much different than what Darwin believed concerning evolution. Am I on trial here? And what determines correctness -who is authority, and how did he/she/it attain authority to determine correctness?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Surely you will concede the idea that what you believe concerning evolution is much different than what Darwin believed concerning evolution. Am I on trial here? And what determines correctness -who is authority, and how did he/she/it attain authority to determine correctness?

Is it so much to ask that you actually just say what you mean instead of only asking these cryptic, leading questions?

Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Is it so much to ask that you actually just say what you mean instead of only asking these cryptic, leading questions?

Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been).

Thank you for conceding that truth is fluid.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Thank you for conceding that truth is fluid.

I just did the exact opposite of that. I'm beginning to wonder about your intellect.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

I just did the exact opposite of that. I'm beginning to wonder about your intellect.

You did write this ... "Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been)."

In the above statement you concede science has progressed ... that science is not 100% correct and that it's point is to get closer and closer to whatever truth is ... therefore by your own words truth is fluid.

Let's apply a definition of fluid: "changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid"

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You did write this ... "Obviously science has progressed far beyond Darwin. That doesn't mean that Darwin was 100% correct and that the truth has changed so that science today is now 100% correct. The whole point of science is to get closer and closer to whatever the truth is (and has always been)."

In the above statement you concede science has progressed ... that science is not 100% correct and that it's point is to get closer and closer to whatever truth is ... therefore by your own words truth is fluid.

Let's apply a definition of fluid: "changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid"

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Let me try again:

The truth is fixed. Science's task is to figure out what that truth is. As new evidence is discovered, science gets closer and closer to determining what the truth is about any given topic.

Perhaps you're confusing "truth" with the search for truth? I just don't see any possible way for you to conclude from my words that the truth is readily changing.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Let me try again:

The truth is fixed. Science's task is to figure out what that truth is. As new evidence is discovered, science gets closer and closer to determining what the truth is about any given topic.

Perhaps you're confusing "truth" with the search for truth? I just don't see any possible way for you to conclude from my words that the truth is readily changing.

But it's not fixed -it changes with every generation ... in fact with every circumstance.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by landpoke

Which bring up yet another question: What's your cut-off age for the babies you eat? I've got a one year old that I'm kind of fond of which that might constrain my ability to entertain your sales staff.

The only Mormons who eat babies are the ones with horns ... stay away from all balding first year BYU students -actually stay away from all balding BYU students!

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But it's not fixed -it changes with every generation ... in fact with every circumstance.

So then genes didn't actually exist until the 20th century? Scientific discovery dictates truth? The universe really was 6000 years old until the scientists decided it was much older than that? For not believing in science, it's weird that you allow them to dictate your "fluid" truth.