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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You argued that viewing the genesis account figuratively vs. literally was a "meaningless argument" because the expression "six days" was due to a "translation error". You clearly implied that the basic creation account was literal except for a few details lost in translation. Otherwise your "meaningless argument" comment makes no sense. If you are now admitting that the genesis account is allegorical, please explain to me how it is a meaningless argument in the context of yesterday's debate.

Please refresh your memory. Please show me where I've claimed the creation account was literal. Good luck.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...?t=9520&page=8

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Please refresh your memory. Please show me where I've claimed the creation account was literal. Good luck.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...?t=9520&page=8

Well, I think you are clearly dissembling, but let's move on. Now that we have established that you view the Genesis account as figurative, perhaps you could explain to me why SoonerCoug is so out of line for not believing OT accounts of God-sanctioned genocide to be literal.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Brian

i accept evolution and don't see any theological problems with it.

Define "evolution."

[Tex]

Not to insert myself into the middle of this dogfight (.... ok, yes I am), but I never got a Jeff Lebowski or Archaea retraction after meeting the silly "3 non-literal scriptures" demand.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

...perhaps you could explain to me why SoonerCoug is so out of line for not believing OT accounts of God-sanctioned genocide to be literal.

Because I've never seen anyone take that position before.

I put forth the question about whether or not the Jews think the Amalekite story is literal or not, because they seem to have a firmer grasp on the literal and the figurative than most of Western Civilization.

The Jews clearly took the Promised Land by force. There is archaeological evidence to back that up. Thus, I think it's not unreasonable to think that the Amalekite account is literal. Additionally, I don't think using a "that's not the God I know" approach is the way we reconcile what is literal and what is symbolic in the scriptures.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Define "evolution."

change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Please refresh your memory. Please show me where I've claimed the creation account was literal. Good luck.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...?t=9520&page=8

Rather than make us investigate your earlier writings, fascinating though they may be, and given that you are here, why don't you just take a position now and avoid ambiguity. Do you believe it is literal or not?

I ask this because I was gone for a few days and have not kept up on all threads and would rather not have to go back and plow through them, especially for a question such as this. In this thread you keep sidestepping by making qualified or indeterminate statements, such as "not primarily for scientific purposes" or challenging us to show where you claimed it was literal, leaving open the chance that you still might. Btw, if you're not sure that's OK too. But quite honestly, I don't really care enough about your particular opinion to ferret this out and think that the sideshow you're creating about it detracts from your original query, which is a good one. IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not to insert myself into the middle of this dogfight (.... ok, yes I am), but I never got a Jeff Lebowski or Archaea retraction after meeting the silly "3 non-literal scriptures" demand.

Refresh my memory. What am I supposed to retract?

I don't recall arguing that you don't take portions of the scriptures to be non-literal. In fact, I was arguing that you probably do (using the flood and the creation as two likely examples). I was pointing out that it seemed a bit odd that you would hold such a hard line on the OT-genocide stories.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Brian

change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.

Do we have conclusive evidence that shows that macro and not micro evolution has produced the life forms we see on the earth today?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Because I've never seen anyone take that position before.

I put forth the question about whether or not the Jews think the Amalekite story is literal or not, because they seem to have a firmer grasp on the literal and the figurative than most of Western Civilization.

The Jews clearly took the Promised Land by force. There is archaeological evidence to back that up. Thus, I think it's not unreasonable to think that the Amalekite account is literal. Additionally, I don't think using a "that's not the God I know" approach is the way we reconcile what is literal and what is symbolic in the scriptures.

The fact that a genocide occurred is not difficult to believe. Not at all, given human history. Whether or not the genocide was so explicitly ordered by God is a different question entirely.