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

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

I am willing to bet that they don't have a unanimous opinion either way.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Brian

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

That may be too simple. DO you mean change in the possible inherited traits? Are you speaking at a genetic level or at an 'as manifested' physical level? It is very difficult to define. Indeed, the article cited that discusses micro and macro never really defines those terms in a satisfactory way. The problem I see is that the evidence most clearly supports evolution as the mechanism l;eading to species diversity and intra-species variation. What else is supported, really? For me, the elegance of genetic coding indirectly supports my faith, as it seems like such a rational way to implement a world. Why can't God, esepdcailly one that miught be taking a mildly deistic approach, and who knows EVERYTHING (meaning, for example, He can know exactly how, when and where any given mutation will occur), be the architect of this system?

I simply don't see much evidence supporting any other explanation about life and its diverse forms. At the same time, this doesn't bother my faith at all.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

Define conclusive.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

This is a crude outline of how I view the creation particulars.

I. Creation

A. Literal
1. The universe was created/organized by the power of God.
2. The creation was done in orderly steps. Possibly in the exact order outlined in Genesis/Moses, but not necessarily
3. God created man in His image.
4. Animals reproduce after their own kind. What that means exactly, I'm not sure, which is why I started this thread. I postulated that it might be an obscure reference to micro evolution, but that's hardly a concrete conclusion of mine.

B. Figurative
1. The time needed was not 6 earth-days, 6 Kolob days, but is represented by 6 creative periods.
2. Which animals were created and when. This serves simply as a way to show that everything was created with a purpose and in an orderly fashion
3. Eve created from Adam's rib
4. Satan as a serpent

C. Unknown
1. The Garden of Eden as an actual location and how much of the Adam and Eve story is a literal account.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

Exactly ... as though you'd expect me to take one singular approach to the entire book. In other words, "if you don't take the flood and creation literally, why take the genocide literally." Or in short, "Tex is so binary."

Obviously, I don't, and I'm not.

Thereafter came Arch's inane demand that I "prove it."

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Brian

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

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?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Exactly ... as though you'd expect me to take one singular approach to the entire book. In other words, "if you don't take the flood and creation literally, why take the genocide literally." Or in short, "Tex is so binary."

Obviously, I don't, and I'm not.

Thereafter came Arch's inane demand that I "prove it."

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

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

This is a crude outline of how I view the creation particulars.

I. Creation

A. Literal
1. The universe was created/organized by the power of God.
2. The creation was done in orderly steps. Possibly in the exact order outlined in Genesis/Moses, but not necessarily
3. God created man in His image.
4. Animals reproduce after their own kind. What that means exactly, I'm not sure, which is why I started this thread. I postulated that it might be an obscure reference to micro evolution, but that's hardly a concrete conclusion of mine.

B. Figurative
1. The time needed was not 6 earth-days, 6 Kolob days, but is represented by 6 creative periods.
2. Which animals were created and when. This serves simply as a way to show that everything was created with a purpose and in an orderly fashion
3. Eve created from Adam's rib
4. Satan as a serpent

C. Unknown
1. The Garden of Eden as an actual location and how much of the Adam and Eve story is a literal account.

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?

[Indy Coug]

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?

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.

[creekster]

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?

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?