Theologians of all stripes have agreed for thousands of years that beginning of Genesis provides a foundation for our faith. It is not "just a faith account," but the primary purpose is to communicate a message of faith.

As a scientific account that describes the present state of our universe, Genesis is not a very good description. One could easily get the impression that planet Earth is at the center of the solar system. Morning and evening happen for three days without benefit of the sun. The firmament sounds like a big blue dome above the atmosphere, or at least a firm demarcation between man's zone and God's realm. In several places rain seems to come from windows in the sky that are opened to let pour out the water that is held up there. You would think that the words "sphere" or "round" would appear somewhere. We are already interpreting Scripture in the light of science.

Remember that in delivering Genesis by means of fallible humans, God had to thread the account through thousands of years of well-meaning scribes who would be tempted to excise nonsense about the earth orbiting around the sun. Also recall that it took great effort to produce a Bible until Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1454. In Genesis God had some very important things to communicate to us, and there was no good reason to include pages of details about the physical layout of the cosmos that He knew we would figure out soon enough anyway.

I believe that the same is true for the natural history contained in Genesis. Genesis is not wrong, it is not simply a myth, it is not just a compelling story with no real basis in history. Genesis happened! All of it! But to try to match up each verse with a scientific finding is to ignore the Author's main purpose in giving this account to us. Genesis 1-2 must be read through the eyes of faith, and that is its most important message. If we concentrate too much on the scientific details or mire these chapters in controversy, we will miss the faith message there.

What I Think About the Soundness of the Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution sounds pretty good as science, especially the enhancements that were made after Darwin, and are still being made based on continuing research and discoveries. The geological and fossil record shows change over a long period of time. We have a long history of changing life forms. Bugs adapt to poison. Moth populations change color. People get taller. Dogs breed into forms that look much different than the original. In general, the theory sounds pretty reasonable. We can observe evolution happening during our own time in small amounts.

Note that much of the evolutionary action does not involve entirely new structures. New structures are hard to develop. We would all like to see a horse develop wings and fly, but that's unlikely to happen. Plenty of evolutionary mileage can be obtained by modifying and changing the existing structures. For example, most of the mammals have the same basic body plan. Giraffes and humans have the same number of vertebrae in their necks (seven). We have the same bones, but the sizes and shapes are different. The large differences that we see in the animal kingdom can be achieved through small, incremental, useful change.

The term microevolution is used to refer to change at the species level or lower. Macroevolution refers to higher-order changes that cause one species to split into two, or morph into an entirely new species. I do not accept the creationist argument that the small changes we see in microevolution cannot add up to macroevolution under the right conditions. This argument is not even logically reasonable unless a "change barrier" is proposed around every species, and I have heard of no such proposal. Indeed, it is true that microevolution does not prove macroevolution, but it certainly supports it.

However, it is still a evolutionary puzzle how microevolution relates to macroevolution. When do we get stasis, and when do we get change? The old Darwinian idea, that microevolution can be simply be extrapolated to macroevolution over long periods of time, is probably not correct because it is too simple:
microevolution + time = macroevolution (too simple)
More recent research indicates that macroevolution involves additional factors, including the ones present in microevolution (natural selection, mutation). So we can update our equation to express the modern understanding:

microevolution + time + isolation + selection pressure + changing environment = macroevolution

These ideas were discussed at the 1980 Chicago Conference on Macroevolution. For more information, please see the Roger Lewin reprint for the entire text of his Science article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire."

Transitional Fossils

We have transitional fossils, despite the creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils". We have transitional fossils for humans, too, in spite of the claim that "there are no ape-men." (see Time magazine, August 23, 1999; "How Man Evolved", by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, pp. 54-55). The References section of this essay contains links to transitional fossils, including some with pictures.

It is puzzling that transitional fossils are more rare than we would expect. I think that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is on the right track with his theory of evolution through Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory states that major changes occur locally in an isolated population, so that fossils are more rare than would be expected by the slow, stately progress of change predicted by Charles Darwin. Punctuated Equilibrium is not just an excuse for finding no transitional fossils, because many such fossils have been found. Transitional forms are found locally for certain animals, and outside the "evolution zone" the transition looks quite abrupt because of migration of the new species and displacement of the original species.

I apologize. I cant even remember who brought up this contradiction but they did and then feral and Eljay jumped in. Someone needs to just start a separate biblical contradiction thread. I agree it has no place and this one in particular is stupid. All that happened was either whoever wrote this was drunk at the wheel or someone inserted a contradictory verse later because they didnt read John 3.

Here - let's adress my primary issue.

Macro-Evolution is unverifyable. Period.

I have never once claimed Macro-Evolution to be false - I claim it is NOT possibly verifyable.
It is NOT science. Oh, we can observe the evolution within species - but that has NO BEARING on the discussion. Just as one experiencing a miricle today can no more justify it as evidence that God parted the Red Sea for Moses, or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

So too with the events of Biology, or Geology.
We can observe the effects of erosion caused by a quick flowing river - but that does nothing to verify our knowing how the Grand Canyon came about.

Does one need a doctorate to understand this?

On this thread? Nope. Try looking throughout it. I was not going to let you get away with telling fibs tonight and you knew that.



What partial quotes, edited posts, and picking apart words are you referring to? I have been quoting YOUR OWN WORDS. Can you not comprehend your own writing? If you feel I have misrepresented your position at any point this evening, it would be on you to correct that.



It makes me laugh honestly.

Well you can certainly see that I have been contributing on topic no less. What about gary? We are all waiting with baited breath.

Right. Anything you say. Still waiting on you to comment on topic? Any day now. Once you are done arguing.

Why do you think I used the term! It's an adjective used to referance women arguing. I know it was mean. I feel like a cat batting around a mouse right now. I should stop. This is cruel and evil of me.

Catty is not a slang term and you don’t even realize that.




Then how come you had to look up the definition online and then decided that I must have been referring to a Chinese unit of measurement?



All you have demonstrated is that you did not know the definition for the word catty. It is most often used in reference to two women arguing. That is why I knew you did not even know what it meant.

Since you refuse to read the thread, and offer any kind of comprehensive rebuttal form where the participants left off, we have no choice but to endure this crap.

I never said that was not a possible alternate definition. I am asking you how did you imagine the context to be that of a unit of weight in China when I asked you to stop being so catty in forum. That was the question. Please read what I write. You also admitted that you did not know the definition of the word.

And if it were in fact a unit of weight in China, how were you envisioning that context when I told you to stop being "catty" on forum? I will love to hear your response to that one. Catty is not a "slang term", sir. Someone who is unaware of the definition of "catty" would hardly qualify as an 'intellectual". At least I would be mortified if I were you.

I guess the reading comprehension is a little steep. Okay I’ll wait for MS in the morning. Actually I forgot to tell you that "catty" really means when two girls argue and fight.

Well now that you understand that some people choose to not drink, did you want to get back on the topic? Were you going to enlist the time reading the thread at all?

Response to what?

Well basically. Although "do not" implies that I still can and choose of my own volition not to. Also, I was afraid on my profile if i selected never drinks it could be a problem if someone thought I was incapable of drinking which would be a lie. Anyway, are we ever going to talk about evolution on this thread again?

Ok...here once more....a simple case of miscommunication:

Krimsa says, "I don't drink."

To Krimsa that means she doesn't , except on rare occasions.....

but since she is on a dating site,
she felt it best to say occassionally on her profile , in case she met a person who is a recovering alcoholic.

BUT Gary hears something entirely different ,

simpy because Gary is ONLY HEARING

what Krimsa is SAYING,

and NOT what Krimsa is MEANING!!


Both of you might benefit by purchasing and reading
a book called ,"He Said She Said."

( I forget the author)

Nite nite to everyone now...

Do not is not the same as never. Look I will prove it in grammatical structure.

I do not eat sushi.

I will eat sushi but I choose not to eat it. This implies I do not want the sushi but I am not incapable of eating the sushi.

Don’t is not synonymous with never. I also just explained. This is a dating site. If a man approached me under the mistaken notion that I NEVER drink or am incapable of drinking and I can, then that would be a lie. I have also drunk in the past and can in the future if I choose.



No it isn’t and especially not in the situation mentioned above. If someone is in recovery from alcoholism, they can not be around alcohol. They can not be with someone who drinks AT ALL in most cases.



Yes I don’t choose to drink but if I was presented with a glass of wine, yes I could drink that wine. I have no medical conditions that would prohibit me drinking.



Exactly.



Anyone could murder if they wanted to. An alcoholic in recovery willfully chooses not to drink. It is not an option for them and ideally they would choose not to be with someone who can drink, even if on occasion. They want someone who NEVER drinks so they are not tempted.

I said I dont drink and I dont smoke and I rarely use foul language. If I were to go out to dinner and there was a bottle of wine I could have a glass if I wanted. I do not drink to the point of intoxication. If I stated that I never drank on my profile, and a man approached me who was a recovered alcoholic, that would be misleading to him because I CAN drink. This is a dating site after all.

Really? Aren’t you a Christian? Seems like you would have quite a bit invested in this.



Why do you think I will twist? I quote you and it is your own words. I merely pointed out that you were a Christian which means that you should have at least something invested in this. It’s your god after all, not mine. I think most Christians would feel strongly but maybe you just don’t care.



And what are those principles? We know historically they have meant death, oppression, torture and imprisonments for millions. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t hardly even use foul language. I don’t believe for one minute that Christians have corned the market on moral behavior.



I thought you said you had nothing invested in this.



I don’t believe in hell and even if it were true, oh well. I’m not afraid of something like that.



You JUST stated you had FAITH INVESTED.