Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by Mack Ramsy.
I think you’ve misunderstood my answer, I did not suggest that bacteria do not evolve, or are the currently the same as they were. We know about many of the changes that have happened and roughly when. If you had listened to Dawkins what he said was true, there are no living examples of a species that existed at the dawn of evolution. Those exist no more than your ancestors currently exist. They left their history for us to read. We can and do and creationists have a fit. It’s kind like complaining that historians read history books. Of course they do, all the time. This is something that happens on an observable time frame. One of the misconceptions that many creationists believe that evolution is directed to some ultimate goal. that prokaryotes are trying to become eukaryotes and so on. The “point” is to become better suited to your environment. I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve. So I guess you’re welcome to keep harping on Dawkins. So he took a long time to think about an answer, I notice you’d rather pick at an ancient and irrelevant video than discuss the issues involved or my plethora of examples of information being added to the genome. In my experience it is very rare “to plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact”. Typically what frequently happens is that creationists don’t understand the answer and think Evolutionists are ignorant and sidestepping important questions. (Like how does information get added to a genome). Like I’ve said previously I do not anticipate any of these arguments swaying minds. Evolution has been the established scientific paradigm for 100 years, and it shows no sign of changing. I know you don’t believe this, but the people who study this issue are in fact Christians and they are looking at this and many other issues you could not possibly understand sincerely and in good faith. There is not a legitimate scientist even with in the Adventist church who feels differently.
Table of Contents
Mack Ramsy Also Commented
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@all you guys hoping for “the shaking” probably shouldn’t hope to much. The church is as minuscule enough as it is. It also rather directly contradictory toward our evangelical goals. It’s awkward to go through purges when you’re trying to recruit new members.
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
@bill how can you imply that Liberals are secretly in control of the church when it was conservatives who got those researchers fired and the most conservative leadership in years has been elected into office? This rather suggests that political fortunes favor conservatives at this moment.
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
I think there is some confusion about the role of science here. Science is very explicit about “proof” and “certainty” in that there isn’t any. I presented you with a half dozen articles in a few minutes of searching. There might be better ones out there but from long experience I know that even the best evidence is unconvincing to the close-minded. Like I said before to be comprehensive would take libraries (and you’re welcome to the public access by the way, I included that in my search parameters). That said you’re right the sense that evolutionists may not have a perfect picture of how the world works, but they never claimed to. That claim is reserved by solely by creationists. I never said it would be convincing. In fact I said several times that it would not be. We all achieve the level of enlightenment that we work to obtain. For those who refuse to see truth or reason, libraries of evidence will never be persuasive. The Bar is set too high. You would have to go back in time and observe the events in person without disturbing the events in motion. The only “evidence” that could possibly be convincing is a notarized statement by god saying this is the way it is, which of course you believe you already have. That this doesn’t make sense is readily explained by being the foolishness of the Greeks. This is fine, let’s look at your story and see if that makes sense. The creation story blatantly contradicts itself between chapters 1 and 2, the flood has multiple problems such as number of animals, zoological necessities, sustainable ecology, the coming and going of all the water, the mysterious olive leaf, extant archaeological evidence predating the flood, lack of geological evidence for a truly global flood, the diversity of people and animals, the time it takes to spread from Ararat to the rest of the world, etc. When you look at the stories, it’s quite clear that Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark are speaking about spiritual truths not literal ones. Ignoring all the physical evidence, logical idiocies, you have the language in the bible. It’s obviously spiritual in nature, the raven finds nothing, the Dove finds an olive leaf. It’s an blatantly spiritual story meant to have a spiritual lesson. This is a very different kind of language used in other places in the bible to talk about more or less literal events. There may well have been a regional disaster on the Mediterranean at some point, but it clearly didn’t destroy the entire world in a literal fashion. It would violate every known law of physics and biology that we know.
