tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post110891547537441060..comments2023-10-10T02:20:14.831-07:00Comments on New Covenant: Something's fishy here...Rustyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04649535070603621577noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109487765917741742005-02-26T23:02:00.000-08:002005-02-26T23:02:00.000-08:00On Biblical InterpretationRusty, it's possible the...<B>On Biblical Interpretation</B>Rusty, it's possible the comments my wife made were inaccessable recently. The board she posted them on has undergone a couple of DoS attacks recently (and the admins may be requiring registration to read; I don't know.) Try again; they're good posts, though it sounds like you've got the main points of them already. I agree with most of what you said about LotharBothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806302628374941715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109466362266386522005-02-26T17:06:00.000-08:002005-02-26T17:06:00.000-08:00PZ,
First off, thanks for responding in a more ci...PZ,<br /><br />First off, thanks for responding in a more civil manner. I do appreciate it.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that my arguments do not address the details of the science at hand. Not being a scientist, it would be foolhardy of me to attempt such a dialogue. What I do attempt to illustrate is whether or not arguments posited by neo-Darwinists are based on faulty thinking. HenceRustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649535070603621577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109378785151508322005-02-25T16:46:00.000-08:002005-02-25T16:46:00.000-08:00LotharBot,
I would argue that the creation accoun...LotharBot,<br /><br />I would argue that the creation account in Genesis 1 (and there are other references in the Bible to creation) was primarily intended to explain that God created the natural realm, is separate from it, and is sovereign over His creation. This contrasted, as you allude, with virtually every other creation account of the day and, especially, with the Egyptian religious Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649535070603621577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109302927003022582005-02-24T19:42:00.000-08:002005-02-24T19:42:00.000-08:00By the way: Chicago Boyz has a very interesting di...By the way: <A HREF="http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002887.html" REL="nofollow">Chicago Boyz</A> has a very interesting discussion about the inflammatory rhetoric that both Christian fundamentalists and Secular fundamentalists tend to use.LotharBothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806302628374941715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109206983956053772005-02-23T17:03:00.000-08:002005-02-23T17:03:00.000-08:00"I ...believe that the physical and Biblical evide...<I>"I ...believe that the physical and Biblical evidence indicates [God] did not [use neo-Darwinian processes]."</I>The short version of my thoughts:<br /><br />1) The Bible doesn't really address the issue. Genesis 1 is not intended to be a cosmology, it's meant to contrast God with the myths and idols the Israelites were familiar with. God creates intentionally (others created by accident); LotharBothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806302628374941715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109189068918674202005-02-23T12:04:00.000-08:002005-02-23T12:04:00.000-08:00Yes, I’ve pretty much given up attempting dialogue...Yes, I’ve pretty much given up attempting dialogue with him.<br /><br />I believe that God is capable of using the process of evolution as described by neo-Darwinists. But I also believe that the physical and Biblical evidence indicates he did not.<br /><br />What are your thoughts of the recent National Geographic article Was Darwin Wrong? It seemed to me that they relied heavily on the concept Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649535070603621577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109123518218244122005-02-22T17:51:00.000-08:002005-02-22T17:51:00.000-08:00Myers' arguments on his site are rather unfortunat...Myers' arguments on <A HREF="http://pharyngula.org/" REL="nofollow">his site</A> are rather unfortunately framed -- reading half a dozen of his most recent entries shows he's far more interested in flamewars and insults than he should be (see: <A HREF="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/they_arent_just_petty_and_mean_theyre_stupid/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.) That doesn't tend to lead toLotharBothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806302628374941715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955622.post-1109107922661724692005-02-22T13:32:00.000-08:002005-02-22T13:32:00.000-08:00I have found most evolutionists, when confronted w...I have found most evolutionists, when confronted with embarrassing science, attack the individual instead of trying to refute the arguement. This tactic works with the young and the ignorant. But with thoughtful people it shows they have no answers for the thousands of gapping holes in evolutionary theory. Often I am asked to prove ID as a way out of answering my embarrassing question. Since Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com