From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >On 14/03/2025 6:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
      
   [snip for focus]   
      
   >>>>>> Name one mainstream denomination that teaches that 'speaking into   
   >>>>>> life' should be taken literally and evolution dismissed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As I've said before, members of various denominations subscribe to a   
   >>>>> range of interpretations of the biblical account, ALL of which involve   
   >>>>> God creating, i.e. "speaking into existence":   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Do any of the mainstream denominations take "speaking into existence"   
   >>>> literally as you do?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1. TE (front-loaded)	God speaks into initial conditions   
   >>>>> 2. TE (Martin Harran)	God speaks ???   
   >>>>> 3. TE (guided)		God speaks into being gradually   
   >>>>> 4. Progressive Creation	God speaks into being progressively   
   >>>>> 5. OEC/YEC/ID		God speaks into being directly/other   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds   
   >>>>> fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." So God created the   
   >>>>> great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water   
   >>>>> teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every   
   >>>>> winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."   
   >>>>> (Genesis 1:20-21)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So you are a Bible literalist. I'm glad we got that much clarified.   
   >>>   
   >>> How did you get "Bible literalist" from my list of mostly non-literal   
   >>> interpretations of Genesis 1?   
   >>   
   >> Talking about God speaking things into life and quoting Genesis to   
   >> back it up is a pretty strong clue.   
   >   
   >The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >Genesis, not the quoting of it. Your response indicates that you know   
   >this, but attempted to slide past it to your real agenda, at the expense   
   >of correctness and honesty.   
      
   If anyone is guilty of a lack of honesty here, it is you and your   
   continuous evasion.   
      
   You made no attempt to provide any interpretation of the Bible passage   
   you quoted. You gave a list if the ways you think that *other people*   
   might interpret Genesis but none of those qualify as literal - they   
   can't because interpretation is the opposite of literal - and you   
   don't even give any indication which of them (if any) applies to   
   yourself. I have asked you several times whether you think humans have   
   evolved or were created as a stand-alone species and you have made no   
   attempt to answer. I've asked you if you accept your "intelligent   
   designer" has created some really bad things, some really inefficient   
   things and some precarious things. Again, you have made no attempt to   
   answer. Even in your response to my post above about you being a Bible   
   literalist, it's notable that you neither admit nor deny my claim, you   
   just whine about me making it.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> I note you don't deny it.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> and something I and many scientists   
   >>>>>>> who are Christians believe.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The timescale God used (days or millions of years) and the way (deism,   
   >>>>>>> TE, PC, OEC, ID, YEC, other) are of course widely debated.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)