home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.origins      Evolution versus creationism (sometimes      142,579 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 142,489 of 142,579   
   Martin Harran to admin@127.0.0.1   
   Re: Chimp to human evolution - Sandwalk    
   15 Feb 26 14:28:29   
   
   From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000   
   >Martin Harran  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000   
   >> >Martin Harran  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >[big snip]   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >>  From the book:   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>    
   >> >[more snipping]   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our   
   >> >> >> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the   
   >> >> >> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than   
   >> >> >> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>    
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???   
   >> >>   
   >> >> No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -   
   >> >> the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that   
   >> >> there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible   
   >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some   
   >> >> key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them   
   >> >> out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was   
   >> >> inert material.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust   
   >> >> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as   
   >> >> it is every Ash Wednesday.   
   >> >>   
   >> >It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).   
   >> >All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.   
   >> >Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life   
   >> >into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...   
   >>   
   >> Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor   
   >> the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to   
   >> do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument   
   >> you have to offer.   
   >>   
   >Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans   
   >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed   
   >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.   
      
   OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be   
   useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really   
   should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a   
   par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.   
      
   >   
   >The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,   
      
   Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000   
   years ago.   
      
      
   >yet you wanted to   
   >claim here the opposite.   
      
   Really?   
      
   >   
   >Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:   
   >   
   >   
   >>> there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible   
   >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some   
   >> >> key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them   
   >> >> out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was   
   >> >> inert material.   
      
   So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms   
   points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?   
      
      
   >>   
   >So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand   
   >by?   
      
      
   >   
   >> >   
   >> >Grasping at straws methinks.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >[more snip]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca