Theistic Evolution

Originally posted by Nicksten
I guess around 3000 years ago.

So are you saying that archaeological remains in China from prior to that date, were people who lived there before the flood, and those after that date were descendants of Noah?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And a potter ends up with a rather hard substance which contains only a very small amount of water. Humans however are on average about 60% water. So God must have at some point used something that could more accurately be described as 'soup' than 'dust'.

[b]When God created all His life forms, He included within them a program
to allow for reproducti t species - another word that does not have a rigorous definition.

The Potter and the clay is like an allegory. It is not an exact representation
for the Potter bakes his pottery in an over to make it hard. I don't believe
the Holy Bible explains how humans were made and finished. It just states
material used in the creation.

I am just stating that Darwin was wrong and anyone that follows in his
belief must also be wrong, regardless of how many they are.

I understand enough of the subject to know that it disagrees with the
truth of the Holy Bible.

I am sure that scientists are intelligent enough to make a rigorous definition
of "kind" to fit the Biblical description if they wished to do so. They could
also do the same to "species". I see no real problem there. I am not
concerned with that trivial matter.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I understand this. That is why I used it as it relates to the Genesis
account of the creation of man. Just so we are clear on an allegory:

"Allegory is a demonstrative form of representation explaining meaning other than the words that are spoken. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. A ...[text shortened]... e grim reaper is a symbolic representation of death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

Lets ignore the fact that you had to check online for a definition, more problematic is the fact that you did not answer my question concerning the USE of allegory.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Lets ignore the fact that you had to check online for a definition, more problematic is the fact that you did not answer my question concerning the USE of allegory.

I thought giving you the definition of allegory would help you answer your
own questions for I did not understand exactly what you were asking.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I thought giving you the definition of allegory would help you answer your
own questions for I did not understand exactly what you were asking.

So you agree the bibles author(who ever that may be) used allegory to communicate with the reader and therefor never intended it to be taken literally?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I thought giving you the definition of allegory would help you answer your
own questions for I did not understand exactly what you were asking.

No human has actually observed the process of how life really has transformed. However, humans have done controlled experiments on
the theory of evolution and those experiments were observed and only really proves part of the theory, nothing more.

These are your words but there is solid evidence for recent evolutionary changes, one point in case: In old England there was a species of moth that inhabited trees around London but starting in the 1700's, the smoke and haze from industrialization changed the way these moths were able to camouflage themselves. They evolved rather quickly, over a period of decades, to a color that allowed them to hide away in trees that had been stained by the smoke of the factories of that era. This is a proven fact, they do not reproduce with the older variety, it is not a micro evolution, they in fact are a new species. These kind of changes have been found by the hundreds by biologists and other life science people.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Potter and the clay is like an allegory. It is not an exact representation
for the Potter bakes his pottery in an over to make it hard. I don't believe
the Holy Bible explains how humans were made and finished. It just states
material used in the creation.

Its funny how the potter is allegory but the clay or dirt isn't. How do you decide what is allegory and what is to be taken literally?

I am just stating that Darwin was wrong and anyone that follows in his
belief must also be wrong, regardless of how many they are.
Nobody 'follows in his belief'. The Theory of Evolution is not a religion. Its a scientific theory which can be understood and the evidence for it is enormous. Its not about belief at all.

I understand enough of the subject to know that it disagrees with the
truth of the Holy Bible.
I rather doubt that. I don't think you understand very much about evolution at all.

I am sure that scientists are intelligent enough to make a rigorous definition
of "kind" to fit the Biblical description if they wished to do so.
Why would they want to? It is you making the claim.

They could also do the same to "species". I see no real problem there. I am not
concerned with that trivial matter.
The problem is that you made a rigorous claim about a loosely defined word. Which essentially means you don't know what you are talking about. If it was trivial, why did you bring it up? You are the one who made claims about 'kinds'. And no, you can't pass it on to the Bible because the Bible was written in Hebrew and could not possibly have said 'kinds'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its funny how the potter is allegory but the clay or dirt isn't. How do you decide what is allegory and what is to be taken literally?

[b]I am just stating that Darwin was wrong and anyone that follows in his
belief must also be wrong, regardless of how many they are.
Nobody 'follows in his belief'. The Theory of Evolution is not a religion. Its because the Bible was written in Hebrew and could not possibly have said 'kinds'.[/b]

I did not say it was an allegory. I said it is "like" an allegory. God is the
Potter. We are the clay. That is what it says. Both are literal, but "like"
an allegory in the way it is written.

The theory of evolution is a main doctrine in the religion of Atheism.

The only thing I need to understand about evolution is that there is no such
thing. It is all imaginary and atheistic fairy tales.

Exactly! They do not want to make a rigorous definition for "kind". They
do not want anything to interfer with their evolutionary propaganda. I
have no problem with the word "kind" and it needs no rigorous definition
in my opinion. It is you that brought that up and not me. So it appears
everyone should be happy now, right?