To all creatonists

Originally posted by josephw
But it seems to me that without an answer as to the origin of the things evolution seeks to explain it is enviable as a theory.

So are you claiming that all scientific theories (except possibly the Big Bang Theory) are unviable because they do not explain the origin of the things they seek to explain? Including all of Newtons and Einsteins laws etc? Are you in effect claiming that science is unviable and a waste of time?
Or do you only apply your rule to those theories you are uncomfortable with?

Originally posted by vistesd
A story:

One Shabbos afternoon, Reb Reuven called me into is study. He was sitting behind his desk and motioned me to take the chair across from him. A volume of the Zohar was lying open in front of him.

“Do you know what the Zohar is?” he asked.

“Of course,” I said. “It is a mystical commentary on Torah written by Moshe deLeon, a th ...[text shortened]... was the rabbi at an Orthodox kibbutz where Shapiro, a Reconstructionist rabbi, spent some time.

You can have a story wrapped around a true event describing it in
detail, some stories could contain more accurate detail than others,
just as you can have a painting portray a person some with great
accuracy others not so much, some pictures may be inspiring, but
truly do not reflect reality in any fashion. Much of our lives are
simply stories as we describe the universe we are in, the closer we
are to ‘getting it right’ the better our understanding of the universe
as getting it right is simply seeing things as they are in truth. Which
I believe is easy, but we complicate it by trying to make the pieces
fit some times when they really don’t by seeing the universe the way
we want it to be verses the way it really is.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
Good point. As I recall, however, you and I tend to see things like myth, symbolism, allegory in religion as being valid as such—whether a given story has a basis in fact or not.

Indeed. In my last post (which I made before seeing your reply to josephw) I was simply trying to point out an inconsistency in josephw's argument, and was not trying to take a stand on God as the "author of fact" one way or another.

Originally posted by josephw
So, God says one thing and means another?
In other words, "Thus saith the Lord" really means nothing since He really doesn't mean what He says.

You've lost me now. How does this relate to my post? I only pointed out that you yourself state that God is an author. I don't see how this implies that God says one thing and means another.

Originally posted by josephw
Ah! But creationism isn't changing.

Oddly enough, evolution has to keep changing because it has so many contradictions in it.

That ones for you shavixmir. 😲

Creationism changes as well.

Whats creationism?

sorry, just googled it.

People actually believe this stuff?