dianaiad
Well-Known Member
The part about "through evolution,' when you went on to lambaste me as if were arguing against evolution. Something about DNA, as I remember?What can be taken out of context in
"What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us "
The IMPORTANT part of that sentence, the part that gives all the meaning to the sentence; the object of it.
What you did is the difference between "She went riding' and 'she went riding through the park.'
The two sentences are very different, have very different purposes.
"What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us" is a VERY different sentence from "What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us through evolution?"
You can't SEE that? The purposes behind them are very different. "What's wrong with acknowledging that He created us?" demands a huge change in world view, and would be addressed to unbelievers. It would be like you demanding 'what's wrong with acknowledging that there is no God?" It could be seen as insulting.
However, that's not what I wrote, is it? I wrote 'what's wrong with acknowledging that He created us through evolution?" Remember that the context was that you and I both were addressing believers, not non-believers. People who already believe that God created us. Specifically, addressing those who believe that God created us specifically the way Genesis has been interpreted.
So my question was to them...yes, we believe that God created us. What's wrong with the idea that He created us through evolution?
I can't believe that we are still having this...defugelty, frankly. You are an evolutionist. So am I. You like the evidence for it that we've found. So do I. Why in the world are you arguing with me as if I were a young earth creationist? Why are you taking EVERYTHING I write not only wrongly, but in many cases, having to work really hard to do so? I mean, really....you had to deliberately work hard to change this one.