What an informed biblical literalist who was interested in Christian apologetics would know

[outhouse]

what I want to know is why you "all" want to stand up for someone who is insulting those who are educated promoting lack of knowledge as the only way to properly understand theism in the bible?

lets sweep that under the rug and attack me for addressing the supposed definition divinely inspired

 

[outhouse]

There were not gods. All that you demonstrate here is a lack of knowledge about the hierarchy of gods in the Roman Empire, which really has nothing to do with what is being discussed at hand (as Tumbleweed pointed out). So even if you were correct, it would mean nothing as it doesn't actually say anything about the people being discussed.

Yes, the Hebrews called people sons of God. But this was not seen as calling them divine.

lets see, romans wrote the majority of the NT

so roman influence is key here to understanding how divine applies

mortal men were worshipped as gods, so please be careful how you personally use the term "lack of knowledge" against me bud.

Imperial cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An imperial cult is a form of state religion in which an emperor, or a dynasty of emperors (or rulers of another title), are worshipped as messiahs, demigods or deities


Even before the rise of the Caesars, there are traces of a "regal spirituality" in Roman society

King Numitor corresponds to the regal-sacred principle in early Roman history. The "founder of Rome" Romulus was heroized into "Quirinus", the "undefeated god", of whom the later Caesars identified with and considered themselves incarnations

the Imperial cult gradually developed more formally and constituted the worship of the Roman emperor as a god.

 

[fallingblood]

what I want to know is why you "all" want to stand up for someone who is insulting those who are educated promoting lack of knowledge as the only way to properly understand theism in the bible?

lets sweep that under the rug and attack me for addressing the supposed definition divinely inspired

Not an either or situation here. Just because people critique what you're saying does not mean they automatically agree with the opposition. It just means they don't agree with what you're saying.

If you're saying things that are simply incorrect, there is no reason why you should be free from being called out on it. Additional false hood simply does not make something right.

lets see, romans wrote the majority of the NT

so roman influence is key here to understanding how divine applies

mortal men were worshipped as gods, so please be careful how you personally use the term "lack of knowledge" against me bud.

Romans did not write the majority of the NT. In fact, we know for sure that the NT was written by people who opposed Roman religion, and the Roman state.

So Roman influence here is not key. Especially since the two religious ideas simply are so very different, and that the area in which the NT is being produced, the culture in which produces it, and location in which it is produced is so very different.

In Christianity, mortal men were not worshipped as gods. More so, even in Roman religious ideals, those "gods" were hardly what one would label God. There was a hierarchy, which you seem to be completely lacking knowledge of. Humans that were deified as gods were seen quite different from the actual gods. So really, you are comparing to very different ideas.

And the only case in which a human was worshipped as God (or divine) was with Jesus, and he is hardly a normal case, as he was seen to be God. It is very different than the Roman imperial cults.

Again, the NT was not written by Romans (unless by Romans you mean someone who lived in the Roman Empire, and then the term is useless as Jesus would also be a Roman), the Roman Imperial cults and Christianity in terms of gods are completely different, and the Roman Imperial Cults have no influence here.

 

[outhouse]

Not an either or situation here. Just because people critique what you're saying does not mean they automatically agree with the opposition. It just means they don't agree with what you're saying.

If you're saying things that are simply incorrect, there is no reason why you should be free from being called out on it. Additional false hood simply does not make something right.

Romans did not write the majority of the NT. In fact, we know for sure that the NT was written by people who opposed Roman religion, and the Roman state.

So Roman influence here is not key. Especially since the two religious ideas simply are so very different, and that the area in which the NT is being produced, the culture in which produces it, and location in which it is produced is so very different.

In Christianity, mortal men were not worshipped as gods. More so, even in Roman religious ideals, those "gods" were hardly what one would label God. There was a hierarchy, which you seem to be completely lacking knowledge of. Humans that were deified as gods were seen quite different from the actual gods. So really, you are comparing to very different ideas.

And the only case in which a human was worshipped as God (or divine) was with Jesus, and he is hardly a normal case, as he was seen to be God. It is very different than the Roman imperial cults.

Again, the NT was not written by Romans (unless by Romans you mean someone who lived in the Roman Empire, and then the term is useless as Jesus would also be a Roman), the Roman Imperial cults and Christianity in terms of gods are completely different, and the Roman Imperial Cults have no influence here.

Paul was a roman citizen, and Gmark was writing to a roman audience, which would place him as a roman, and paul took his message straight to the roman/gentile communities.


these two books are the foundation and backbone of the NT, add Luke and Acts, you have little you could ever attribute to a jew, even Matthew used the roman foundation of Gmark. no real jew would ever do. And Gjohn while starting out as a jewish movement that broke away from judaism, took on more gentiles over the years then jews as paul did.
These two books are the foundation


Gods are gods, and yes all gods people or imagination are all viewed differently, but worshipped none the less.

and that is my point, mortal people yes in a hierarchy were viewed as deities and divine and worshipped, and many of jesus attributations per the best scholars, competed with roman emporers, talking to large crowds like a roman emporer, being called a "son of god" which started with roman emporers before jesus, and being divine, imagine that just like a roman emporer. and worshipped like a roman emporer, Because it was written by romans for romans who were worshipping judaism but wouldnt convert.

The largest portion of christianity started from god-fearers, as jesus movement failed in judaism. And the gospels make romans out to be inoccent like Pilate, when he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Is it not evolutionists that presuppose life and the universe itself came about by merely materialistic means? Evolutionists who deny any hypothesis that points to an intelligent Designer? In my mind, it is the evolutionists that try to bend plain evidence to conform to their preconceived notion of evolution. Thus, they constantly must backtrack when their theories are proven wrong.

Ever heard of Theistic Evolution"? or the term "Christian Darwinist"? There are plenty of Xtians who believe in creation, as well as evolution, so your argument holds no water, as usual.

Also, you are confusing the term theory. Scientific theories aren't proven wrong. At most, they are modified when new information is discovered. There is a huge difference between the laymen term theory, and Scientific Theory.

 

[rusra02]

So what, do you think Denton's unbiased?

"Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]

Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle. . ."
Source: Wikipedia
​

See a review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis HERE.

And you are surprised that evolutionists would react the way they did to Denton's book? I would have been surprised by any other response. ToE propagandists remind me of the Pharisees of Jesus day. When men sent to arrest Jesus returned without him, the Pharisees used the tyranny of authority to berate them: "You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people." (John 7:47-50) Evolutionists use a similar line:" Denton is "obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both." 'Not one of the biologists or competent scientists accept Intelligent Design. This crowd that does not accept evolution are "stupid, crazy, or ignorant."' I think the evolutionary propagandists are just as wrong as the Pharisees.

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Ever heard of Theistic Evolution"? or the term "Christian Darwinist"? There are plenty of Xtians who believe in creation, as well as evolution, so your argument holds no water, as usual.

Also, you are confusing the term theory. Scientific theories aren't proven wrong. At most, they are modified when new information is discovered. There is a huge difference between the laymen term theory, and Scientific Theory.

Since evolution is a repudiation of what the Bible teaches, that God created plants and animals according to their kinds, and that man is a special creation of God (not evolved), I believe the term "Christian Dawinist" is an oxymoron. You can be a believer in evolution, or you can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, but you cannot be both successfully. (Matthew 6:24)

Also, a theory is not a fact because scientists say that it is; evolutionists repeating over and over "evolution is a fact" doesn't make it so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since evolution is a repudiation of what the Bible teaches, that God created plants and animals according to their kinds, and that man is a special creation of God (not evolved), I believe the term "Christian Dawinist" is an oxymoron. You can be a believer in evolution, or you can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, but you cannot be both successfully. (Matthew 6:24)

Or, maybe, the Bible was written by fallible people who misinterpreted God's words - or is largely (or, at least, partly) allegorical rather than literal. Or, y'know, it could all be utter garbage made up by God in order to test your gullibility.

Also, a theory is not a fact because scientists say that it is; evolutionists repeating over and over "evolution is a fact" doesn't make it so.

Theories are not facts - theories EXPLAIN facts. Just as the theory of gravity is an explanation for the FACT of gravity, the theory of evolution is an explanation for the FACT of evolution.

Also, please stop making the "just because you say so" argument. You are the person who keeps quoting random, out-context people as if their words alone are enough to fully and completely refute the work of millions of scientists around the world. We don't believe what we believe just because we say so - we believe it because it's what the facts clearly demonstrate, and you seem extremely keen to ignore that.

And you are surprised that evolutionists would react the way they did to Denton's book? I would have been surprised by any other response. ToE propagandists remind me of the Pharisees of Jesus day.

So, when trained and credentialed scientists critique Denton's books they're only doing so because they're "propagandists", but when you copy and paste the words of people from Christian apologetics sites and Creation science articles they're completely and totally reliable? I'm detecting a hint of bias.

When men sent to arrest Jesus returned without him, the Pharisees used the tyranny of authority to berate them: "You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people." (John 7:47-50) Evolutionists use a similar line:" Denton is "obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both." 'Not one of the biologists or competent scientists accept Intelligent Design. This crowd that does not accept evolution are "stupid, crazy, or ignorant."' I think the evolutionary propagandists are just as wrong as the Pharisees.

Are you seriously comparing Denton to Jesus?

The difference is pretty clear: the scientists have the facts on their side and Denton and his book are demonstrably false and intentionally misleading. Rather than playing the persecution card, why not investigate the claims being made?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Since evolution is a repudiation of what the Bible teaches, that God created plants and animals according to their kinds, and that man is a special creation of God (not evolved), I believe the term "Christian Dawinist" is an oxymoron. You can be a believer in evolution, or you can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, but you cannot be both successfully. (Matthew 6:24)

Nothing in the bible "repudiates" evolution. It would be impossible for bronze age people writing the bible to refute something they had no knowledge of.

What you believe, and what is actual fact are obviously two very different things. It is fact that there are many, many xtians who believe in both creation and evolution. It is the lack of any biblical repudiation to evolution that allows this.

And how do you measure success when refering to someone's beliefs? This doesn't even make sense.

Also, a theory is not a fact because scientists say that it is; evolutionists repeating over and over "evolution is a fact" doesn't make it so.

Again, you are confusing the definition of "Theory" and "Scientific Theory". I'm really not sure what is so hard to understand about this. It's as if you intentionally ignore what is being told to you. Scientific Theory is a term coined by the scientific community as a whole to explain factual observations in nature. As Immortal explained above, see "Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Relativity". I'm sure you can't in good faith (pardon the pun) say that these examples aren't based on fact.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul was a roman citizen, and Gmark was writing to a roman audience, which would place him as a roman, and paul took his message straight to the roman/gentile communities.

In another thread, you said that Acts had no credibility. In fact, you told me to forget Acts. Yet now you are using Acts to make a point, as it is the only place that even suggests Paul was a Roman citizen. You can't have it both ways, and really, you're only using selective reading here.

As for Mark, it doesn't matter who he was writing to. First, he we don't know who he was writing to, unless by Romans you mean individuals in the Roman Empire, and by doing so the idea or a Roman is simply pointless as it means nothing. Second, Jews also wrote to "Roman" audiences. Third, just because a "Roman" reads a work, that doesn't make the author a "Roman." There just is no logic there.

As for Paul taking his message to the Roman/gentile community (Roman and gentile are not interchangeable. The fact that you continue to use them as such suggests you have no idea what a Roman is) means nothing. He didn't take his message to people following the Roman religion, and even if he did, those individuals rejected their old beliefs anyway. Meaning, what "Romans" may have believed has no bearing on what this proto-Christian group believed. And it certainly doesn't mean they saw God or gods in the same way.

these two books are the foundation and backbone of the NT, add Luke and Acts, you have little you could ever attribute to a jew, even Matthew used the roman foundation of Gmark. no real jew would ever do. And Gjohn while starting out as a jewish movement that broke away from judaism, took on more gentiles over the years then jews as paul did.
These two books are the foundation

Paul isn't a book. And it is questionable that Mark was a foundation and backbone of the NT. Mark wasn't produced in a vacuum. In fact, he was using previous sources. More so, Luke and Matthew, as well as John, were all using different sources, some of which (like Q) appear to be very Jewish. Not to mention we don't even know the other sources that are being used.

More so, if you actually look at Mark, Luke, Acts, etc, you can find many Jewish ideas in each of them. As for Matthew, we have no idea if Mark has a "Roman" foundation. Many have actually stated that Mark was a Jew. Not to mention that Mark was using earlier sources which are most likely Jewish.

Also, Jews did use non-Jewish sources. I don't know why you would even claim such. That just shows you have no idea about the subject. Josephus, and Philo both used non-Jewish sources. Jews today continue to use non-Jewish sources. If you look at the OT, and intertestamental works, you can also see influence of non-Jewish sources. The sources in which one uses does not dictate what that author is.

So the fact that you said no real Jew would do that simply is illogical and has no actually ground in reality.

Gods are gods, and yes all gods people or imagination are all viewed differently, but worshipped none the less.

Clearly then you have no idea of the hierarchy that existed in the Roman pantheon. Gods were not just gods. There were huge difference, and many were not even worshipped.

and that is my point, mortal people yes in a hierarchy were viewed as deities and divine and worshipped, and many of jesus attributations per the best scholars, competed with roman emporers, talking to large crowds like a roman emporer, being called a "son of god" which started with roman emporers before jesus, and being divine, imagine that just like a roman emporer. and worshipped like a roman emporer, Because it was written by romans for romans who were worshipping judaism but wouldnt convert.

What scholars? Because I have read many scholars, and the stuff you're saying has no basis in what they have written. The fact that most scholars are aware the the term "Son of God" was used in the Hebrew scriptures shows that your statement simply is wrong. This was long before the Roman Empire.

Also, "Romans" could convert to Judaism. There was nothing against that, and in fact many did. Most who followed Judaism but didn't convert did it because of the issue of circumcision.

More so, these works weren't written for "Romans" for Romans." They were written by Jews, and proto-Christians for Jews and proto-Christians. Jesus also was not worshipped like a Roman Emperor. I'm thinking you have no idea about Roman religion at all because there really is no basis for such a statement.

The largest portion of christianity started from god-fearers, as jesus movement failed in judaism. And the gospels make romans out to be inoccent like Pilate, when he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Actually, it started in Judaism, and then went to God-Fearers, who were on the edge of Judaism. More so, the Jesus movement didn't really fail in Judaism until around the 4th century.

Also, the Gospels don't make all Romans out to be innocent. In fact, most still agree that they killed Jesus. They also demonize people like Herod, and that clan. Yes, they do take away responsibility from Pilate, but not from all Romans. Plus, if you read rest of the NT, there is quite a bit of damning material about the Romans.



My point is that you are comparing apples and oranges. What may be true for the Romans, and how they deified humans, has no bearing in Judaism and Christianity. Neither deified humans, besides with the exception of Jesus who was different anyway as he was equated with God. That is completely different from how Romans deified humans. All you're showing is a lack of knowledge on this subject.

 

[fallingblood]

Since evolution is a repudiation of what the Bible teaches, that God created plants and animals according to their kinds, and that man is a special creation of God (not evolved), I believe the term "Christian Dawinist" is an oxymoron. You can be a believer in evolution, or you can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, but you cannot be both successfully. (Matthew 6:24)

Also, a theory is not a fact because scientists say that it is; evolutionists repeating over and over "evolution is a fact" doesn't make it so.

Evolution and Creationism can go hand in hand. The problem is when some people take the mythology in the OT as extremely literal when it was never meant to be such.

You can be both successfully. More so, evolution isn't a fact because scientists say it is. Scientists are wrong from time to time. It is a fact though because it has been tested, and all of the evidence points to it being true.

 

[rusra02]

Evolution and Creationism can go hand in hand. The problem is when some people take the mythology in the OT as extremely literal when it was never meant to be such.

You can be both successfully. More so, evolution isn't a fact because scientists say it is. Scientists are wrong from time to time. It is a fact though because it has been tested, and all of the evidence points to it being true.

I think you are woefully wrong. Jesus Christ did not believe the Hebrew Scriptures contain "mythology". To the contrary, he constantly referred to these Scriptures as the basis for his teachings. In prayer to God, Jesus said: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus referred to the creation account, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Deluge as historical realities, not myths. (Matthew 19:4, 24:37-39, Luke 17:28,29) Jesus relied on the Hebrew Scriptures as authority for what he taught and how he lived.

And as mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe the evidence points to evolution being true. To the contrary, the evidence against macroevolution is overwhelming. The fossil record does not support this theory. I believe it is as biologist Jonathan Wells wrote: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.” (quote from g9/06 p.17) Calling every little change in the size of a bird's beak does not macroevolution prove, but rather, variation within species.

​

​

 

[johnhanks]

I believe it is as biologist Jonathan Wells wrote: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

I quote:

'Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism" ...'

Moon's teachings, his theological studies and his prayers convinced him, you will note; not anything he deduced from studying biology. Furthermore,

There have been 12 detailed reviews of [Jonathan Wells'] Icons [of Evolution], from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.

 

[fallingblood]

I think you are woefully wrong. Jesus Christ did not believe the Hebrew Scriptures contain "mythology". To the contrary, he constantly referred to these Scriptures as the basis for his teachings. In prayer to God, Jesus said: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus referred to the creation account, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Deluge as historical realities, not myths. (Matthew 19:4, 24:37-39, Luke 17:28,29) Jesus relied on the Hebrew Scriptures as authority for what he taught and how he lived.

And as mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe the evidence points to evolution being true. To the contrary, the evidence against macroevolution is overwhelming. The fossil record does not support this theory. I believe it is as biologist Jonathan Wells wrote: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.” (quote from g9/06 p.17) Calling every little change in the size of a bird's beak does not macroevolution prove, but rather, variation within species.

Mythology does contain truth. Mythology, as it's purpose, portrays a truth. It may not be a historical fact, or a scientific fact, but it is a truth.

I'm also relying on the Hebrew scriptures here, and actually examining them for what they are, not what others want them to be. I also won't deal with Wells as John Hanks did a great job at that.

 

[outhouse]

I think you are woefully wrong. Jesus Christ did not believe the Hebrew Scriptures contain "mythology". To the contrary, he constantly referred to these Scriptures as the basis for his teachings. In prayer to God, Jesus said: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus referred to the creation account, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Deluge as historical realities, not myths. (Matthew 19:4, 24:37-39, Luke 17:28,29) Jesus relied on the Hebrew Scriptures as authority for what he taught and how he lived.

And as mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe the evidence points to evolution being true. To the contrary, the evidence against macroevolution is overwhelming. The fossil record does not support this theory. I believe it is as biologist Jonathan Wells wrote: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.” (quote from g9/06 p.17) Calling every little change in the size of a bird's beak does not macroevolution prove, but rather, variation within species.

such a sad thing, refusing knowledge and refusing modern education.


heres a man so lost, he has thrown his education away in favor of theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community

Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism


so what we have now is a quack, with no credibility.



The fossil record also backs evolution to a T 100% in line with evolution.

As a matter of fact, not one fossil is out of line, with evolution.



is this not intellectual dishonesty on your part? you have been shown these facts before, but keep parroting misinformation.

 

[rusra02]

such a sad thing, refusing knowledge and refusing modern education.


heres a man so lost, he has thrown his education away in favor of theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community

Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism


so what we have now is a quack, with no credibility.



The fossil record also backs evolution to a T 100% in line with evolution.

As a matter of fact, not one fossil is out of line, with evolution.



is this not intellectual dishonesty on your part? you have been shown these facts before, but keep parroting misinformation.

Right. Every one who dares disagree with evolution is labeled dishonest, a quack, etc. etc. Good evolutionary propaganda.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right. Every one who dares disagree with evolution is labeled dishonest, a quack, etc. etc. Good evolutionary propaganda.

Not "labeled"; Proven, through careful analysis of their words by people who know far better than they do.

Seriously, playing the persecution card does not work in science.

 

[fallingblood]

Right. Every one who dares disagree with evolution is labeled dishonest, a quack, etc. etc. Good evolutionary propaganda.

I don't agree with your overall point of view, but I do agree with this. I think one of the reasons why some hold onto creationism so strongly is because those debating evolution simply come off in a negative light. There needs to be a mutual respect.

 

[Shermana]

I think you are woefully wrong. Jesus Christ did not believe the Hebrew Scriptures contain "mythology". To the contrary, he constantly referred to these Scriptures as the basis for his teachings. In prayer to God, Jesus said: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus referred to the creation account, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Deluge as historical realities, not myths. (Matthew 19:4, 24:37-39, Luke 17:28,29) Jesus relied on the Hebrew Scriptures as authority for what he taught and how he lived.

And as mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe the evidence points to evolution being true. To the contrary, the evidence against macroevolution is overwhelming. The fossil record does not support this theory. I believe it is as biologist Jonathan Wells wrote: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.” (quote from g9/06 p.17) Calling every little change in the size of a bird's beak does not macroevolution prove, but rather, variation within species.

Indeed, virtually ALL the textual evidence until probably the rationalist Medieval Rabbis (and even then) says they considered the "Mythology" to be 100% real, and even Jesus and Paul (and Jude and the author of Peter) in their writings seem to indicate that it was considered 100% real things, referencing the Flood and Adam as real events and beings, and even Augustine, who some refer to as saying it could be "metaphorical" still implied it nonetheless happened, just not as others understood. It would be ridiculous IMO to assume that the authors of the NT intended their readership to be familiar with the idea that these things were just abstract metaphors from the OT when they so clearly refer to them as real events with real Theological value based on their historicity.

And yes, the evidence for Macro-evolution is based purely on wordplay of what "Speciation" means, there's tons of evidence for Epigenetic Micro-evolution but there's NO evidence that a fly can become something more than just a different kind of fly. No evidence that a fish can eventually grow legs, despite what Tiktaalik's water skimming may suggest. Those who say the "Fossil record is 100% proof" probably have not actually seen the Fossil record, and are unaware of the Chinese fossil industry to begin with. Even Australopithecus is no longer considered an ancestor. Habilus is controversial, and in instances like the Rhodocetus they've been caught red handed putting on fake fins and tales to complete the remains they have. Even the classification system as you bring up is a little bit flawed, Camels and Llamas are different genuses yet they are capable of fertile Camas. And then there's also the bogus arguments about "Vestigality" which is another can of worms. The best argument they have in their arsenal may be the Retroviruses but even those mean nothing more than similar species having similar spots that can be virused similarly. It would make sense that different animals that share similar interior structures become virused in the same spots.

Over time I believe that the facts will force the confirmation biases to be dropped and more research on Epigenetics will pave the way for a deconstruction of Neo-Darwinistic fantasies. Part of the problem is the abuse of Semantics to say that "Macro-evolution" has been witnessed when in reality it's just Micro-evolution that can be terms "Macro" even though it in no way demonstrates an actual drastic structural change that would show evidence of such changes being possible beyond the immediate. It is from here that arguments about evolution descend into appeals to authority based on the opinions of the "Scientific concensus". And then there's the whole can of worms of issues that scientists have not and most likely WILL not be able to figure out, like how the Bat got its wings. They may try to brush it up with hopeful propaganda, but in the end, as we can see in the following study, it just becomes more of "Well...we don't know, but one day we'll find out". Kicking the can down Research Lane and calling it a day.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458926/





To say that there's actually evidence in favor of Macro-evolution is usually a gross misunderstanding of the Micro-evolutionary processes that have been witnessed. To make the leap and say that since a mosquito can develop into a new population of mostly new mosquitos that can't cross-breed with the "old form", that a Fish can eventually become a monkey represents a total misunderstanding of the available evidence at hand.

Frubal especially for the Jonathon Wells reference.

 

[Shermana]

I quote:

Moon's teachings, his theological studies and his prayers convinced him, you will note; not anything he deduced from studying biology. Furthermore,

So does that mean we get to write off any Scientist's opinion based on their own religious preferences (or lack of)?

Hmm what's this here:

In 1989 he went to the University of California at Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cell biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and was published in academic journals.

Gee, according to your logic, that makes Berkeley look pretty bad granting a PHd in Molecular and Cellular Biology to someone who bases all their theories on Moonie theology and all those academic publications allowing him to write.. Because of course, just because a person is in a non-tradition religion, we can just accuse them of confirmation bias, whether or not they are published in academic journals and have a PHd in MOLECULAR AND CELL BIOLOGY TWENTY YEARS AFTER THEY JOIN THIS GROUP. Yeah, totally, we can just brush him off just because of his Moonie affiliations, don't worry about that pesky PHD and accredited publications, that's all just Moonie propaganda that Liberal Berkeley must have subsidized as part of their religious tolerance or something, yeah that's it.

So now we get to write off atheist PHds and scientists for being Atheist? That would be great! Unless you think Confirmation Bias only goes one way of course.

There have been 12 detailed reviews of [Jonathan Wells'] Icons [of Evolution], from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.

And none of them had any confirmation bias themselves whatsoever. I'd like to see what exactly they claim he misquoted in detail. There are probably plenty of studies telling you that Aspartame is a-okay and why Pigs made with Human genes isn't a problem, condemning the few who speak against it as well. But that's a whole another thread issue. If you're going to go straight for the foundation of the source, you should consider discussing the actual details of how they represent a direct link to the details of the scientific claims in question beyond just accusing of bias.