OK, let me see if I can answer all of these in one post.
Cygnus, the word to define and the word in question was the word true. Do you know what it means in the Greek? It means true! Duh! Using Websters was a fine way to clarify the argument. Just because the 3rd definition of the word *can* mean archytypical in the Greek, doesnt change the fact that the word means true and is translated that way by every Greek scholar under the sun. Find a translation that translates it any other way than true. Email me when you find one ( [email protected])
Larc wrote->Since you believe in God, can you conceive of the idea that perhaps he used the process of evolution?
No I do not believe in theistic evolution. I see no reason to believe in macro evolution. I see exactly what is described in Genesis. Animals were created and reproduce after their kind. What do we see in the fossil records? What do we see in nature? Animals reproducing after their kind. A dog is a dog and reproduces with dogs and dogs come out. Also, why would God make it so only the strong survive? What kind of God is that? The God of the bully but not of the kid with Asthma. The God of 'might makes right'?
Jan H >The house bears marks of design for a purpose: for example simple geometric curves. A tree is complex, exactly because it originated by natural processes not straightforward design.
A tree is far more complex than a house, so why do you assume that 'natural processes' can create with such intricate complexity? If a tree, that channels billions of cells, each cell being a small factory more complex than any human is able to create, why are you so quick to dismiss it as 'natural' when it is obvious that it has intelligence behind its creation? For example, if I went to your house and gathered leaves from the tree in your front yard and spelled out the word 'leaves' with the leaves I gathered, would you think it was just natural processes that made them fall into place like that or would you guess that someone came along and put them in order? The latter of course, because you know that intelligence was behind it because order does not appear out of chaos. It is such a no brainer. How about just the letter 'L' or just a straight line? Again, you would think 'I wonder who put that in a line'. WHY? Because we know that things like that don't happen. What are the odds of the word 'leaves' being formed by random leaves falling? 10 to the 140th power maybe? Have a look at DNA, a digital code in every cell of every living thing and you guys say you see no evidence for creation? Puh-leeze!
>Evolution is generally rejected only by the most ignorant and uneducated theists. The rest realizes that the evidence for evolution is so strong that, for all intents and purposes, you can call it a proven fact.
Do you realize that you just comitted the fallacy of circular reasoning? You stated that people who don't agree with your view are ignorant and uneducated. What a ludicrous statement. I see things changing over time. I do however, see limits to that change. Farmers breed for sweeter corn, bigger roses and stronger horses, but the end result is always the same, CORN, ROSES, HORSES. YOU are the ones that take science and make it into a fairy tale by saying that so much change occured, over so much time, that all 3 of these came from the same place, all by random 'mutations'. Who is being ignorant here?
Penn
Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
Jesus- 'I am the truth'
