Evolution vs. Creationism

Epignosis, I find the way you interpret the Bible interesting. It's certainly not completely literal, but not entirely allegorical either. It makes me think of some kind of originalism when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution, although I don't know if that analogy is entirely accurate. I actually don't think it is one I've encountered before and if I have, the person didn't really make it explicit (the generic cherry-picking Christian). 

Epignosis wrote: And no offense to Dean or some of you others- I genuinely appreciate the time you took to respond- but I am not convinced by any of the explanations given with respect to the phenomenon of two genders.  Two extremely complex reproductive systems developing simultaneously over millions of years, and yet still functioning enough to keep the species viably reproducing is just too much for me to accept.  I'm sorry.

 

I do not disagree with you, and my post does not make an claims or draw any conclusions, though I was responding to the original question: "how could you explain it today?" and to do that I felt it necessary to look at the "evidence" of the events to see whether a rational explanation was necessary. If the evidence was incontrovertable and a rational explanation could not be speculated then I admit I would be stumped for an answer, but as it is there is reasonable doubt in my mind.

 

History ("knowledge acquired by investigation") isn't an academic science as such in the same way that chemistry, biology or physics are, however it is the subject of scrutinised research and to the scientific method. What was taught as fact in history lessons 100 years ago is now treated with caution if there is no external supporting evidence - for example no one today believes Sir Francis Drake was playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe when the Spanish Amanda was spotted in the English Channel. As a historic document the bible should be treated the same way, as a religious scripture it can be treated however you like. 

 

 

Making that analogy is wrong on so many levels.  It's kind of like you grab two different things (i.e. Religion and a Concept) and throw them together and say it's some kind of equation.

 

I despise religion yet believe in a creator.  In my world, evolutionists are the ones practicing religion.  Now we have "Dawkinists" too who somehow feel validated that there is a high profile work discounting God that they can latch onto.  No intention to, but I'm sure that will ignite a few flames.

 

However, I agree not to call your belief in evolution a religion as long as you don't call my belief in what the bible says a religion.

If we discount the impractical explanations (sunken sandbars, frozen lake, turtles or other water animals as stepping stones etc) then all that remains is the evidence of two biased witnesses (out of a possible 12), the secondhand (hearsay?) account by someone who wasn't there (Mark) and no corroborating independent witnesses. Also the two eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John differ by one significant point - only Matthew mentions that Peter got out of the boat and walked a few steps before sinking, John doesn't think that worthy of mention. Also, Luke fails to report the event at all, yet he writes about the miracle of the previous day (which they all agree on).

 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Or take the earthquake that is supposed to have happened when Jesus was crucified - it wasn't reported by any other historian in the area.

 

I guessed option 3 but I honestly don't know.