Evolution? How?

[
Thank you for answering me. That makes complete sense to me and I do appreciate it.

I can only tell you that through studying the Bible, speaking with others, applying the principles of the Bible, and continuing to learn, I have come to know certain things.

Now, I will admit that I cannot offer scientific proof to you or anyone else concerning this process. As I have pointed out, some of the definitions of know do not call for scientific proof. So, I would say that one would have to use the definition of the dictionary that fits them.

Questioner,

Yes, it probably does happen quite often that I misunderstand. That is why I ask questions. Others have often misunderstood me also. It's a pretty universal thing in my opinion.

I offered evidence that I was told I should use. I was told I should use that evidence by a 'scientist'. I used that evidence. It was not accepted. Why was it unacceptable?

Rolling your eyes? You did not agree with that statement? You don't agree that it might be hard (at least for some) to misread a tone in a post?

Intrepid,

I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.

I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.

Questioner,

I explained why I posted those points. I apologized for any misunderstanding.

I said truce? I thought that would be the end of it.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Intrepid,

I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.

I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.

The dictionary (depending on which one) does indicate that know can be; well-infomed; well-instructed; to perceive with certainty; to understand clearly and many more.

I used the word know as it pertained to my faith in this or some other thread that Frank was on (could only be religion threads ;-) ) and I was driven into the ground on it. I have now revised my "know" to that which I had written above. Although, the dictionary definition could describe our thoughts, it is probably best to use the word faith and not use know with it. That way, folks who do not understand your meaning cannot misconstrue your intent.

Intrepid wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Intrepid,

I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.

I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.

The dictionary (depending on which one) does indicate that know can be; well-infomed; well-instructed; to perceive with certainty; to understand clearly and many more.

I used the word know as it pertained to my faith in this or some other thread that Frank was on (could only be religion threads ;-) ) and I was driven into the ground on it. I have now revised my "know" to that which I had written above. Although, the dictionary definition could describe our thoughts, it is probably best to use the word faith and not use know with it. That way, folks who do not understand your meaning cannot misconstrue your intent.

Intrepid,

I understand you completely. I am being a little stubborn in my sticking to this. I admit that. However, I am having a very hard time understanding something. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

The 'scientists' seem to want proof or evidence. They want it from a source they will accept. I provided that evidence from a source they said they accepted. Once provided, it was not accepted.

To me, this is along the same lines as what they say about our interpreting the Bible. It seems to me that this is what they are doing with the dictionary and I don't understand it.

Is it just that I believe on faith and from those beliefs I know? Aren't there just things in life you know?

Again, this is my perception. I ask questions until I understand. Can you help?

Momma,

I understand what you are saying, but being stubborn is not the tact to take when you want to make a valid point.

It is reasonalbe to ask for proof of something. Some things can be easily proven and some cannot. You can prove that a candle melts as it burns because you can see the evidence. You now that a flower grows from a seed because it can be seen over a course of time. You cannot prove that God exists through the same evidence. Sure, we can postulate that He provided the earth that the seed is planted in and the rain that nourishes the seed and the sunshine that is needed to grow. We cannot, however prove it. We know that the flower grows, but we cannot show how God did it.

The bible has been intrepreted many times, in many ways. We take the basics and work with them... that is our faith. We cannot expect everybody to understand this any more than we can expect to understand their point.

Some have written that they were faithful as children or young adults and then fell away from Christianity. In my case, I did not accept it as a child and young adult. I accepted it later. Faith is difficult to explain to others that do not accept it. It is never my intent to force my faith upon others. That is not fair. Everybody has to either accept or reject that which they know and live with the consequences at the end.

Questioner,

LOL. I am so glad that this is something you might more readily be agreeable to (?). Not sure that's the correct word.

I have said that and oh boy, did Frank jump on me for that one!

I appreciate you so much for posting this. I am glad that you understand (as it appears you do) what someone means when they say that.

He presents cogent arguments that Christian evangelism will be significantly hindered by creationists' attempts to defend their faith by falsely interpreting geologic evidence and thus arguing error on behalf of faith.

MA

Well that may be his opinion but there is an element of truth in this. Fundamentalist, conservatives, both political and religious, all have a my way or no way agenda. There's no half-ways and no compromise. Hence all of the bible must be true and literal because if not then how does one decide what is true and literal and what is allegorical and myth. It's an all or nothing deal.

It's bad enough trying to agree on a common interpretation the Bible among literalists; it will be next to impossible to come to a consensus if it were left up to individuals to decide what will be interpreted as allegorical or literal. So to keep it simple, because politics has shown us that people love simple ideas, make it literal.