Evolution For Coggies

[_JAK]

JAK! I still love ya! You bring a certain predictability to debates that I always enjoy...

JAK, I think (fairly positive on this one) that EAllusion wasn't forwarding his posts as his own beliefs. He was showing how the LDS religion is not compatible with evolutionary theory.

Does that help?

Of course the constant confusion is intensely entertaining...

If you say so. Just why would anyone take space to spam this particular board?

JAK

[_JAK]

Jak -

You are a moron.

And you?

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Jak -

You are a moron.

Why, EA? Because there is no indication in the copied exchanges that you're an atheist? Perhaps you should more clearly convey your meaning.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

And Jak, let me add this: I agree with everything you stated above. I think? Pretty sure. Okay?

I don't even understand what Coggins is saying.

There are major syntax problems among other problems with what he/she is saying.

JAK

That's alright. Neither does Coggins half the time.

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK! I still love ya! You bring a certain predictability to debates that I always enjoy...

JAK, I think (fairly positive on this one) that EAllusion wasn't forwarding his posts as his own beliefs. He was showing how the LDS religion is not compatible with evolutionary theory.

Does that help?

Of course the constant confusion is intensely entertaining...

Really? Put him on a threaded view, stand back and behold the analysis that bursts forth!

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

*sigh*

Once again, EAllusion was making fun of creationists. He does this by showing exactly how out to lunch they are, using their own words.

Classic, EA. Classic EA.

[_bcspace]

BCSpace: It's really great to know that the church has beneficently agreed to let you remain free to speculate on some subjects, and has only removed that freedom in a very few subjects. What a truly marvelous organization!

Indeed. I am even allowed to accept or reject any of it's doctrine.

Of course, you're "we're free to speculate" is in reality a damning fact, that the Church simply doesn't know anything, and is no longer willing to pronounce on anything either,

They have pronounced on all that God has seen fit to reveal to us. I don't see any reason why more would be necessary unless God so wills.

because then they'd be held to some kind of standard of proof, or be seen as subject to disproof if contradicting evidence is found.

Seems to apply to some individuals but not the Church.

Steuss: Of course the Bible isn't 100% open to "literal vs. figurative" arguments. The parts of the Bible that are provable by means of evidence should be decided one way or another. Hence, we know that Jerusalem existed literally, as did Jericho. We know that the Nile is in Egypt, and we know that cedars did in fact used to grow in Lebanon.

Step outside of those provable facts, however, and I maintain that everything else is still up for grabs.

Indeed. It's called faith.

[_EAllusion]

In the interest of clarity -

I called Jak a moron because that is my opinion of his posting in general and it seemed apt when he knee-jerk assumed I was defending young earth creationism merely because I quoted the LDS Old Testament manual on the age of the earth, then pointed out that it attacks evolutionary theory and endorses creationism. Indeed, my low opinion of it should've been easily inferable from the fact that I mock its appeal to "reputable scholars." In defense of Jak, on another message board I participated in there was a guy who had a near identical posting style to his and he was just trolling. Maybe Jak is just a troll intentionally acting like an idiot.

The reason I posted what I did is because BCSpace made an argument that the Old Testament manual allows for a figurative interpretation of genesis on the the nature of the term "day;" therefore, his figurative interpretation that allows for evolutionary theory is within the realm of acceptable thought too. The fact that day doesn't literally have to mean a 24 hour day means that the Church does not require us to be literal. He also implies that this means the Church is no friend of creationists since it allows for an age of the earth longer than 6000 years or so. The reality is that the specific section he is referring to is an expression of day-age creationism. Hard young-earth creationism isn't the only form of creationist thought around. The manual actually endorses creationism when you read just a little further. Even in the section on the age of the earth, it gives credence to young-earth "science." Not only that, the manual explicitly attacks evolutionary theory with creationist anti-evolution material of the era. It makes a case that it is not compatible with LDS thought. So much for using the manual to show how open the Church is to figurative interpretation when the subject is evolution. The reality is the Old Testament manual is open to figurative interpretation in some instances, but not in others. My interest was solely in fleshing out the context of BCSpace's reference to show how it doesn't support his specific argument. If he wanted to show that evolutionary theory is compatible with Church doctrine, he'd have to make a case that the manual does not authoritatively represent Church doctrine. But in doing so, that would undercut his entire argument here where he appeals to the manual's authority to show the Church's openness to figurative interpretation.

Don -

Hi.