I don't see any particular reason to start with a "literal" reading. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "begin with the what the words actually mean." Words don't mean anything without context and interpretation, and our context and interpretation (and indeed language) are not the same as when the words were written. The first time someone read the words of Genesis, they took meaning only because of the context and bias and life experience of the person reading them.
And we have a good idea of what that meaning is.
As a Mormon, I read it more or less literally when I was a child, with of course the understanding that Mormons believe the "day" in the Bible refers to a "creative period" of undetermined length. Once you remove the six literal days from the equation, there's not really a huge obstacle to accepting an old earth and evolution.
True
When I got older and understood the evidence, I figured that God must have used evolution during the creative periods.
And I had the exact same process - except the other way. Hmmm.
Thanks, Hoops, for taking the time to answer from your perspective. It is obviously different in several ways from my LDS husband, but helpful nonetheless.
What do you think of the dinosaurs? Did they live during the time of Adam?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
I was hoping/interested to get a few responses/opinions about Dr. Grady's site.
Anyone check it out?
Thanks and peace, Ceeboo
I dunno what to say. I was an English major, but as far as I can tell from years of reading and personal study, the scientific evidence is quite solid for evolution (oddly enough, my Biology professor at BYU seemed to think so, too). I'm not sure what I would gain at this point by spending time on a site run by a self-described apologist who has no expertise in evolutionary biology. Is there some reason you think I should bother with Grady's site?
Last edited by cacheman on Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Full disclosure: My daughter brought home from school a book called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" that her high-school biology teacher had assigned. I read it, and it was craptacular. I'm no scientist, but I know bad reasoning and source manipulation when I see it. According to the teacher, this was one of the best resources for creationists, and I was shocked by its ineptness and lack of scholarship. I've read much better stuff from ID/creationists than that.
So, yes, I've looked at the creationist side many times, and I remain unimpressed.
I was hoping/interested to get a few responses/opinions about Dr. Grady's site.
Anyone check it out?
Thanks and peace, Ceeboo
I've read about 2 articles so far. Honestly, I'm not sciencey enough to tear apart the one about radiocarbon dating. I am very unimpressed with the one about Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe. He seems to assume that humans/homo sapiens would always have buried their dead in a way that would allow us to discover their remains and burial objects. That is just not something that should be assumed. There are plenty of places where we have not discovered as many remains as we should given the likely population of an area. Hey! Maybe they were translated to heaven.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
I was hoping/interested to get a few responses/opinions about Dr. Grady's site.
Anyone check it out?
Thanks and peace, Ceeboo
Sorry, Ceeboo, my friend.
I couldn't get past the first page. Dr. Grady, like so many with his belief system, starts with the premise that the Bible is true and then seeks evidence to support his religious beliefs.
This is not a good way to find the truth. One should first establish whatever provable truths one can find and then see were that leads. Preconceived ideas only lead away from reality.
Admitting you don't know is closer to the truth than pretending you already do.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
OK, so I read a few of the articles, starting with the one about how a young earth is important to God, which I think is nonsense. Why would God care at all about whether we believe in a young earth, especially if the earth clearly isn't all that young?
He predictably attacks Carbon-14 dating. About the only thing he gets right is that Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life, so it is not useful for fossils older than about 50,000 years old. Why that should concern anyone is not really explained. After all, there are multiple, overlapping types of radiological dating, as well as tree rings and glacial ice layers that can be used to accurately date fossils. It's always funny to me that they act as if Carbon-14 is the only type of dating that is used, and then they vastly overstate its inaccuracy.
I just read his article on Homosexuality. He goes with the unnatural argument. LOL Oh, and the Olympics are unChristian. He's got an article on that, too.
Anyway, that is off topic. Sorry to myself.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~