The Town of Odyssey

One thing about micro evolution: say a bird lives in a tropical forest. There isn't as much rain, so the nuts it eats are harder to crack. Over time the bird's beak would harden. That is a kind of micro evolution. ^_^ Just like guys who bulk up on muscles- that as well could be considered micro evolution. You're not changing the essence of something (like a fish to a cat) but you are growing it.

And you don't have to know everything, but sometimes it is a good idea to know basics... that way you know what/how to argue against it.

I'm really enjoying this; you're smart. Keep right on going. ^_^

Termite wrote:One thing about micro evolution: say a bird lives in a tropical forest. There isn't as much rain, so the nuts it eats are harder to crack. Over time the bird's beak would harden. That is a kind of micro evolution. ^_^ Just like guys who bulk up on muscles- that as well could be considered micro evolution. You're not changing the essence of something (like a fish to a cat) but you are growing it.

And you don't have to know everything, but sometimes it is a good idea to know basics... that way you know what/how to argue against it.

I'm really enjoying this; you're smart. Keep right on going. ^_^

oh, then that's fine. I now believe in micro Evolution, but not macro

Wooton Z. Bassett wrote:oh, then that's fine. I now believe in micro Evolution, but not macro

There you go. You now agree with 2/3rds of the people on the ToO.

American Eagle wrote:

Wooton Z. Bassett wrote:oh, then that's fine. I now believe in micro Evolution, but not macro

There you go. You now agree with 2/3rds of the people on the ToO.

Alright! Oh, and thanks for explaining it, Termite

Just think of Micro Evolution simply as adaptations to the environment.

~JCGJ~ wrote:Just think of Micro Evolution simply as adaptations to the environment.

OK, I will

Micro: adaptions or minor changes to the enviroment.

Of course as JJJJ has posted many times most of the science community doesn't make a distinction between micro and macro so talking about it in those terms will not make sense to any one outside the creationist camp.

Also I do think there is a need to educate yourself about other viewpoints. Consider St. Paul when he talked to the Athenian philosophers in Acts. He knew about the statue to the unknown god and was able to preach a culturally relevant gospel message to them. Now you've said you don't read Harry Potter but will you also not read Aristotle?

Ayn Rand wrote:Of course as JJJJ has posted many times most of the science community doesn't make a distinction between micro and macro so talking about it in those terms will not make sense to any one outside the creationist camp.

Also I do think there is a need to educate yourself about other viewpoints. Consider St. Paul when he talked to the Athenian philosophers in Acts. He knew about the statue to the unknown god and was able to preach a culturally relevant gospel message to them. Now you've said you don't read Harry Potter but will you also not read Aristotle?

Well, I haven't studied Aristotle yet so I don't know his viewpoint.

When you study Aristotle, or any viewpoint, will you actually read Aristotle or will you read what others say about him?

Ayn Rand wrote:When you study Aristotle, or any viewpoint, will you actually read Aristotle or will you read what others say about him?

I will read both.

I would suggest that you read many of his original writings first, formulate your own conclusions, then read commentaries, etc. so you don't let someone else's bias determine how you feel about the writings.

Just a suggestion...

~JCGJ~ wrote:I would suggest that you read many of his original writings first, formulate your own conclusions, then read commentaries, etc. so you don't let someone else's bias determine how you feel about the writings.

Just a suggestion...

That's a very good suggestion. I will.

Back to the Catholic thing... do you believe that Catholics are not Christians? Also if you could go into depth a little more about what Catholic theology you don't believe? Like others have said you can't attack something it you don't know what the other side actually thinks.

Wooton Z. Bassett wrote:

~JCGJ~ wrote:Here's a hot topic that's been going around lately...

Should Genesis (especially the Creation account, the Fall, the Flood, etc.) be taken literally, or as a hypothetical, figurative, alagorical, or metaphorical writing?

I believe it should be taken literally.

So as such, you believe creation took only a week and the earth is only (I don't recall specific numbers) a few thousand years old?

DanP740 wrote:

Wooton Z. Bassett wrote:

~JCGJ~ wrote:Here's a hot topic that's been going around lately...

Should Genesis (especially the Creation account, the Fall, the Flood, etc.) be taken literally, or as a hypothetical, figurative, alagorical, or metaphorical writing?

I believe it should be taken literally.

So as such, you believe creation took only a week and the earth is only (I don't recall specific numbers) a few thousand years old?

Anywhere from 6-10 thousand to 15-20 thousand years (depending on if you're taking the geneologies alone, or if you're taking other info as well).

@Jehosephat
I believe Catholics are NOT Christian. For one thing, they believe that the only way to get to heaven is by works or good deeds which is not true.

@Dan and JCGJ

I believe creation only took a week and that the world is around 7,000 years old.

Do you think that humans have the right to end life? Abortion, brain death, execution, "unplugging them", and physician assisted suicidewould all be examples of that.

No I don't. Life isa gift given by God, and it's not to be ended on purpose.

Here is a clarification, we believe that faith is no good without works, if you believe but don't so anything about it then you belief is worthless.

Jehoshaphat wrote:Here is a clarification, we believe that faith is no good without works, if you believe but don't so anything about it then you belief is worthless.

We believe the same thing as Protestants. I think the problem comes when the works are included in the grounds for your justification. We believe that salvation is by God's grace alone through the faith in Christ's righteousness that He grants us alone. That is how we become justified. In the Catholic system, one is infused with Christ's righteousness in order that he may perform his share of good deeds, that he may be justified on the basis of both Christ's and his own righteousness.

Christians are justified by Christ's righteousness alone. Catholics believe that they are justified by a combination of Christ's works and their works. I think that's why Wooton is saying that you are not Christians. I personally believe that there can be Catholics who are Christians, but it's difficult when you're following a system that causes you to put faith in yourself, in addition to faith in Christ.