to do so or to accept evolution is to mean that Genesis in its literal context is wrong. which is not the case, because it it was inccorect, it would say so itself. i've mentioned this before, we know that there were reports of darwin recanting his theory, and of other scientists doing the same. my question to you is, why hasnt God recanted Genesis???
35 comments
"to do so or to accept evolution is to mean that Genesis in its literal context is wrong."
If genesis is literally true, why does genesis 2 contradict some of the statements of genesis 1? I would suspect that a god could keep his stories straight for 5 minutes.
He did! Didn't you get that memo?
<<< we know that there were reports of darwin recanting his theory >>>
"we know that there were reports of darwin recanting his theory."
Re: the whole thing with the eye, the thing is that the eye wasn't even fully-evolved at the start of the process, so the 'eyes made by intelligent design' argument falls through. What actually happens is that it starts off with light-sensing organs (skin, etc.), and moves on to more advanced light-sensing organs, and finally culminates in an eye. Easy.
"why hasnt God recanted Genesis???"
Dear AngryNotice,
<< to do so or to accept evolution is to mean that Genesis in its literal context is wrong. which is not the case, because it it was inccorect, it would say so itself. >>
<<< I've read a lot of fiction, and none of those books give a disclaimer about it being a work of fiction >>>
Everyone in the world MUST give money to Maronan.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
