SaturnV

I don't fit into your original qualities of who you were looking to respond, but I am interested in the topic. I apologize that I don't know the players, like Marcus Ross. Please give us some of his thoughts, on How evolution, the science, can fit into a 6 day creation? I think the creation story itself shows us that creation was a process, I believe guided by God. A process that took time. How do we fit that into a literal six days. Personally I think most "time" references in the Bible are to convey a concept. What is a day to God. The phrase that a day to God is a 1000 years, in my opinion, is not a literal 1000 years either. It is a concept, a message. So I don't think we have to fit it into 6000 years either. But I could be wrong. Oh, I was using him to point out someone that does believe in a 6 day creation, but also is very knowledgeable in Evolution. He believes in a 6 day creation, but operates (scientifically) under Evolution. Thus, I was wondering how they would respond to someone that believes one way, but is still knowledgeable on evolution. The NYT had an article about him, and there was even a topic about him. I'll try to search for it sometime today when I have time. http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=56085 Hugh Ross would be interesting to listen to, for sure. I haven't heard much of what he has to say on the subject, but I'm quite interested to hear how he works the two together.

Well, moseying back over to the original topic of this thread... I definitely have more time for an "Old Earth" Christian than a 6-day Creationist, mainly because the former actually understands the Theory of Evolution. Even if they don't agree with some of evolutionary theory, they at least have examined and can discuss the evidence. Literalists already have their minds made up, and no amount of evidence is going to change that. As one poster here said, scientific theories change all the time, but the Bible (or rather, their interpretation of it), never does. As for discussing faith, it comes down to the person and how they can argue their case. From my experience, though, literalists tend to be all sound and fury.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking who would be more likely to convert me, or who I'd rather have a literary discussion of the Bible with?

I'll see your and raise you a

I must have missed the astrophysics chapter in the Origin of Species

Considering that the Middle East comprised most of the known world back then, it was probably not a hyperbole to whoever wrote the story down.

Horizon- http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...594&st=220# http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry784361

It also shows another interesting mechanism of biological change

"...make it clear that there is an important genetic component." They were twin studies. Surveying members of the general population is hardly a "very controlled setting"

Well, no scientific article will ever use the word "prove." "Strongly suggests" is about as strong a term as one will ever see in that regard. Strange that the link won't work, but the rest of the article is about how sexual selection is probably a factor in the propegation the genetic component of homosexuality, and why it isn't selected against. I included that quote because it is a nice summary of the evidence.

From: Edward M. Miller. Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior No. 29 (February 2000) No. 5, 1-34 Full text can be viewed here: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.htm Note that which genes contribute may not be known, but using twin studies, it still can be determined that some heritable trait does play a role.

Yah, it's probably my wording. That's not what I meant at all. Basically, I'm saying that homosexuality is probably a polygenic phenotype that has contributing environmental factors.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf079/sf079g17.htm Uh...huh... /gets tinfoil