|
Mutt, before trying to sound smart about something you obviously haven't spent half an hour reading about, you might want to do so.
One example: the Genesis creation story. Don't take the word of your religious Aunt Gemima in regards to what it means. Either study a bit before posting or ask a Rabbi (since Jews wrote it and it was addressed to Jews). Holy crap, dude.
Genesis 1 is a poem. It's definitely not to be taken literally. But even if it was, the word we translate into "day" is "yom" in the original text. One of the meanings of that word is "unspecified AGE of time." In other words, Genesis 1, even literally taken, doesn't conflict with evolution. In fact, if you get your Aunt Gemima's interpretation out of your head, it actually describes evolution in a primitive way, long before Darwin (who wasn't trying to overrule the creation story to begin with, but rather discover HOW GOD CREATED). In Genesis 1, things start off void. Then water and land are separated. Then primitive life forms are created. Then more advanced life forms. Then animals, and finally humans from the dust of the earth emerge. That does a damned good job summarizing evolution, don't you think? Especially for a poem.
I'd love to say I came up with theistic evolution, but I didn't. One particular figurehead - you might have heard of his title - stated evolution is considered by the Church to be a very valid explanation of creation: the Pope.
If YOU are going to try to make me look stupid about things I study almost daily, you might want to educate yourself on positions I might hold. That's how good debators succeed: studying the opponents position. Note: your Aunt isn't a good source of research.
|