"Shingo" said:The correct plural form of "solstice" is, in fact, solstices. So, no.
solstices... (anyone know a better plural term for them there things? =/ )
"Shingo" said:An excellent point. One I try to bring up in conversations with Intelligent Design people as often as possible.
Nowheres. Ever. Does the bible say that God did not use Evolution and/or a process similar to it as his tool to create said beings.
"Shingo" said:Sapient, damnit! Stop confusing sentient and sapient! Science fiction does it enough.
In two words, by our very existence as sentient being we are possessed of free will.
"Shingo" said:Such is the joy of automatic vs controlled thinking - the ability to override our instincts.
Biological instincts certainly have an effect upon us, but we have that cherished gift - that is, we can aspire to be better than we are and to rise above our baser selves.
"Shingo" said:Fortunately, such full-blown descent is rare and they tend to just fall into a sort of middling range.
Equally so, we can forego such noble aspirations and descend into primeval urges alone.
"Shingo" said:Unless it's used for misogynistic purposes. Then it's just plain vile. Otherwise yes, it calls to mind the old quote... oh damn, I can't find it, and wikiquote is being unhelpful. (EDIT: Turns out I was looking for the quote in your own signature. "...is to attempt seeing Truth without knowing Falsehood. It is the attempt to see the Light without knowing Darkness. It cannot be.")
The metaphor that strikes me as most relevant is that of a parent and his children. Our parents are sad to see us grow up. They are afraid for our loss of innocence. That we will soon lose the childlike belief that all the world is fun and games, and no bad men will prevail lest daddy should soon be there to put a stop to his work. Certainly we as parents wish to save our children from harm, and so forth. How much more understandable then, is the story of Eden when taken in this context? Much more, I would have to say. One can argue whether it was ultimately for evil or for good. In example - Without objective evil there can be no subjective good. Likewise, without suffering there can be no joy. I then conclude that 'original sin' is at once both a vile and wondrous thing.
"Shingo" said:Bravo to you for it. I don't see how belief in the bible allows for literal interpretation of it, however, which you said you believed was possible (for parts). Either those parts are those dealing with mundane things (I wouldn't call it paradoxical to take it saying someone ate a certain piece of bread on a certain day literally, for instance), or you have a different definition of literal than I do. Or there's a third option I've missed, it's always possible.
Apropros, I submit again my opinion that it is not hypocrisy for me, as a Christian, to be opined that certain parts of evolution are not contradictory in terms with my beliefs and/or the bible.
(Tone of voice for this post is neutral-pleased, except for that last bit which is neutral-puzzled. Both non-hostile. This notice brought to you by the fact that 90% of all communication is miscommunication.)