[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

So, what you then have to do Barbarian is look at context. You have to look at the way people speak. you have to look at how the flood is presented in Gen...How the "tevel" is described...and the entire globe come to mind. But you disagree with the bible and want to make it into some sort of local flood.

I get it. God doesn't say the whole world was flooded, but you want it to be so. It's just that your revision of Genesis is not supported by the text.

 

[Cygnus]

I get it. God doesn't say the whole world was flooded, but you want it to be so. It's just that your revision of Genesis is not supported by the text.

Yes the bible does.

19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

. 22Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

...and this was local? The simple language doesn't support your narrative. What happened??? You late coming Theo-Evos need to do away with the world wide flood to support your evo-concepts.

Hint: The flood caused the fossils...not an animal dying on the forest floor and the leaves slowly covering the animal before the carcas has a chance to decay or get savaged.

 

[Cygnus]

Taking the allegory of Genesis as a literal history is your non-scriptural spin. And yes, as St. Paul notes, the Bible has allegories about real people.

Yes, the bible has allegories about real people....the problem you face is when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy explaining why the women should keep silent in church...AND BASED IT UPON EVE AND THE FALL. Why would Paul base a rule on an event that never happened? Will you answer the question or dodge it once again?????

They did something God told them to not do. Does it matter what that was? You're fastening to bits of the story, and avoiding the actual message.

Yes it matters greatly. You are saying the bible is wrong...there was no tree, no fruit..heck, no garden.

The bible tells us what happened. So YES, a resounding YES!!!! it does matter.

The message is man fell and needs a savior. You continue and fail to present even a logical scenario surround the fall....All you can do is shrug your shoulders and ask....Does it matter?

Two people. The first two given living souls.

So basically you are saying all the other people..Adam and eves parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbors lived lives and when they dies...died and went where a chimp like animal goes? But they didn't have a soul so I suppose they simply vanished.

But still certainly those from the soulless population would still be present somewhere today....or are you going to support and show us how all of the entire earths population eventually received a soul??? The can of worms you open by presenting this false theory. So many questions Genesis answers but the theo-evo sect can't even begin to answer.

Yes. God left out a lot of things that He didn't intend to tell us.

By refusing to accept the allegory and what it actually says, you're making up your own story, and distorting the fall with your biblical factless assumptions.

Yes, God didn't present the entirety of creation...but He did tell us of the fall and consequences. For some reason you distort scripture and change the narrative.

Perhaps we could go through Genesis 1-3 verse by verse and you can present the allegorical reason for each verse.

 

[Truthfrees]

Yep. As you learned, "erets" just means "land." "Tevel" means the whole world. And God says that the flood covered land, not the whole world.

No. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, like gravity. There are theories that explain these phenomena. A theory is a testable idea that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Many people confuse the phenomenon with the theory, or with consequences of evolution.

Right. You just don't approve of the way He did some of it.

Darwin just thought God did it. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of the universe, or the origin of life. It's just about the way existing life changes over time. It's common error with creationists.

Knowledgeable creationists disagree with you:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

They actually know what they are talking about. They are PhD scientists, familiar with the evidence. And you aren't.

See above. You've obviously not investigated it, since you were unaware of the things your fellow YE creationists know about it. It's good that you've found God. But don't make an idol of you new doctrine of creationism.

i speak and read hebrew yet you know better

your view that the bible is an allegory and evolution is proven seems to be your idol

it seems every insult you throw at creationists actually lies with you

 

[Barbarian]

i speak and read hebrew yet you know better

You speak and read Hebrew, but you don't know the difference between "erets" and "tevel?"

your view that the bible is an allegory

I'm pointing out that some of it is. St. Paul agrees, citing at least one case.

evolution is proven

You're wrong. Nothing in science is logically certain. That only happens when you know the rules and apply them to the particulars. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

seems to be your idol

Evolution is just an observed phenomenon. Darwinism is the theory that explains it. No idols in science.

Even creationism isn't necessarily an idol, unless you believe that all Christians must believe your new doctrine. You won't go to hell for being a creationist; God doesn't care what you think of the way He creates species.

It seems every insult you throw at science actually lies with you

 

[Barbarian]

19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

. 22Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

Remember it was "erets" (land). So it was a big flood that covered the land. But not the world. "The were blotted out form the land."(erets) Which land? He didn't specify.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, the bible has allegories about real people....the problem you face is when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy explaining why the women should keep silent in church...AND BASED IT UPON EVE AND THE FALL. Why would Paul base a rule on an event that never happened? Will you answer the question or dodge it once again?????

Your problem is in assuming that if God uses an allegory, it must not be true. There can be allegories about real events, just as they can involve real people.

Yes it matters greatly. You are saying the bible is wrong...

No, I'm saying it's right. I'm saying you're wrong for not accepting it as it is.

The message is man fell and needs a savior.

Yes. Why not just accept it as it is, without adding all sorts of new doctrines to it? Just take it as it is. Let God be God and just accept it.

So basically you are saying all the other people..Adam and eves parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbors lived lives and when they dies...died and went where a chimp like animal goes? But they didn't have a soul so I suppose they simply vanished.

Where do you think chimp-like animals go? At some point, humans got living souls and were therefore different. Let God be God.

Perhaps we could go through Genesis 1-3 verse by verse and you can present the allegorical reason for each verse

I would suggest St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram. I believe Canto still publishes it. Augustine was a better theologian than either of us. Learn from him.

 

[Barbarian]

Hint: The flood caused the fossils...not an animal dying on the forest floor and the leaves slowly covering the animal before the carcas has a chance to decay or get savaged.

You inadvertently brought up an important point. We have very few fossils of forest creatures, precisely because the fall to the forest floor, and are scavenged before they have a chance to fossilize. If there was a world-wide flood, we'd find lots of forest animal fossils, too.

But we don't For reasons you now understand.

 

[Barbarian]

The message is man fell and needs a savior. You continue and fail to present even a logical scenario surround the fall....

I'm satisfied with the account God gave us in the allegory of Genesis. If the specifics mattered, He would have provided them.

The important thing is that we had two first ancestors given living souls, who disobeyed God and estranged us all from Him, necessitating a Savior; His Son, Who died for us. I don't know when those two lived, or even which species of human they were.

All you can do is shrug your shoulders and ask....Does it matter?

If they happened to be H. ergaster, would that offend you? Why would it? It would change nothing at all.

 

[Cygnus]

Remember it was "erets" (land). So it was a big flood that covered the land. But not the world. "The were blotted out form the land."(erets) Which land? He didn't specify.

You forget one thing...and it's a big thing...

Gen 1;2 The ERETS was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Of course your limited usage of the word tells us that only a part of the earth was formless and void....but, hey, make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

 

[Cygnus]

Your problem is in assuming that if God uses an allegory, it must not be true. There can be allegories about real events, just as they can involve real people.

You're still dodging....why would the rule be made and based upon an event that never happened?

No, I'm saying it's right. I'm saying you're wrong for not accepting it as it is.

I accept is for as it is...you're the one saying Eve wasn't formed from Adams rib.

Yes. Why not just accept it as it is, without adding all sorts of new doctrines to it? Just take it as it is. Let God be God and just accept it.

I have...I acept the bible...you don't...you change it with your theo-evo talk.

Where do you think chimp-like animals go? At some point, humans got living souls and were therefore different. Let God be God.

When and where was that? Neandertals? Explain to me how humans got living souls. Was there a living soul mutation?

I would suggest St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram. I believe Canto still publishes it. Augustine was a better theologian than either of us. Learn from him.

Whatever.

 

[Cygnus]

You inadvertently brought up an important point. We have very few fossils of forest creatures, precisely because the fall to the forest floor, and are scavenged before they have a chance to fossilize. If there was a world-wide flood, we'd find lots of forest animal fossils, too.

But we don't For reasons you now understand.

We don't? OK, if you say so.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm satisfied with the account God gave us in the allegory of Genesis. If the specifics mattered, He would have provided them.

The important thing is that we had two first ancestors given living souls, who disobeyed God and estranged us all from Him, necessitating a Savior; His Son, Who died for us. I don't know when those two lived, or even which species of human they were.



If they happened to be H. ergaster, would that offend you? Why would it? It would change nothing at all.

Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

What happened to Adams contemporaries?

Notice it says "face of the earth"....which means all over, not locally.

Of course face of the earth means something different here.... 23 And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained.

 

[Moseme]

You say that there is plenty of evidence but have yet to address the issues that I presented. How could a prokaryotic cell possess all the genetic information needed to pass down to every single organism ever to live and yet not be able to form a nucleus? A prokaryotic cell has 1 chromosome. How could one chromosome contain the genetic information that humans need 23 chromosome to contain?

 

[Moseme]

You inadvertently brought up an important point. We have very few fossils of forest creatures, precisely because the fall to the forest floor, and are scavenged before they have a chance to fossilize. If there was a world-wide flood, we'd find lots of forest animal fossils, too.

But we don't For reasons you now understand.

Isnt there a very large grave yard of land dinosaurs that all suddenly died at the same time in Montana and the state's surrounding Montana? Also when you explain the fall of Adam how do you explain the presence of death in those billions and billions of organisms that led to the evolution of mankind when death didnt enter the picture until the fall occurred? Also if mankind is the product of evolution you cant expect me to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans there must have been an entire population besides them. I can understand how Adams fall could condemn all of his descendants but how could the descendants of the other humans who did not sin be condemned?

 

[Truthfrees]

You speak and read Hebrew, but you don't know the difference between "erets" and "tevel?"

I'm pointing out that some of it is. St. Paul agrees, citing at least one case.

You're wrong. Nothing in science is logically certain. That only happens when you know the rules and apply them to the particulars. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

Evolution is just an observed phenomenon. Darwinism is the theory that explains it. No idols in science.

Even creationism isn't necessarily an idol, unless you believe that all Christians must believe your new doctrine. You won't go to hell for being a creationist; God doesn't care what you think of the way He creates species.

It seems every insult you throw at science actually lies with you

simply put: evolution fails to address creation of time space matter - creation succeeds at all points

 

[Cygnus]

Remember it was "erets" (land). So it was a big flood that covered the land. But not the world. "The were blotted out form the land."(erets) Which land? He didn't specify.

That view has been disproven.

Face of the earth...refuted you.

 

[Cygnus]

I can understand how Adams fall could condemn all of his descendants but how could the descendants of the other humans who did not sin be condemned?

Good question.

 

[Moseme]

Nothing seems to stop threads promoting evolution better than real evidence I guess.

 

[Barbarian]

That view has been disproven.

You don't agree with it, but as you see, God Himself says "land" not "whole world."