[_ Old Earth _] Archaeopteryx?

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: Actually it's the other way. If you create plants, and so sun, then it's all wrong. But in allegories, time doesn't have to count, so if God was using figurative language, it makes sense. And that's the only way it makes sense, as the early Christians like Augustine admitted.

That actually proves it is 7 literal days, not millions of years according to Genesis. Plants don’t mind a couple of days without sun.

Barbarian wrote: Most Christians would say you have done that. (misinterpret scripture )

Then most Christians would be wrong about my interpretation, imo. But maybe "most Christians" is just your estimate. Would you say it was 'millions and millions' or 'billions and billions' of Christians who agree with you?

Barbarian wrote: (claims that Enoch wrote Jasher)

I did not claim Enoch wrote Jasher. :roll: I said; “God’s prophet, Enoch was born while Adam was still alive, and he wrote many books according to Jasher. Translations of them are still being circulated.†My 10 year old granddaughter could tell you that means if you read the book of Jasher, it would tell you that Enoch wrote many books, not that Enoch wrote Jasher. She also could do a word search and tell you that I knew about Enoch’s writing by actually reading the Books of Enoch. While Jasher says Enoch instructed men and gave them ordinances, it doesn’t specifically say he wrote them down but Enoch’s own writings report that he wrote 365 books.

Barbarian wrote: Seems unlikely, since the versions circulating have anachronisms that could not have been written by Enoch.

Translations having been written later account for those. Do you have a specific one in mind?

Barbarian wrote: People look for fossils. Often the significance of such fossils is not determined until much later. And yet, no one finds any such transitionals.

OK. Let’s look at why there are no octopus/butterfly transitional phases. Octopuses need to live in water to move around and keep moist and, in water, butterfly wings would get all soggy and really just bog the octopus down. Jet propulsion and creepy crawling works better for them. If you want to fly underwater like a butterfly, you would create wings like a mantra ray or skate has. That was easy. Bird/ mammal combinations are even easier to come by, since in Genesis a winged fowl could be any creature with wings that flies, and I presume that includes flying squirrels and bats.

Your problem is that you are looking for more order than probably exists. The explosion of kinds at creation is a testimony of creative genius expanding into an exciting array of living and non living varieties of shapes, sizes, colors, and designs. It’s transitional mix and match.

Barbarian wrote: That's quite an accusation. Show us. Are we to take it that such transitionals have never been found because of a conspiracy among scientists?

There is no reward for finding things that contradict the ToE unless you can demonstrate such a thing to the point it can’t possibly be denied. Since the whole transitional theory is so subjective, it would be like trying to prove that what you believe you don’t believe. You are making up the rules as to what constitutes transitional features, so you can say eels are a transition between earthworms and snakes if you want to and no one could dispute it. To me, the entire argument is a moot point that has no significance to reality.

Barbarian wrote: But we've already shown that it isn't literal history.

We’ve only shown that you make up reality to suit your fancy. That statement is a perfect example.

Barbarian wrote: Once you toss out accepted meanings, then anything is possible.

Yes, that’s true. Once you change “the evening and the morning were the first day†to ‘billions and billions of years ago,’ no absurdity is excessive by comparison.

Barbarian wrote: His watch says a day is as a thousand years, if you take scripture literally.

Literally speaking, if I say that an hour reading your posts is as a thousand years, do you think I mean I literally have transcended time and space? If I then say the morning and the evening of your posting were the first day that I read your posts, would you think I meant it had been longer than an actual day and it might even be millions of years ago that I had first read them?

Barbarian wrote: That's another reason we know "eretz means only part of the earth, since no river can flood even a third of the continent it's on (else it would have to flow upstream).

You make these statements as if you know everything there is to know. Guess what? You don’t. Did you ever hear of a tsunami making a river flood surge upstream?

Barbarian wrote: Didn't say "world." It says "eretz", which means "land."

Excuse me, but that makes no sense. Why would God promise never to destroy the land by flood again when it happens multitudes of times yearly around the world?

Barbarian wrote: Always has, since He created it. Why would He create Satan, knowing what Satan would do? Why Adam and Eve, knowing what they would do? God is not fair as we count fairness.

God is fair according to his standards that he taught us. Satan was created as a beautiful being for God’s pleasure. It was not God’s intention that he would rebel against him. The actions of beings with free will can not be predicted with certainty. God knows the possibilities but some possibilities can’t even be fathomed before they happen or are conceived as intentions of the heart. The thing that you can trust God to do is take the worst situations and work it out for his good purposes for the good of those that love him.

Barbarian wrote: Just pointing out that most people who love and follow God have come to a different decision.

You would want to believe that but I’m not checking the wind for the direction of popular opinion even among ‘God’s followers’ anyways. I only have to account for what I believe and live by and what I teach others.

Barbarian wrote: There are quite a few Jashers circulating. None of them are considered authentic by scholars.

I know scholars who do consider the version I prefer to be authentic, so I guess what we have is a difference of opinion between scholars. Now that’s a novelty. Write that one down. :wink:

BTW, what happened to your link about Jasher you wanted to share with us?

Barbarian wrote: Nope. He says that he created the earth and then it brings forth life.

Nope. It says he created the earth and then he commanded it to bring forth living creatures on the fifth and sixth days.

Barbarian wrote: The actual time is not given. Some things, He lets us find for ourselves.

Let’s find that out right now. Let me help you with the big words.

Genesis 2: 1-2 2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Finished means done. The actual time from start to finish is seven days. Non stop creation for six and rest on the seventh. Not so hard to understand when you read it, huh? :fadein:

Barbarian wrote: Why do you think He wasn't smart enough to do it that way before?

By auto pilot, I mean all nature is in a holding pattern. Before the fall, it was all good from the moment of creation and run like clockwork in perfect ecosystems that God planned and set into place. After the fall, he had to make adjustments to keep it going in spite of the devastation of sin and death. Not always pretty to watch but it keeps on ticking.

Barbarian wrote: He made nature. And from that, all the rest unfolded.

Your opinion doesn’t match the Biblical record. If you must make compromises to live in your world, if I were you, I’d drop that world like dirty underwear. Let God be true and every man, a liar, if need be.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian wrote: Most Christians would say you have done that. (misinterpret scripture )

But maybe "most Christians" is just your estimate. Would you say it was 'millions and millions' or 'billions and billions' of Christians who agree with you?

Well, there are about 2 billion Christians in the world. About one billion are Roman Catholics, which accept that Genesis is not literal. Most of the Eastern Rite churches do, too. Anglicans do, and so do a lot of Protestant denominations. Who have you got?

Barbarian wrote: (claims that Enoch wrote Jasher)

I did not claim Enoch wrote Jasher.

No problem. But what reason is there to believe any of the supposed books produced recently are real?

Barbarian observes:
Seems unlikely, since the versions circulating have anachronisms that could not have been written by Enoch.

Translations having been written later account for those. Do you have a specific one in mind?

Hmm... I'll take a look, but most don't seem like that.

Barbarian observes:
People look for fossils. Often the significance of such fossils is not determined until much later. And yet, no one finds any such transitionals.

OK. Let’s look at why there are no octopus/butterfly transitional phases. Octopuses need to live in water to move around and keep moist and, in water, butterfly wings would get all soggy and really just bog the octopus down. Jet propulsion and creepy crawling works better for them. If you want to fly underwater like a butterfly, you would create wings like a mantra ray or skate has. That was easy.

OK, then why no octopus/jellyfish transitions? Why only the ones predicted by evolutionary theory?

Bird/ mammal combinations are even easier to come by, since in Genesis a winged fowl could be any creature with wings that flies, and I presume that includes flying squirrels and bats.

That's a testable claim. Show me a transitional with characteristics found only in birds and mammals.

Your problem is that you are looking for more order than probably exists.

There's much more order than we've shown so far. It's not just structures and anatomy. It's genetics, and biochemistry.

The explosion of kinds at creation is a testimony of creative genius expanding into an exciting array of living and non living varieties of shapes, sizes, colors, and designs. It’s transitional mix and match.

If so, why are the only mix and match we see, those predicted by evolutionary theory?

Barbarian observes:
That's quite an accusation. Show us. Are we to take it that such transitionals have never been found because of a conspiracy among scientists?

There is no reward for finding things that contradict the ToE unless you can demonstrate such a thing to the point it can’t possibly be denied.

There's no reward for anything at all in science, unless you meet that standard. Do you have anything more than wishful thinking?

Since the whole transitional theory is so subjective, it would be like trying to prove that what you believe you don’t believe.

Don't see how. Apomorphies are easily demonstrated, and they can't be denied.

You are making up the rules as to what constitutes transitional features, so you can say eels are a transition between earthworms and snakes if you want to and no one could dispute it.

Nope. To be a transitional, they have to have characteristics found only in the two groups. Apomorphies in other words.

Here's a place to learn about it:
http://www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia-wiki/cl/Cladistics

To me, the entire argument is a moot point that has no significance to reality.

And yet, creationists are still befuddled about why the only transitionals found are those predicted by the theory. Such evidence is considered compelling.

Barbarian observes:
But we've already shown that it (Genesis) isn't literal history.

We’ve only shown that you make up reality to suit your fancy. That statement is a perfect example.

As you've seen, the text itself shows you that it isn't literal.

Barbarian, on "words meant different stuff back then"
Once you toss out accepted meanings, then anything is possible.

Yes, that’s true. Once you change “the evening and the morning were the first day†to ‘billions and billions of years ago,’

But no one did that. Christians only see that, since a literal description is patently absurd, it must not be literal. It says nothing about how long.

Barbarian wrote:
His watch says a day is as a thousand years, if you take scripture literally.

Literally speaking, if I say that an hour reading your posts is as a thousand years, do you think I mean I literally have transcended time and space?

It merely means you've tried to adapt the metaphor to a new meaning.

Barbarian observes:
That's another reason we know "eretz means only part of the earth, since no river can flood even a third of the continent it's on (else it would have to flow upstream).

You make these statements as if you know everything there is to know. Guess what? You don’t. Did you ever hear of a tsunami making a river flood surge upstream?

Yep. But not over a third of a continent. Moreover, you've added a tsunami to scripture with no justification whatever for it.

Barbarian observes:
Didn't say "world." It says "eretz", which means "land."

Excuse me, but that makes no sense. Why would God promise never to destroy the land by flood again when it happens multitudes of times yearly around the world?

First, "destroying the land" was a metaphor, since the land was merely covered. What no longer happens is all things drawing breath are not snuffed out.

Barbarian observes:
Always has, since He created it. Why would He create Satan, knowing what Satan would do? Why Adam and Eve, knowing what they would do? God is not fair as we count fairness.

God is fair according to his standards that he taught us. Satan was created as a beautiful being for God’s pleasure. It was not God’s intention that he would rebel against him.

God, being omnipotent, knew what Satan wouild do before He created him.

The actions of beings with free will can not be predicted with certainty. God knows the possibilities but some possibilities can’t even be fathomed before they happen or are conceived as intentions of the heart.

This is another reason why the God of creationists is much smaller and weaker than the God of Christians.

Barbarian observe:
Nope. He says that he created the earth and then it brings forth life.

Barbarian observes: The actual time is not given. Some things, He lets us find for ourselves.

(still clings to the notion that the "days" are literal)

Sorry. Not credible.

Barbarian on the "auto pilot" creation:
Why do you think He wasn't smart enough to do it that way before?

By auto pilot, I mean all nature is in a holding pattern.

Pretty darn intricate for a "holding pattern." Why wouldn't He do it right the first time?

Before the fall, it was all good from the moment of creation and run like clockwork in perfect ecosystems that God planned and set into place. After the fall, he had to make adjustments to keep it going in spite of the devastation of sin and death. Not always pretty to watch but it keeps on ticking.

More additions to scripture? Why not just accept it as it is, and you wouldn't have to keep adjusting it?

Barbarian observes:
He made nature. And from that, all the rest unfolded.

Your opinion doesn’t match the Biblical record.

It's what He says. He doesn't poof life into being. He creates the world, and the world brings forth life.

If you must make compromises to live in your world, if I were you, I’d drop that world like dirty underwear.

YE creationism must make additions to bring Scripture into line with their thinking. But Christians have no need of that.

 

[follower of Christ]

It's just a transitional. One of the man forms of evidence for evolution. Archy is mostly dinosaur, with a good bit of bird as well.

Totally incomprehensible to creationism. But exactly what Darwin predicted.

Something that always gets me......

So many eons of evolution.......so few ''transitional'' forms..

The earth should literally be packed with the remains of these ''transitional'' forms after that period of time.

Like us YECs tho, science always can come up with some excuse for this things.
That is until thier ideas are debunked by the next guy.

Till then I guess we are to take whatever silly little notion comes out of their mouths as gospel truth, arent we :wink:

 

[follower of Christ]

YE creationism must make additions to bring Scripture into line with their thinking. But Christians have no need of that.

Absurd.

You mean like ADDING that the idea that a literal day consisting of and EVENING and a MORNING arent ''days'' at all but literally billions of years?
THAT kind of ''addition'' ?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's just a transitional. One of the man forms of evidence for evolution. Archy is mostly dinosaur, with a good bit of bird as well.

Totally incomprehensible to creationism. But exactly what Darwin predicted.

Something that always gets me......

So many eons of evolution.......so few ''transitional'' forms..

The earth should literally be packed with the remains of these ''transitional'' forms after that period of time.

Let's test that idea. Pick two classes of organisms which are predicted to be related by evolutionary theory, and we'll see if we can find a transitional. Go for it.

Like us YECs tho, science always can come up with some excuse for this things. That is until thier ideas are debunked by the next guy.

Well, you've taken the first step. Show me up, now. Give me two classes from which one is said to have evolved from the other, and we'll see.

Till then I guess we are to take whatever silly little notion comes out of their mouths as gospel truth, arent we

Evidence counts. You're on. Make it good.

Barbarian on YE creationism's alteration of Scripture:
YE creationism must make additions to bring Scripture into line with their thinking. But Christians have no need of that.

Absurd.

No, it's true. Christians have no need to adjust Genesis to their liking.

You mean like ADDING that the idea that a literal day consisting of and EVENING and a MORNING arent ''days'' at all but literally billions of years?

Who does that? Scripture doesn't say anything at all about how long the "days" were. YE creationists add to God's testimony the idea that they were literal, 24-hour days, an addition with no scriptural support whatever.

THAT kind of ''addition'' ?

Yep. YE creationists aren't satisfied with the Bible as it is. They want to touch it up a bit.

 

[Loren Michael]

Something that always gets me......

So many eons of evolution.......so few ''transitional'' forms..

The earth should literally be packed with the remains of these ''transitional'' forms after that period of time.

Like us YECs tho, science always can come up with some excuse for this things.
That is until thier ideas are debunked by the next guy.

Till then I guess we are to take whatever silly little notion comes out of their mouths as gospel truth, arent we :wink:

i was under the impression that all creatures are transitional forms? some of them are more obvious than others, is all. :-?

 

[Barbarian]

Well. let's see if he takes the challenge. Let him find any two classes from which evolutionary theory says one evolved from the other, we can see if there's any transitionals in evidence.

My guess is there will be a lot of excuse-making, why he can't.

 

[Imagican]

Evolution most certainly existed in the past and remains in the present. We have watched the evolution of viruses and insects in the short time that man has studied these things.

Darwin's discovery of evolution is, in part, correct and does not in the least dispell creation. It definitely adds a bit of a twist to it, but negates it none in the least.

There are many things that God informed us of through His Word. There are many MORE things that He didn't. Not because He is unwilling for us to understand, but at the time His Word was given to man, man was INCAPABLE of this understanding.

Brain surgery was impossible until many many other things were understood first. There was no need in the forecasting of weather events for doppler radar until the understanding of or science of meteorology was developed. First things first guys.

There is nothing offered in evolution that takes away from creation. The biggest problem is in accepting that traditional teachings have been wrong and moving on to what's right. The churches perpetuated these un-truths because at a time when they were completely without understanding they choose to try and convince others that they knew EVERYTHING. So, when evidence came along that contradicted them, they simply chose to ignore this evidence or even go so far as to deny it openly. Shame on them.
And shame on the ignorance of man that he would allow others to mislead him so.

And even if it is finally PROVEN that man himself has evolved from some lesser form, that doesn't change the fact that he was created. And it will NEVER be proven that man evolved from ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAN. Our DNA is unique like that of any other life on this planet. YES, there has been evolution, NO nothing has ever evolved into any thing other than a more advanced form of itself. A snail is a snail genetically, not by chance. The DNA of a tree has ALWAYS been the DNA of a tree. The DNA itself has possibly evolved for individual life forms. But NEVER FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.

And guys, the biggest problem with creation vs evolution is not the science, it's the religion. There are those that adhere to traditional thinking even when it is proven to be false. The literal six day creation that has been taught for so long makes it impossible to understand the nature of the earth upon which we live.

Point in case:

In Genesis, it is stated that when God brought the plagues upon Egypt, not only was the country of Egypt covered in locusts, but it says that the face of the earth was covered. Do we take this literally or figuratively? Remember that much of what is written in the Bible was not God putting words in mens ears, but many times there were visions offered of that which God wished to offer. A vision's interpretation is only as accurate as the knowledge owned by him who interprets the vision. John when writing Revelation obviously was shown things that he was unable to give a modern description of.

With this in mind, why do you suppose that this literal 'six day creation' is still being perpetuated? It's no more literal than 'circumcision of the heart'. It's symbolic, we just don't necessarily understand the symbolism.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess we know the answer now...

If anyone else cares to take the challenge, let's hear about it.