[_ Old Earth _] Are you guys serious?

[Barbarian]

I'd like to nominate Jesus (1) for the prize based upon His creation of species which reproduce according to their kinds, as recorded in Genesis (2).

1. John 1: 3

2. Genesis 1: 20-25

Hmmm....

John 1:3 (King James Version)
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Nothing there about "reproduce according to their kinds." Let's go on...

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Nothing there about "reproduce according to their kind." God just says that the earth brought forth living things, but doesn't say how.

I guess YE creationist must pencil in "reproduce" to make it more acceptable to them. Personally, I think it's better to take it as it is.

 

[Pard]

Hmmm....

John 1:3 (King James Version)
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Nothing there about "reproduce according to their kinds." Let's go on...

Barb,

Maybe this is a misunderstanding on your part, but he never said that John 1:3 mentioned "reproducing according to their kind". John 1:3 is the reference to that fact that Jesus was with God at the beginning and took part in the creation.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Nothing there about "reproduce according to their kind." God just says that the earth brought forth living things, but doesn't say how.

I guess YE creationist must pencil in "reproduce" to make it more acceptable to them. Personally, I think it's better to take it as it is.

Oh Barb...

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Don't give me that "penciled in reproduction" bologna. That's for an atheist to do, you are not one of them. They may not say "reproduction" but anyone with a brain and who isn't trying to twist scripture can see that it sure MEANS "reproduction".

Now, maybe you misunderstood again? David was using this very advanced form of quoting, it's called paraphrasing. You reword something and than cite it. Perhaps you have not heard of it? Because for anyone who passed 7th grade, it appears rather obviously...

 

[jasoncran]

wrong college but still in florida and what do you know working on the sythentic cell to find support for something they already know is settled,. odd.

No one doubts cells. But the way cells came together is still a field with a lot of questions.

what is the purpose of the study (experimentationt) to SUPPORT the toe. that implies there looking for more evidence. so the question isnt so settled.

i know god is real, do i keep on asking if he''s real when i got my answer.

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe this is a misunderstanding on your part, but he never said that John 1:3 mentioned "reproducing according to their kind". John 1:3 is the reference to that fact that Jesus was with God at the beginning and took part in the creation.

Which is entirely consistent with the evidence.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing there about "reproduce according to their kind." God just says that the earth brought forth living things, but doesn't say how.

I guess YE creationist must pencil in "reproduce" to make it more acceptable to them. Personally, I think it's better to take it as it is.

Don't give me that "penciled in reproduction" bologna.

It's not there in God's word. You added it.

They may not say "reproduction" but anyone with a brain and who isn't trying to twist scripture can see that it sure MEANS "reproduction".

It is twisting Scripture to add "reproduction." If it doesn't say it, it's wrong to add it. You see, God created all living things according to their kind, but you are uncomfortable with the way He did it, so you add "reproduce" to make it more acceptable.

Now, maybe you misunderstood again? David was using this very advanced form of quoting, it's called paraphrasing. You reword something and than cite it. Perhaps you have not heard of it? Because for anyone who passed 7th grade, it appears rather obviously...

Paraphrasing is always a possible source of error as it was this time. What God says is important. It is important not to add to what He says.

 

[Pard]

Barb, I mus seriously question your ability to read!

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

What does multiply mean? Are the birds and fish and other animals just like a single celled organism that splits in half and makes new ones? USE YOUR BRAIN! Multiply means reproduce. Seriously, it is not hard.

Maye you are having a hard time understanding the Bible?

Fruitful, it means to have children. To bear fruit. That is the literally definition of the Hebrew word. #6509

Multiply, it means to increase in some, and when next to fruitful it means to increase in population. #7235

No one is writing or twisting scripture when they say "reproduce". God meant animals to reproduce. What else does He mean? Does He want the animals to multiply by walking into cloning machines?!?! Seriously Barb, you are really stretching it to consider that God did not intend for animals to reproduce...

 

[David505]

Thanks Guys,

All I really wanted to do was nominate Jesus for the prize.

My forte is Biblical endtime prophecy; so, I should say I am out of my element on this forum.

I respect all your considered debate and admire your discipline and staunch defense of divergent viewpoints.

What leads me to connect reproduction with after their kinds is the association of yielding and multiplication with the creation of life forms.

Examples from Genesis One:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So, if kind means a specific life form (species), and if these life forms multiply (reproduce) after their kinds, then, it looks like ongoing reproduction, true to form, is a biological constant...at least, to someone like me, who's out of his forum element.

Thanks, again.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, I mus seriously question your ability to read!

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

What does multiply mean? Are the birds and fish and other animals just like a single celled organism that splits in half and makes new ones? USE YOUR BRAIN! Multiply means reproduce. Seriously, it is not hard.

It says that they were created according to kind, not that they multiply according to kind. You see, if they were created according to kind, they could have been poofed into existence magically, or the first organisms could have been brought forth by the Earth and the variety of living things produced according to kind by evolution.

Maye you are having a hard time understanding the Bible?

I'm just pointing out that "reproduce according to kind" is man's addition to His word.

No one is writing or twisting scripture when they say "reproduce".

Only when they say "reproduce according to kind." That' is twisting scripture.

Seriously Barb, you are really stretching it to consider that God did not intend for animals to reproduce...

I don't think trying to change what I said will help you any, either. Why not just accept it as He told you?

 

[Barbarian]

So, if kind means a specific life form (species), and if these life forms multiply (reproduce) after their kinds, then, it looks like ongoing reproduction, true to form, is a biological constant...at least, to someone like me, who's out of his forum element.

Why not just go with what it says? Notice it doesn't say that you have to accept evolution. It doesn't say you have to deny evolution. The only restriction is that the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is ruled out. But there are other forms of creationism that would fit Genesis just as well as evolution.

That should be enough.

 

[Physicist]

The one scientist who eventually may overturn it [ToE] will earn a nearly guaranteed Nobel prize...

Thanks jwu,

I'd like to nominate Jesus (1) for the prize based upon His creation of species which reproduce according to their kinds, as recorded in Genesis (2).

1. John 1: 3

2. Genesis 1: 20-25

The authors of the gospels and OT were not molecular biologists or paleontologists. They did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have today, nor did their audience. I think it is unfair to hold their comments to scientific scrutiny that such texts would get today.

 

[David505]

The authors of the gospels and OT were not molecular biologists or paeleontologists. They did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have today, nor did their audience. I think it is unfair to hold their comments to scientific scrutiny that such texts would get today.

Thanks Physicist,

I'm not sure what you mean.

My first impulse is to agree, insofar as it may be unfair to cast doubt upon the self-evident works of an omniscient Creator according to incomplete (evolving) human science.

 

[Physicist]

The authors of the gospels and OT were not molecular biologists or paeleontologists. They did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have today, nor did their audience. I think it is unfair to hold their comments to scientific scrutiny that such texts would get today.

Thanks Physicist,

I'm not sure what you mean.

My first impulse is to agree, insofar as it may be unfair to cast doubt upon the self-evident works of an omniscient Creator according to incomplete (evolving) human science.

The Bible was not written by YHWH but by human beings with the capabilities, flaws and background knowledge appropriate for their times and culture. I would not expect, say, Paul to go into intricate detail on the structure of the DNA molecule.

 

[Pard]

No, you are right, These books were written by men. You fail the add, however, that they wrote these books through divine inspiration. They wrote what God told them to write and what God showed them. Still, it is understandable that God did not dictate the intricate aspects of DNA or His Creation, because they are not needed and would cause many people to go... HUH?

 

[David505]

The Bible was not written by YHWH but by human beings with the capabilities, flaws and background knowledge appropriate for their times and culture. I would not expect, say, Paul to go into intricate detail on the structure of the DNA molecule.

Thanks Physicist,

Nor, would I expect such from Paul, since the Bible surveys certain subjects, although overall, the Bible is an inspired book whose truths we hold to be self-evident.

Even so, the Bible often casts flawed human beings in roles whereby they accomplish seemingly impossible tasks to validate God's truths.

And, in every generation, we marvel about our advancing scientific knowledge. Yet, succeeding generations of scientists ever improve upon past perceptions and offer new, and sometimes startling, conclusions.

 

[jasoncran]

sadly, we men have perfected the art of taking a life far better then the art of medicine.

 

[Physicist]

sadly, we men have perfected the art of taking a life far better then the art of medicine.

A sad but true observation

 

[jasoncran]

sadly, we men have perfected the art of taking a life far better then the art of medicine.

A sad but true observation

without respect to which origin of man one believes.i wish we could heal cancer like we can take thousands of lives in second.

 

[Sparkey]

The term "species" is also man-made.

 

[Ignatz]

I'll concede that I know what you mean when you make the distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" evolution, (They are the same thing over vastly different time scales)-Ahem*- And I would say that No, evolution by natural selection, be it micro OR macro, is not as evident at first glance as, say, gravity is, simply because we observe the phenomenon of gravity and its effects immediately, on a moment-to-moment basis.

Evolution, on the other hand, deals with large groups of living things and how they change over hundreds or thousands or millions of generations. It deals with things happening over geological time scales. This requires more than just noticing that things fall down, not up.

It involves understanding things like tectonic shift, so that one may better estimate sites that contain the types of fossils one is looking for, sedimentation rates and geological knowledge to find the right layers, etc. It utilizes many different disciplines.

It comes down to isolating groups of organisms, geographically or otherwise, as in tectonic shift, migration-anything that isolates breeding populations from each other, and they will be under different selective pressures from the environment. as the generations pass, different selective pressures result in different traits evolving. as time goes on, these successive small changes (Micro-evolution) result in big changes and phenotypic variation between the separated groups.(Maco-evolution). It's the same thing over different time scales. Conceding that the one happens necessarily means that you accept the other. Evolution is Evolution. (Sorry, but this point cannot be over-emphasized.)

In the case of single-celled and other simple organisms, millions of years of different selective pressures resulted in wildly different phenotypes.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I was going to respond, but Ignatz pretty much said precisely what i was going to say. very well put!

 

[Ignatz]

Thanks, Evoin,

Moreover, Pard, simply because the underlying cause of some phenomenae is not as"Obvious" as another has no bearing on wether it's deemed "True" or not. It's all about evidence. We KNOW things evolve. Type in "Evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection". Then type in "Evidence for Biblical Creationism".

Read all results thoroughly.

Once you understand the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, it won't be so difficult to understand, and you would be better able to find evidence to denounce it.

Even St. Augustine says:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)