[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Barbarian]

That's microevolution within species and NOT macroevolution of transition forms.

"Macrovelution" is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation. "Microevolution" is variation within a species, like evolution of dogs from wolves. Basically dogs are a subspecies of wolf.

The microevolution is seen in the various species of grasshoppers that eat the roses in my front garden. But they are all of the species of grasshoppers.

There is more genetic and anatomical variation between grasshoppers than there is between humans and chimpanzees. They comprise an entire suborder of insects. Either way you call it, that's a massive problem for YE creationism.

Of the many varieties of dogs that have evolved, whether they be Alsatian or Chihuahua, this is microevolution.

For the reason mentioned above. The difference between wolves and dogs is less than between modern humans and Neandertals.

 

[Barbarian]

That is untrue.

Here is one scientists evaluation of why science is a religion: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion.

Oz

From your site:

The infamous misconception of evolution. You've confused "evolutionism" (Cygnus' favorite) with evolutionary theory.

 

[Barbarian]

And then there's this:

The caption was "science requires faith." But it's an illustration of Archimedes realizing how to measure density by the most empirical way possible. No faith required at all.

I have to say, that website was quite a bit below the quality you normally show here. Did you read it carefully?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Science isn't part of religion. How about you give me your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 as it relates to aromatic compounds?

I'm still waiting for your exegesis of Genesis 1-2.

I'm pointing out to you that science isn't part of religion. You seem to think it is, but you are completely unable to provide and sort of exegesis to support your belief.

 

[OzSpen]

[QUOTE="Barbarian, post: 1349287, member: 917"The difference between wolves and dogs is less than between modern humans and Neandertals.[/QUOTE]

Who discovered that? Please provide the evidence. To this point you have only made assertions - your opinions.

 

[OzSpen]

From your site:

The infamous misconception of evolution. You've confused "evolutionism" (Cygnus' favorite) with evolutionary theory.

Not so, brother. What is evolutionism? According to Oxford Dictionaries online, it relates 'to the theories of evolution and natural selection' (Oxford Dictionaries 2017. s v evolutionist).

What is evolution? It is 'the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth' (Oxford Dictionaries 2017. s v evolution).

You are the one who has confused the definition of evolutionism and evolution

Oz

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It's what St. Augustine found to be the greatest harm to our faith:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis

So long as YE creationists don't assert that their new doctrine is essential to Christian belief, it does no harm at all. But if it pushes away people who might have otherwise come to Him, that is a grave error and a cause for concern among all Christians.

If these are the things that get in the way, so be it. We can not be afraid to present the good news and the awesome truths about God. Even if we worry about how it makes us look in the eyes of others.

I do hope you descide to let on about how Genesis is a parable, or what your interptation of it is. So far you've given a lot of talk in this direction but little detail to support it or further explain it.

 

[OzSpen]

Barbarian suggests:
Science isn't part of religion. How about you give me your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 as it relates to aromatic compounds?

I'm pointing out to you that science isn't part of religion. You seem to think it is, but you are completely unable to provide and sort of exegesis to support your belief.

And I'm pointing out to you that you refuse to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 that proves evolutionary creation.

I've already shown you how science is a religion. Seems like you refuse to acknowledge that.

Oz

 

[calvin]

There is more genetic and anatomical variation between grasshoppers than there is between humans and chimpanzees. They comprise an entire suborder of insects. Either way you call it, that's a massive problem for YE creationism

Absolutely not!
As I pointed out to you a little while ago, as God created each item that He did create, His appraisal was that each item of creation was good.
If He created an ape with hands useful for picking, pealing and eating Bananas and He created man with very similar hands that are useful for holding a knife and fork That is not a problem for those who believe the Earth is young. If He created grasshoppers with specialized characteristics that are widely variant, we should be happy for them.

 

[calvin]

That's your notion. If your particular belief is that God created the universe by evolution, then it's up to you to support it. My thought is that St. Augustine is correct, and the universe was created in an instant, and then developed from there. But evolution wasn't even part of it, until the first living things.

You seem to place more faith in the uninspired writings of this fellow Augustine than you do in the inspired word of God...why is that?
Clearly though the fellow probably meant well, if he thought God created the universe in an instant (he knows better now), he must have misunderstood Gen 1,2. BTW have you provided a link to Augustine's writings where he makes these claims, the instantaneous creation I mean.

 

[calvin]

And then there's this:

The caption was "science requires faith." But it's an illustration of Archimedes realizing how to measure density by the most empirical way possible. No faith required at all.

I have to say, that website was quite a bit below the quality you normally show here. Did you read it carefully?

I'd say he just realized that he overfilled the bath tub.

 

[Cygnus]

The infamous misconception of evolution. You've confused "evolutionism" (Cygnus' favorite) with evolutionary theory.

It seems as if Barbarian would rather argue about a word than actually present evidence for evolutionism.
OR.....answer why making Eve from Adams rib is compatible with evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

It seems as if Barbarian would rather argue about a word than actually present evidence for evolutionism.

"Evolutionism" is your baby. You can defend it. I'm just exposing why it's a false doctrine. It has nothing whatever to do with the way evolution actually works.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd say he just realized that he overfilled the bath tub.

That was what most people would think. But Archimedes realized that the amount of water displaced would be the volume of the object. And that told him how to let the Tyrant know whether his crown was pure gold or not.

Of such insights is science made.

 

[Barbarian]

You seem to place more faith in the uninspired writings of this fellow Augustine than you do in the inspired word of God

YE creationism is not the inspired word of God. It's a modern revision of His word by people who were not satisfied with scripture.

...why is that?

Some people want it their way, instead of God's way. YE is like that.

I'll look at his book. I'm going out of town this morning, so it will be a while, maybe.

 

[Barbarian]

Absolutely not!
As I pointed out to you a little while ago, as God created each item that He did create, His appraisal was that each item of creation was good.

Could you cite where He said "each item is good?"

If He created an ape with hands useful for picking, pealing and eating Bananas and He created man with very similar hands that are useful for holding a knife and fork That is not a problem for those who believe the Earth is young.

The genetic data showing descent are a huge and impossible problem for YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

And I'm pointing out to you that you refuse to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 that proves evolutionary creation.

Just as you refused to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 that proves chemical creation. Because you've realized that it's not about science. Do you think no one noticed?

I've already shown you how science is a religion.

You showed me Cygnus' new doctrine of "evolutionism." That has nothing to do with science.

Seems like you refuse to acknowledge that.

I've exposed that story for what it is. That's all that's required. I'm surprised that you have so little regard for faith that you want to pretend science is part of it.

 

[calvin]

That was what most people would think. But Archimedes realized that the amount of water displaced would be the volume of the object. And that told him how to let the Tyrant know whether his crown was pure gold or not.

Of such insights is science made.

Apparently the humour was missed by you.
However, 1. unless He filled his tub to overflowing and then after the run over was done, placed a large bucket under his drain hole (If he actually had one) he wouldn't have a clue about what the displaced volume would he.

 

[calvin]

Could you cite where He said "each item is good?"
You first, publish your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 that proves evolutionary creation on this forum in this thread. That seems to be a bit of an oxymoron but still...........


The genetic data showing descent are a huge and impossible problem for YE creationism.

 

[OzSpen]

Just as you refused to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 that proves chemical creation. Because you've realized that it's not about science. Do you think no one noticed?

Another diversionary tactic - a red herring.

You have been asked over and over by a number of posters to demonstrate evolution in your exegesis of Gen 1-2 but you refuse to engage on that topic.

Seems to me that you are telling us - by your silence - that it's impossible to support evolution by the God created the universe in the beginning. If that's not the case, confess up and provide the exegesis.

Oz