[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[Barbarian]

Darwin was an evolutionist before Galapagos, drawn like a moth to a flame.

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.

But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1497&viewtype=text (pages 120-121)

By Darwin's own admission, he never accepted the idea until much later.

Evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

Nothing in the Bible denies any part of Darwin's theory.

 

[Quantrill]

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.

But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1497&viewtype=text (pages 120-121)

By Darwin's own admission, he never accepted the idea until much later.



Nothing in the Bible denies any part of Darwin's theory.

Sorry. I have showed you where Darwin by his own admission, was an evolutionist prior to Galapagos. He was raised to believe in evolution. He rejected the Bible and accepted evolutionist theory of the origin of the earth. All that was needed for his biological belief of evolution. He sought evidence for his 'belief' of evolution. A true scientist he was. Develop a theory and then provide the evidence.

Nothing in the Bible supports Darwin or evolution. Which is why he became a true atheist. Which is why you consider the first 3 chapters of Genesis as figurative. Which is why you consider the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale as figurative. Funny how that works isn't it. One thing leads to another. Cause and affect...you might say.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry. I have showed you where Darwin by his own admission, was an evolutionist prior to Galapagos

You have someone else's opinion that he did. However, Darwin himself admitted that he didn't until long after he went on the voyage.

Nothing in the Bible supports Darwin or evolution.

Nothing in the Bible supports atoms, hydrogen bonding, cellular immunity, electricity, and so on. There are a lot of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible. The important thing is that nothing in the Bible denies evolution.

Which is why he became a true atheist.

Late in life, he indicated that he was "leaning toward agnosticism." So no.

As we discussed, the flood may or may not be figurative. And it doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter if there literally was a good Samaritan. That's not the lesson God was presenting therein.

 

[Quantrill]

You have someone else's opinion that he did. However, Darwin himself admitted that he didn't until long after he went on the voyage.


Nothing in the Bible supports atoms, hydrogen bonding, cellular immunity, electricity, and so on. There are a lot of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible. The important thing is that nothing in the Bible denies evolution.


Late in life, he indicated that he was "leaning toward agnosticism." So no.

As we discussed, the flood may or may not be figurative. And it doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter if there literally was a good Samaritan. That's not the lesson God was presenting therein.

Not just someone else's opinion. Simpsons work is based on Darwin's auto biography. And Darwin admitted that it was proabable that his theory of evolution was based upon his upbringing. "Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views as maintained and praised may favoured my upholding them under a different form in my Origin of Species. " (The Book Of Darwin, Simpson, Washington Square Press, 1983, p. 38) Read again post #(91), (100).

Just because Darwin didn't fully have his theory of evolution complete, doesn't mean he wasn't an evolutionist before Galapagos. As I said, he was an evolutionist looking for proof of it. As soon as he considered the geological evolution of the earth, he jumped at it as it provided him the necessary time for his biological evolution. He rejected the Bible's account of Creation.

The first three chapters in (Genesis) denies evolution. It denies the evolution of the creation of the earth. It denies the evolution of man.

What difference is there between atheism and agnosticism? The term was even first used by Huxley who was atheist, and became Darwins greatest proponent for evolution. It is as though the evolutionist's were trying to avoid the term atheist. (britannica.com/topic/agnosticism)

Darwin did not believe in God. His god was nature. A first cause. "The obfuscations, as he thought them, of religion, even when reinforced by the convictions of his wife, and even at the cost of her profound unhappiness, he could not bring himself to accept as truth."(Charles Darwin, Peter Brent, 1981, p. 315)

We discussed? This is what I discussed. The Bible presents the Flood as a fact. Whether you believe it or not doesn't really matter.

Please answer my questions in post #(92).

Evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Just because Darwin didn't fully have his theory of evolution complete, doesn't mean he wasn't an evolutionist before Galapagos. As I said, he was an evolutionist looking for proof of it. As soon as he considered the geological evolution of the earth, he jumped at it as it provided him the necessary time for his biological evolution. He rejected the Bible's account of Creation.

He admitted that he did not accept that new species evolve, until after he completed his trip on the Beagle. The idea of evolution was not original with him; Lamarck, for example, had already proposed a hypothesis about changing species. By Darwin's time, many biologists thought that some form of evolution was true. It's just that Darwin wasn't one of them:

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.

But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1497&viewtype=text (pages 120-121)

By Darwin's own admission, he never accepted the idea until much later.

Darwin did not believe in God.

Well, that's a checkable claim...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

As you see, Darwin assumed that God created the first living things.

The first three chapters in (Genesis) denies evolution.

No. Nothing therein denies evolution. How could it? Scientists observe it happening all around us.

It denies the evolution of the creation of the earth.

That's not evolution. However, physics and geology do indicate that the Earth formed by natural means. God created most things that way. For example, He had previously-created matter bring forth life. Nature is His tool in these things.

It denies the evolution of man.

No. Only if one revises the creation account to make it a literal history. But since the text itself says that it isnt' a literal history, that's not feasible.

What difference is there between atheism and agnosticism?

An atheist says there is no God. An agnostic says he does not know if there is a god. Darwin was, when he produced his theory, an Anglican Christian. When he was very old, he said he was "leaning toward agnosticism."

The Bible presents the Flood as a fact.

I know you believe that. But there is no agreement on that among Christians. Since there is evidence for a large regional flood at about the right time in the Middle East, I tend to think that it's about a real event. But it doesn't matter, if there wasn't a real Good Samaritan, Jesus' parable would still be true and valid.

Please answer my questions in post #(92).

They have been answered. But if you tell me what you're unclear on about the answers, I'd be pleased to make them more clear for you. What would you like to know?

Evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

No, as we discussed, there's nothing therein that is incompatible with evolution as scientists have observed it.

 

[Quantrill]

He admitted that he did not accept that new species evolve, until after he completed his trip on the Beagle. The idea of evolution was not original with him; Lamarck, for example, had already proposed a hypothesis about changing species. By Darwin's time, many biologists thought that some form of evolution was true. It's just that Darwin wasn't one of them:

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.

But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1497&viewtype=text (pages 120-121)

By Darwin's own admission, he never accepted the idea until much later.


Well, that's a checkable claim...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

As you see, Darwin assumed that God created the first living things.


No. Nothing therein denies evolution. How could it? Scientists observe it happening all around us.


That's not evolution. However, physics and geology do indicate that the Earth formed by natural means. God created most things that way. For example, He had previously-created matter bring forth life. Nature is His tool in these things.

No. Only if one revises the creation account to make it a literal history. But since the text itself says that it isnt' a literal history, that's not feasible.


An atheist says there is no God. An agnostic says he does not know if there is a god. Darwin was, when he produced his theory, an Anglican Christian. When he was very old, he said he was "leaning toward agnosticism."


I know you believe that. But there is no agreement on that among Christians. Since there is evidence for a large regional flood at about the right time in the Middle East, I tend to think that it's about a real event. But it doesn't matter, if there wasn't a real Good Samaritan, Jesus' parable would still be true and valid.


They have been answered. But if you tell me what you're unclear on about the answers, I'd be pleased to make them more clear for you. What would you like to know?


No, as we discussed, there's nothing therein that is incompatible with evolution as scientists have observed it.

I never said evolution was original with Darwin. I said he was an evolutionist before Galapagos. Read again post #(91) and (100). Darwin was an evolutionist looking for proof of what he already believed. A good scientist. And he, just like science, find what they want to support their belief.

Darwin's god is not God. It is a god of nature. Natural process. It is a denial of God who created the earth and man. Thus the atheist Huxley became Darwin's 'bulldog'. His greatest proponent.

The first 3 chapters of (Genesis) is clear that evolution does not exist with God. Because it is so clear, you and Darwin and other evolutionist's must consider the first three chapters of (Genesis) as figurative. You once again prove that you interpret the Bible through your science. You said you didn't. But you do, and just did again. A certain hypocrisy I believe.

That the earth was created by natural means over a period of billions of years, is geological evolution. It is in contrast with the Bible which says God spake and it was so. When Darwin learned of this geological belief, he jumped at it as it provided the time he needed to fit his biological evolution into it. A belief jumping at another belief. Such faith science and Darwin had.

"Yet during the early stages of the voyage even the first volume of Lyell's book offered Darwin...a new vision of the world and of its history. That the time span invovled was almost incalculable....The epochs of prehistory were real, were, so to speak, there to be used, to be filled by the speculations of an informed and scientific imagination....He should not be put off by the absence of obvious evidence....It was not facts that he was gathering...but a way of thinking, a way of seeing." (Charles Darwin, Peter Brent, Harper & Row, 1981, p. 144) My, my. And use them he did.

The creation account in the Bible is literal history. You don't believe it, and that is fine. You don't have to. But it is set forth as fact and literal history. The revision is on your and evolutionist's part.

Just because Darwin belonged to the Church of England didn't make him or anyone else a Christian. As I have already said. As I also said, the atheist Huxley developed the term 'agnostic'. Birds of a feather flock together.

Concerning the Flood, it doesn't matter who agrees. It is presented as fact and you can't show that it is not. Unless you use your science to interpret. Again, you don't have to believe it. Just quit trying to change it.

Just go to post #(92) and answer the questions. Quite simple.

The Bible and evolution is incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

I never said evolution was original with Darwin. I said he was an evolutionist before Galapagos.

By his own admission, he did not accept the mutability of species until after he went on his voyage.

This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.

Darwin's god is not God. It is a god of nature. Natural process. It is a denial of God who created the earth and man. Thus the atheist Huxley became Darwin's 'bulldog'. His greatest proponent.

God uses nature for most things in this world, including new species. It's His creation, after all. And Huxley was an agnostic, not an atheist.

The creation account in the Bible is literal history.

I know you believe it. But the text itself says it's not.

Just because Darwin belonged to the Church of England didn't make him or anyone else a Christian.

Because he believed in the doctrines of the Church of England, he was a Christian. As you know, the Anglicans adhere to the Nicene Creed, which defines orthodox Christianity.

The Bible and evolution is incompatible.

Since we see it going on constantly, it can't be incompatible with the Bible. I think the problem is, a mistaken idea of what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

 

[Quantrill]

By his own admission, he did not accept the mutability of species until after he went on his voyage.

This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under sub-orders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.



God uses nature for most things in this world, including new species. It's His creation, after all. And Huxley was an agnostic, not an atheist.


I know you believe it. But the text itself says it's not.


Because he believed in the doctrines of the Church of England, he was a Christian. As you know, the Anglicans adhere to the Nicene Creed, which defines orthodox Christianity.


Since we see it going on constantly, it can't be incompatible with the Bible. I think the problem is, a mistaken idea of what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

Strange. You ask if you could be clearer. I said go to post #(92) and answer the questions. And you ignore them, as usual.

Answer the questions and then we will be clearer. Don't answer the questions...and I know...as I already do, you fear the answers.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Strange. You ask if you could be clearer. I said go to post #(92) and answer the questions. And you ignore them, as usual.

I've answered all of those. If you would be more specific as to what you think I haven't answered, I'd be pleased to tell you.

I'm thinking that you didn't like the answers. But that's not the same thing.

I notice that you didn't answer my question, though.

 

[Quantrill]

I've answered all of those. If you would be more specific as to what you think I haven't answered, I'd be pleased to tell you.

No, you haven't answered them. They are specific. Just answer them. They are numbered. Post #(92)

Don't say you would be pleased to answer them when you constantly dodge them.

Again, the Bible and evolution are incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Don't say you would be pleased to answer them when you constantly dodge them.

I'm puzzled as to why you won't tell me which of them I haven't answered.

And I note that you still haven't answered my question.

 

[Barbarian]

1.) Where is the sun in (Rev. 21:23)?

2.)Where is the light in (Rev. 21:23)?

And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.

There is no need for it in the hereafter. No mornings, no evenings, just the glory of God. But here, we have mornings and evenings and a Sun which defines them.

Where did the light come from in the Holy of Holies?

God's glory. No mornings, no evenings and no sun to have them, there.

4.)Do you believe (Gen. 1:24) is to be figuratively or literally interpreted? Why?

Abiogenesis was at one time, a controversial idea. But over time scientists have gathered more and more evidence to show that life did form from the earth itself. It's not part of evolution, of course, but God's word that life formed naturally from things in nature already created, is certainly consistent with scientific findings supporting abiogenesis.

5.) Why shouldn't the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah's whale, be interpreted as literal as they are presented as fact just like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are?

As I pointed out, the flood, the long day, and the whale stories are in poetic forms used by people in the fertile crescent for creation stories, and other figurative things. On the other hand, the Annunciation, birth of Christ, and the Resurrection are presented by writers in a direct and literal way.

As you know, it is quite possible to have real events and people in parables or allegories, and we don't know for sure if any of these are literal miracles or merely figurative descriptions of important lessons for us.

 

[Barbarian]

What did communities of faith hear in the flood story that impelled them to preserve the Noah episode as authoritative Scripture? Why risk retelling a violent, originally polytheistic story, demeaning of human life, which, in an earlier (18th century BCE) Babylonian version called Atra-Hasis described petty gods destroying humanity because their loud din prevented a good night’s sleep? Tablet 1, lines 355–60 speak of earth “bellowing like a bull” so that Enlil complained, “I cannot stand this uproar, I cannot sleep!” “Send an epidemic!”

The Scriptures make a critical appropriation of polytheistic material like this for compelling reasons, which include both co-opting the archetypal truths to which the mythology witnesses and simultaneously debunking the mythology’s polytheistic misconceptions. To illuminate what the Scripture is doing with the Babylonian mythology, look carefully for the archetypal truths as well as for the changes introduced as the Bible re-mixes and transforms the story. To explore profoundly structural truths, flood stories invite us to enter a primordial world, to temporarily bracket the workaday, banal, quotidian, mundane world of day-to-day life and morality. With a Georgetown doctorate, Ronald Lindsay should know better than to complain that our story disses human and animal rights. One might as well insist that Genesis explain how the snake is able to talk or the fruit supply Adam and Eve with knowledge! Quotidian laws of science and norms of morality do not operate in this world.

The flood story presupposes a primordial world where both humans and animals are so consumed with violence and vengeance that earth’s downward death spiral is irreversible and irremediable. Out of sheer mercy, God must ease that runaway journey into chaos. And to “ease the journey” is not assisted suicide, because chaos, in this poetic, primordial world of the Flood, is a different matter from modern notions of death. Chaos in ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic poetry is the wet soupy sediment out of which God calls forth new creation, new order, and new peace. Its poetry about a reversion to the flooding soup with which Genesis began means the Flood story is about radical re-creation and recapitulation, not annihilation. Genesis knows no creatio ex nihilo; the Genesis Flood is about birth, new birth. None of this jives with our modern culture’s idolization of biological life. It is not supposed to — it intends to critique all such idolatry, which in fact woefully impoverishes the ideal of holy, numinous, life offered in Scripture (think resurrection).

What Was Noah’s God Thinking?

A Scholar of Hebrew Scriptures Takes On a Huge “WTF?” in the Book of Genesis

medium.com

 

[hawkman]

Abiogenesis was at one time, a controversial idea. But over time scientists have gathered more and more evidence to show that life did form from the earth itself. It's not part of evolution, of course, but God's word that life formed naturally from things in nature already created, is certainly consistent with scientific findings supporting abiogenesis.

Reminds me of this joke .....

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need You. We're at the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, we don't need you here anymore, you can go your way "

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a man-making contest?"

To which the scientist replied, "Okay, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem," and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God looked at him and said, "No, no! You go get your own dirt!"

 

[Quantrill]

And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.

There is no need for it in the hereafter. No mornings, no evenings, just the glory of God. But here, we have mornings and evenings and a Sun which defines them.

God's glory. No mornings, no evenings and no sun to have them, there.


Abiogenesis was at one time, a controversial idea. But over time scientists have gathered more and more evidence to show that life did form from the earth itself. It's not part of evolution, of course, but God's word that life formed naturally from things in nature already created, is certainly consistent with scientific findings supporting abiogenesis.


As I pointed out, the flood, the long day, and the whale stories are in poetic forms used by people in the fertile crescent for creation stories, and other figurative things. On the other hand, the Annunciation, birth of Christ, and the Resurrection are presented by writers in a direct and literal way.

As you know, it is quite possible to have real events and people in parables or allegories, and we don't know for sure if any of these are literal miracles or merely figurative descriptions of important lessons for us.

There was no need for the sun till God made it on the 4th day. I'ts God who shines His light when He wants to. God said let there be light. His light. And until the 4th day, His light defined the evening and the morning. Therefore, your belief that the first 3 chapters of (Genesis) are to be taken figuratively because there was no sun till the 4th day is incorrect. The first three chapters are presented as fact.

You didn't answer question #(4). Do you believe (Gen. 1:24) is to be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

No. The flood, Joshua's long day and Jonah and the whale are presented as literal and fact. Just because you believe they are figurative, doesn't make them figurative. They are presented as fact just as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ are. Show me in Scripture the difference. You can't because there is none. You deny the Flood, Joshua's long day, Jonah and the whale only because your science rejects it. You accept the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ only because you can't deny it on a Christian forum. All are miraculous.

When you say 'any of these' are you saying you don't know if the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ is a literal event?

You haven't proved any difference in the presentation in Scripture of the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and the Flood, Joshua's long day, Jonah and the whale.

You are simply using science to interpret the Scripture.

Evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

There was no need for the sun till God made it on the 4th day.

This is how we know the account is figurative. It's absurd to imagine real mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

You didn't answer question #(4). Do you believe (Gen. 1:24) is to be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

I did. The evidence shows that God's word that He created life by using existing creation is literally true, Abiogenesis is supported by a great deal of evidence.

This is what God says in Genesis, although expressed in figurative language. He uses nature to do most things in this world.

When you say 'any of these' are you saying you don't know if the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ is a literal event?

No. As you have seen, the virgin birth and the resurrection are reported in the Bible as historical facts, while those others are expressed in poetic form, using literary forms from earlier Middle Eastern cultures.

You are simply using science to interpret the Scripture.

No. I'm just pointing out that God's statement that He used natural means to create life, is consistent with the findings of modern science.

Evolution and the Bible are incompatible.

As you see, evolution is going on around us constantly and is documented to happen. I think you're unclear on what biological evolution is, and it seems you've confused the observed phenomenon of evolution, for a consequence of evolution, common descent. But for some reason, you don't want to tell me what you think the definition of biological evolution is.

 

[Quantrill]

This is how we know the account is figurative. It's absurd to imagine real mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.


I did. The evidence shows that God's word that He created life by using existing creation is literally true, Abiogenesis is supported by a great deal of evidence.

This is what God says in Genesis, although expressed in figurative language. He uses nature to do most things in this world.


No. As you have seen, the virgin birth and the resurrection are reported in the Bible as historical facts, while those others are expressed in poetic form, using literary forms from earlier Middle Eastern cultures.


No. I'm just pointing out that God's statement that He used natural means to create life, is consistent with the findings of modern science.


As you see, evolution is going on around us constantly and is documented to happen. I think you're unclear on what biological evolution is, and it seems you've confused the observed phenomenon of evolution, for a consequence of evolution, common descent. But for some reason, you don't want to tell me what you think the definition of biological evolution is.

Again, if God says there is morning and evening without the sun, then there is morning and evening without the sun. God created, spoke the light into existence the first day. No need for a sun. The only reason you want to call it figurative is it is what you are supporting your belief that the first 3 chapters of (Genesis) are figurative. You are interpreting the Bible through science.

(Gen. 1:24) is not expressed in figurative language.

Don't say 'as you have seen'. I have seen nothing of the kind. The Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are not presented as poetry. They are presented as fact. Just like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ are. And you have not shown that they are not presented as fact. All you can do is deny them on the basis of your science. There is no difference in the way they are presented and the way the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented.

You can define your 'biological evolution' any way you like. It is not found in the Bible. There is no evolution in the Bible. God spoke the creation and creatures into existence after their kind. The Bible and evolution are incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Don't say 'as you have seen'. I have seen nothing of the kind. The Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are not presented as poetry. They are presented as fact. Just like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ are.

I know you believe that. But it's just not the way it is in scripture.

You can define your 'biological evolution' any way you like. It is not found in the Bible.

Neither is electric power. Lots of things that are true, aren't in scripture.

The Bible and evolution are incompatible.

I know you believe that. But since we see it all around us, it really can't be incompatible with scripture.

 

[Quantrill]

I know you believe that. But it's just not the way it is in scripture.


Neither is electric power. Lots of things that are true, aren't in scripture.

I know you believe that. But since we see it all around us, it really can't be incompatible with scripture.

Show me how it is not that way in Scripture.

If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead. Just quit trying to use the Bible to support it. It does not.

Concerning evolution, science sees what it wants to. Just like you are trying to see evolution in the Bible when it isn't there.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead. Just quit trying to use the Bible to support it. It does not.

Of course the Bible is not a science text. It doesn't support evolution, (or creationism, for that matter), electronics, genetics, and many other things that are true.

Acknowledging that the Bible is entirely consistent with evolution is not saying that the Bible endorses evolution.