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

[Moseme]

Barbarian
I am afraid that you are the one who is wrong. The real scientific definition of micro-evolution is a change in the allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

Microevolution: Definition, Examples, Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population. In contrast to macroevolution, microevolution can be observed and measured in short periods of time, even within a single generation; macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can...

biologydictionary.net

Also a chemist is the perfect person to ask about how organisms evolve. DNA, genes, proteins, factory acids, the very energy that fuels the body and transmits signals through our body. It is all chemicals. If you can't ask a chemist how organisms evolve on its most basic level then you can't ask anyone about evolution.

You really need to get updated texts books my friend. I'll let you in on another new discovery that we found since you've finished your studies.... The earth is actually round.

Lol sorry for the jest. But I am afraid that your information is incredibly biased and that you are close minded about anything that doesnt agree with what you believe. It's ok I'm used to a lot of stubborn older people.

 

[Barbarian]

@Barbarian
I am afraid that you are the one who is wrong. The real scientific definition of micro-evolution is a change in the allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

From your link:

Microevolution Definition​

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

In contrast to macroevolution, microevolution can be observed and measured in short periods of time, even within a single generation; macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can be observed between different species.

An accumulation of changes resulting from microevolution will eventually lead to macroevolution through the process of speciation. In this way, they are essentially the same process, although on a different time scale.

Microevolution: Definition, Examples, Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population. In contrast to macroevolution, microevolution can be observed and measured in short periods of time, even within a single generation; macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can...

biologydictionary.net

As I told you, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. That's what speciation is.

Also a chemist is the perfect person to ask about how organisms evolve.

No, they receive no training in that. Biologists are trained in the mechanisms of evolution.

DNA, genes, proteins, factory acids, the very energy that fuels the body and transmits signals through our body. It is all chemicals.

That is the realm of physiology and biochemistry. Chemists lack that training. Biochemistry is it's own discipline a specialty of biology.

It's not something taught in chemistry.

You really need to get updated texts books my friend.

Still review biology texts from time to time. There's been a huge increase in knowledge in biochemistry, evolution, and genetics. Some old problems in evolutionary theory have recently been cleared up by new research. For example, it's now known that new genes can occur by mutation of non-coding DNA in addition to gene duplication.

And all the flat-earthers I know about are creationists.

 

[Moseme]

From your link:

Microevolution Definition​

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

In contrast to macroevolution, microevolution can be observed and measured in short periods of time, even within a single generation; macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can be observed between different species.

An accumulation of changes resulting from microevolution will eventually lead to macroevolution through the process of speciation. In this way, they are essentially the same process, although on a different time scale.

Microevolution: Definition, Examples, Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population. In contrast to macroevolution, microevolution can be observed and measured in short periods of time, even within a single generation; macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can...

biologydictionary.net

As I told you, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. That's what speciation is.


No, they receive no training in that. Biologists are trained in the mechanisms of evolution.


That is the realm of physiology and biochemistry. Chemists lack that training. Biochemistry is it's own discipline a specialty of biology.

It's not something taught in chemistry.


Still review biology texts from time to time. There's been a huge increase in knowledge in biochemistry, evolution, and genetics. Some old problems in evolutionary theory have recently been cleared up by new research. For example, it's now known that new genes can occur by mutation of non-coding DNA in addition to gene duplication.

And all the flat-earthers I know about are creationists.

First I was just pointing out that there was a different scientific definition than the one that you kept pushing. Which at least you didnt disagree with.

Second Dr tour is convinced that because he is trained in analyzing chemicals and how they interact in this world including withing living organisms that if anyone were to understand how those chemical reactions are supposed to bring changes to genes, it would be him. You disagree but apparently the vast majority of the scientific community, even those who disagree with his stance on evolution, has no disagreement to his qualification on the subject. Also to be more specific he is an organic chemist. Which deals with organic chemicals or the building materials of life.

And I'm teasing you about flat earth. Anyways I'm getting tired of this conversation going in circles. Would you like to talk about something else? Which denomination are you?

 

[GodsGrace]

Cool I actually just heard about him recently and I'm liking his reasoning and honesty

Tour is one of the top chemists in the world.
He lectures a lot on the BEGINNING of life.
He doesn't believe (and neither do I) that just the right chemicals were joined together totally by chance that would have created the first spark of life.

I watch him on YouTube and must say that I enjoy his earlier talks more than the "talk" programs he puts together now.

As to the gap theory, I believe that no one can really know what happened at the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 tells us the earth was formless and dark and void. We have the word AND which joins verses 1 and verses 2.
This does not seem to me that the heavens and earth had been created and THEN the earth was formlss and void. It seems to be
all one and the same action at a particular point in time.

I've also pondered the possibility that God made man better and this would explain earlier versions of man....but are we even sure that man WAS different and more
primitive, or was that just a different type of animal that became extinct?

Too many questions...I don't spend much time thinking about this.

 

[Barbarian]

First I was just pointing out that there was a different scientific definition than the one that you kept pushing. Which at least you didnt disagree with.

As you see, the one you cited agrees with mine. The scientific definition of microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

You may be confused because the site uses "population" as a synonym for "species."

Second Dr tour is convinced that because he is trained in analyzing chemicals and how they interact in this world including withing living organisms that if anyone were to understand how those chemical reactions are supposed to bring changes to genes, it would be him.

I know he supposes so. Everything looks simple when you don't know much about it. And if he were trained in the way biochemistry works, he'd be a biochemist, not a chemist.

Being a PhD doesn't make one an expert in everything. Doc Tour probably knows more about kinetic theory than I do. And I know more about biology than he does.

He's got a number of serious misconceptions about the way evolution works.

You disagree but apparently the vast majority of the scientific community, even those who disagree with his stance on evolution, has no disagreement to his qualification on the subject.

Show us that. Since the vast majority of biologists and biochemists disagree with his assumptions, I think not. I have some data on that, if you'd care to see it. The Discovery Institute ("intelligent design" and creationism) have compiled a list, as has "Project Steve" (science). I'd be pleased to show you the results.

 

[Moseme]

Tour is one of the top chemists in the world.
He lectures a lot on the BEGINNING of life.
He doesn't believe (and neither do I) that just the right chemicals were joined together totally by chance that would have created the first spark of life.

I watch him on YouTube and must say that I enjoy his earlier talks more than the "talk" programs he puts together now.

As to the gap theory, I believe that no one can really know what happened at the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 tells us the earth was formless and dark and void. We have the word AND which joins verses 1 and verses 2.
This does not seem to me that the heavens and earth had been created and THEN the earth was formlss and void. It seems to be
all one and the same action at a particular point in time.

I've also pondered the possibility that God made man better and this would explain earlier versions of man....but are we even sure that man WAS different and more
primitive, or was that just a different type of animal that became extinct?

Too many questions...I don't spend much time thinking about this.

There are normally much better topics to focus on than how the universe was created. However for me it was important since it was a major hinderance for me at one point. I almost became an atheist until I saw that macro-evolution was a horrible theory.

I did post a brief explanation of the theory in another thread. If you want I can copy it. In short according to the gap theory the chaotic state of earth in genesis 1:2 was the result of judgment brought on by lucifer's rebellion.

 

[Moseme]

As you see, the one you cited agrees with mine. The scientific definition of microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

You may be confused because the site uses "population" as a synonym for "species."


I know he supposes so. Everything looks simple when you don't know much about it. And if he were trained in the way biochemistry works, he'd be a biochemist, not a chemist.

Being a PhD doesn't make one an expert in everything. Doc Tour probably knows more about kinetic theory than I do. And I know more about biology than he does.

He's got a number of serious misconceptions about the way evolution works.


Show us that. Since the vast majority of biologists and biochemists disagree with his assumptions, I think not. I have some data on that, if you'd care to see it. The Discovery Institute ("intelligent design" and creationism) have compiled a list, as has "Project Steve" (science). I'd be pleased to show you the results.

Look I have always said that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, you were the one who kept posting articles from scientists as if they meant something. So even though it is a logical fallacy I will also do this because frankly this conversation is dead as neother one of us will ever convince the other to believe differently.

So you need to reread that article again. If I put a zebra in with a herd of horses. That zebra (though a different species from the horse) will now belong to that population and will breed with the horses exchanging genetic information, this is micro-evolution at the genus level. Most cross species breeding happens at the genus level but there are a few example of animals from 2 different genus breeding like goats (genus Capra) and sheep (genus Ovis). So this "variation of genetic material" does not just happen on the species level. And lets be clear these levels are the invention of men, mostly men without God. These taxonomy systems are always changing so please dont get hung up on man made categories.

Since I am continuing in this idiotic argument from authority, how many PhDs do you have? Because I find it very hard to believe that you know more about biology than dr tour.

I'm getting bored. I wish we could talk in person. Then it would be easier to determine how much of your argument you know and how much is the result of googling and repeating someone elses answer. I mean I could ask you what are the four major branches of taxonomy and you could just google it and reply.

 

[Barbarian]

Look I have always said that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy,

On the other hand, scientific definitions are just terms that mean things. As you see, the scientific meaning of "microevolution" is evolution within a species and "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. Species, genera, families, etc.

According to your own link:
macroevolution refers to the large-scale differences that can be observed between different species.

So you need to reread that article again. If I put a zebra in with a herd of horses. That zebra (though a different species from the horse) will now belong to that population and will breed with the horses exchanging genetic information

No. A population is a group of interbreeding organisms. And horses and zebras do not interbreed in the wild. We can induce them to do so in captivity, but that is not a population.

Since I am continuing in this idiotic argument from authority, how many PhDs do you have? Because I find it very hard to believe that you know more about biology than dr tour.

How many PhDs is irrelevant. My graduate degrees in biology and biological systems do matter, as does the fact that he lacks them.

But let's take a look at his knowledge. Show me what you think is his most compelling argument, and we'll see what the evidence shows. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Doctor Tour confesses:
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution.

But if you listen and think, you can understand it right now.

"Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

That's it. You see, Doc Tour, being ignorant of biology, has likely confused evolution (the observed phenomenon) with a consquence of evolution (common descent of organisms). Or possibly, he's confused agencies of evolution, like natural selection, with evolution.

So now you know more about evolution than Doc Tour.

Having once been a chemistry major, and having taken three courses in organic chemistry, I do know a thing or two about organic synthesis.

Organic chemistry is a lot different than biochemistry. Would you like to learn why?

 

[Moseme]

Doctor Tour confesses:
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution.

But if you listen and think, you can understand it right now.

"Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

That's it. You see, Doc Tour, being ignorant of biology, has likely confused evolution (the observed phenomenon) with a consquence of evolution (common descent of organisms). Or possibly, he's confused agencies of evolution, like natural selection, with evolution.

So now you know more about evolution than Doc Tour.

Having once been a chemistry major, and having taken three courses in organic chemistry, I do know a thing or two about organic synthesis.

Organic chemistry is a lot different than biochemistry. Would you like to learn why?

You seem to be the kind of person who pulls out a different degree everytime somebody says that you are misinformed.

I said from the beginning that I don't do arguments from authority because even authority can be wrong. I never met dr tour and I dont know everything that he believes or all of his experience in the scientific fields. But I am confident that he knows more about science (every part of science) than you. Early when you were younger you believed a lie because you were in college and it was the popular opinion. And every bit of information that you've acquired since then has been viewed through the lens of your bias because you are a proud stubborn man and do not want to admit that you were ever wrong. And whenever any evidence contrary to your belief crossed your path you instantly rejected it without a bit of consideration. Sadly, you really don't seem to know much about the scientific method at all since you seem to believe that you can perform the same experiments again and again, failing each time, yet expecting the next time not to fail. This I am completely positive of. I might not know much about what you said you went to school for, but I know quite a bit about behavioural patterns and defense mechanisms. I'll tell you something I've talked to alot of evolutionists (most were atheists) and most of the time your patterns are nearly identical in a debate. From an ignorant high school kid repeating only what he was told to someone with a doctorate, their behaviour looks like yours. Well some are hostile and thanks for be civil by the way, but their behaviour in debate is mostly the same. Same deflections of difficult questions, same logical fallacies that are only adopted out of desperation, same dismissal of the qualifications of those who disagree, same twisting of definitions, same blatant refusal to be a fair scientist and give EVERY piece of evidence equal consideration. It's all the same. The arguments are all the same. And I am just wasting time because you're not interested in sharing ideas to come to the truth, your not even interested in teaching your failed theory. You are only interested in an endless cycle of arguing so that you can feel some sort of disillusioned victory very time you hit post.

I really would like to meet you in person, without this distance and pretenses. Maybe I would get to know who you really are. But in case you haven't noticed no one is on this thread wanting to argue but you and me. Well just you now. It has been both frustrating and fun, I'd like to have a different conversation with you sometime. Goodbye.

 

[Barbarian]

You seem to be the kind of person who pulls out a different degree everytime somebody says that you are misinformed.

It's one of the benefits of having multiple degrees. Being an academic bum does have some drawbacks, but that's one of the benefits.

I said from the beginning that I don't do arguments from authority because even authority can be wrong.

The thing with Tour didn't work out very well.

But I am confident that he knows more about science (every part of science) than you.

Notice for example, that Tour doesn't know what evolution is. Even you know better than he does, now.

Early when you were younger you believed a lie because you were in college and it was the popular opinion.

I accept evolution because I see it happening. As you know, it's an observed phenomenon. Even macroevolutionary change has been observed.

I'll tell you something I've talked to alot of evolutionists (most were atheists)

I happened to learn basic evolutionary theory from a devout Christian who was on the vestry board of his local church. So that's not a very persuasive argument for you to give me. When I was young, evolution was less "popular" than it is now, even among scientists, until the findings of Watson and Crick (molecular biology of DNA) made it clear how the process actually worked on a molecular level. So that argument fails, too.

your not even interested in teaching your failed theory.

Well, let's ask a YE creationist who actually has training in biology:

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

The truth about evolution

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

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Dr. Wood is still a YE creationist. But he's an honest one, willing to acknowledge the truth about evidence. He is able to maintain his religious beliefs without rejecting the truth about the evidence. And that's admirable in many ways.

Give it some thought. It might be a good thing for you to consider.

 

[Moseme]

It's one of the benefits of having multiple degrees. Being an academic bum does have some drawbacks, but that's one of the benefits.

The thing with Tour didn't work out very well.

Notice for example, that Tour doesn't know what evolution is. Even you know better than he does, now.

I accept evolution because I see it happening. As you know, it's an observed phenomenon. Even macroevolutionary change has been observed.


I happened to learn basic evolutionary theory from a devout Christian who was on the vestry board of his local church. So that's not a very persuasive argument for you to give me. When I was young, evolution was less "popular" than it is now, even among scientists, until the findings of Watson and Crick (molecular biology of DNA) made it clear how the process actually worked on a molecular level. So that argument fails, too.


Well, let's ask a YE creationist who actually has training in biology:

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

The truth about evolution

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

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Dr. Wood is still a YE creationist. But he's an honest one, willing to acknowledge the truth about evidence. He is able to maintain his religious beliefs without rejecting the truth about the evidence. And that's admirable in many ways.

Give it some thought. It might be a good thing for you to consider.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 3:7

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22

Paul must have dealt with a lot of people like you. Interesting isn't it. One last time I will humor you. Paul didn't believe in evolution. How will you try to discredit Paul? Or will you put words into his mouth and process that he actually did believe in evolution?

 

[Barbarian]

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Like your PhD chemist, who is so well-educated, but he can't even see what's there in front of him.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Does he profess himself to be wise?

Paul didn't believe in evolution.

He didn't believe in electrons, neurons, and viruses, either. Don't see your point.

 

[GodsGrace]

There are normally much better topics to focus on than how the universe was created. However for me it was important since it was a major hinderance for me at one point. I almost became an atheist until I saw that macro-evolution was a horrible theory.

I did post a brief explanation of the theory in another thread. If you want I can copy it. In short according to the gap theory the chaotic state of earth in genesis 1:2 was the result of judgment brought on by lucifer's rebellion.

The gap theory is an interesting idea.

I wouldn't let anything hinder my faith in God.
This is how I think of it: God must surely exist. However the history of millions or billions of years ago turn out, we still know that there is a God
and that He is to be worshipped. Whatever the history was/is should not hinder our faith in the God that created it all.

However, I do know what you mean. When I was about 10 I thought only Jesus was crucified. When I learned later on that thousands of persons were crucified, it made me wonder why HE was so special.

Then I found out!

 

[Moseme]

Like your PhD chemist, who is so well-educated, but he can't even see what's there in front of him.


Does he profess himself to be wise?


He didn't believe in electrons, neurons, and viruses, either. Don't see your point.

We're not talking about him anymore. And we are not talking about any of the people you supplied a link to either. I'm done humoring the fallacy of picking your truth based off of what "learned" people say.

We are talking about you. And whether or not Paul would believe your theory. You see I think we both agree that in this case relying on Paul's authority wouldn't be commiting a fallacy since his authority on the matter is backed by God. And I am sure Paul knew about viruses at least. I mean after all he was a jew with alot of learning. And ancient israel had known about germ theory a couple thousand years before the modern would discovered it. They also knew about the rain cycle and the earth being round and hanging on nothing in space. God had let them in on a good amount of scientific information. And yet they still all continued to endorse a form of creationism. Interesting.

 

[Moseme]

The gap theory is an interesting idea.

I wouldn't let anything hinder my faith in God.
This is how I think of it: God must surely exist. However the history of millions or billions of years ago turn out, we still know that there is a God
and that He is to be worshipped. Whatever the history was/is should not hinder our faith in the God that created it all.

However, I do know what you mean. When I was about 10 I thought only Jesus was crucified. When I learned later on that thousands of persons were crucified, it made me wonder why HE was so special.

Then I found out!

One thing I found out about about what made Jesus crucifixion more unique compared to all of the others who were crucified, they were all crucified for what they had done. Some deed (normally criminal) that had displeased those passing judgment. However Jesus was not crucified for anything he had done but because of who he was. His crime read Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.

 

[Barbarian]

Like your PhD chemist, who is so well-educated, but he can't even see what's there in front of him.


Does he profess himself to be wise?

We're not talking about him anymore.

You were:

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 3:7

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22

Pretty much what Tour is doing.

I'm done humoring the fallacy of picking your truth based off of what "learned" people say.

You brought up Tour, not me. I'm just showing you the facts.

We are talking about you. And whether or not Paul would believe your theory.

Hard to say what he'd say about evolution, electrons, viruses, and other natural phenomena. He didn't have much to go on, did he?

You see I think we both agree that in this case relying on Paul's authority wouldn't be commiting a fallacy since his authority on the matter is backed by God.

It would be a huge fallacy to assume that Paul (who had no knowledge of any of this, and wasn't advised on any of it by God) would reject or accept evolution, electrons, or viruses.

And I am sure Paul knew about viruses at least. I mean after all he was a jew with alot of learning. And ancient israel had known about germ theory a couple thousand years before the modern would discovered it.

Nope. He had no idea that renegade bits of DNA or RNA could be infectious. He didn't even know about nucleic acids. And no one in Biblical times even suspected tiny little organisms could cause disease. They thought it was some kind of fluid contagion. Most educated Israelites thought of contagion as being spread by "miasmas." They noticed that people in clean and fresh environments tended to be more well than those who were in dirty or polluted environments. So they thought it was by smell or chemical touch. "Influenza" is a term from the time before germ theory.

They also knew about the rain cycle

As did anyone else who bothered to notice.

and the earth being round

Pretty much everyone did. The Greeks and other seafaring nations realized it first, because the tops of coastal mountains appear first when you approach from the sea. And the fact that the Earth casts a round shadow on the moon during eclipses shows that as well. One Greek scholar, hundreds of years before Christ, even measured the Earth's circumference to a rather precise number.

Early Israelites didn't think so. They saw the earth as a flat surface with solid sky dome above, with windows in it to let rain fall.

and hanging on nothing in space.

Except, it doesn't hang. And contrary to the Bible it does move. It orbits the sun, which means it is constantly falling.

 

[Moseme]

Like your PhD chemist, who is so well-educated, but he can't even see what's there in front of him.


Does he profess himself to be wise?

You were:

Pretty much what Tour is doing.



You brought up Tour, not me. I'm just showing you the facts.


Hard to say what he'd say about evolution, electrons, viruses, and other natural phenomena. He didn't have much to go on, did he?



It would be a huge fallacy to assume that Paul (who had no knowledge of any of this, and wasn't advised on any of it by God) would reject or accept evolution, electrons, or viruses.




Nope. He had no idea that renegade bits of DNA or RNA could be infectious. He didn't even know about nucleic acids. And no one in Biblical times even suspected tiny little organisms could cause disease. They thought it was some kind of fluid contagion. Most educated Israelites thought of contagion as being spread by "miasmas." They noticed that people in clean and fresh environments tended to be more well than those who were in dirty or polluted environments. So they thought it was by smell or chemical touch. "Influenza" is a term from the time before germ theory.



As did anyone else who bothered to notice.



Pretty much everyone did. The Greeks and other seafaring nations realized it first, because the tops of coastal mountains appear first when you approach from the sea. And the fact that the Earth casts a round shadow on the moon during eclipses shows that as well. One Greek scholar, hundreds of years before Christ, even measured the Earth's circumference to a rather precise number.

Early Israelites didn't think so. They saw the earth as a flat surface with solid sky dome above, with windows in it to let rain fall.

Except, it doesn't hang. And contrary to the Bible it does move. It orbits the sun, which means it is constantly falling.

Well at least we can be sure that you dont have any sudden degrees in theology, especially the Bible. Your knowledge here is drastically in need of updating.

First I was trying to be nice but those verses about ever learning and never coming to the truth is talking about you.

Anyways so let me get this straight your response to having the entirety of God's chosen people disagree with you is to simply say that they know nothing. And you say this despite it being God who instructed them. And you do this without any evidence to support your accusations of their ignorance.

Germ theory was first published in 1861 by dr Pasteur. While thousands of years earlier on Mount Sinai the Israelites were given detailed instructions for how to deal with illness and disease and cleaning that shows they now knew how to safeguard against germ contamination. Or do you also say that God was ignorant?

The modern theory of the rain cycle was first proposed by bernard palissy in the 1580s and wasnt accepted by the majority of the scientific community until the 1800s. While in the bible we can see both king Solomon and Job recording how the rain cycle works. By the way most scholars seem to think that job was the oldest book in the bible.

The idea of a round earth was first proposed by a Greek thinker around 500 bc. However Solomon recorded a round earth around 900 bc.

Of course it doesnt actually hang. That was the point in Solomon saying that it hung on NOTHING. And also the earth is in more than a state of constant falling due to the gravity of the sun, it is also in a constant state of being propelled away by the speed of its orbit and its own rotation.

So as you can see, according to the bible, the ancient Israelites were quite knowledgeable about the natural world. And Paul was extremely qualified in his study of these ancient Hebrew works. So consodering that and the fact that he had a very intimate relationship with God, the logical assumption to draw is that Paul did in fact know a great deal of the natural world. And he even says that the natural world provides plenty of evidence of gods existance so that no one has an excuse and that the visible things of this world causes us to understand the invisible things of God. God is a being of order and life and the natural world reflects that. However, evolution would show us an impersonal and chaotic God who cares very little for life. Also Paul states multiple times that god created everything. He does not say that random processes created everything.

There's the truth straight from the word of God. You can either try to process the new direction God's word wants to lead you down. Or you can disregard the truth and stick with your bias, twisting the word of God to try and make it fit with your theory.

 

[GodsGrace]

One thing I found out about about what made Jesus crucifixion more unique compared to all of the others who were crucified, they were all crucified for what they had done. Some deed (normally criminal) that had displeased those passing judgment. However Jesus was not crucified for anything he had done but because of who he was. His crime read Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.

Right.
I'd say that the others were put to death for their own deeds,,,,
Jesus was put to death for ours.
:amen

 

[GodsGrace]

Like your PhD chemist, who is so well-educated, but he can't even see what's there in front of him.


Does he profess himself to be wise?

You were:

Pretty much what Tour is doing.



You brought up Tour, not me. I'm just showing you the facts.


Hard to say what he'd say about evolution, electrons, viruses, and other natural phenomena. He didn't have much to go on, did he?



It would be a huge fallacy to assume that Paul (who had no knowledge of any of this, and wasn't advised on any of it by God) would reject or accept evolution, electrons, or viruses.




Nope. He had no idea that renegade bits of DNA or RNA could be infectious. He didn't even know about nucleic acids. And no one in Biblical times even suspected tiny little organisms could cause disease. They thought it was some kind of fluid contagion. Most educated Israelites thought of contagion as being spread by "miasmas." They noticed that people in clean and fresh environments tended to be more well than those who were in dirty or polluted environments. So they thought it was by smell or chemical touch. "Influenza" is a term from the time before germ theory.



As did anyone else who bothered to notice.



Pretty much everyone did. The Greeks and other seafaring nations realized it first, because the tops of coastal mountains appear first when you approach from the sea. And the fact that the Earth casts a round shadow on the moon during eclipses shows that as well. One Greek scholar, hundreds of years before Christ, even measured the Earth's circumference to a rather precise number.

Early Israelites didn't think so. They saw the earth as a flat surface with solid sky dome above, with windows in it to let rain fall.

Except, it doesn't hang. And contrary to the Bible it does move. It orbits the sun, which means it is constantly falling.

Hi Barb,
What's going on?
Can't any other scientist be wise?
What does Tour have in front of him that he can't see?

He doesn't believe the right chemicals (which would spark life) could come together in a random way.
Doesn't he have the right to come to his own conclusions?

As you well know, I know very little about science....but I've always thought it impossible for something to come from nothing.....
which is what atheists seem to believe.

You think life could have sparked all on its own with no help from God?