So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

[rjw]

I said man as in 'mankind' , not a man.

Fair enough.

True. The Koran is a great work of man. The bible is the work of God.

So you assert.

The bible was written for the church, a very small group of believers.

Chunks of the Bible were written well before the church came along.

The great works, including the classic mythologies, were written for everyone, and accepted by most everyone.

?

It's hard to imagine that most folk in the West actually accept that the monsters described in Homer's "The Odyssey", actually existed, nor that adventures described therein actually happened. Many of the great works of literature are actually understood as stories, fables, and nothing more.

The Koran is not accepted by everyone. It is accepted only by those who accept the Koran.

The bible asks the question, "Who has believed our words..."? The answer of course is, very few. Most regard the bible as nonsense.

?

A massive number of people believe the Bible. I think it runs to a couple of billion. That is not a few.

I could just as easily assert that only a few believe the Koran.

Why would a group of fairly intelligent people conspire over thousands of years to write a book of nonsense?

Why would the author of the lusty Song of Solomon think that he (or she) was writing nonsense? Why would Paul, in his letters to his churches, think he was writing nonsense? Why would the Psalmist in his poetry and songs think he was writing nonsense?

 

[CabVet]

I do.

It surely doesn't look like it.

Comparing evolution theory to physics, gravity and biology is a really bad comparison. Surely you can do better!

If you understood evolution you would see that the evidence supporting it is the same as that supporting any other scientific theory. You would also see that evolution is an essential part of biology.

You have to believe miracles didn’t happen in order to make sense of your science. I don’t have that problem.

Exactly, so, which one do you dismiss, Jesus walking on water or gravity?

If only I could read your mind, it would really help me to understand what you are trying to say here.

If you read the post in context with the others you might get it too.

 

[EternalDragon]

Incorrect. For instance, the oldest bat fossils show the capability of flight - but no potential for sonar. There was a time when bats couldn't employ the sonar they're known for today; it developed over time, after they acquired flight, through evolution.

As it turns out, this was a prediction of evolution - it was long believed that primitive bats would have to show either flight or echolocation, not both at the same time. And that is exactly what we found.

And that would be consistent with Biblical creation. It's nothing a Christian creationist would disagree with. The bat is still a bat by the way and the fossil bat should not be labeled as "primitive".

It still had the ear for hearing, just not developed fully to what it is today. Remember all created animals were fruit and veggi eaters, before sin, when created. There was no need for echolocation then.

So it would also be a prediction of ID theory as well.

 

[lasthero]

And that would be consistent with Biblical creation. It's nothing a Christian creationist would disagree with. The bat is still a bat by the way and the fossil bat should not be labeled as "primitive".

It still had the ear for hearing, just not developed fully to what it is today. Remember all created animals were fruit and veggi eaters, before sin, when created. There was no need for echolocation then.

So it would also be a prediction of ID theory as well.

A- you've yet to show that there was a time when all animals were vegetarian.
B-not all modern bats eat insects. Egyptian Fruit bats have echolocation, too. It's not just for hunting, microbats use it to navigate in the dark. Also, this bat had much shorter wings and longer hind limbs, which a what you'd expect from an animal that once walked turning into one that has flight.
C-not an ID prediction- that's from the Bible.

And why shouldn't we label it primitive? Because you don't like it?

 

[Doveaman]

It surely doesn't look like it.

I’m a creationist, how else can it look? The creation was miraculous.

If you understood evolution you would see that the evidence supporting it is the same as that supporting any other scientific theory. You would also see that evolution is an essential part of biology.

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

My point is simple, if the physical evidence does not support the miraculous event, the physical evidence can take a hike.

Exactly, so, which one do you dismiss, Jesus walking on water or gravity?

I accept both, actually.

What I reject are the physical facts that tell us a man cannot walk on water, or be born to a virgin, or rise from the dead.

No amount of scientific experiments can reproduce these events. Therefore the scientific results of such experiments can take a hike.

 

[CabVet]

I’m a creationist, how else can it look? The creation was miraculous.

Good.

My point is simple, if the physical evidence does not support the miraculous event, the physical evidence can take a hike.

I accept both, actually.

If the physical evidence can "take a hike", by definition you cannot accept both.

What I reject are the physical facts that tell us a man cannot walk on water, or be born to a virgin, or rise from the dead.

That would be gravity and biology. Perhaps what you mean is that those miracles are some sort of "exception" to the natural rules and don't invalidate them? Am I on the right track?

No amount of scientific experiments can reproduce these events.

Nobody is saying they could. No amount of scientific experimens can reproduce 4 billion years of evolution either.

Therefore the scientific results of such experiments can take a hike.

You already said that.

You already said that.

 

[rjw]

...

My point is simple, if the physical evidence does not support the miraculous event, the physical evidence can take a hike.

...

Therefore the scientific results of such experiments can take a hike.

Therefore you have no need to accept the reality of gravity.

As per the Bible, it really is so that rain falls because God tells it to? Gravity has nothing to do with it?

Likewise, apples fall to the ground and the moon falls to the earth, simply because God tells them to. A common designer kind of thing, and gravity has nothing to do with both phenomena?

That verse you quoted from the Bible - a fallible human wrote it, a human who was open to all the foibles of modern day creationists who often claim intimate relationships with, and guidance by God. Yet given this impeccable relationship and omnipotent guidance, they write mistaken things and silly things.

 

[Old Flat Top]

Gidday OFT, and thanks. I like the 2 Tim 3:16 version because I think that is how the Bible should be used. And it often is. That is, it is a focus for teaching, inspiring, often in things that are good for the individual and for the community.

My annoyance is when it goes beyond that, and becomes a sledge hammer to bully others with, by people who are often little more than ignorant cowards in that they have no sustainable argument, and so imply that because their assertions are words that God agrees with, because they are guided by God, then said assertions should be accepted, no questions asked.

You are not one of those folk, fortunately, and while I disagree that the Bible is necessarily trustworthy, in the sense of always being some absolute truth, I do appreciate your sentiment.

I much prefer the picture painted by Jesus of planting and watering seeds: it just takes a little idea to grow into a whole new way of living and of seeing things. Gardening, to me, is the perfect metaphor for the relationship between scriptural truths and those who may not know them. No need to hammer it home, stick it in the ground, water it, weed it, let it grow.

I take it you are the same rjw as on carm?

john

 

[EternalDragon]

A- you've yet to show that there was a time when all animals were vegetarian.
B-not all modern bats eat insects. Egyptian Fruit bats have echolocation, too. It's not just for hunting, microbats use it to navigate in the dark. Also, this bat had much shorter wings and longer hind limbs, which a what you'd expect from an animal that once walked turning into one that has flight.
C-not an ID prediction- that's from the Bible.

And why shouldn't we label it primitive? Because you don't like it?

Because it is not primitive unless you call thousands of years ago primitive.

Why do you think that bats have always been nocturnal? I'd also like for you to show us the trick of how a bat without wings then evolves wings while surviving the entire time. Why would natural selection select for something that would make the bat less fit until it was finally developed over millions of supposed years? The idea is laughable.

I've shown you where animals were vegetarians. It's in the historical account in Genesis 1:30. Around a day or two before they became carnivores after the sin of Adam took place.

 

[rjw]

I take it you are the same rjw as on carm?

john

Indeed it is.

I post sometimes on TWeb as well. However, it is off line.

 

[Old Flat Top]

Indeed it is.

I post sometimes on TWeb as well. However, it is off line.

I thought so, fancy meeting you here.

john

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is not primitive unless you call thousands of years ago primitive.

Why do you think that bats have always been nocturnal? I'd also like for you to show us the trick of how a bat without wings then evolves wings while surviving the entire time. Why would natural selection select for something that would make the bat less fit until it was finally developed over millions of supposed years? The idea is laughable.

I've shown you where animals were vegetarians. It's in the historical account in Genesis 1:30. Around a day or two before they became carnivores after the sin of Adam took place.

Genesis is not historical. You need to look up the definition of that word.

There are many cases of animals alive today that are "half-way" to flying. They can show you how an animal with "half a wing" could survive. All you have to do is to remember that the purpose of the wing originally was not to be a wing. The ability to fly arose as a secondary capability that became a major capability.

Here is an excellent video on the evolution of flight. In part three they explain how flight may have evolved in birds. A partial wing as an aid in escape is better than no wing at all:

Evolution of flight part_1 - YouTube

In case you want to cheat:

Evolution of flight part_3 - YouTube

 

[EternalDragon]

In case you want to cheat:

Evolution of flight part_3 - YouTube

Nice comedy video. I had a good laugh. Birds running up an incline instead of flying means wings evolved? Dinosaurs flapped their arms while running up inclines and after millions of years the arms turned into wings with feathers. Really??

 

[Strathos]

Adhering to the scientific method is all about accepting when you are wrong. If you are proven wrong by this method, you accept it and move on, or chose another career.

And again, that is a complete non-sequitur response

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice comedy video. I had a good laugh. Birds running up an incline instead of flying means wings evolved? Dinosaurs flapped their arms while running up inclines and after millions of years the arms turned into wings with feathers. Really??

E.D., try not to be a fool. I was treating you very nicely. This sort of response is border line reportable by you. That is a very serious video, and if you had learned anything you should have known that feathers existed long before flight.

Seriously, I am trying to help you and you are acting like an idiot. That is not wise. That is not Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So E.D., do you want to discuss the video sensibly or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

If you don't want to act like an adult I will take it as an admission of defeat.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't want to act like an adult I will take it as an admission of defeat.

I'd say that just about makes all of us defeated.

 

[lasthero]

Because it is not primitive unless you call thousands of years ago primitive.

No one said it lived 'thousands of years ago', but even if it did, it would still be primitive by the definition of the word.

relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

Even if your erroneous version were true, it would still be a primitive bat by the very definition of the word.

Why do you think that bats have always been nocturnal?

Did I say bats have always been nocturnal? Some modern day bats are diurnal. But guess what? Even some of them have echolocation and use it for navigation.

I'd also like for you to show us the trick of how a bat without wings then evolves wings while surviving the entire time.

You do realize that, just because an animal species is adapting to a new environment, it doesn't automatically lose the advantages of it's previous form, right? It still had claws, a tail (much more developed than modern day bats) and functional hind limbs. Also, even if the wings weren't capable of full flight, as it went along they would have given it advantages, helping it to jump higher and even glide. Even if the wings weren't capable of full flight, they would still convey an advantage and make the creature more fit. You can see such adaptions all the time, like with flying squirrels - creatures that aren't capable of full flight, but who still can perform it in limited ways, like gliding. Even being able to fly a little is a big advantage over something that can't fly at all.

I've shown you where animals were vegetarians.

You've shown that certain animals are capable of ingesting plant matter. This is nowhere near the same thing as showing that ALL animals are capable of living on such a diet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd say that just about makes all of us defeated.

AV you were defeated years ago. I had nothing to do with that, it was long before I got here.

 

[lasthero]

Nice comedy video. I had a good laugh.

Be honest - you didn't actually watch the video, did you?