Is evolution a fact or theory?

[2tim_215]

Because He did? Our major difference is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

The question was what makes you think the Genesis description of creation was not literal? And the difference is I don't care about the method He used, just the fact that He did it.

Because, as the early Christians noted, the text of Genesis itself tells us that it's not a literal history. This verse says that man's body was created like the other animals from the world itself, but that his soul is given directly by God.

I don't agree with this at all. The Bible doesn't tell us specifically whether or not something is literal or not. it's up to the reader to use common spiritual sense to figure that out for themselves. Yes, all physical bodies was created using the same common materials (hence similar dna) and life was inserted unto those physical bodies by the breath of God.

Why is it hard for you to accept that God did it?

I don't think we disagree on that. What we might disagree on is the method He used. I think it was instantaneous and you seem to think it was over billions of years.

No. That way lies pantheism. God is not nature. Nature is a creation of His, by which He does most things in this world.

Some apparently think this way. They look for all kinds of ways to attribute creation and every thing else to other things rather than towards God.

Evolved from other hominids.

I don't see why He had to.

A few million years ago from other hominids.

Good theory.

The Barbarian,]hat's what I just told you.

Nope. A universe that just popped up at random could hardly be expected to produce us. Darwin mentioned this in the last sentence of his book. God made it all. There are some people just not willing to accept a God powerful enough to do it as He did it.

This is what I'd call Theistic Evolution. Much better than just plain Evolution but still flawed imo. It's a way of compromising Darwin's Theory with Christianity. There's no compromising when it comes to God and the Bible. When there is, you wind up getting yourself in trouble.

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 2 when read is looked at and we see the body for Adam being molded and formed from the elements of the earth. That body was lifeless until after the Lord breathed into the nostrils the breath of lives. Its not breath of life in the Hebrew. Its plural. Its breath of lives. But, the reason for that is to be saved for a later time.

Today, thanks to science, we know in fact that our bodies are made of the elements of the earth. We know if we have a mineral deficiency it will effect our bodily functions.The Bible writer had no way to know that was a fact at the time of writing. Divine influence is seen in stating that fact about what the human body consists of.

Now.. what is often times missed? Appears a few verses after Adam's body production is seen. Adam was the first scientist. He would name and categorize the animal kingdom. And, he didn't even use Latin.

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he
would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature,
that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the
birds in the sky and all the wild animals."​

This is what is often times not noted...

"the Lord God had formed out of the ground" all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky.
​

The animals and birds too had their bodies brought about in the same way as Adam's body, by the same system. Same raw materials. Same designer.

The Designer left his autograph on his works of art by sharing similarities in design structure. Of course, animals and man in their biological realm in some cases will be very close.

We are not our car. We are its driver. Bodies are vehicles - organic vehicles - that the driver (soul) of the body activates in motion.

So? Why should not a chimpanzee show a similar structure to a man's body? Or, another animal? After all, we use pig parts and organs in human surgery as well.

The bodies of animals and Adam's body were all provided for by the same master engineer and designer.

To deny intelligent design is to deny one's own intelligence. Its intellectual dishonesty to deny such a glaring fact. And, that is why we need to know that we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Its against invisible powers as the Bible tells us. Powers that want to deny God of receiving glory from man.

 

[The Barbarian]

The question was what makes you think the Genesis description of creation was not literal?

As St. Augustine pointed out, the text itself shows that it isn't literal.

And the difference is I don't care about the method He used, just the fact that He did it.

That's good.

Because, as the early Christians noted, the text of Genesis itself tells us that it's not a literal history. This verse says that man's body was created like the other animals from the world itself, but that his soul is given directly by God.

I don't agree with this at all.

You could tell the Author about it.

The Bible doesn't tell us specifically whether or not something is literal or not.

The text itself does.

it's up to the reader to use common spiritual sense to figure that out for themselves.

Problem is, Christians who use "common spiritual sense" all disagree on whether or not it's literal.

Yes, all physical bodies was created using the same common materials (hence similar dna)

We can test that idea by seeing if DNA similarity fits organisms of known descent. Turns out it does. So we know it indicates common descent.

I don't think we disagree on that. What we might disagree on is the method He used. I think it was instantaneous

The initial creation was instantaneous. But of course, creation continued as the universe developed from that initial creation. Still does today. You and I , for example, are created by God.

Nature is a creation of His, by which He does most things in this world.

Some apparently think this way.

The Author of the Bible, for example.

They look for all kinds of ways to attribute creation and every thing else to other things rather than towards God.

Why would He have created nature, if not to serve His purposes? He says in scripture that it does.

Barbarian notes that man evolved from other hominids.

I don't see why He had to.

God's will. Divine providence does it as He intends.

A few million years ago from other hominids.

Good theory.

Certainly one of the best. A theory is an idea or group of ideas, repeatedly verified by evidence.

This is what I'd call Theistic Evolution. Much better than just plain Evolution but still flawed imo. It's a way of compromising Darwin's Theory with Christianity.

So astronomy is a way of compromising the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, with Christianity? I don't think so. Since God doesn't actually tell us either heliocentrism or evolution (and He doesn't deny either of those things), no compromise is needed. The conflicts arose because men attached their own desires and ideas to scripture and then imagined that they were scripture.

There's no compromising when it comes to God and the Bible.

Which is why YE creationism is in such trouble.

 

[2tim_215]

As St. Augustine pointed out, the text itself shows that it isn't literal.

Augustine had quite a few issues himself.

That's good.

Because, as the early Christians noted, the text of Genesis itself tells us that it's not a literal history. This verse says that man's body was created like the other animals from the world itself, but that his soul is given directly by God.

I'd say that's a matter of interpretation.

You could tell the Author about it.

I have no problem with the author. If I do have a problem it's with some of men's interpretations.

The text itself does.

According to you, but perhaps not the Holy Spirit.

Problem is, Christians who use "common spiritual sense" all disagree on whether or not it's literal.

You're right, there's a lot of disagreements on a lot of things by many Christians. All we have to do is to look at this forum in order to observe that. It's unfortunate since Paul told us that we're to be like minded, lol.
Philippians 2:2 (KJV) Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

We can test that idea by seeing if DNA similarity fits organisms of known descent. Turns out it does. So we know it in
dicates common descent.

Yes. I agree. But I say that it points to a common creator which is what's important and does not give us the exact details of how He performed it. The creation of life is one of the great mysteries which man is incapable of figuring out, no matter how he tries, and Lord knows he tries.

The initial creation was instantaneous. But of course, creation continued as the universe developed from that initial creation. Still does today. You and I , for example, are created by God.

I can agree to an extent with this. In terms of creation continuing to develop (or evolving for that matter) yes, but not to the extent that some evolutionists want to take it, in many cases wanting to entirely leave God out of the picture.

Nature is a creation of His, by which He does most things in this world.

Absolutely. 100%.

The Author of the Bible, for example.

Why would He have created nature, if not to serve His purposes? He says in scripture that it does.

Yes. No one's denying this from what I can tell.

Barbarian notes that man evolved from other hominids.

This is where I beg to differ. I suppose if you want to say that man's related to him in some way that may be true, from the standpoint that we both came from the same Creator and that Creator used much of the same materials to create the both of us.

God's will. Divine providence does it as He intends.

I agree on that too. Regardless of how He did it, He did it and that's what's most important in my estimation.

A few million years ago from other hominids.

That I don't know but what I do know is that God could have created more than one species of man at different points in time if He wanted to, and that it wasn't necessary for Him to have one species to "evolve" into another as many evolutionists (including yourself may seem to claim. Why would that be necessary? He could create, then destroy, and create again if He desired to do so which it appears He may have. Who knows for sure? A lot of speculation on man's part. I take what the Bible says literally when it makes the most sense and it does to me when it comes to creation. Less than 100 years ago everyone thought that the Book of Revelation was made up of purely metaphors (could't possibly be literal) and then man came up with the Atomic bomb and today we know we can literally destroy the earth 1000 times over with nuclear weapons.

Certainly one of the best. A theory is an idea or group of ideas, repeatedly verified by evidence.

I'm not denigrating science, I just am just suspicious of science that is used to contradict the Bible and I believe that the Bible gives us all the answers we need with regard to creation. I believe that science can be used to confirm (or perhaps better understand) what the Bible already tells us,

So astronomy is a way of compromising the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, with Christianity? I don't think so. Since God doesn't actually tell us either heliocentrism or evolution (and He doesn't deny either of those things), no compromise is needed. The conflicts arose because men attached their own desires and ideas to scripture and then imagined that they were scripture.

Job 26:7 (KJV) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:22 (KJV) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
It's amazing how much the Bible tells us about the stars and astronomy. You might like these if you haven't seen them:
http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Astronomy-Bible.pdf
http://www.ctvn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1203-Creation-Astronomy1.pdf
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/...Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.pdf

I don't think it's wise for us to assume because the Bible doesn't say anything about something that it must be true.

Which is why YE creationism is in such trouble.

The one thing that I'll do is I'll grant to science is it's opinion the earth age being much older than originally thought. I used to believe in a younger earth (the prevailing opinion for many years) but with all the scientific evidence gathered over the years it looks as though most people had it wrong. I don't have a problem with this (as many people do) because the Bible doesn't tell us how long the earth has been in existence, hence, no conflict.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As St. Augustine pointed out, the text itself shows that it isn't literal.

Augustine had quite a few issues himself.

Yep. One of his hot buttons was people adding to scripture. He really objected to that.

Because, as the early Christians noted, the text of Genesis itself tells us that it's not a literal history. This verse says that man's body was created like the other animals from the world itself, but that his soul is given directly by God.

I'd say that's a matter of interpretation.

Pretty hard to deny it. But some do.

The text itself does.

According to you, but perhaps not the Holy Spirit.

People have claimed all sorts of things, saying the Holy Spirit led them. Since most of them are contradictory, they can't all be right.

We can test that idea by seeing if DNA similarity fits organisms of known descent. Turns out it does. So we know it indicates common descent.

Yes. I agree. But I say that it points to a common creator

Common descent of all living things would indeed require a common creator. One creator, one common ancestor.

That I don't know but what I do know is that God could have created more than one species of man at different points in time if He wanted to, and that it wasn't necessary for Him to have one species to "evolve" into another as many evolutionists (including yourself may seem to claim.

He could have poofed everything, ignoring nature entirely. It comes down to evidence. And the evidence shows He used nature to produce several species of human, one line of which led to us.

Why would that be necessary?

I don't think anything is necessary for him. It's just the way He did it.

Less than 100 years ago everyone thought that the Book of Revelation was made up of purely metaphors (could't possibly be literal) and then man came up with the Atomic bomb and today we know we can literally destroy the earth 1000 times over with nuclear weapons.

If we set off every nuclear weapon in existence, there would still be humans standing afterwards. Maybe they'd go extinct eventually, but a lot of species and the Earth would still be here.


Job 26:7 (KJV) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

There actually isn't a north in space, and the Earth doesn't hang. The Hebrews, like most literate humans in classical times, knew the earth was a sphere, and therefore, supposed that it was somehow hanging. Earlier, they supposed it was a flat circle with a solid "firmament" domed over it, as the verse below suggests:

Isaiah 40:22 (KJV) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The Hebrews were quite familiar with Mesopotamian astronomy, which was the best in the world at the time.

However, I don't think it's wise for us to assume because the Bible doesn't say anything about something that it isn't true. For that, we have to look for evidence to see what it might be.

I don't have a problem with this (as many people do) because the Bible doesn't tell us how long the earth has been in existence, hence, no conflict.

Ussher thought he could add things up, but there are so many gaps and sometimes contradictions, that it's impossible to say from scripture.

 

[2tim_215]

Barbarian observes:
As St. Augustine pointed out, the text itself shows that it isn't literal.

Augustine was originally trained as a gnostic and taught against man having a free will which resulted in a division in the church in around 400 AD.

I disagree. Keep in mind that the Jewish translators of the Old Testament although they spoke the original Hebrew they lacked the spiritual insight given us today of which benefit we have, being on the other side of the cross. As for the actual words written in Genesis, yes, they are words inspired by God, and given to Moses for our benefit, but in no way can an old Jewish interpretation be given as to the whether or not they should be taken literally. I'm sure that back then the Jewish people of that time would not have taken them to be literal. Of course they didn't have 2000 years of science or history nor had any idea of what the earth's age was and probably didn't care.

Yep. One of his hot buttons was people adding to scripture. He really objected to that.

Exactly. God tells that He created man, the animals and everything else. What else needs to be added?

Because, as the early Christians noted, the text of Genesis itself tells us that it's not a literal history. This verse says that man's body was created like the other animals from the world itself, but that his soul is given directly by God.

Where and which early Christians tell us Genesis is NOT literal? Paul? Peter? Jesus?

Pretty hard to deny it. But some do.

The text itself does.

I'll have to say that's your opinion, which you're entitled to.

People have claimed all sorts of things, saying the Holy Spirit led them. Since most of them are contradictory, they can't all be right.

You're right there too. So how can you tell?

We can test that idea by seeing if DNA similarity fits organisms of known descent. Turns out it does. So we know it indicates common descent.

I'm not going to argue science with you. You obviously know what you're talking about,

Common descent of all living things would indeed require a common creator. One creator, one common ancestor.

I guess we agree on that.

He could have poofed everything, ignoring nature entirely. It comes down to evidence. And the evidence shows He used nature to produce several species of human, one line of which led to us.

The problem is where's the line?

I don't think anything is necessary for him. It's just the way He did it.

The way he did it is where the dispute is.

If we set off every nuclear weapon in existence, there would still be humans standing afterwards. Maybe they'd go extinct eventually, but a lot of species and the Earth would still be here.

Job 26:7 (KJV) He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

There actually isn't a north in space, and the Earth doesn't hang. The Hebrews, like most literate humans in classical times, knew the earth was a sphere, and therefore, supposed that it was somehow hanging. Earlier, they supposed it was a flat circle with a solid "firmament" domed over it, as the verse below suggests:

Isaiah 40:22 (KJV) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The Hebrews were quite familiar with Mesopotamian astronomy, which was the best in the world at the time.

But nothing compared to what we know today, yet the Bible gives us quite a bit of info in this regard although not to be professing to be a science book.

However, I don't think it's wise for us to assume because the Bible doesn't say anything about something that it isn't true. For that, we have to look for evidence to see what it might be.

I agree. But we should certainly be wary of it, especially if it may pose anything which conflicts or contradicts with scripture and if so, we should even more carefully scrutinize the so-called evidence before coming to any certain conclusions.

Ussher thought he could add things up, but there are so many gaps and sometimes contradictions, that it's impossible to say from scripture.

Ussher did a great job chronicling the time from Adam (man) up to Jesus. He wasn't interested in prehistoric man. His estimate of 6000 years for modern man was a pretty good estimate.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I said, later Hebrews were quite aware that Earth was a sphere. By Jesus' time, every literate person knew it. Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before, had actually determined its circumference to a very good precision.

Earlier, they thought of it as a disk with a solid domed sky over the earth with windows in the dome by which water fell, as recorded in Genesis.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The term raqia meant something like "metal hammered out into a dome."

Every pre-Copernican commentator in Judaism who wrote about the rakia knew exactly what it was.[8] The Talmud, for instance, records varying opinions about the thickness of what is clearly a solid firmament; from the seven layer firmaments of Resh Lakish (b. Chagigah 12b), to the two firmaments of R Judah (ibid.), from the finger-width firmament of Rav Joshua ben R Nehemia (Gen. Rab. 4:5), to the “50 year journey” firmament of Rav Judah (j. Berachot 2c).


The Rabbis even debate the routes of the sun at night when it leaves the visible sky under the dome, whether it travels either above the firmament or under the earth (Gen. Rab. 6:8; b. Pesachim 94b). The latter possibility leads to the Rabbis forbidding water not drawn before nightfall for matzah baking, lest the sun travel under the plate-like earth and warm the water from underneath before it returns to the dome for morning (b. Pesachim 42a).[9] This is called mayim she-lanu (water that has been left out [lit. rested] and avoided being heated by the sun), still in observance today in certain circles,[10] and it removes the Talmudic understandings of cosmology from mere aggadic speculation into practical halachah.[11]
My Encounter with the Firmament - TheTorah.com

As I said, later Jews would have known it as a sphere. Jesus (even if He had not been God) would certainly have known that the Earth was a sphere. There are even Roman coins showing it thus. Ptolemy's Geography about a century before Jesus was born, described it as a sphere.

 

[2tim_215]

As I said, later Hebrews were quite aware that Earth was a sphere. By Jesus' time, every literate person knew it. Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before, had actually determined its circumference to a very good precision.

Earlier, they thought of it as a disk with a solid domed sky over the earth with windows in the dome by which water fell, as recorded in Genesis.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The term raqia meant something like "metal hammered out into a dome."

Every pre-Copernican commentator in Judaism who wrote about the rakia knew exactly what it was.[8] The Talmud, for instance, records varying opinions about the thickness of what is clearly a solid firmament; from the seven layer firmaments of Resh Lakish (b. Chagigah 12b), to the two firmaments of R Judah (ibid.), from the finger-width firmament of Rav Joshua ben R Nehemia (Gen. Rab. 4:5), to the “50 year journey” firmament of Rav Judah (j. Berachot 2c).


The Rabbis even debate the routes of the sun at night when it leaves the visible sky under the dome, whether it travels either above the firmament or under the earth (Gen. Rab. 6:8; b. Pesachim 94b). The latter possibility leads to the Rabbis forbidding water not drawn before nightfall for matzah baking, lest the sun travel under the plate-like earth and warm the water from underneath before it returns to the dome for morning (b. Pesachim 42a).[9] This is called mayim she-lanu (water that has been left out [lit. rested] and avoided being heated by the sun), still in observance today in certain circles,[10] and it removes the Talmudic understandings of cosmology from mere aggadic speculation into practical halachah.[11]
My Encounter with the Firmament - TheTorah.com

As I said, later Jews would have known it as a sphere. Jesus (even if He had not been God) would certainly have known that the Earth was a sphere. There are even Roman coins showing it thus. Ptolemy's Geography about a century before Jesus was born, described it as a sphere.

Perhaps might they have known it from Job, which is probably the oldest book in the Bible, even written before Genesis. Might have the Hebrews you are referring to read it since if they were real Hebrews I'm sure have read the Torah and any other Biblical works available at the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Brown-Driver-Briggs
רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6 extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְ Genesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9 firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י's throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)

2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָר Daniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
Strong's Hebrew: 7549. רָקִ֫יעַ (raqia) -- an extended surface, expanse

 

[JohnC2]

Is there are proof of either?

Evolution as stated as primordial ooze and chaos combining to bring forth creation is the actual, literal underpinning of the Ancient Babylonian pagan religion.

God bringing forth Creation by His Word with purpose and order is the Biblical narrative which stands in stark contrast to “Evolution” - aka simply a repackaged Babylonian paganism...

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution as stated as primordial ooze and chaos combining to bring forth creation is the actual, literal underpinning of the Ancient Babylonian pagan religion.

But it's not evolution. Evolution isn't about the beginning of all things, or even the beginning of life. It's about how living populations change over time. Even Darwin just speculated that God created the first living things. Your misunderstanding is one of the weirdest and most entrenched superstitions people have about evolution.

 

[JohnC2]

So then you are a believer in “Theistic evolution” or Long day creation - AKA the Bible narrative is completely true but summarized and that a “day” in the eyes of God may just signify an epoch or era?

And no - I have not misunderstood modern Materialistic Evolution or it’s basis... That’s what I was taught in American public school. I was rigorously tested on it. It’s been Official Curriculm since the 1960’s....

I was simply amazed to learn (2 days ago) that the Evolutionary statement of beginning that Chaos + Primordial soup = creation was the underpinning of Ancient Babylonian religion... They don’t teach you that part in school.

 

[2tim_215]

As I said, later Hebrews were quite aware that Earth was a sphere. By Jesus' time, every literate person knew it. Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before, had actually determined its circumference to a very good precision.

Earlier, they thought of it as a disk with a solid domed sky over the earth with windows in the dome by which water fell, as recorded in Genesis.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The term raqia meant something like "metal hammered out into a dome."

Every pre-Copernican commentator in Judaism who wrote about the rakia knew exactly what it was.[8] The Talmud, for instance, records varying opinions about the thickness of what is clearly a solid firmament; from the seven layer firmaments of Resh Lakish (b. Chagigah 12b), to the two firmaments of R Judah (ibid.), from the finger-width firmament of Rav Joshua ben R Nehemia (Gen. Rab. 4:5), to the “50 year journey” firmament of Rav Judah (j. Berachot 2c).


The Rabbis even debate the routes of the sun at night when it leaves the visible sky under the dome, whether it travels either above the firmament or under the earth (Gen. Rab. 6:8; b. Pesachim 94b). The latter possibility leads to the Rabbis forbidding water not drawn before nightfall for matzah baking, lest the sun travel under the plate-like earth and warm the water from underneath before it returns to the dome for morning (b. Pesachim 42a).[9] This is called mayim she-lanu (water that has been left out [lit. rested] and avoided being heated by the sun), still in observance today in certain circles,[10] and it removes the Talmudic understandings of cosmology from mere aggadic speculation into practical halachah.[11]
My Encounter with the Firmament - TheTorah.com

As I said, later Jews would have known it as a sphere. Jesus (even if He had not been God) would certainly have known that the Earth was a sphere. There are even Roman coins showing it thus. Ptolemy's Geography about a century before Jesus was born, described it as a sphere.

Since they were isn't it likely that they got this from the Bible which they all read? You quote all Jewish scrolls above. It stands to reason that they were all required to study their Hebrew scrolls (scripture of which Job would certainly been available under the auspices of God which is where they would have derived their understanding (outside of Copernicus), As for a round earth there many who thought that the earth was flat for a long time up until the 1400s, yet all of those ancient Jews were able to figure it out way back then. Interesting isn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Since they were isn't it likely that they got this from the Bible which they all read?

Since the Bible has passages describing the Earth as covered by a solid dome with windows through which water falls as rain, and other passages, which suggest that it's circular, it isn't hard to see why a lot of them though that the earth was sort of like a snow dome. Later, literate Jewish writers were certainly familiar with the evidence showing that the Earth is a globe.

You quote all Jewish scrolls above. It stands to reason that they were all required to study their Hebrew scrolls (scripture of which Job would certainly been available under the auspices of God which is where they would have derived their understanding (outside of Copernicus), As for a round earth there many who thought that the earth was flat for a long time up until the 1400s

That's a myth, mostly spread by Washington Irving who made that claim in a biography of Columbus. In fact, educated people knew the world was a globe long before Christ was born. Eratosthenes accurately determined its circumference hundreds of years before Christ. No one told Columbus that the Earth was flat; they correctly told him that his calculation of its circumference was incorrect. This is why he though that he had arrived in India when he got to America; if the world was as small as he thought, he would have been in India.

yet all of those ancient Jews were able to figure it out way back then. Interesting isn't it?

They were quite familiar with the discoveries of the Greeks. Sea-faring nations figured it out first, based on the way tops of coastal mountains appear first as one approaches the coast.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evoltion is neither a fact nor a theory.
...at least, not a scientific theory...

It's NATURALISM.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evoltion is neither a fact nor a theory.
...at least, not a scientific theory...

Here's the way to check:

A theory (in science) is an idea or a group of ideas with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Given the huge number of verified predictions, evolutionary theory is indeed as secure as gravitational theory. Actually more secure. We know why evolution works, but we aren't still entirely sure why gravity works.

A partial list of verified predictions will be given, if anyone doesn't know what they are.

It's NATURALISM.

Technically, evolution is the observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it.

But you're a bit confused about "NATURALISM." Your confusion depends on conflating ontological naturalism ("nature is all there is") with methodological naturalism ("we can only use science to investigate natural things").

Hence, science (or plumbing, or auto repair, etc) are methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. A plumber can be a theist, but he won't try to clear your drain by exorcising the demons of blockage.

Science and plumbing can't deal with God. But scientists and plumbers can.

Does that help?

 

[dcalling]

Your postion may not change, but now you do know better.

I hope you do the same as we are supposed to learn from each other.

I get that you still have trouble with the idea that things like genetic algorithms produce optimal solutions that are not understood by the engineers who wrote the code.

Engineers know their code (good ones at least), even if they mistakenly wrote the wrong code and got unexpected result, they can still debug it and understand what went wrong.

Science should be TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE. If something does not meet those standards, they are either hypothesis (with scientific model) or voodoo (with magic).

It seems when you claim you believe in evolution and the science behind it, you are just substituting God's creation with magic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Engineers know their code (good ones at least), even if they mistakenly wrote the wrong code and got unexpected result, they can still debug it and understand what went wrong.

In the case of genetic algorithms, they get an optimal result, even if they don't know how it was done. The point is that unexpected things are incorporated into the optimal solution. And what's great about that, is no one cares if it's "wrong", so long as it works.

Science should be TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE and REPEATABLE.

Turns out, it happens every time. Because the algorithm is documented, you can run it again, and you get the same result. So it's testable, verifiable, and repeatable. And understand, the solution isn't anywhere in the code. There's nothing "wrong" with the code, and the engineers know exactly what the code is and how the code works. They just don't know how the solution determined by the code works.

It seems when you claim you believe in science, you are just substituting God's creation with magic. You shouldn't "believe in" science. You should accept it or reject it on the evidence.

And seeing as the evidence clearly shows that genetic algorithms work very well, and better than design for very complex problems, that pretty much guarantees it will continue to be used.

Not unlike many other things that we only partially understand. That's how science works.

 

[eleos1954]

Is there are proof of either?

If you believe evolution is fact ... then it is .... if you believe it's theory ... then it is.
It's whatever you believe it is.

 

[2tim_215]

Here's the way to check:

A theory (in science) is an idea or a group of ideas with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Given the huge number of verified predictions, evolutionary theory is indeed as secure as gravitational theory. Actually more secure. We know why evolution works, but we aren't still entirely sure why gravity works.

A partial list of verified predictions will be given, if anyone doesn't know what they are.



Technically, evolution is the observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it.

But you're a bit confused about "NATURALISM." Your confusion depends on conflating ontological naturalism ("nature is all there is") with methodological naturalism ("we can only use science to investigate natural things").

Hence, science (or plumbing, or auto repair, etc) are methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. A plumber can be a theist, but he won't try to clear your drain by exorcising the demons of blockage.

Science and plumbing can't deal with God. But scientists and plumbers can.

Does that help?

I'm more interested in the predictions from the Bible, of which there are many which have been fulfilled.