Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[lifepsyop]

So it's literal unless you don't want it to be? Isn't that what you're accusing other Christians of doing? As you see, every element of the account fits nicely with a large regional flood. And since there is nothing within to indicate a global flood, why not just accept it as it is?



Seems like you do. "Eretz" means "land" not "world." The word for "world" is "tebel." You've just redefined a word to fit your expectations of God.



But not, as you see, the whole world. And the detailed context of the account in no place says it is worldwide in scope.

"Eretz" means "land"; "tebel" means "world." It's really not very hard to make that distinction when you read what is happening in these accounts. I'm just pointing out the irony of you trying to invoke a relativist interpretation to argue for Biblical literalism.

This is just the first example I found showing the term from the flood account in Genesis 7 can just as easily be interpreted as worldwide, as the same word is used to describe the creation of the earth. (Unless you suppose the creation of the earth itself to be a local event within the earth?)

Genesis 1:1 Lexicon: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (ha·'a·retz.). (biblehub.com)

Genesis 7:4 Lexicon: "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land (ha·'a·retz.) every living thing that I have made." (biblehub.com)

So I don't know where you're getting your information, but it appears to be incorrect.

Not that this particular argument even matters, because even if Eretz exclusively meant worldwide, you would shift your position and just say the account is meant to be figural or metaphorical or allegorical. This will always happen when you try to make scripture conform to the story of evolution.

I will leave you again with the warnings of the apostle Peter:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. - 2 Peter 3:1-7

 

[The Barbarian]

So I don't know where you're getting your information, but it appears to be incorrect.

Strong's Concordance
tebel: world
Original Word: תֵּבֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: tebel
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-bale')
Definition: world

Not that this particular argument even matters, because even if Eretz exclusively meant worldwide, you would shift your position and just say the account is meant to be figural or metaphorical or allegorical.

I admitted that the entire story could be allegorical. It doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter if there wasn't a Samaritan who took pity on a traveler robbed and beaten by thieves. The fact that Hebrew occasionally uses "land" to mean "world", just as it can happen in English, is not license for you to assume that it must mean "world" even in the absence of evidence for that belief. As you now realize, "tebel" was the word normally used for the "whole world." And for people in the ancient Mediterranean, "world" as in Luke 2:2, didn't mean the globe of the earth, but the known inhabited land e.g. the Roman empire.

This will always happen when you try to make scripture conform to the new doctrine of creationism. It is based on non-scriptural ideas projected onto scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians?

Because the Devil is so convincing.

It's growing, and it might be blasphemy.

Yup. Sign of the times.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Aren't they calling God a liar?

Yes, but not consciously.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find the evidence for evolution to be convincing.

You're not alone.

I find the insistent comparison between evolution and the first couple Genesis chapters to be a category mistake.

You're not alone.

One is a religious document making claims about God, the world, and humanity (and the relation between the three).

Don't forget though, that "religious document" is also known for conveying the truth.

The main thrust of these claims is outside the purview of scientific investigation, i.e. metaphysics.

Yes, indeed.

The other is a theory based on data, i.e. physical phenomena.

Yes, indeed.

It's a category mistake and a sign of intellectual laziness and arrogance to not acknowledge and allow for the differences between the two.

The differences between the two are simple: science is myopic. It can only go so far, and no further.

 

[AV1611VET]

What new breed of Christians?

Christians since the time of Isaac Newton.

Many Christian have believed in some form of evolution for a long time ...

They're still in the minority though, if you want to take into account every Christian that ever lived on the face of the earth.

... and it only makes God a liar if one takes a middle eastern creation story, of which there are many and some that have identical information are older then what is in Scripture, as absolutely literal.

I disagree. If God wanted to fool us, He wouldn't have documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitness were.

He could have just left out Genesis 1 & 2, and let Satan do his thing and concatenate the DNA pool into a Darwin Tree.

 

[AV1611VET]

For me, i find the succession of the fossils compelling evidence for evolution.

The fossil record is an accordion-ed chart, showing animals supposedly living in different eras, with each era assigned millions of years of existence.

Using a calculator, one year of earth's history is equivalent to 754,025 years of cosmic evolution.

It's a cheap attempt at making animals look like they never saw each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably because it's directly observed to happen.

At the micro level, yes; but the Bible doesn't allow for enough time to have transpired for micro to become macro.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even many creationist organizations admit that new species, genera, and sometimes higher levels of taxa evolve from other organisms.

Only on paper.

Evolutionists have been known to give binomials to animals they thought to have existed, only to find out they were horribly wrong (e.g., Nebraska Man).

Do you know of any creationist organization that ever did a thing like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

show the odds are impossible I'm sure you've personally done the math on it,

How long did angiosperms live without the sun?

According to Genesis 1, angiosperms were created before the sun; and if one day in Genesis 1 is n-years of evolution, then are you saying the trees lived years without the sun?

 

[Derek1234]

You're not alone.You're not alone.Don't forget though, that "religious document" is also known for conveying the truth.Yes, indeed.Yes, indeed.The differences between the two are simple: science is myopic. It can only go so far, and no further.

Science isn't "myopic," though it has limitations. It can only explain natural phenomena, and - done properly - only purports to. Scientists use observable data to formulate hypotheses, and test them. If they hold up, they make predictions and test those. If they work, they consider them consistent with the predictions, and make new predictions. (If they don't hold up, they dismiss them, and/or refine them.) Eventually, when enough predictions have been correctly made, and they are coherent, systematic, predictive and broadly applicable, they become a known as a theory. No scientific theory has ever been proven. That's the beauty of the scientific method. Theories or predictions can be falsified, but they can't be proven.

Where scientists sometimes overreach, they move into making pronouncements on things they cannot falsify. Richard Dawkins and others have form on this. An error.

In the same way, the Bible - though divinely-inspired, and revealing Truth in a way that we can understand it - does not explain observable phenomena. Rather, it reveals God as the author of creation and of redemption, through history, poetry, wisdom, and teaching. God's choice to inspire scripture was to work with people who were technologically primitive, and who knew little of science. He could have chosen to explain to them details of the mechanics by which He did this, but He didn't. Of course, you're free to infer that God created the natural environment in six*24 hour periods, if you wish. It's simply the case that the Bible desn't demand that explanation; indeed, the very first verse of the Bible simply says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That formlessness exists outside of the days. So if that part of creation pre-dated the six days, why did it? To me, that paints a picture of a God who masterfully beings order to shapelessness, and form to formlessness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science isn't "myopic," though it has limitations.

Are you assuming that science does not contradict the Scriptures; or are you assuming that science should not contradict the Scriptures?

... indeed, the very first verse of the Bible simply says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No, it doesn't say that.

 

[d taylor]

Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

The answer can be found in genesis 3:1
​

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

So the deception “Has God indeed said, (which is doubting the word of God) the serpent used in Genesis 3:1, continues to be successful to this day. In a way it is easier to deceive in this age, as the farther mankind gets from God, the easier the deception is to pull off. With mankind (including many christians) having as much or more faith in the sciences, etc.. as they do in The Bible (The inspired Word of God) they open the door to this deception of satan.

“Has God indeed said,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Then God said, “Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

Thus God made the raqia, and divided the waters which were under the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia; and it was so.

And God called the raqia Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the raqia of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the raqia of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the raqia of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the raqia of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them;and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

 

[The Barbarian]

Even many creationist organizations admit that new species, genera, and sometimes higher levels of taxa evolve from other organisms.

Only on paper.

Well, let's take a look...

From Answers in Genesis:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

In our series, we’ve concluded that many new species have formed from the kinds that Noah took on board the Ark. We also observed that, when God created the kinds, He frontloaded them with genetic differences—with the potential to form all sorts of new species and varieties.
https://answersingenesis.org/natura...-natural-selection-play-a-role-in-speciation/

Institute for Creation Research:
There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described
Speciation and the Animals on the Ark

They just don't want to call it "evolution." Which is fine. Darwin didn't either. He called it "descent with modification", only using "evolution" once in his book.

Evolutionists have been known to give binomials to animals they thought to have existed, only to find out they were horribly wrong (e.g., Nebraska Man).

If by "evolutionist", you mean "British Tabloid Publisher", you have it right. It's not what you were told. Seems a dinosaur expert (Cope, I think) found a tooth that looked very much like a primate tooth. He announced that he had found a North American primate. Unfortunately, on review, a mammal expert showed that it was a peccary tooth, oddly worn down to look somewhat like a primate tooth. But the tabloids weren't paying attention, and the result?

Close, but no cigar.

Do you know of any creationist organization that ever did a thing like that?

The Institute for Creation Research, announcing that Neandertals used bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes would be one salient example. (they took a joke written in a science magazine seriously)
April Fool - Neandertal Music

The fact that the supposed scientist, Dr. Oscar Todkopf, had a last name that translates to "deadhead" should have been a tip-off, as were some hilariously wrong claims in the joke, first published in Discover Magazine.

Todkopf theorizes that the Neanderthals’ fondness for music may explain why they vanished some 30,000 years ago. "Maybe their music scared away all the game. They would have produced an awful racket oom-pah-pahing all over the place. The Neander Valley was alive with the sound of music."
Neanderthal Musical Instruments Included Tusk-Tuba, Bladder-Bagpipe, and "Xylobone"

Then there's the numerous creationists who fell for Ron Wyatt's "we found Noah's Ark" scam. Creation Ministries finally felt compelled to warn their readers about it:
Special report: Amazing 'Ark' exposé - creation.com

The Paluxy River "man tracks" alongside dinosaur tracks:
After several creationist leaders visited the site, at the invitation of Mr. Kuban and Dr. Hastings, John D. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research at El Cajon, Calif., acknowledged in an article that none of the tracks ''can be today regarded as unquestionably human.'' He also wrote, ''It would now be improper for creationists to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution.''
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

How many would you like to see?

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it doesn't say that.

Genesis 1:1
Douay: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NIV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

They're still in the minority though, if you want to take into account every Christian that ever lived on the face of the earth.

That would be true of electricity, protons, and many, many other things that are equally demonstrable as evolution. But of course, most Christians acknowledge all these things now. A minority of Christians do not accept some of these things, because they have come to believe some additional doctrines not found in scripture, such as YE creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

According to Genesis 1, angiosperms were created before the sun; and if one day in Genesis 1 is n-years of evolution, then are you saying the trees lived years without the sun?

Which is why St. Augustine, in his study of Genesis, came to realize that the "days" of Genesis were not periods of time at all, but categories of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

From Answers in Genesis:

Answers in Genesis can take a hike.

They just don't want to call it "evolution." Which is fine. Darwin didn't either. He called it "descent with modification", only using "evolution" once in his book.

There's microevolution (species giving rise to species), and then there's macroevolution (species giving rise to genuses).

I believe in microevolution; I do not believe in macroevolution.

And for the record: "genus" = "kind" in Genesis 1.

So there's plenty of room for speciation, but not to the point that a new genus emerges.

If by "evolutionist", you mean "British Tabloid Publisher", you have it right.

Tabloids can say anything under the guise of yellow journalism.

But I have a feeling that tabloids didn't give this thing the scientific name: Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

It's not what you were told. Seems a dinosaur expert (Cope, I think) found a tooth that looked very much like a primate tooth. He announced that he had found a North American primate. Unfortunately, on review, a mammal expert showed that it was a peccary tooth, oddly worn down to look somewhat like a primate tooth. But the tabloids weren't paying attention, and the result?

Hold the fort, chief.

Which came first? that picture? or the discovery that it was a peccary tooth?

If the picture came first, don't make it sound like they "weren't paying attention."

The Institute for Creation Research, announcing that Neandertals used bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes would be one salient example. (they took a joke written in a science magazine seriously)

The Institute for Creation Research can take a hike.

What's "creation research" anyway; other than a contradiction in terms?

BUT, it is possible that Neanderthals did use bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes, since I believe Neanderthals were what evolutionists call "Homo sapiens."

The Paluxy River "man tracks" alongside dinosaur tracks:

I don't need to go traipsing down to the Paluxy River to see man tracks alongside dinosaur tracks; since I believe both avian dinosaurs (T. Rex) and non-avian dinosaurs (dove, raven) were on the Ark with Noah.

Any attempt to find scientific accreditation for man and dinosaurs living together is an attempt to go walking by sight, not by faith.

So if those tracks at the Paluxy River were real, then I say that's neat; but if they are fake, then I say anyone who attempted to make them look real got just what they deserved: pwned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 1:1
Douay: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NIV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Nice.

Of the three, which one is the Authorized Version?

And when I say "authorized," I mean authorized by God himself, since He superintended the translation process.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be true of electricity, protons, and many, many other things that are equally demonstrable as evolution. But of course, most Christians acknowledge all these things now. A minority of Christians do not accept some of these things, because they have come to believe some additional doctrines not found in scripture, such as YE creationism.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but for the record, let me reiterate:

More Christians have believed in a literal Genesis 1, than an allegorical Genesis 1.

Acts 11:26c And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why St. Augustine, in his study of Genesis, came to realize that the "days" of Genesis were not periods of time at all, but categories of creation.

St. Augustine wasn't my teacher.

And for the record, I'm a saint as well, and I say otherwise.