Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[expos4ever]

I read an exchange earlier in this thread about the relationship between mathematics and scientific theories. I certainly believe that scientific theories are never generated by mathematics - mathematics does not, it certainly seems, have any kind of magical power to cause nature to behave in a particular way.

Or look at it this way. Many people, although I am actually not among them, believe mathematical truths have a kind of transcendent quality - that they somehow float free or are independent from the particularities of the physical world. In other words, in any conceivable world, 2 + 2 would always equal 4.

If one adopts this point of view - that mathematical truths are in some sense necessary and independent of the details of the real world in which we live - then it should be clear that mathematics has no power to generate scientific truth; after all, if mathematics is really universal, conceivable worlds with different characteristics would share a common universal mathematics. But then the problem is obvious, two different worlds would, of course, have different physical laws. How could this be if a common underlying set of mathematical truths were responsible for generating physical laws?

 

[Qubit]

That video is filled with so much ignorance I do not even know where to start.

It is one strawman argument after another.

The fact that he suggested Michael Heiser to 'get everyone up to speed' demonstrates his lack of Wisdom.

 

[tonychanyt]

I think these questions on evolution, Adam and Eve, the Great Flood are all linked together.

Right, but there are different questions. Are you able to distinguish them with precision? I prefer to interact with people who can.

 

[Job 33:6]

You missed the point again!!! Look at what he said:

"The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme, not a fundamental biological reality. Species are generally classified by their traits, not by their genetics. Since most traits are affected by multiple genes, there need not be a specific set of mutations that define a new species. If one picks some arbitrary threshold in some traits as defining the new species..."

I think you're missing the point. That is that he acknowledged my position as a fact. I never said that it wasn't an arbitrary naming scheme.

 

[Job 33:6]

That video is filled with so much ignorance I do not even know where to start.

It is one strawman argument after another.

The fact that he suggested Michael Heiser to 'get everyone up to speed' demonstrates his lack of Wisdom.

Nah, I think the only ones ignorant are those that aren't familiar with the ancient near east context of Genesis.

 

[Qubit]

Nah, I think the only ones ignorant are those that aren't familiar with the ancient near east context of Genesis.

Well then you better get studying then.

 

[Qubit]

Are you able to distinguish them with precision? I prefer to interact with people who can.

Speaking of interacting with precision, how about you post the precise definition of Evolution?

If you expect folks to 'distinguish with precision', then the least you can do is be the example of what you propose by being precise yourself.

 

[olgamc]

.

I think you're missing the point. That is that he acknowledged my position as a fact. I never said that it wasn't an arbitrary naming scheme.

No, he acknowledged that IF you define species with an infinitely small threshold, THEN a direct offspring can be a different species. But he said that’s NOT how species are defined. So yes, you can go ahead and do that, nobody is stopping you, but it’s not how it’s done. So basically you want me to change my argument to fit with how YOU understand and define speciation. Obviously I am not going to do that, unless you can show me that your definition at least makes sense.

 

[Qubit]

Has anyone, in all 62 pages so far, even offered the idea of Genetic Engineering happening in the past? I am specifically referring to a timeline thousands of years ago. How does Genetic Manipulation of the Species fit in with "Evolution" (whatever the definition of Evolution is)?

Will your entire world of Evolution Theory fall apart if you found out that Life has been manipulated since day one?

Is the idea too 'absurd' for you to consider, even though the Bible teaches it?

 

[HarleyER]

Right, but there are different questions. Are you able to distinguish them with precision? I prefer to interact with people who can.

That's fine. I'm just saying you can't precisely address one question without addressing the other. So if I feel there is overlap and would like to address those inconsistencies, please excuse me if I'm not precise. You don't have to interact with me.

 

[olgamc]

Has anyone, in all 62 pages so far, even offered the idea of Genetic Engineering happening in the past? I am specifically referring to a timeline thousands of years ago. How does Genetic Manipulation of the Species fit in with "Evolution" (whatever the definition of Evolution is)?

Will your entire world of Evolution Theory fall apart if you found out that Life has been manipulated since day one?

Is the idea too 'absurd' for you to consider, even though the Bible teaches it?

Right? If we humans can genetically engineer things, why couldn’t God? That’s kind of what I’ve been trying to get at - we are told that God fashioned Adam’s organic body from non-organic dust, and that’s all we are told about the process of creation of Adam’s body. God could have done it any number of ways. Why do we put a limit on God that He had to either speak Adam into existence or that He had to evolve Adam through repeated natural births. What? He is God, He can do whatever He wants. Why don’t people get this?

 

[Job 33:6]

No, he acknowledged that IF you define species with an infinitely small threshold, THEN a direct offspring can be a different species. But he said that’s NOT how species are defined. So yes, you can go ahead and do that, nobody is stopping you, but it’s not how it’s done. So basically you want me to change my argument to fit with how YOU understand and define speciation. Obviously I am not going to do that, unless you can show me that your definition at least makes sense.

I'll just quote the statement again:

"The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme"

That's it. And I fully agree. He didn't say that species are not defined this way, in fact, he stated that it is a fact "that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species".

That's all there is to it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well then you better get studying then.

Nah, you better get to studying.

 

[olgamc]

I'll just quote the statement again:

"The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme"

That's it. And I fully agree. He didn't say that species are not defined this way, in fact, he stated that it is a fact "that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species".

That's all there is to it.

Which species is dog?

 

[Job 33:6]

Which species is dog?

Domestic pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) do not show a preference to contrafreeload, but are willing - Scientific Reports

Contrafreeloading is the behavior of working for food when also provided with identical food that does not require effort to obtain. This behavior has been observed in humans and non-human animals, including domesticated species. In the current investigation, we assessed whether companion...

www.nature.com

Canis lupus.

 

[Qubit]

Nah, you better get to studying.

I have, that is why I am trying to correct you. However, your hubris is preventing it.

Right away I see several errors in your diagram.

Error #1:
Your diagram shows the Waters Above as being a separate component from the so called 'Glass Dome'.

That is incorrect. The Waters Above *is* the Glass Dome, or as the Bible describes it, the Sea of Glass...

Revelation 15:2
"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

Error #2:
Your diagram shows the Firmament *above* the Waters Above. That is incorrect.

The Firmament should be depicted as *below* the Waters Above...

Genesis 1:7
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

The Firmament is the three-dimensional universe we exist in. It includes Earth's atmosphere. Birds fly in the Firmament...

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Where are your Wadjet birds flying? Outer space? Above outer space?

Error #3:
Your diagram shows the 'Realm of God' as being just above the Waters Above. That is incorrect.

The realm just above the Waters Above is the Spirit Realm. The realm of God exists above that.

Error #4:
Your diagram shows the 'Circle of Earth' as being a physical boundary in a three-dimensional hemisphere.

That is incorrect. The Circle of Earth was the two-dimensional sketch God created while planning our universe...

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth"

In other words, the universe did not exist yet. Your diagram shows it does.

Like I said, your 'research' is one mistake after another. You are so off track it is mind blowing. The fact that you put devils next to the Tetragrammaton speaks volumes. The Eyes of God represent the Holy Spirit, not the 'Eyes of Ra' or whatever it is your diagram shows.

 

[Qubit]

Right? If we humans can genetically engineer things, why couldn’t God? That’s kind of what I’ve been trying to get at - we are told that God fashioned Adam’s organic body from non-organic dust, and that’s all we are told about the process of creation of Adam’s body. God could have done it any number of ways. Why do we put a limit on God that He had to either speak Adam into existence or that He had to evolve Adam through repeated natural births. What? He is God, He can do whatever He wants. Why don’t people get this?

Well, according to @Job 33:6 and his "superior" hermeneutics and exegesis, we need to interpret the Bible through the lens of those in the Near East...

Nah, I think the only ones ignorant are those that aren't familiar with the ancient near east context of Genesis.

So, let us try that!

Enki, the Water-Lord then "caused to flow the 'water of the heart" and having fertilised his consort Ninhursag, also known as Ki or Earth, after "Nine days being her nine months, the months of 'womanhood'... like good butter, Nintu, the mother of the land, ...like good butter, gave birth to Ninsar, (Lady Greenery)".

Enki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And there you have it! Genesis and Near East Context are a perfect match.

 

[Qubit]

Look, I found the Theory of Evolution...

Enki then advises that they create a servant of the gods, humankind, out of clay and blood. Against Enki's wish, the gods decide to slay Kingu, and Enki finally consents to use Kingu's blood to make the first human, with whom Enki always later has a close relationship, the first of the seven sages, seven wise men or "Abgallu" (ab = water, gal = great, lu = man), also known as Adapa. Enki assembles a team of divinities to help him, creating a host of "good and princely fashioners". He tells his mother:

Enki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are descended from Kingu's Blood! Case closed.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have, that is why I am trying to correct you. However, your hubris is preventing it.

Right away I see several errors in your diagram.

Error #1:
Your diagram shows the Waters Above as being a separate component from the so called 'Glass Dome'.

That is incorrect. The Waters Above *is* the Glass Dome, or as the Bible describes it, the Sea of Glass...

Revelation 15:2
"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

Maybe you haven't read Genesis before?

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made[b] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.

The waters above are above the raqia. Quoting revelation, a text written over a thousand years later, is reading out of context.

Error #2:
Your diagram shows the Firmament *above* the Waters Above. That is incorrect.

The Firmament should be depicted as *below* the Waters Above...

Genesis 1:7
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

No, the diagram shows the waters above the raqia. That's why the waters are depicted above the sky.

The Firmament is the three-dimensional universe we exist in. It includes Earth's atmosphere. Birds fly in the Firmament...

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Where are your Wadjet birds flying? Outer space? Above outer space?

Check your Hebrew, the birds fly across the face of the raqia of the sky.

Genesis 1:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

‭Genesis 1:20 NIV‬
[20] And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

Error #3:
Your diagram shows the 'Realm of God' as being just above the Waters Above. That is incorrect.

The realm just above the Waters Above is the Spirit Realm. The realm of God exists above that.

God resides in the realm of heavenly beings. I don't see this mattering to the discussion.

Error #4:
Your diagram shows the 'Circle of Earth' as being a physical boundary in a three-dimensional hemisphere.

That is incorrect. The Circle of Earth was the two-dimensional sketch God created while planning our universe...

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth"

In other words, the universe did not exist yet. Your diagram shows it does.

Like I said, your 'research' is one mistake after another. You are so off track it is mind blowing. The fact that you put devils next to the Tetragrammaton speaks volumes. The Eyes of God represent the Holy Spirit, not the 'Eyes of Ra' or whatever it is your diagram shows.

It's describing God creating the earth by drawing out a flat circle on the face of the deep.

No, you're just making your own errors, one after another.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe you haven't read Genesis before?

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made[b] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.

The waters above are above the raqia. Quoting revelation, a text written over a thousand years later, is reading out of context.



No, the diagram shows the waters above the raqia. That's why the waters are depicted above the sky.




Check your Hebrew, the birds fly across the face of the raqia of the sky.

Genesis 1:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

God resides in the realm of heavenly beings. I don't see this mattering to the discussion.



It's describing God creating the earth by drawing out a flat circle on the face of the deep.

No, you're just making your own errors, one after another.

Here is the image again, in case anyone has trouble seeing the waters above overtop the raqia.