Racist Social Darwinism and the story of Ota Benga (The Rotten Fruits of Evolution)

The Barbarian said:

The text itself tells us it isn't literal. It's logically absurd to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Let me repeat what I wrote earlier in more detail, and please read it carefully.
The definition of morning and evening only entail the sun because that is the source of light we have. If we had some other source of light replace the sun that achieved the same purpose, we wouldn't say that evening and morning don't exist anymore. We would refer to that other source of light instead. Now suppose we had a different source of light that was replaced by the sun. We can't say that evening and morning didn't exist then, because the other source of light achieved the same purpose. God created light on day 1 so there was a different source of light.

The Barbarian said:

No. It's about God and man and our relationship. History, as we think of it, didn't even exist at that time.

Click to expand...

If it's about God's and man and our relationship then it must be true. If it's true it must be historical.

The Barbarian said:

It's directly observed, so that's certain.

Click to expand...

Evolution has no been observed, natural selection has. There's a difference: Evolution requires an increase in information, but the alleged examples show loss of unhelpful information.

The Barbarian said:

The Bible isn't clear on that. I suppose it's because God didn't consider it important to the message He is giving us.

Click to expand...

The Bible is clear. The curse says 'till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.'

The Barbarian said:

Yes. The "death" God spoke of, was clearly a spiritual, not physical death. If it was a physical death, Adam would have died that day, not many years after.

Click to expand...

From this article:
Adam tribe - creation.com (Please don't dismiss this immediately for being from creation.com, this clearly shows that the spiritual death only view contradicts scripture)
It’s not that simple. Adam’s death in the Garden was like that of a rose cut from its bush. The rose is dead once it is cut from the bush, but it does not wither immediately. Nevertheless, the fact that it will wither is certain from the moment it is cut from the bush. In the same way, Adam cut himself off from his source of life, God, through his sin. The breach in relationship with the life giver (i.e. ‘spiritual death’) was immediate, and the physical effects of that breach (i.e. decay and physical death) were inevitable from the moment of the breach, though the physical effects took time to manifest. To say that Adam’s death was only spiritual is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, which compares and contrasts the death that Adam brought into the world with the death from which Christ was resurrected. (Note how readily such a stance leads to the heresy that Christ was merely raised from ‘spiritual’ death.)

The Barbarian said:

You're assuming God's creation is evil. I don't think it is.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. Rather, if evolution is true then death existed in God's very good creation.

BroRoyVa79 said:

The Bible clearly indicates that death only came through Adam and before that there was no death. In Genesis 3, everything changes after the Fall. Things that weren't there (thorns, etc.) were a product of the fall.

Click to expand...

Not clear on that at all. Point me to the verse that says death came to the Earth. The Earth will experience multiple worlds as Jesus said:

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Mat 12:32

But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. Mar 10:30


Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. Luk 18:30

That world to come is on the Earth but not be subject to the Fall of this world.
Plenty more verses that mention the end of this world where we know it does not mean the end of the Earth. These next verses are interesting even or especially in light of your argument:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we have at least 3 worlds from the plain reading. The one that was, the one that is now and the one to come. The proper word in the verses i mentioned before needs to be rendered as worlds, regardless of how many YEC bible translations you want to put up.

Romans 8:20-23 tells us all creation was subjected to corruption due to Adam. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 tells us death came through Adam. Put those two together and the Bible teaches that the corruption of the spread through all creation because of Adam. Corruption indicating sin and death.

Click to expand...

I agree, for this creation, but as you should well know from your bible, it isn't the only one. There is a future creation prophesied in which we have hope as well as previous one(s) which a number of scriptural texts point to. Adams sin and fall have no bearing on the future one and didn't have a bearing on previous one(s).

See how most translations say universe to further emphasize the point.

Same word used is here in the Greek, αἰών (aiōn), that is translated in as "worlds." In the context it means universe or all things, not multiple worlds. See how most translations say "universe" to further emphasize the point.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't see that. Did you even check your own link? 13 translations use worlds. Only 9 use universe. The older, more established translations use worlds. I'll stick with them.

Basically all three of these verses are talking about the universe or simply all of creation.

Click to expand...

The bible is mainly concerned with this creation but alludes to past one(s) that must have had death and one or possibly two future ones wherein one will also have death. An interesting aside to those future ones is that it is mentioned those in them will not remember the past ones. Sort of like how it is now with our lack of memory of past ones other than some scriptural hints in places as well as the physical evidences strewn about the Earth.

As shown above, the Bible teaches that death came through Adam and that there was no death before Adam.

Click to expand...

All you really showed was a tendency to grasp at straws to force a YEC presupposition into scriptures.

The text itself tells us it isn't literal. It's logically absurd to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

Qwertyui0p said:

No it's not.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not true.

Let me repeat what I wrote earlier in more detail,

Click to expand...

It's still wrong. Words mean things, and if you redefine them to fit your new doctrines, it merely means your doctrines are wrong.

The definition of morning and evening only entail the sun because that is the source of light we have.

Click to expand...

That's a testable belief...

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

Sorry about that.

If it's about God's and man and our relationship then it must be true. If it's true it must be historical.

Click to expand...

Is the parable of the Good Samaritan historical? As you see, that belief of yours is wrong, too.

Evolution has no been observed,

Click to expand...

It's observed daily. Remember what evolution is: "Descent with modification." Or after the discovery of genetics, "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

natural selection has.

Click to expand...

Here, you're confusing evolution with an agency of evolution. You're constantly confused because you keep forgetting what evolution is.

There's a difference: Evolution requires an increase in information,

Click to expand...

Nope. A change in allele frequencies can result in less information. You don't know what "information" is, or how to calculate it, so you're confused about how it relates to evolution.

Here's a simple case. Suppose a population has two alleles for a specific gene, each with a frequency of 0.5. In that case the information (which is a measure of uncertainty about the alleles of a specific individual until it's determined) would be:

Where H is the information, and x is the frequency of each allele. So in this case, the information would be about 0.30. Now, suppose mutation produces a new allele, and in time, each of them have a frequency of about 1/3. Then the information is about 0.48. As you see, an increase in information.

but the alleged examples show loss of unhelpful information.

Click to expand...

Nope. You've been misled about that. See above.

Adam tribe - creation.com (Please don't dismiss this immediately for being from creation.com, this clearly shows that the spiritual death only view contradicts scripture)

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who says it. Fact is, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam at from the tree, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God told the truth, then the death He mentioned cannot be physical. No way to dodge that fact.

The Barbarian said:

The text itself tells us it isn't literal. It's logically absurd to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

Click to expand...

In a heliocentric model, a day is defined by the amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve 360 degrees, not by whether there is a sun shining or not. The day is not shortened during the winter months because the sun is only visible for less than 10 hours.

The Barbarian said:

Allegories don't need to be scientifically correct.

Click to expand...

You are saying the text itself proves it is not literal based on testing it as a modern science paper, and then saying that the fact it does not pass your test, proves it is intended to be allegorical in the first place. If you want to justify a non-literal interpretation based on the text you need an explanation that makes sense, you are not demonstrating one here.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Scripture doesn't clarify on how long a day is prior to the creation of the sun and moon. But without there actually being a sun or moon, I don't see any reason to believe a literal 24-hour day is what was meant. Rather it is a period of time in which God created a step of creation. The allegorical day being that period of time.

Click to expand...

If none of the creation days are taken to be our 24-hour days, instead they are all steps (of unknown duration), if that interpretation is part of someones faith, and they admit that they only use the Bible as a general basis for their faith, I am cool with that. People can still know God, His love, and the Gospel that way. You do need imo to derive an idea of free will from your allegory, or the Gospel would be seriously missing a plot, but it can be done.

My objection is not to any variations on interpretation or understanding, it is to a suggestion that because 24-hours cannot exist without a sun, (which is blatant rubbish anyway), the text of the Bible itself justifies only a nonsensical version of a non-literal interpretation.

MrsFoundit said:

If none of the creation days are taken to be our 24-hour days, instead they are all steps (of unknown duration),

Click to expand...

I think that makes sense. The idea that all days were steps seems reasonable.

MrsFoundit said:

If none of the creation days are taken to be our 24-hour days, instead they are all steps (of unknown duration), if that interpretation is part of someones faith, and they admit that they only use the Bible as a general basis for their faith, I am cool with that.

Click to expand...

The point that Christians have made is that the text itself says that the days can't be literal ones.

My objection is not to any variations on interpretation or understanding, it is to a suggestion that because 24-hours cannot exist without a sun, (which is blatant rubbish anyway),

Click to expand...

The usual Christian point is that it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings without a sun. Since sunrises and sunsets by definition define them, there's no way around it without changing what words mean.

the text of the Bible itself justifies only a nonsensical version of a non-literal interpretation.

Click to expand...

The text makes it clear that a literal revision of Genesis would be nonsense.

LoG said:

In a heliocentric model, a day is defined by the amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve 360 degrees, not by whether there is a sun shining or not.

Click to expand...

However, mornings and evenings are defined by the sunrises and sunsets.

The day is not shortened during the winter months because the sun is only visible for less than 10 hours.

Click to expand...

There are shorter days in winter months, and everyone acknowledges this:

Our perception that the rate at which the days grow shorter seems to accelerate with the advent of September is not an optical illusion. Nor is it a psychological effect induced by the return to school or work. Unlike so many other areas of life, that which seems to be is, in fact, exactly what is happening.


After the summer solstice, the time of sunset advances a little every day. The change is very gradual at first, the sunset on a date in mid-July, for example, being only a few minutes earlier than it may have been a week before. But as the months progress, the gap from week to week becomes much wider, until by mid-September, sunset becomes earlier by about 17 minutes every week.
As the days grow shorter

In a heliocentric model, a day is defined by the amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve 360 degrees, not by whether there is a sun shining or not. The day is not shortened during the winter months because the sun is only visible for less than 10 hours.
The Shadows of the Passing Seasons - Classical Astronomy

MrsFoundit said:

You are saying the text itself proves it is not literal based on testing it as a modern science paper,

Click to expand...

No. I'm pointing out that in everyday language, it's absurd to suppose mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

and then saying that the fact it does not pass your test, proves it is intended to be allegorical in the first place.

Click to expand...

If converting it to a literal history, requires you to redefine common words to make your case, yes. That's obvious.

The Barbarian said:

The point that Christians have made is that the text itself says that the days can't be literal ones. The usual Christian point is that it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings without a sun. Since sunrises and sunsets by definition define them, there's no way around it without changing what words mean.

Click to expand...

You do not get to identify what "Christians" think for us all.

"It is expected that everyone who posts in this forum will respect all members of the Christian faith, regardless of their denominational differences. " Statement of Purpose - Creationism & Theistic Evolution Statement of Purpose

A day is 24 hours. That is not absurd.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I think that makes sense. The idea that all days were steps seems reasonable.

Click to expand...

Allegorically that does make sense.

To argue that the text requires it based on the need for a sun to have "a day" does not. If "day" means "step", fine, but no morning and evening and sun are needed to make a "step".

The Barbarian said:

If converting it to a literal history, requires you to redefine common words to make your case, yes.

Click to expand...

The words have not been redefined, they have been translated from Ancient Hebrew.

Theistic Evolution website says "yom" in Genesis text means 24 hours. How long are the days of Genesis 1? - Common-questions

Creationist, Catholic and saying it means 24 hours. The Meaning of Yom in Genesis 1 in the Light of Modern Biblical Scholarship

Creationist, Protestant, and saying it means 24 hours. Should Genesis 1 & 2 Be Taken Literally? - Is Genesis History?


My objection is not to any variations on interpretation or understanding, it is to a suggestion that because 24-hours cannot exist without a sun, (which is blatant rubbish anyway), the text of the Bible itself justifies only a nonsensical version of a non-literal interpretation.

MrsFoundit said:

The words have not been redefined,

Click to expand...

For anyone who denies that scripture rules out literal creation days in Genesis, it does. As you know, "morning" and "evening" have definitions, and a sun is required to have them.

they have been translated from Ancient Hebrew.

Click to expand...

And "yom" doesn't usually mean "day." So that's another key.

Theistic Evolution website says "yom" in Genesis text means 24 hours.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...


It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.


In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?
...
Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

1. Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
3. Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

...
Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).

Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1


What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.
Word Study Yom

My objection is not to any variations on interpretation or understanding, it is to a suggestion that because 24-hours cannot exist without a sun, (which is blatant rubbish anyway),

Click to expand...

More precisely, it's a strawman. And yes, rubbish. No one made that claim, unless you want to take credit for it (seeing as you're the only one who presented it)

Bottom line, as you learned, is that it is logically absurd to suppose mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

The Barbarian said:

Bottom line, as you learned, is that it is logically absurd to suppose mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Click to expand...

You are wildly misrepresenting that article:

"According to one literary approach, the framework view, the author of Genesis 1 uses the regular week—six days of work and then a Sabbath rest—as a framework to describe God’s work of creation."

"The presence of “evening and morning” with the first six days also makes it unlikely that the biblical author had in mind long periods of time."

"So are the days of Genesis 1 meant to be understood as regular, 24-hour days? Yes and no. The seven-day week is meant to be understood as a regular human work week. But it does not automatically follow that Genesis 1 is revealing scientific information about the chronology of natural history."

The Barbarian said:

For anyone who denies that scripture rules out literal creation days in Genesis, it does.

Click to expand...

On the basis of your arguments it does not.

Why would anybody argue that it is a straw man to say for 24 hours you need a sun, and then
it is logically absurd to suppose mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. How many hours are there between one morning and the next morning?

A text does not become "allegorical" based on whether or not it seems logically absurd. All you have if you do try to base your perspective on that point is a logically absurd allegorical meaning. When Genesis is to be understood allegorically, that position cannot depend on calling the text itself
logically absurd.

MrsFoundit said:

Why would anybody argue that it is a straw man to say for 24 hours you need a sun,

Click to expand...

Suns don't cause time. If the Sun disappeared today, time would still go on, and clocks would, until the Earth froze up, continue to record hours. I don't see as puzzling. There would of course be no more mornings or evenings, though.

A text does not become "allegorical" based on whether or not it seems logically absurd.

Click to expand...

However, when a particular interpretation results in a logically absurd conclusion, the text clearly rules out that interpretation.

The Barbarian said:

There would of course be no more mornings or evenings, though.

Click to expand...

Unless in that scenario, "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." The situation is, in Genesis, "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

The Barbarian said:

However, when a particular interpretation results in a logically absurd conclusion, the text clearly rules out that interpretation.

Click to expand...

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." To try to use the text itself to say "you cannot have an evening and a morning, because there is no sun", when there is simply a morning there in the text is beyond absurd, it is just plain impossible.

Your personal idea as to what is logically absurd is irrelevant.

MrsFoundit said:

Unless in that scenario, "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." The situation is, in Genesis, "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

Click to expand...

Sorry, "morning" doesn't mean "great light in the sky." Otherwise, moonrises would be mornings. If you have to change the meanings of words to make your interpretation work, you know something is wrong with it.

The Barbarian said:

Sorry, "morning" doesn't mean "great light in the sky."

Click to expand...

Morning means morning to me in "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." to me.

You are the one who is saying it is not a morning.