Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Gracchus]

Dawkins has admitted macroevolution is not observable, as did Gould and here is a quote from Jerry Coyne:

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it.''

That is so, if this is the accepted definition:

"macroevolution (m

k

r

-

v

-l

sh

n)
Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species"


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So macroevolution is not observable, therefore not scientific.

Speciation has been observed. It is true that we have not seen directly the evolution of higher taxa, but we have observed in the fossil record the appearance of higher taxa exactly how the theory predicted we should find it. Evolution has been observed. If we define "macroevolution" in such a way that it is by our definition unobservable, then it is not surprising that we do not directly observe it.

Just so, you cannot directly observe the act by which your parents conceived you. But we can be fairly sure it happened.

Of course we cannot expect you to admit this. You are too busy bowing before the graven image of words written by men on a printed page.

Remember science is what we can observe and test.

And evolution has been tested. It has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field. The theory makes predictions and these predictions have been been verified. (Google: tiktaalik) This fossil was found right where the theory said it should be found with just the characteristics that the theory predicted.

(I am still waiting for the Christian with a grain of faith to move a mountain!)

 

[TheReasoner]

Where in Scripture are such instances found?

Everywhere. It depends on the reader. I have heard people who are very adamant about being "bliblical literalists" claim the bible supports any number of conflicting things. Always with the assumption that they are "just taking God at His word" and never allowing for the possibility of being wrong.

Examples include one congregation in Sweden where the members thought their unofficial priestess was the bride of Christ.
Another example includes a congregation I visited where they thought a believer who got sick was possessed or visited by demons.
Yet another example is of people who advocate either social darwinism or eugenics claiming literal reading.
Yet more examples lie in people who think the earth is flat. That it is 6000 years old. That it's the center of the universe. That it's square.

Want me to go on?

My core point is, we're all humans. If we assume we read the bible infallibly we are extremely likely putting ourselves above our station as (fallible) human beings. That means, okay. If you're a *insert sub-belief here* that's your prerogative. But if you believe that you're infallible in that interpretation you might very well be going against God's will and intention in your own name.

 

[TheReasoner]

Who has made such a claim?

"Literalists" claim so. They have in this thread and others made no admission to human fallibility thereby claiming infallibility in their biblical interpretation. A superhuman ability, and hence extremely proud, and hence sinful.

If we all have a saving relationship with Christ then we are all a part of the same group, despite how ignorant we are otherwise.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." - Rom 3:4.

True that!
Which is part of the reason why I get frustrated with the absolutism. It pushes people away from Christianity. And the assumption that a literalist often makes, that he himself knows God's intent and thoughts to such an extent that he can claim infallibility in his interpretation. To such an extent that he can ignore everything that challenges his interpretation for that reason. Which in turn means that if God Himself came down from heaven above and told them face to face that they were wrong, they would in many cases probably try to exorcise Him as he can't be God, given that He doesn't support their "infallible" interpretation

 

[Mr Dave]

I take him at his word. He is indeed a vine with branches that bear fruit. There are many types of vines of course. Jesus is one of those many types, the type you are obviously not familiar with. There is a spiritual vine as well as physical vines. You are only familiar with the physical vines. Jesus is the spiritual vine, and you are in no position to say otherwise.

So when He said 'ego eime' to emphasise that He was the vine and the disciples were the branches, you happily say that He didn't mean that He literally was a vine stuck in the ground growing grapes that could be picked to make some of that tasty wine from the Wedding at Cana.

The "I AM the vine" harks back to Isa 5:1-7, so as well as what it says about who Jesus is in relation to the disciples etc... there is a link back. The Isa passage is a metaphor, it even says, "a in this story is b and x is y". It make sno bones about the fact that a metaphor was used to explain something as the idea of a vineyard makes sense to the people.

 

[1611AV]

Do you really beleive everything in the bible is exact and does not speak in riddles,

Yes exact.

lol. You make me laugh.

Glad I brightened your day

The bible is the word of god.

Yes it is.

Lets make my beleifs clear shall we

OK

The bible is NOT what makes me beleive in Jesus God and the Holy Spirit. No its not the bible was written by men. Are you saying that the entire bible is written by gods hand.

Mine is.

Do you think no power hungry monarch never altered the bible to gain more power.

If you are reading any other version than the KJ1611AV then you have one of them.

Do you know what King James did hmm?

Here we go...

The king of england who called upon a new bible, who wanted the bible altered to what he pleased.

Who told you that?

Before that do you know how corrupt the catholic church was?

Do you?

Do you know how pathetic the people the time were.

You mean men who gave there life so you can speak evil of them?

They beleived everything the church said because they could not read.

Well since the Bible is not the word of God according to you, that should not have mattered

The bible being altered by the church would not be noticed by anyone. Except top officials in the church and those who could read and those were power hungry people.

What Bible was altered?

Do you believe that the world was created in 1000 years.

No, the world as we know it was created in 6 days. The Earth itself in one day.

lol. If you do then I will colapse in laughter.

Get up!

Science does not disprove the lord.

You got that right.

Do you think what god did really 7 days. Days did not even exist before the creation of the world.

Says who? not God

Doesnt the bible say that 10000 years is of a day to god.

No it does not.

If creation was instentanious and we were just here by the snap of gods fingers and then we popped up no no no. God set the wheels in motion turned the axles of fate (pun intended) and started time and all is history.

Oh I see, so what did just pop up if not us?

Now you better not call my a non christian.

OK, I wont

As Thomas Jefferson said "
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

And the Bible says: Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Question your religion do your research. Through questioning, through questing for knowledge shall bring you closer to being enlightened and understand others beleifs and more about your own as well.

A Mason once told me the same thing.

Have a nice day.

You too. But how about showing us some Biblical evidence of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very well. If there is some barrier that stops evolution from going too far, please describe this barrier and how it works.

Time

 

[Doveaman]

So when He said 'ego eime' to emphasise that He was the vine and the disciples were the branches, you happily say that He didn't mean that He literally was a vine stuck in the ground growing grapes that could be picked to make some of that tasty wine from the Wedding at Cana.

The "I AM the vine" harks back to Isa 5:1-7, so as well as what it says about who Jesus is in relation to the disciples etc... there is a link back. The Isa passage is a metaphor, it even says, "a in this story is b and x is y". It make sno bones about the fact that a metaphor was used to explain something as the idea of a vineyard makes sense to the people.

Jesus spoke of Himself as the vine, the true vine, because He is literally a spiritual vine:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener." - John 15:1.

I am of the view that physical vines were created by God to reflect who God is through Christ as the true vine, and our knowledge of physical vines helps us to understand and appreciate who He is as the true vine. This is why we are told:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" - Rom 1:20

The invisible qualities of God through Christ as the true vine are clearly seen, being understood from what we know about physical vines. Jesus as the true vine is not a mere metaphor; He is indeed the true vine.

 

[Doveaman]

Everywhere. It depends on the reader.

What I meant by my question was: Where in scripture do we find instances of physical death and spiritual death being difficult to distinguish?

 

[1611AV]

Jesus spoke of Himself as the vine, the true vine, because He is literally a spiritual vine:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener." - John 15:1.

I am of the view that physical vines were created by God to reflect who God is through Christ as the true vine, and our knowledge of physical vines helps us to understand and appreciate who He is as the true vine. This is why we are told:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" - Rom 1:20

The invisible qualities of God through Christ as the true vine are clearly seen, being understood from what we know about physical vines. Jesus as the true vine is not a mere metaphor; He is indeed the true vine.

Amem!

 

[Belk]

Time

Bunk

 

[1611AV]

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned.

 

[TheReasoner]

What I meant by my question was: Where in scripture do we find instances of physical death and spiritual death being difficult to distinguish?

That's what I responded to. People have difficulties distinguishing between the two when the first sin is spoken of in genesis. For example. So it depends on the reader.

 

[1611AV]

Everywhere. It depends on the reader. I have heard people who are very adamant about being "bliblical literalists" claim the bible supports any number of conflicting things. Always with the assumption that they are "just taking God at His word" and never allowing for the possibility of being wrong.

That does not make the validity any less valid for those who do.

Examples include one congregation in Sweden where the members thought their unofficial priestess was the bride of Christ.

Bible does not speak of this.

Another example includes a congregation I visited where they thought a believer who got sick was possessed or visited by demons.

The Bible does not speak of Believers possessed by demons.

Yet another example is of people who advocate either social darwinism or eugenics claiming literal reading.

Nothing in the Bible here.

Yet more examples lie in people who think the earth is flat.

The Bible does not say the earth is flat.

That it is 6000 years old.

The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old.

That it's the center of the universe.

No mention in the Bible.

That it's square.

Nothing here in the Bible.

Want me to go on?

Yes, until you hit on something that a true literalist says that is contrary to what the Bible says.

My core point is, we're all humans. If we assume we read the bible infallibly we are extremely likely putting ourselves above our station as (fallible) human beings. That means, okay. If you're a *insert sub-belief here* that's your prerogative. But if you believe that you're infallible in that interpretation you might very well be going against God's will and intention in your own name.

For those believers that seek Gods word, there is always more light given. But to say that God created by means of evolution when the Bible is crystal clear that it was by direct Creation is beyond assumption, human error, prerogative, or any other way of explaining it.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the CREATION God made them male and female.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bunk

Let me use a good example of why macroevolution won't happen:

As of this writing, Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,619 posts.

What is to stop him from achieving a post count of 10,594,377,588,621,770,109,883[sup]4[/sup] ?

And you call that 'bunk'?

 

[TheReasoner]

Let me use a good example of why macroevolution won't happen:

As of this writing, Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,619 posts.

What is to stop him from achieving a post count of 10,594,377,588,621,770,109,883[sup]4[/sup] ?

And you call that 'bunk'?

Eh. What?

 

[1611AV]

Let me use a good example of why macroevolution won't happen:

As of this writing, Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,619 posts.

What is to stop him from achieving a post count of 10,594,377,588,621,770,109,883[sup]4[/sup] ?

And you call that 'bunk'?

I get you Bro. Your words are crystal clear. Time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eh. What?

He will die of old age beforehand.

Just like evolution, God has set a quota of just so many generations of mutations, then a species must end.

[sign]In my opinion.[/sign]
​

 

[AV1611VET]

I get you Bro. Your words are crystal clear. Time.

Thank you, bro -- God bless!

 

[sandwiches]

Let me use a good example of why macroevolution won't happen:

As of this writing, Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,619 posts.

What is to stop him from achieving a post count of 10,594,377,588,621,770,109,883[sup]4[/sup] ?

And you call that 'bunk'?

Well, I guess there goes evolutionary theory out the window. Why didn't one of those so-called scientists ever think of time as a barrier for evolution?

Oh yea they have, I forgot you don't understand evolution or believe the world to be more than 7,000 years old.

*phew*

Scientific crisis averted!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I guess there goes evolutionary theory out the window. Why didn't one of those so-called scientists ever think of time as a barrier for evolution?

Let's clarify this, okay; before it gets Arab-phoned into something else:

Macroevolution, sandwiches -- macroevolution.