Christian Evolutionist

[Andrea77]

You can also not assert with 100% certainty that your interpretation of the bible is 100% correct. You believe your interpretation is the correct one

No I don't.

Can you show me proof of evolution i.e.: Fossils of one specie evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?

 

[Tomk80]

The Bible also says that the earth is round.

Not according to Cosmas Indicopleustes. Had you lived in the sixth century, I'm sure he would have liked to point out to you that your interpretation is incorrect according to him, just as you are now pointing to other christians and saying that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect. He would even use the exact same reasoning as you do here. He would tell you that a spherical earth is a pagan idea, and therefore cannot be truth. And had you lived in the sixth century, you wouln't have been able to tell him he was incorrect other than through circumstantial evidence. Don't you see the parallels between his position and yours?

 

[Andrea77]

Had you been born in the sixth century, you likely would have disagreed with this statement.

How would I disagree if I believe the Bible?

 

[Tomk80]

No I don't.

Can you show me proof of evolution i.e.: Fossils of one specie evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?

I cannot show you proof of evolution, because science doesn't do proof. I can show you evidence of it, not proof. Proof is for maths and alcohol.

But anyway, you are shifting topics here, and I don't like that. Let's stay with the topic you brought up and that we were discussing, namely that the theory of evolution is false purely because it has pagan roots. Do you still adhere to this viewpoint, or do you see the problems with it now?

 

[In A Perfect World]

No I don't.

Can you show me proof of evolution i.e.: Fossils of one specie evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?

Somehow, I have the feeling even if there were no gaps at all in 4287438974823 fossils of animals in between species you wouldn't be able to sift through all of them. If this is your reason for not believing, I'd respect it more than: "OMGz Bible iz God, Evilution iz athiesm!!11". Is this your reasoning behind it? If it is, say so.

 

[In A Perfect World]

How would I disagree if I believe the Bible?

Because the Bible does not say the world is round.

 

[Tomk80]

How would I disagree if I believe the Bible?

Because your interpretation of the bible might have been different had you lived in that time period.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No I don't.

Can you show me proof of evolution i.e.: Fossils of one specie evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?

the best and most accessible evidence is genetic.
for instance, the GLO pseudogene and the chimp 2p+2p=human 2 chromosome with it's internal teleomeres and 2nd centrosome.

the big fact that living creatures form a nest hierarchy and that the ERV's create the same clades as structure are other very significant pieces of supporting evidence.

if you are serious about the debate i'd read:
Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata

This is simply the best book i've found on human evolution. The subtitle is "The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent", don't be put off if you don't have a degree in biochemistry. Unlike most other technical and scientifically sophisticated books, in this one, the author holds your hand. He does it very well, introducing binominal and poisson distribution analysis both in the text and in appendices, for example. You are aware of his careful setting up the pieces that you need in order to understand the take home message of each chapter, and you are grateful, even if you already know the material, for the 'nice' way he does it. I finished the book wishing he would rewrite many biology and engineering textbooks i have been subjected to over the years by authors who assumed if you didn't know exactly what you were reading, then you shouldn't have bought and tried to read his book in the first place. For this characteristic alone the book is deeply and joyfully to be praised.

then you would be in a position to understand and deal with the evidence.
......

 

[nvxplorer]

How would I disagree if I believe the Bible?

Because at that time, the common interpretation of the Bible held that earth was flat.

Whether you realize it or not, your (and everyone's) personal interpretation is tempered by the knowledge of the day. Children learn about the Bible and about the earth being round at about the same time. Before you gained the skills to read the Bible yourself, the idea of a round earth was already ingrained in your mind. For you to interpret the Bible as depicting a flat earth would require denial of a fact you were assured of. Naturally, no one in this day and age would do this unless done deliberately (flat earthers).

Slowly but surely, your interpretation denying evolution will fall the way of the flat-earthers. It is already a fringe group. One-hundred years from now, those who deny evolution will be seen as the lunatic fringe.

 

[Andrea77]

wrong. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Bible_says_the_earth_is_round

The Earth is not a circle. It is an oblate spheroid.

The "disc" so to speak refers to a flat disc in circular shape.

I never said a circle and that link prooves nothing.

The Bible states in Isaiah 40:22

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 Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out to dwell in).

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

No I don't.

Can you show me proof of evolution i.e.: Fossils of one specie evolving from its initial form to another through the years with no gaps?

As asked for, from a single fossil deposit in Montana

Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.​

The paper describes some new fossils from Montana:

• transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
• 50 specimens of lambeosaurids, transitional between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
• a transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
• a transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus

Until these transitional fossils were found, these dinosaur groups were known only from the large Judith River Formation. There, the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, followed by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It is now known that the sea level rose, drowning the Judith River Formation for 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were forced to move to smaller areas such the place in Montana. Being under pressure, all of these species evolved fairly rapidly, as shown by the transitional fossils in Montana. When the sea level fell again, the new forms spread back to the Judith River area.

So, the new forms appear "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html

 

[In A Perfect World]

I never said a circle and that link prooves nothing.

Your point? I knew you were going to quote Isaiah! I've seen it before.

The Bible states in Isaiah 40:22

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 Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out to dwell in).

A circle is not a sphere. I'm sorry. A creative symbollic interpretation of curtain does not cancel the original premise here, nor does it make up for it.

 

[Tomk80]

I never said a circle and that link prooves nothing.

The Bible states in Isaiah 40:22

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 Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out to dwell in).

Again, a fair number of christians has disagreed with you in the past. And if you would have lived in those times, you might have disagreed with your own statements here also. You might, for example, have stated that this verse says that 'circle' indeed means that the earth is flat and that they would have used the word sphere if they would have ment a spherical earth.

 

[Andrea77]

Because at that time, the common interpretation of the Bible held that earth was flat.

Whether you realize it or not, your (and everyone's) personal interpretation is tempered by the knowledge of the day. Children learn about the Bible and about the earth being round at about the same time. Before you gained the skills to read the Bible yourself, the idea of a round earth was already ingrained in your mind. For you to interpret the Bible as depicting a flat earth would require denial of a fact you were assured of. Naturally, no one in this day and age would do this unless done deliberately (flat earthers).

Slowly but surely, your interpretation denying evolution will fall the way of the flat-earthers. It is already a fringe group. One-hundred years from now, those who deny evolution will be seen as the lunatic fringe.

This isn't making any sense to me. If this is the case what about the futuristic parts of the Bible that we couldn't understand until they came about?

 

[Andrea77]

Again, a fair number of christians has disagreed with you in the past. And if you would have lived in those times, you might have disagreed with your own statements here also. You might, for example, have stated that this verse says that 'circle' indeed means that the earth is flat and that they would have used the word sphere if they would have ment a spherical earth.

But what about this part:

that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

 

[Tomk80]

This isn't making any sense to me. If this is the case what about the futuristic parts of the Bible that we couldn't understand until they came about?

Retrospective interpretation of prophecy does not prophecy make.

 

[In A Perfect World]

But what about this part:

that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

I got news for ya. Tents are not spherical objects. They have one side which rests upon the ground. Anyone inside the tent also lies on the ground.

 

[nvxplorer]

This isn't making any sense to me.

If you would be specific on what you don't understand, I'll explain further.

If this is the case what about the futuristic parts of the Bible that we couldn't understand until they came about?

What futuristic parts would these be?

We're not discussing prophesy. We're discussing biblical interpretations of the natural world.

 

[nvxplorer]

But what about this part:

that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

There is no contradiction between a tent and a flat surface. How would a sixth century Christian interpret this verse to mean sphere?

 

[Andrea77]

I got news for ya. Tents are not spherical objects. They have one side which rests upon the ground. Anyone inside the tent also lies on the ground.

I never said they were the verse of scripture,

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.
Is saying that the earth is a circle enveloped by the universe.