pudmuddle said:
I don't see where it conflicts with special creation. Creationists agree that species adapt. Also, no one said that everything is devolving at the same pace.
Ark Guy won't accept that not all populations have to evolve at the same pace, why should he accept that some don't devolve. Remember, Ark Guy's claim is that the species are "virtually unchanged". No change = no devolution. So the horseshoe crab is unaffected by the Fall? Why?
I'm sorry if you don't like my wording, but you state repeatedly that Genesis is symbolic, that portains were even influenced by false religions of the day
Misstatement of what I say. Again, I say that some parts of Genesis are symbolic, but that does
not equal
"a fun fairy tail iwth a moral". Nor do I say that Genesis 1 was "even influenced by false religions of the day". I have stated very clearly that the purpose of Genesis 1 was to destroy the Babylonian pantheon, therefore Genesis 1 is structured to destroy the Babylonian gods
in sequence as they were presented in the Enuma Elish. That is very different from saying "influenced by false religions of the day"
Sure sounds like a fairy tale with a moral to me, but probably only because I take your words literally.
If you took my words literally, you wouldn't say that, because I never literally said that.
Not a very subtle way of calling me a liar, why not just say it? I believe we are also admonished to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, so I suggest we attempt to practice it.
Loving our neighbors does not mean we overlook flaws in them or in ourselves. It means we love them flaws and all. It also doesn't mean that the neighbors get to break the Commandments. It is loving to point out to you when you are breaking a Commandment because it is you who will suffer the consequences. I would like to spare you the consequences and give you a chance to correct and repent.
God being perfect, judges something to be very good. While it's true that the earth was not as perfect as Him, to be judged very good, it must have been pretty close to perfect, as planets go.
IOW, Creation is not perfect, but very good. So the idea that Creation was perfect is a man-made theology not supported Biblically.
3. You should read Genesis 3 more carefully. The earth was never cursed.
Genesis 3:17-19 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, "
Hmm, how does any of this coincide with evolution? I think the scripture speaks for itself, things were hardly changing for the better.
This has nothing to do with evolution. We are talking about the man-made theory that the
earth and everything on it was cursed by the Fall. A literal reading of the Bible shows that the whole earth was not cursed.
What is being tested is not evolution, but the man-made theory about the Fall and "devolution". For people who advocate literalism, they have come up with a theory that is not supported by a literal reading of the Bible. Ironic, isn't it?
"You are cursed more than all cattle
and more than every beast of the field..." Genesis 3:14
Does this not suggest that other creatures were also cursed?
Suggest, but the suggestion is that "more than" phrase. In Hebrew that is not a comparison but an absolute. A better translation is "you alone of all the animals must bear this curse" IOW,
only the serpent is being cursed. Not all creatures.
: "cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; "
"Till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (3:19)
Here they are first informed of the process of aging and decay, that started with their sin. Notice there is nothing about man being formed from animal, but from dust. A little later we see the first animals being killed, again, the start of a new and harsher system on the earth.
They are informed of it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen. The time sequence is screwed up anyway, since Genesis 2:17 says Adam should have died in the moment of eating the fruit. There is nothing in Genesis 1 about man being formed from dust, either. Men and women, together, are spoken into existence.
It's not the start of a new and harsher system, because we were never told that there was any other system. Again, for a literalist you are taking remarkable liberties with the text. We have no idea that animals were not being killed before or that they wouldn't have died. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit so early that we are never told if there was any other system in place. You are assuming there was, but in other contexts (such as Cuozzo's about growth rates) we are told that we can't assume things. Why are you breaking your own rule?
This is just silly. A downward trend does not somehow cancel God's promise that life will continue until the end, and people will grow to adults, grow old and die.
We're not talking about God's promise, we are talking about your (and Cuozzo's) theory of devolution. That life got inexorably shorter due to the Fall and the degeneration as a result. Assume that theory is true. We would deduce that people further from the intial event would live shorter lives than people close to it, since the degeneration would have more time to progress. But that isn't what we see in the data you and Cuozzo are presenting. Instead, we see people farther from the degenerating event living longer than people close to it. Significantly longer.
We are degenerating as a whole. The universe is degenerating. Perhaps you are thinking too small? Yes, good things still happen, babys are born, and we have no clue when the end will be or how long it will take, but if we believe the Bible, we know it will come.
Ah, but babies being born and growing is contradictory to degeneration, isn't it? After all, you are much more complex now than as a fertilized ovum, right? So it is possible to defy degeneration. Now, if that can be done with babies, why can't it be done with evolution?
Even without the Bible, we know the end will come. The continued expansion of the universe leads to an inevitable heat death and maximum entropy.
However, you are making a different claim. You are claiming that there is a continual and steady degeneration until the end. But then you have data to contradict that and now are making ad hoc hypotheses to save the claim from falsification.
Ah, but you forgot to state the reason. Is it because of the Fall? NO! It's because the ben Elohim were lusting after and mating with human women! You know, Pudmuddle, it's one thing to misrepresent thermodynamics. What is really upsetting is when you claim the Bible is from God and then you misrepresent it! It's one thing to misrepsent science; it's another to misrepresent God.
And how does elohim fit into the evolution picture? Why is it part of the Bible?
How does the reason misrepresent the fact? Why do you lapse into hysterics because I interpret this verse to mean lifespans? Yes, it could also mean God was giving man 120 years until he would send the flood. Which changes nothing in regards to lifespans being reduced after the flood, when the "neandrathals" we are discussing in this theory would have been scattered over the earth.
We are not discussing evolution, but your theory of degeneration due to the Fall. The point here is that lifespans are
not limited to 120 years because of anything
humans have done. It's not part of the Fall. It's due to the actions of ben elohim and God's decision. You took the fact of 120 year lifespans and said they were due to the Fall. That misrepresents what the Bible says.
And where in the Bible does it say lifespans are reduced after the Flood? If God set lifespans at 120 years regardless of the consequences of the Fall, what is the mechanism for reduced lifespans after the Flood?
Again, the neandertals we are discussing had the most neandertal features just before their extinction. If you are going to argue that they became sapiens, why don't they start to get sapiens features?
Look it up on PubMed. Using Darwinian selection flies have evolved to have lifespans over 3 times their previous lifespans. That corresponds to over 230 years for humans. Where's the "devolution" in that?
Some people live longer than others due to any number of causes. Does nothing to change the overall picture.
Sure it does. Your theory and the Biblical data don't give any other causes. No one in the generations is said to have died from trauma or cancer or cardiac problems or any disease. It's all old age. You are proposing a steady degeneration due to the Fall. The data contradicts that.
Of course, modern data also contradict that as average lifespan is increasing.
I also believe God reveals truth. I just don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Also, unlike you, I really believe that God created. Therefore God also reveals truth in His Creation. You, however, only listen to part of what God is telling you. You close your ears to anything in His Creation you don't want to hear and recite the mantra "his word, his word, his word" as though that will shut out the truth.
So, God does not reveal literal truth?
Did I say that? How can you misrepresent what I said when the words are right in front of you? Let me be specific: I don't think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is the correct interpretation. That better? I thought it was understood in context that we were discussing only that portion of the Bible dealing with the creation stories.
Uh, I really believe that God created also. I just believe his word supercedes man's interpretation of creation.
1. Why? Since "man's interpretation" is simply reading what God wrote in Creation.
2. "his word" is not the straight words of God. "his word" is
your interpretation of the words in Genesis 1-8. So, why does some men's interpretation of Genesis 1-8 supercede what God wrote in Creation that everyone is reading?
Common sense. Can you tax someone who doesn't exist or someone who is not under government? I follow a common sense, literal interpretation.
But isn't God's wisdom different from man's wisdom? Yet you use your wisdom -- common sense -- to modify a literal interpretation. But you won't allow anyone else to use their wisdom and common sense to know that the earth simply can't be under 20,000 years old or that new species arise without special creation. Can you say in-con-sis-tent?
You also use extrabiblical knowledge to know that there were people outside of Caesar Augustus' empire, don't you? Did you get that information from Luke 2:1? No.
So once again, altho you insist on "his word" alone, you have admitted that you can use human wisdom and extrabiblical knowledge to modify "his word" So the question is: why won't you allow that in Genesis 1-8?