Evidence for macro-evolution

[mindlight]

Disproving evolution is a task reserved for Jesus.

Not us.

Oh come on, the fighting is fun, allow us a little indulgence before the world is shaken, dominated by evil, and finally liberated by Christ's return.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that the bible tells us why it took God six days for creation, please enlighten me.

God could have done all that work in the blink of an eye.

Instead, He took His time and spread it out over a six-day period as a template for the work week.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Astrid]

As you say we can neither prove nor disprove the account scientifically making science irrelevant to your analysis of the credibility of the story.

The Bible is both a historical and a Divinely inspired manuscript. It was written down by historical figures like Moses in this case on the back of a very long oral tradition and describes literal-historical events. It differs from the metaphorical approach of non-Abrahamic religions in this respect.

Adam and Eve had other children. Cain also had other children, there may have been some interbreeding between the two lines though we do not know for sure. The loss of Abel would not figure in the genetic record as he would never appear in it. The genetic code and environment were not as broken as they are now in the pre-flood world making analysis based on today's conclusions dubious.

The murder is given a motive, Cain was angry that his offering was rejected and Abels accepted. The murder took place in a field. The murderer was Cain and the victim was Abel. The Bible then describes the consequences for Cain and his descendants. Sounds historical to me, though it is by no means an exhaustive report in the sense that you mean it.

Actually...you cannot prove anything
is " divinely inspired" or in any way supernatural.

It can only be taken on faith. For lo, with
proof, you have no faith; and there is no
proof.

However, there is abundant disproof of
the accuracy / hisroricity of many parts of
the bible, if read literally.
That some things ( egypt, for example)
is real says nothing for fanciful interpretation
of certain parts.

If you think otherwise, remrmber con men
always mix in some clear facts.

Your construct of reality falls apart like a
Jenga stack when a critical piece is
removed. God will be fine of course.
Whatever He may be, its not ignorance and absurdity.

A gut level comprehension of that may explain
your extreme relectance to face " flood" facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did you get this from? I've been meaning to ask.

From Scientific American.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From Scientific American.

SOURCE

So you pointedly ignore the next bit where the author of the opinion piece says:

I’ve often suspected that Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he talked about an “ultimate theory.”

Or did you miss that bit?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh come on, the fighting is fun, allow us a little indulgence before the world is shaken, dominated by evil, and finally liberated by Christ's return.

 

[AV1611VET]

God will be fine of course.
Whatever He may be, its not ignorance and absurdity.

Is He a [the] creationist?

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

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you pointedly ignore the next bit where the author of the opinion piece says:

I’ve often suspected that Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he talked about an “ultimate theory.”

Or did you miss that bit?

I did not miss that bit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did not miss that bit.

So you pointedly ignored it then. Good to know.

 

[mindlight]

No, I didn't say that we can neither prove nor disprove the murder of Abel by Cain. I said that there is no evidence for it and that the Bible statement of "And Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field," and when they were in the field Cain rose against Abel his brother and killed him" is not a historical report.

There is no historicity behind the story of Cain and Abel. There is no evidence for it at all, apart from a passage of the Bible. A passage from a book talking about a murder does not evidence make. You've shown brilliantly how it works as a narrative story (there's characters, motives, a place and an event and the consequences) but just going "He was killed in a field" is not evidence. Not in any single, meaningful, serious way is it evidence of an actual event.

And of course, you just pull out the old canard of "Well, the Flood changed everything" which is totally worthless since you can say anything you want and it gets explained away with "Flood did it". An absolutely worthless statement for investigative work.

If there is no evidence then there is no evidence for or against. You cannot just argue that the coin is heads when it has tails on the other side.

We differ in our understanding of history. But that does not change the Bible's intention and indeed interpretation of being a text in which historical events are described. The whole point of the incarnation is that God reveals Himself in history and indeed humanity. This theme is there from the very beginning to the very end of the scriptures. That revelation does not need exhaustive self-justification is the key difference with your view.

The fall, flood, and indeed the fiddling of angels did change everything. The Bible says that and that is my primary authority here. I do interpret the Flood as a unique supernatural judgment that massively degraded the world in which we live and led to an enormous drop in lifespans because that is the witness of scripture.

I notice you are a Deist as are many Theistic Evolutionists also. But I believe that ex nihilo creation means that nature itself is the product of a miracle. The flood is a curse of unimaginable proportions. Both are unique events without real analogies. The incarnation of Christ into a broken world and broken humanity is all the more remarkable for the fact that creation was still shaking from God's anger when He entered into it in love as a man on a mission to save us.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you pointedly ignored it then. Good to know.

So anyone who talks about THIS is just goofing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If there is no evidence then there is no evidence for or against. You cannot just argue that the coin is heads when it has tails on the other side.

We differ in our understanding of history. But that does not change the Bible's intention and indeed interpretation of being a text in which historical events are described. The whole point of the incarnation is that God reveals Himself in history and indeed humanity. This theme is there from the very beginning to the very end of the scriptures. That revelation does not need exhaustive self-justification is the key difference with your view.

The fall, flood, and indeed the fiddling of angels did change everything. The Bible says that and that is my primary authority here. I do interpret the Flood as a unique supernatural judgment that massively degraded the world in which we live and led to an enormous drop in lifespans because that is the witness of scripture.

I notice you are a Deist as are many Theistic Evolutionists also. But I believe that ex nihilo creation means that nature itself is the product of a miracle. The flood is a curse of unimaginable proportions. Both are unique events without real analogies. The incarnation of Christ into a broken world and broken humanity is all the more remarkable for the fact that creation was still shaking from God's anger when He entered into it in love as a man on a mission to save us.

I'm just going to flat out say no to everything you've said.

I cannot understand how anyone can, with all of the evidence from God's creation and all the work throughout the centuries that has gone into understanding His creation, people can go "Nah, I'll just accept what the book says regardless of anything else."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So anyone who talks about THIS is just goofing?

I never said anyone who talks about the hypothetical theory of everything is 'just goofing'. I never said a word about it at all, and I'd thank you to not put words into my mouth.

 

[BCP1928]

The majority of the world's population are either Christian or Muslim and the position of the teaching authorities of both is that God created ex nihilo.

Not universally, no. But OK, if you want to poach on the traditional version of the doctrine rather than the way you are using it here, it still won't work for you. The Bible is quite explicit that God created the biosphere and man himself ex materia and in real space-time. Thus even the Bible tells us that life is a fit object of scientific investigation.

My first assumption is that science operates with a naturalistic premise. To dispute that you would have to allow for the supernatural, which kind of wins me the argument, so what's your point here?

The naturalistic assumption is that science only deals with what it can detect and measure, It can do neither with the supernatural. I don't know what you mean by "allow for it."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Regardless of what they said, disproof of
TOE would blow a crater in the basics of
all the physical sciences, and proof af God.
The Nobel of Nobels awarded for the
discovery of all of all time would hardly
be a footnote in the vast intellectual /
spiritual revolution that would sweep the world.

The theory of evolution is biology. Nothing about physics, chemistry, geology, etc., would be compromised in the slightest if it was "disproven".

 

[Hans Blaster]

To create out of nothing means that Nature did not exist before creation occurred. So how can creation be anything but supernatural in its origins?

And we have no evidence that anything was ever created from nothing. I have no reason to be concerned about such speculations.

 

[dlamberth]

To create out of nothing means that Nature did not exist before creation occurred. So how can creation be anything but supernatural in its origins?

This person, that being me, totally rejects what I see as the hocus pocus explanation for not only life on this earth but also the whole of the cosmos. There's nothing rational about that trajectory.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said anyone who talks about the hypothetical theory of everything is 'just goofing'. I never said a word about it at all, and I'd thank you to not put words into my mouth.

So why does the writer of that article think Hawking is "just goofing" when Hawking talks about the Theory of Everything?

He thinks Hawking is "just goofing."

I don't.

That's why you think I'm "ignoring" that writer's remark.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So why does the writer of that article think Hawking is "just goofing" when Hawking talks about the Theory of Everything?

I wouldn't know. I'm not the writer.

He thinks Hawking is "just goofing."

I don't.

That's why you think I'm "ignoring" that writer's remark.

At least it's good when you admit that you're quote mining.

 

[AV1611VET]

And we have no evidence that anything was ever created from nothing.

Would you even know what to look for?