Evolution conflict and division

[River Jordan]

Think about what you just wrote

The Periodic table is not made up. The elements have grown since I was in High School - as we "discovered" new elements. None of the elements are "made up"

Science discovers.

And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.

 

[Platte]

I don't deny this. But the fact of the matter is, you deny all the translations that I've shared above. The second sentence in particular begins with "And" which is to say, it is not a result of creation but rather is part of the initial state that is to be created over 6 days. Creation is not done in verse 1. It is in 6 days.

But further, creation does not inherently mean "ex nihilo". I can create a work of art. I can create a football team. Or even a recipe, or a piece of furniture. I can create many things, but that doesn't mean that materially those things were not present before I created them.

When you create all things...., that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him. Then inherently means "ex nihilo"

and
/an(d),(ə)n(d)/
conjunction

1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.

Go back and read Genesis 1:1 as I posted it. You will finally see clearly the 1st day...If you can get the 1st day correct, I'm confident you will get the remaining days correct.

This is the first day.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

don't buy into the game of "making thing up" If God said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" You should listen...and to teach against that...well, I'll just not recommend it.

 

[Platte]

And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.

there has been no discovery of macro evolution.

God explained to us Creation in the Bible...and a 6 day creation that occured 6000 years ago.

and that mades perfect sense with the purpose of God creating Earth & the universe - to create mankind - and God's will to create a new family with man. Evolution makes zero sense

 

[Job 33:6]

When you create all things...., that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him. Then it inherently means "ex nihilo"

and
/an(d),(ə)n(d)/
conjunction

1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.

Go back and read Genesis 1:1 as I posted it. You will finally see clearly the 1st day...If you can get the 1st day correct, I'm confident you will get the remaining days correct.

This is the first day.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

don't buy into the game of "making thing up" If God said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" You should listen...and to teach against that...well, I'll just not recommend it.

No it doesn't mean that it inherently means ex nihilo.

Isaiah 54:16 NIV
See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.

When God creates things, even the heavens and the earth, He can create them using pre existing materials, just as He can create anything else using pre existing materials, like a blacksmith for example in the passage above.

And regarding the KJV, again, "And" the earth was without and void". This isn't a result of verse 1, it's a dependent clause. It's like saying, "In the beginning I road my bike to the store, and my bike was red with silver handles". The latter part of the sentence is not a result of part 1. It's simply giving information about the context of creation.

Genesis is telling you that the earth was formless, and in 6 days God gives it form. Not in verse 1 but over 6 days.

 

[River Jordan]

there has been no discovery of macro evolution.

Yes there has. Haven't you seen some of the examples of the evolution of new species people have posted to this forum over the years?

If not I can dig some up for you if it makes a difference. However if you won't believe any of it anyways please let me know.

 

[Platte]

Yes there has. Haven't you seen some of the examples of the evolution of new species people have posted to this forum over the years?

If not I can dig some up for you if it makes a difference. However if you won't believe any of it anyways please let me know.

Scientists have documented a small percentage of animal species, with some estimates suggesting less than 20% of Earth's total species have been scientifically described. The vast majority, estimated to be about 86% of all species, remain undiscovered, and many are believed to be going extinct before they can be identified.

Undocumented species:
Scientists estimate there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth, but only a fraction of those have been documented.
----
Finding one of the over 80% of species we have not documented is not an example of the evolution of new species

...and again - The Bible tells everything that was created took 6 days....and the geneologies tell us the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago.

 

[Platte]

No it doesn't mean that it inherently means ex nihilo.

Isaiah 54:16 NIV
See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.

When God creates things, even the heavens and the earth, He can create them using pre existing materials, just as He can create anything else using pre existing materials, like a blacksmith for example in the passage above.

If "In the Beginning" you create a heaven and a earth - I'm comfortable with it inherently meaning ex nihilo - you can think otherwise.

I think most people would understand that "In the Beginning" would mean "before there was anything". But you can think otherwise.
and if Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over - I'm pretty sure most would think there was some ex nihilo going on there. but you can think otherwise

 

[River Jordan]

Scientists have documented a small percentage of animal species, with some estimates suggesting less than 20% of Earth's total species have been scientifically described. The vast majority, estimated to be about 86% of all species, remain undiscovered, and many are believed to be going extinct before they can be identified.

Undocumented species:
Scientists estimate there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth, but only a fraction of those have been documented.

Finding one of he over 80% of species we have not documented is not an example of the evolution of new species

...and again - The Bible tells everything that was created took 6 days....and the geneologies tell us the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago.

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but I'll take it as an indication that whether or not scientists have observed the evolution of new species doesn't matter to you.

That's okay. Whether or not you believe anything from science isn't important to me. I jumped in this thread to stand up for my coworkers and colleagues. We're not morons nor are we evil conspirators who spend our days plotting against God. We're professional scientists who go to work each day and do the best job we can. If someone thinks they can do better, we'd be more than glad to see what they have.

 

[Job 33:6]

If "In the Beginning" you create a heaven and a earth - I'm comfortable with it inherently meaning ex nihilo - you can think otherwise.

Ok. We can agree to disagree then. But let's be clear, the text doesn't actually clarify the matter.

I think most people would understand that "In the Beginning" would mean "before there was anything". But you can think otherwise.
and if Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over - I'm pretty sure most would think there was some ex nihilo going on there. but you can think otherwise

In the beginning can be the beginning of many things. I could say "in the beginning...of a movie" and that wouldn't have anything to do with ex nihilo creation. Right, so simply calling something "beginning" doesn't inherently have anything to do with ex nihilo philosophy. And Jesus feeding the 5,000 doesn't have anything to do with Genesis.

And in fact, the Hebrew doesn't actually say "the beginning" rather it just says "in beginning".

The Hebrew word bereshith does not have the definite article (“the”) attached.
If it had the article, it would read literally bareshith “in the beginning.”
Instead, the text has bereshith more literally “in beginning,” or “at the beginning of…”

 

[sfs]

I think it's pretty clear what was meant. Apparently he thinks evolutionary biologists go into work and do nothing but sit around imagining things all day.

I was aiming for irony there.

 

[sfs]

Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it.

We are still looking for evidence to support it.

I'm having difficulty thinking of a statement that would be further from the truth. Which of the many lines of evidence for common descent have you studied in the most depth? Endogenous retroviruses? Pseudogenes? Biogeography? Transition-to-transversion ratios?

That is not science.

Might I ask what your expertise in science is to be making such a pronouncement? I ask because scientists worldwide think evolutionary biology is a science, as do research universities, science funding agencies, scientific journals, professional scientific associations, national academies of science, philosophers of science, and historians of science. Clearly, you think you understand science better than all of those folks -- so how'd you learn so much?

 

[Platte]

And Jesus feeding the 5,000 doesn't have anything to do with Genesis.

You agree that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over would imply ex nihilo?

 

[Platte]

Might I ask what your expertise in science is to be making such a pronouncement? I ask because scientists worldwide think evolutionary biology is a science, as do research universities, science funding agencies, scientific journals, professional scientific associations, national academies of science, philosophers of science, and historians of science. Clearly, you think you understand science better than all of those folks -- so how'd you learn so much?

Show me the best evidence for macro evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

You agree that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over would imply ex nihilo?

That's how I've always understood it.

 

[River Jordan]

I was aiming for irony there.

Oh, my mistake.

 

[o_mlly]

The very first claim he makes is wrong. He says that the justification for saying humans are related to chimps is because we share 99.5% of their DNA. That's not accurate.

Quibbling? Before 2025 studies, Dr. Tour correctly states the biologist's claimed similarity:

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.​

​

 

[River Jordan]

Quibbling? Before 2025 studies, Dr. Tour correctly states the biologist's claimed similarity:

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.​

​

Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms. If our genome were 98.8% similar to chimps but 99.6% similar to Ponderosa Pine trees our conclusions would be different.

Add in the specific types of genetic errors we share and, genetically, it's a no-brainer. Geneticists aren't idiots.

 

[o_mlly]

Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms.

So Dr. Tour was correct. Therefore, claiming he lost credibility as a scientist is incorrect, right?

 

[River Jordan]

So Dr. Tour was correct. Therefore, claiming he lost credibility as a scientist is incorrect, right?

No, go back and re-read my first post on that.

 

[o_mlly]

No, go back and re-read my first post on that.

Are you now asserting that shared DNA's is no longer sufficient evidence for a common ancestor? If so, is your claim that because Dr. Tour is only partially correct in his claim, that he is, therefore, incredible?

... the specific types of genetic sequences we share ...

Therefore, you abandon the common ancestor claim that humans evolved from any other kind of living creature that lacks specific genetic sequences in common? Or at least admit the evidence for that claim is on the lowest confidence level possible for scientific claims, ie., consensus among biased "experts"?