Evolution-Science or Religion?

[revolutio]

If God made us by evolution, then why did he not refer to it?

Why does he not mention weak and strong nuclear forces, atoms, cells, serotonin, hormones, or any of the many other things that make us what we are today?

God is a salesman. He has to be if he wants any followers, and to be sure he is a smart one. If the Bible contained insanely complex and completely unorthodox explanations of human existence, do you think it would have sold?

More to the point, do you think it has any bearing on the message he sent?

 

[Lonnie]

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth"
So he created all the animals that moveth, and then "which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind"After there kind, And every winged fowl. Now where are the land animals? Lol, that is a big missing part. After their own kind? And see the defintion of abundance? Plentiful.

1. Occurring in or marked by abundance; plentiful. See Synonyms at plentiful.
2. Abounding with; rich: a region abundant in wildlife.

Defintion of plentiful:

2. Existing in great quantity or ample supply.
4. Providing or producing an abundance: a plentiful harvest.

Good Night!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth"
So he created all the animals that moveth, and then "which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind"After there kind, And every winged fowl. Now where are the land animals? Lol, that is a big missing part. After their own kind? And see the defintion of abundance? Plentiful.

I am confused as to what your objections are. Are you suggesting that He made the whales, living creatures, etc, BEFORE the water brought them forth? In other words, are you suggesting that passage is so literal that it must be chronological as well?

This seems to be the failing of literalism. You're getting too wrapped up in the individual words and you're missing the bigger picture.

 

[lucaspa]

Why does he not mention weak and strong nuclear forces, atoms, cells, serotonin, hormones, or any of the many other things that make us what we are today?

God is a salesman. He has to be if he wants any followers, and to be sure he is a smart one. If the Bible contained insanely complex and completely unorthodox explanations of human existence, do you think it would have sold?

Worse than that, how would God have said "nuclear" in the Hebrew of the day? Or "hormone". Or "atom". God may not be limited, but human knowledge and language is. And there is no glossary so God can invent new words and give their definitions in the back of the book.

More to the point, do you think it has any bearing on the message he sent?

Oh, yeah!

 

[revolutio]

Oh, yeah!

Is that an exlamation or an affirmation.

For clarity by effect on his word I meant the mode by which he created man. I didn't mean whether or not he lied in the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

This is utterly ridiculous. This entire thread is basically saying nothing about anything.

It's not that bad. What we have is a new (to this forum) creationist who is repeating some often heard misconceptions about science and evolution. Another person who has mistaken the creationism vs evolution discussion for the theism vs atheism argument.

Many of the posters are just weary of repeating the same old refutations one more time. So they get really sarcastic.

I disagree with that. While the misconceptions are old to us, they are new to Hughes. So the real nature of science and evolution is also going to be new to Hughes. We need to remember that.

 

[Lonnie]

"Worse than that, how would God have said "nuclear" in the Hebrew of the day? Or "hormone". Or "atom". "

But that aint what we are talking about, we are talking about days. And he could say long time or many life times, or many, many more words, but why days? As many people(not just evolutionists, this includes myself) bring up stuff that barely relates to what we are talking about. Just because he did not have the word "Nuclear" or "atom" . Does not mean that he meant millions of years. That just plain illogical.

Later

 

[Arikay]

I agree.
Considering past history on what happens when radically different ideas are suggested, I think if god inspired the bible, he was smart not to mention 21st century physics or biology. I bet if he did the books of the bible would have been burned soo fast, as "heretical" they would have never been seen again.

Not to mention the fact that its not a science book, but a spiritual book. Lots of science bogging down the spiritual message would have been pointless, and would have increased the book size by at least a hundred fold.
When people read the bible, do they read it for salvation, or to learn how to do their physics homework? My guess is not their physics homework. Just like you dont read your physics book to find salvation.

God needed to stay on topic, or else the bible would look like some of the threads around here.

Why does he not mention weak and strong nuclear forces, atoms, cells, serotonin, hormones, or any of the many other things that make us what we are today?

God is a salesman. He has to be if he wants any followers, and to be sure he is a smart one. If the Bible contained insanely complex and completely unorthodox explanations of human existence, do you think it would have sold?

More to the point, do you think it has any bearing on the message he sent?

 

[lucaspa]

"Worse than that, how would God have said "nuclear" in the Hebrew of the day? Or "hormone". Or "atom". "

But that aint what we are talking about, we are talking about days

Weren't we also talking about evolution? Didn't you want to know why evolution wasn't mentioned in the Bible?

And he could say long time or many life times, or many, many more words, but why days?

Let's remember here that no one has said that God picked up pen and parchment and wrote the Bible. In Mark 10 Jesus says specifically that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

As many people(not just evolutionists, this includes myself) bring up stuff that barely relates to what we are talking about. Just because he did not have the word "Nuclear" or "atom" . Does not mean that he meant millions of years. That just plain illogical.

Later

Did the people then even have a number for "million"? Did they even have a concept of "millions of years"?

The Bible says in Genesis 1 that God took 6 days to create. In Genesis 2:4 it turns around and says creation took place within a single day. Isn't that illogical?

Lonnie, the authors of Genesis 1 wanted a justification for the Sabbath. Remember, Genesis was written after the Exodus. God had already commanded that the 7th day be the Sabbath. So, the authors of Genesis 1 put creation into 6 days so God could rest on the 7th and they would have a (unnecessary) justification for the sabbath. Then the editor of Genesis put Exodus 20:11 into Exodus to complete the circle of justification.

Now, why they couldn't accept the Sabbath simply as commanded by God is beyond me. But they didn't. Maybe it was plain at the time what they were doing but we have lost that over the years. But anyway, Biblical literalists have been hung up on the days for years. And it is so unnecessary.

 

[lucaspa]

Is that an exlamation or an affirmation.

Agreement and compliment for saying it so well.

 

[Just]

Just like you dont read your physics book to find salvation.

I do.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

If God made us by evolution, then why did he not refer to it? He did refer to creating man and women in 7 days. That would be pretty fast for evoltion right? And if you think when he says "Days" that you think it could be any period of time. Then why would he change the meaning of "day" or Days when he talked about other things that involved days?

Interesting concept, and I think I understand it a bit better today than I did yesterday. For the past few weeks I've been working on a research paper about Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) and today I gave a 50 minute oral presentation on it. Basically it's a ****load of math and physics.

You should have seen to look of confuzzlement on everybodies face as I tried to explain mathematically how an electromagnetic wave propagates in a computer simulation thru a grid of Yee cubes and how the algorithm calculates it. Could have written down all the formulas I wanted, but since nobody else had researched or knew much about the subject it was pointless.

At wits end I draw a 3-d orthogonal grid on the chalk board, put an electromagnetic wave in it, and everybody was like "OH! that's what you've been talking about for the past 15 minutes" and I went on with my presentation.

Keep in mind that these were all fairly intelligent people, most of them having completed degrees elsewhere. Now imagine me trying to explain this to a person of 2500 years ago who has no knowledge of physics, photonics, computers, mathematics beyond counting on your fingers, or relativity. Even if I gave him a picture that shows him what I was talking about he'd have no understanding of what's going on. It would be as pointless as giving him a cell phone, to him it would just be a paper weight.

The same goes for science and the bible. Nobody would have understood what God meant, assuming it could even be said in their language, if he tried to explain an old earth model. It's simply to complex for a layman, especially 2500ish years ago, to understand.

 

[Northern Christian]

The OP is full of factual errors, bitterness, and strawmen. I'm starting to understand why evolutionists become so annoyed all of the time.