Evolution

[Greg1234]

You realise you have done just that yourself? You have denied the literal meaning

And the beat goes on.

 

[laconicstudent]

So many strawmen of evolutionary theory in here, it makes scientists cry.

 

[Greg1234]

No I don't believe that. Have you read anything at all that I've written? The Bible doesn't teach that God created only one person.
I have difficulty with it because IT IS A LIE. No one mutated. No person of one race magically became of another race anymore than an ape magically became a man.

Spot on.

 

[Greg1234]

Just to check with you of where we are in this debate: I think you would agree that:

1. breeding produces new kinds of organisms- cattle, dogs, roses, etc. etc.

2. what defines a new kind is that the organism has a new and unique set of characteristics, and that those characteristics are genetic- they are linked to a specific DNA structure in that organism that is passed on from generation to generation.

If you agree that #1 and #2 are correct, then you have already admitted that you believe in evolution! It's really that simple!

No as in a bacterium will never be a rose or a dog or cattle or a man. We already know about adaptation. It is a designed feature. Part of intelligent design. Creationism. Hijacked by Darwinists. Used as evidence against creationism. Now you expect servile compliance.

 

[laconicstudent]

No as in a bacterium will never be a rose or a dog or cattle or a man.

Good thing no evolutionary biologist would ever argue something that dumb.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

No as in a bacterium will never be a rose or a dog or cattle or a man. We already know about adaptation. It is a designed feature. Part of intelligent design. Creationism. Hijacked by Darwinists. Used as evidence against creationism. Now you expect servile compliance.

I didn't say that a bacterium will become a rose. I deliberately stayed within one species

So there are many varieties of dogs, cows, people, roses, etc. that have unique genetic characteristics that are carried forward from generation to generation. This is evolution!!

This is not adaptation- a guy who works in the salt mines and develops big muscles doesn't have a kid who automatically has big muscles.

I don't expect servile compliance- where did you ever see that??? I only expect what God wants- honesty, truth, humbleness, Christian love.

 

[Greg1234]

I didn't say that a bacterium will become a rose. I deliberately stayed within one species

So there are many varieties of dogs, cows, people, roses, etc. that have unique genetic characteristics that are carried forward from generation to generation. This is evolution!!

The races of humans have the ability to adapt. And interbreeding together with conventional minor changes are in consideration, even with a view that more than one man, or even more than one race, was created . The man is multi purpose, and from this perspective, the extent of creation can be assessed.

This is not adaptation- a guy who works in the salt mines and develops big muscles doesn't have a kid who automatically has big muscles.

Nobody said that. And yes, the ability for an organism to adapt is called adaptation.

I don't expect servile compliance- where did you ever see that??? I only expect what God wants- honesty, truth, humbleness, Christian love.

In progress. But I asked you how should I be honest and truthful and with "Christian love". I'm guessing it means adherence.

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus wore a shirt with buttons?

 

[Cabal]

Jesus wore a shirt with buttons?

And floral cuffs.

Yeah, there are better Jesus facepalm pics out there, but the quality of their captions go in inverse proportion, astoundingly.

 

[1whirlwind]

You realise you have done just that yourself? You have denied the literal meaning of the flat earth and geocentric passages because you believe man's ideas that the earth is spherical and goes round the sun.

There are no such passages. No where is it written that there is a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. You are speaking of man's faulty concept of God's work, much as evolution.

I completely agree with the passage you quote about God's word being truth,

the problem is you have two contradictory methods of dealing God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." The work He "had made," was the creation of "heavens, earth and all the host." FINISHED, past tense!with apparent conflicts between science and scripture, yet you insist on each one as the only possible way for a believer to approach scripture.

When sceince contradicts the flat earth and geocentric interpretations of scripture, that cannot possible be the real meaning of scripture, the people who interpreted scripture that way must have been mistaken.

Yet when science contradicts the special creation interpretation , you don't say that cannot be what the bible means the interpretation must be a mistake, instead this time you insist the science must be wrong. Why say the interpretation must be wrong for some sciences, and the bible says the science is a lie for other sciences? How do you choose which sciences to believe? It is not because the bible says it evolution is a lie, you could just as easily say the bible says heliocentrism is a lie instead of deciding the interpretation is wrong.

A point you must acknowledge is....the creation account is not an interpretation. It is written, not interpreted. Flat earth was not written...the creation was. Therefore the decision on where the lie is is quite simple.

Who say Adam was the beginning of the line to the saviour? The bible doesn't. Remember Luke's genealogy was only 'supposed', and went through Joseph who wasn't Jesus dad.

The geneology is given from Adam to Christ in the Bible! Please notice that both lines given in the two accounts had the common ancestor of David. From David the lineage is given back to Adam.

Oh no, I am not say "after his kind" means choose a partner of your own species, that comes up in other OT commands, Leviticus is quite insistent about that sort of behaviour. But "after his kind" is not about reproduction being restricted to kinds either, it simply means different types of organism.

No it doesn't. The meaning is clearly given in.....

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind , and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

The seed of each kind is in itself and that seed yields it's kind.

Yet you are quite happy with the theories Copernicus and Erathostenes.

Again....you are assuming that what they taught was against the written word. It wasn't. It was instead against man's warped idea of what was written. Creation is written....evolution is not.

That's the passage. It also says a thousand years are as a couple of hours in the night, or a human lifespan like a day.

A human lifespan was as a day in the Lord's time. Not any more.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

Did Adam die on the day (in our concept of 24 hours) when he partook of the fruit? No, so did God lie? No, for Adam died within a day in God's reckoning of time...a thousand years. He died spiritually within his day, He died physically within God's day.

I should hope not, they are just distant cousins. But it is not just the strong similarity, so similar that even creationist cannot decide which skulls are really human and which are ape. More important is the fact that the further back in time you go the more similar we are to other apes. Remember you said:

For evolution to be true there would be evidence everywhere of folks morphing from creatures...there are none. We have skeletal remains of many things from ancient times but...not man and not man in evolving stages. Why? There are none.
​

But that is exactly what we see, the shape of skull changing over millions of years from very clearly ape all the way to modern humans. I am not sure what else you expect in terms of "folks morphing from creatures" than the fossil record we already have.

Assyrian, man has been man (and woman) from the beginning. God created various races but those races were still...man.

So rightly dividing the word, can you say which works were finished and which continue?

Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.

Okay, I'll try to rightly divide.

The chapter of [Psalm 104] speaks of all three earth ages. It touches on when He "laid the foundations of the earth," in the first age....it speaks of events in this present second age (such as how Leviathan works with his deception) and then we have the above passage you quoted. It concerns The third and last age.

The new creation and renewal is....

Revelation 21:1-2 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
​

Isaiah 41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it...

To me, this is simply saying that mankind will finally learn...it is the Holy One that created things (they didn't evolve but were created).

Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you...

Jacob...a man, was created. He was formed when he became Israel, all twelve tribes. Formed for a specific purpose.

Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.
​

A question is...when was Jacob created? God answers the question in [Gen.2:1] for He tells us that alll the host of heaven and earth were created before He rested. That has to do with seed within each kind.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals...

Indeed....this smith, this slayer was created for his job before God rested. He was one of the great lights.

Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:

It is "for a generation to come." In the next age they are created...see Ps.104.

No sorry, my question was what time of day each new day begins.


To be...

My apologies, I misunderstood. The new day begins at midnight.



.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Good thing no evolutionary biologist would ever argue something that dumb.

Ironic, because that is exactly what biologists tell us and is exactly the narrative evolution presents. A biologist will just explain it with more eloquence and with more complex terms to make it sound more "intelligent" and credible, it's the only way to make it palatable. Because if we are to just take it at face value, it becomes just that --> ridiculous and dumb

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Except it doesn't matter what you think scripture says or doesn't say, UCD is true, we have the fossils, we have the genetics, we win. So again the only options are those three, now if you want to argue for atheism wich is really what your doing, go ahead, but I don't really think thats going to get what you want.

UCD is far from exclusively true and proven. This view just comes from a bias in viewing the evidence they take for it. And by the way, the fossil record does not support UCD anywhere near to the degree as it should, taking into consideration all the multi-billion in between forms that were to exist for all species found within the history of earth. Really, it is a joke --> you'd think people would understand how all living species today and all those from the past would look and resemble if these "mythical" evolutionary mechanisms that accomplishes this so-called "UCD" were reality.

And you also cannot change the fact that human evolution and the inception of man as per genesis are in contradiction. At this point, all you are doing is denying scripture and accepting human evolution, it is as simple as that.

And as a side note, I am sure we all know why supporters of TE get nervous with Noah's flood, and have to either deny it happened outright or argue for a local flood, despite the fact that it could have been nothing other than global, clearly. To think one single verse completely unravels everything they hold as "true"

 

[1whirlwind]

...continued

The question is, does 'after his kind' refer to the verb in the subclause 'whose seed was in itself' or to the main verb 'And the earth brought forth grass, and herb ...and the tree'? It certainly refers to the main verb in all the other passages.
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
If kind referred to reproduction, why was it only mentioned with plants but not with fish and land animals? What you have in each section is
(1) a command to produce these creature or saying God created them
(2) a list of the different main types of creature with a short description of them
(3) we are told this was according to their kind.
But according to their kind refers to the command to produce these different creatures, not the subclauses, unless God is commanding creepy crawlies to creep according to their kind too. If we look back in verses 11&12 trees bearing fruit and herbs bearing seed is simply a more detailed description of the herbs and trees, the same as birds are winged and sea creatures swarm. According to their kind refers to God's command to the earth to sprout vegetation, all the different type of plant according to its kind
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

It is because, unlike English, nouns have masculine or feminine gender which is separate issue from whether the thing itself is male or female. Tree ets is a masculine noun in Hebrew.


But nothing about reproducing according to their kind.

To my unscientific mind...seed and after his kind mean one thing....those things are to produce from seed after his kind. They are to bring forth according to their own kinds.

For that reason....species stay with their species.

How do you know?

Because words, phrases, etc. are not simply thrown into the Bible. They have significance. If it is stipulated that there are beasts of the earth and then beasts of the field...take notice. I know because the Holy Spirit opens my eyes to those differences and suddenly...I see.

They interpreted the passages literally, just as you do with Adam being made of clay. The sun stopping when Joshua commanded it meant the sun must have been moving across the sky. It say after the miracle the sun hurried to the place it sets. It says God makes the sun rise. Ecclesiastes describes the sun setting and hurrying to the place it rises. The bible also describes the earth bring established and not moving. Christians before Copernicus's time took these passage at face value in its plain literal sense describing the earth fixed in the cosmos with the sun and moon moving across the sky and under the earth when the sun set.

It is called interpretation. They interpreted the passage literally and got it wrong.

Yes, it is called interpretation and man was wrong. The Bible wasn't wrong but man's understanding was. The difference here is the creation account is written, it is correct and it isn't interpreted. Evolution is not written literally, metaphorically or in parable form.

The bible is a book made up of many different books. Genesis is a book made up of different books and documents too. Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam.

If it is being told in parable form, it is not telling you the way it actually happened.
Compare God's metaphorical description of crossing the Red Sea with what literally happened.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exodus 15:19 For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.

His description was metaphorical....the event was literal.

Indeed, however 'true' does not mean it has to be literal. Jesus parables are true too. Matt 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."

Yes, parables are true. If you see the creation account as a parable...is it still not true? For evolution to be true than the account would be a lie.

Scientists realise there is much they do not understand, that is why they are still doing all that research. Creationists seem to think they have things a lot more sewn up, not only knowing exactly how things were made, but frequently have the end of the world figured out too

But well spotted. I am surprised that verse does not come up more often in these discussions.

It would be pretty difficult to evolve a capacity to reproduce if you were not able to reproduce to evolve it. No, reproduction came first. It was variations in the reproduction that allowed evolution. So to answer your point, from the very beginning the human race was male and female.

So, whatever little gob of whatever in the great soup of the beginning...pulled itself out of the sea as one thing/entity and on it's own produced more thing/entities, some of which were male and some female. They in turn mated, produced different species...leading up to man.

That sure doesn't sound like...God created them male and female, in His image, after His likeness and then gave them dominion over the very thing/entities that produced them. What about "honor your father and mother?"

Isn't Peter criticising this view?

I don't think so Assyrian...it appears to be the scoffers Peter is criticising....



11 Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Oh there is loads of evidence for that too. Not just the gradual change in fossils from early ape to human, but also a whole load of genetic similarities.

I once heard someone say that a can of Campbell's chicken soup had very similar amino acids (or some technical term) to man. However, were it to sit on the counter for a thousand years it would just be...really, really, old soup.

Doesn't change the fact there was evidence in the text of Genesis that made Christian and Jewish scholars think Genesis was meant to be interpreted figuratively, while no one saw any indiaction in the geocentric passages that they were not to be take literally.

Then you must take it up with them.

1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
​

I love that passage! We do see dimly...some dimmer than others. :o But even though my scientic knowledge is exceedingly dim my reading and understanding of the written Word improves daily. For that reason I asked for any hint of evolution being mentioned in Scriptures...anything at all to cause me to see the creation account in a different light. So far...nothing. But, I have very much enjoyed this dialogue...thank you Assyrian.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Too much to hope for that you even consider the possibility that it might be your eyes that need opening.

But no, you seem quite content judging the ideas of others despite having no education on the matter.

My eyes are opened through understanding of the written word.

There is no need for me to judge the ideas of others whether or not I have any knowledge of science. I am to speak His words and in doing so, know that it is truth. I do, it is.


Job 36:4 For truly My words shall not be false: He that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Ah yes, 1whirlwind, arbiter of truth, who must answer to no-one....



Seriously, these games are getting tiring. What is your evidence?



You have a high opinion of your opinion, I'll give you that much.

I have a high opinion of His Words...you should try it.

False dichotomy fail. Any other glaring errors you'd like to make today?

To choose Darwin over God is indeed a glaring error...but not one I make.


.

 

[Cabal]

I have a high opinion of His Words...you should try it.

I do. I'll thank you not to claim that I don't, purely because I disagree with your opinion.

To choose Darwin over God is indeed a glaring error...but not one I make.

No, you just ignore all the other ones you've made, like imposing a false dichotomy between God's creation and God's account of creation.

 

[1whirlwind]

I do. I'll thank you not to claim that I don't, purely because I disagree with your opinion.

It isn't my opinion you disagree with and you should come to grips with that. My opinion isn't written in Genesis.

No, you just ignore all the other ones you've made, like imposing a false dichotomy between God's creation and God's account of creation.

So, there is a difference in God's creation and God's account of creation? According to....Darwin? The false dichotomy I'm offering here is...His written Word? His written word is different than the event? My goodness..whatever should we be asked to believe (by man) next?

You are on the proverbial...slippery slope. You are accepting man's account over that of God. Your choice of course.


.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....

So, there is a difference in God's creation and God's account of creation?

Between Man's written account of what God Inspired them to write and what we actually see? YES !!!

According to....Darwin?

No, according to what is written vs what is actually out their.

The false dichotomy I'm offering here is...His written Word? His written word is different than the event? My goodness..whatever should we be asked to believe (by man) next?

You are on the proverbial...slippery slope. You are accepting man's account over that of God. Your choice of course.

.

God didn't write the Bible
God didn't dictate the Bible
God isn't the Bible.

 

[laconicstudent]

It isn't my opinion you disagree with and you should come to grips with that. My opinion isn't written in Genesis.





So, there is a difference in God's creation and God's account of creation? According to....Darwin? The false dichotomy I'm offering here is...His written Word? His written word is different than the event? My goodness..whatever should we be asked to believe (by man) next?

You are on the proverbial...slippery slope. You are accepting man's account over that of God. Your choice of course.


.

Do you know what "false dichotomy" means?

 

[1whirlwind]

Do you know what "false dichotomy" means?

Yes. There are two choices Laconicstudent...only two. God's Word is true or it isn't.

.

​