Evolution

[1whirlwind]

It is always amazing to me that about 1700 years of scholars, including the pillars of the Christian church, resolutely believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe. To the point where some of them were willing to burn at the stake those who suggested otherwise.

My suggestion is that those who utterly reject evolution as being one of God's tools to create the multitude of species that we see today are also being dogmatic.

Hopefully, it won't take 1700 years to establish the truth.

Did the "pillars of the Christian church," inspire the Bible?



.

 

[Cabal]

I have no clue what "geocentrism" is and unless your spelling is terrible, neither does the dictionary.

By the way...there is only One author.

Perhaps you would like to open a thread on the mystical geocentrism and stick to....evolution, the lie of evolution, which is one of the fruits of a certain tree.
.

Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try harder, before being a smartmouth (care to ponder what tree that came from?)

 

[Cabal]

Adam did not evolve into other races...nor did Noah. All races, mankind, were created on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth.

I can think of several people who would claim to be as fervent literalists as you when it comes to Genesis 1 who would disagree with this.

So much for it not being personal interpretations of course

 

[crawfish]

They were not given to understand all they prophesied. Consider too that the events of the past were shadows of the future. History has repeated over and over...all leading to the end of days.

Daniel 12:8-9 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, "O My Lord, what shall be the end of these things?' And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.


.
​

So...in other words, perhaps you're hearing a 6-day creation but you do not yet understand that it's not literally true?

 

[Jase]

I have no clue what "geocentrism" is and unless your spelling is terrible, neither does the dictionary.

By the way...there is only One author.

Perhaps you would like to open a thread on the mystical geocentrism and stick to....evolution, the lie of evolution, which is one of the fruits of a certain tree.


.

Obviously someone who doesn't even grasp what geocentrism is, has no business calling evolution a lie. Your understanding of any form of science is severely lacking.

 

[1whirlwind]

[/i]

Ironically, you HAVE chosen selectively chosen one out of 17 definitions, one which you could not have determined from the context of a literal reading of the Bible alone, which means you ARE cherry picking in order to circumvent the inherent ambiguity of the verse.

Actually...there were more than one. Were I cherry picking I would only have provided one...I didn't.

WW - I don't say the Bible trumps science....I say the two need to conform for it to be truth. When science conflicts with Him then...who is wrong?

The alternative. The people who wrote the Bible down.

That isn't an option Cabal. You could certainly say that about modern translations but not about the text.

Look, it might have actually referred to a 2D projection but given the terminology one used, one cannot know for sure if one only relies on a literal reading - in fact it is downright ambiguous.

Okay...but it isn't at all ambiguous to me.

Nope - you still haven't gotten the point I'm making. I'm saying you cannot exclusively conclude that it is round only from the usage of the world "circle" as it is imprecise (especially when there ARE precise colloquialisms that describe 3D objects rather than 2D.

Oh, but I can and do exclusively conclude it is round and the wording meant round.

Nor is it a biology or cosmology text, that doesn't seem to stop you making claims that fly in the face of them.

And what is that? What claims?

You'd think he could have inspired the writers to be a bit clearer then.

It is clear to me and everyone I know...except perhaps evolutionists.

"Round" is vague. It is an oblate spheroid, and this is not revealed in the Bible via a literal reading, but through science.

That's a bit of overkill Cabal. Come on, the earth is round and there is the circle of the earth. Simple...no need to get all scientific.

And yet if you read that verse before people widely knew the earth was round, they would have concluded that God was confirming the world was flat, using the exact same logic as you have. Why? Because the word is imprecise. The exact same thing did happen with the verses people used to support their belief in geocentrism.

Then that is something you must take up with God. Precision in wording for a scientific mind. Personally, from an artistic mind...I have lots of other questions I would like to ask.

NO, it isn't.

You've just mangled 2D and 3D together again. A circular object is 2D. An orb is 3D. 2D=/=3D.

Someone had to put pen on paper, and given the amount of cultural artefacts within it, it's pretty obvious that some of their influences crept in.

I think He is powerful enough to have guarded what He wanted to be written for all generations.

You have done nothing to show that your personal interpretations are "the original", so please kindly stop claiming that they are. You said that we should reject the things of men - and I am. That is why I reject creationism. Taking Genesis as metaphor is not a lie either.

Then, be happy with your decision.

Ironically, believing in young-earth creationism makes God into a liar, which is why I reject such men-inspired interpretations.

Yes, it means they haven't understood the science involved regarding the validity of evolution, cosmology etc.

There are many that don't understand that. There are many that have no concept of the hidden treasures in His word...nor will they ever.

Like I said, we got over this eventually with geocentrism giving way to heliocentrism. The same thing will happen eventually with evolution also.

Not if I can help it.

And anytime you want to refute the masses of evidence supporting common descent, feel free to start.

No, I went to the dentist today for a crown. If I can't get you to see that the earth is a circle means...the earth is round then it would just be adding more pain to my day.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try harder, before being a smartmouth (care to ponder what tree that came from?)

No thank you...it is of no interest to me. I do wonder why it wasn't listed in the dictionary?

Smartmouth?

What tree what came from? Your "smartmouth" comment (not saying you made a smartmouth comment but your reference to one) or geocentric?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I can think of several people who would claim to be as fervent literalists as you when it comes to Genesis 1 who would disagree with this.

So much for it not being personal interpretations of course

Yes, I know. And, no...personal interpretations aren't needed for it is written. One just needs eyes to see.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

So...in other words, perhaps you're hearing a 6-day creation but you do not yet understand that it's not literally true?

He tells us what is meant by six days. It is literally true but one must understand what the "day" is.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Obviously someone who doesn't even grasp what geocentrism is, has no business calling evolution a lie. Your understanding of any form of science is severely lacking.

Yes Jase....I am an obvious idiot because I have no concept of geocentrism. Several posts back I questioned why you even bothered to reply to me. I again ask?

I am happy for your Scientific knowledge and think it wonderful. I am very happy in my choice of life work and question if you know anything at all about it. But then I think...why should she/he? We all travel various paths. I suppose the question is, should you be "severely lacking," or "not have a grasp" of my work...would I think you a fool? I hope not...I never have with anyone else.

But, more than anything else in my life I treasure the knowledge and understanding He has taught me. I wouldn't trade that for anything anyone else has especially if they had to believe He lied to us in order to believe man's lie. To each his own I guess.


.

 

[Cabal]

Actually...there were more than one. Were I cherry picking I would only have provided one...I didn't.

Picking = selecting, not provision. You are selectively choosing the one definition that applies and ignoring the others, including the more precise geometric ones that are less ambiguous.

That isn't an option Cabal. You could certainly say that about modern translations but not about the text.

Well, those suggesting that it is an option have provided evidence as to why it is - you are providing nothing but "nuh-uh!" If you want to convince people otherwise, address those arguments.

Okay...but it isn't at all ambiguous to me.

As has been pointed out several times, this is because you already know what shape the earth is from reference to something else that is not the Bible, but you seem to be in total denial of this line of reasoning - not to mention your wilful mangling of basic geometric concepts.

Oh, but I can and do exclusively conclude it is round and the wording meant round.

Nothing stopping you putting the words in your post. Doesn't mean it is remotely logical, justifiable, or consistent with your literalistic stance - so work on that before calling what fellow Christians believe evil, k?

And what is that? What claims?

The earth is much older than 14000 years old and was not formed in a day, same goes for life.

It is clear to me and everyone I know...except perhaps evolutionists.

You hang around mainly with non-evolutionists? There's your problem.

That's a bit of overkill Cabal. Come on, the earth is round and there is the circle of the earth. Simple...no need to get all scientific.

Given that people are making scientific claims based on it, there absolutely is a need to get scientific in response. Don't like it? Stop making claims that can be addressed with it.

You do realise "but it's sooooo simple" is used by everyone who thinks their personal interpretations of the Bible make up THE TRUTH, right? Why should it be convincing coming from you and not from the other thousands of people who have very high opinions of their opinions?

Then that is something you must take up with God. Precision in wording for a scientific mind.

Doesn't really bother me, as I see no need to make scientific claims from the Bible, unlike some. I would be content for them to stop doing so when they have neither the logic nor the knowledge to support them adequately

I think He is powerful enough to have guarded what He wanted to be written for all generations.

Then why use a word that has 17 definitions?

Then, be happy with your decision.

I'm happy with the decision. What gets my goat is when other Christians think that the sheer reality-altering power they think goes with their own opinion gives them the right to demean and dismiss the views of other Christians based on a shoddy illogical foundation.

There are many that don't understand that. There are many that have no concept of the hidden treasures in His word...nor will they ever.

Or of the hidden treasures in God's creation, so obsessed are they with insisting on missing the point of their favourite Bible passages.

Not if I can help it.

From our discussion so far, colour me not at all worried

No, I went to the dentist today for a crown. If I can't get you to see that the earth is a circle means...the earth is round then it would just be adding more pain to my day.

I agree, continuing to proceed with such a flawed argument wouldn't be a good idea for you.

 

[Cabal]

No thank you...it is of no interest to me. I do wonder why it wasn't listed in the dictionary?

Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Took me all of five seconds to find.

Smartmouth?

What tree what came from? Your "smartmouth" comment (not saying you made a smartmouth comment but your reference to one) or geocentric?

Making smartmouth remarks about mystical geocentrism instead of doing a five-second google search.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, I know. And, no...personal interpretations aren't needed for it is written. One just needs eyes to see.

And they would say the same thing, so that is not a convincing argument for either

 

[1whirlwind]

Picking = selecting, not provision. You are selectively choosing the one definition that applies and ignoring the others, including the more precise geometric ones that are less ambiguous.

I provided all definitions of the word "circle." I chose the one that properly fit the Biblical verse.

Well, those suggesting that it is an option have provided evidence as to why it is - you are providing nothing but "nuh-uh!" If you want to convince people otherwise, address those arguments.

What evidence? These "arguments" about a circle being round are truly laughable to me. But, if you want to believe that they thought the earth was flat and that God too thought the earth was flat then....okay. I have had enough discussion on this particular topic. Perhaps if it is important enough to have taken several pages then it deserves it's very own thread. After all, it has nothing to do with evolution.

As has been pointed out several times, this is because you already know what shape the earth is from reference to something else that is not the Bible, but you seem to be in total denial of this line of reasoning - not to mention your wilful mangling of basic geometric concepts.

No, I am not in denial. I replied that it is our Father that spoke with Isaiah and it is He that tells us about the "circle of the earth."

Nothing stopping you putting the words in your post. Doesn't mean it is remotely logical, justifiable, or consistent with your literalistic stance - so work on that before calling what fellow Christians believe evil, k?

No need to for it isn't me that made that decision. To accept evolution the believer must first believe the creation account is false. Meaning...God lied. So, either God lied or evolution is a lie. God tells us lying about His Word is a really, really, bad thing...evil.

So, my fellow Christians. Choices must be made and...they are ours to make. Decide wisely.

The earth is much older than 14000 years old and was not formed in a day, same goes for life.

Yes indeed it is. Much, much older than that. As for life, it depends upon which life we are speaking of. That of dinosaurs or man.

You hang around mainly with non-evolutionists? There's your problem.

That was a good one.

Given that people are making scientific claims based on it, there absolutely is a need to get scientific in response. Don't like it? Stop making claims that can be addressed with it.

To see that the circle of the earth means the earth is round doesn't take a scientist to explain. No one is making a scientific claim on it.

You do realise "but it's sooooo simple" is used by everyone who thinks their personal interpretations of the Bible make up THE TRUTH, right? Why should it be convincing coming from you and not from the other thousands of people who have very high opinions of their opinions?

You believe that the circle of the earth needs interpretation?

Doesn't really bother me, as I see no need to make scientific claims from the Bible, unlike some. I would be content for them to stop doing so when they have neither the logic nor the knowledge to support them adequately

Not having scientific knowledge I would agree with. Biblical knowledge I have...still learning but I have some. At least enough to know a circle is round.

Then why use a word that has 17 definitions?

I guess because He thought we were smart enough to understand...the earth is circular and the earth is round.

I'm happy with the decision. What gets my goat is when other Christians think that the sheer reality-altering power they think goes with their own opinion gives them the right to demean and dismiss the views of other Christians based on a shoddy illogical foundation.

Shoddy, illogical foundation. Genesis 1 and 2...shoddy and illogical?

Or of the hidden treasures in God's creation, so obsessed are they with insisting on missing the point of their favourite Bible passages.

Which is?

From our discussion so far, colour me not at all worried

I know...that is what worries me.

I agree, continuing to proceed with such a flawed argument wouldn't be a good idea for you.

If you see it as flawed and I see yours as a lie then...what is the point? There is one truth on this...only one.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Took me all of five seconds to find.

I'll change from Dictionary.com. Thank you for the reference.

Making smartmouth remarks about mystical geocentrism instead of doing a five-second google search.

Ah, I see. I didn't think it was smartmouth actually. But, the point is I'm not interested in geocentrism. It has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps it has to do with an evolutionist's idea of debunking parts of the Bible but that isn't what I'm trying to accomplish in life.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And they would say the same thing, so that is not a convincing argument for either

There is no need for me to provide a convincing argument for it is written. I know there are times that what is written is thrown aside for man's teaching but that isn't wise.


.

 

[juvenissun]

That would be the perfect, which we see back in verse 8 "the man he had formed". What the waw consecutives in verse 18 & 19 tell us is that the verbs occur consecutively.
God said... then God formed... then God brought.

Thanks.
I am getting out of this busy thread.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I pity YEC types. All they really have is that there is a grand conspiracy being enacted by reality, by God and by humanity. I don't have the stomach to exercise that level of paranoia.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Adam did not evolve into other races...nor did Noah. All races, mankind, were created on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth.


.

Huh? This is certainly a different interpretation of the Bible. I think most (all?) Biblical scholars would agree that God created Adam, along with other creatures living on the land, on the sixth day of creation. Creation was finished, done by the end of the 6th day- which is why God then rested on the 7th day.

Certainly Luke 3:38 makes it clear that Adam was the first human being. So that would make it impossible that, as you say, Adam was formed on the eighth day, and all other races, mankind, on the sixth.

But you're really evading the question- there could only have been one first created human being- who was Adam- and he had to be either a white person, a black person, chinese, etc. This means that all other races were a product of evolution- the original genes in Adam were modified (evolved) to produce the multitude of races that we see today.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Did the "pillars of the Christian church," inspire the Bible?



.

Since the Bible does not support the concept of an earth-centered universe, the authors of the Bible could not have supported this notion.