If evolution were wrong, it means ...

[lucaspa]

What I meant was:

Natural --> Evolution
Supernatural --> Creation.

But that doesn't work as theology. What you have stated here is the basic belief of atheism: that what is "natural" is without God. You have also stated god-of-the-gaps theology: God can only be found in the supernatural.

"Natural" is just as much Creation as supernatural. Instead of creating by supernatural means, God created using the "natural" processes.

 

[lucaspa]

Assyrian did it for me. I meant Matthew 19.

That "what did Moses write" is Deut 24:1. What Jesus is telling people is:
1. Moses wrote the only Bible Jesus had -- the Torah. Not God.
2. Moses got it wrong. Deut. 24:1 is wrong.

For the earliest Christians, they did not have evidence from God's Creation to contradict that interpretation of the Bible. But now we have that evidence. To cling to a literal interpretation in the face of God telling us the opposite is ignoring God and placing that interpretation of the Bible above God. That is idolatry as defined in the 1st Commandment.

I would note that the original view of all the Church fathers was 1) flat earth and 2) earth the center of the solar system. You don't hold to that, do you? Should we hold to that because the Church fathers did? What would you categorize someone who insisted that we believe scripture that the earth is flat and the earth does not move in defiance of the evidence in God's Creation?

 

[it'sme]

For the earliest Christians, they did not have evidence from God's Creation to contradict that interpretation of the Bible. But now we have that evidence. To cling to a literal interpretation in the face of God telling us the opposite is ignoring God and placing that interpretation of the Bible above God. That is idolatry as defined in the 1st Commandment.

I would note that the original view of all the Church fathers was 1) flat earth and 2) earth the center of the solar system. You don't hold to that, do you? Should we hold to that because the Church fathers did? What would you categorize someone who insisted that we believe scripture that the earth is flat and the earth does not move in defiance of the evidence in God's Creation?

First of all it is the scientists that contradict the bible not science.

Also before , when everyone thought the earth was flat:

Isaiah 40:21-23 (The Message)

21-24Have you not been paying attention?
Have you not been listening?
Haven't you heard these stories all your life?
Don't you understand the foundation of all things?
God sits high above the round ball of earth.

The bible is light years ahead of scientists. This was written about
740 BCE.

 

[Mallon]

The Bible doesn't refer to the earth as a "round ball" (duwr), it'sme. It uses "circle" (chuwg), which is a two-dimensional object.

 

[Smidlee]

Also before , when everyone thought the earth was flat:

Oh, The flat earth myth; not in the sense that the earth was flat as a myth but that the people in medieval times believe the Earth was flat as a myth. Basically it was meant to make those who lived in medieval times look stupid and modern man appear so smart. It's another "we are so smart and our parents were a butch of idiots" ego trip.

 

[it'sme]

The Bible doesn't refer to the earth as a "round ball" (duwr), it'sme. It uses "circle" (chuwg), which is a two-dimensional object.

dictionary says:
a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circle+

 

[troodon]

dictionary says:
a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.
Circle | Define Circle at Dictionary.com

Why are you using an English dictionary for a Hebrew word? That's like translating the French word for "boiled" into English, then using the fact that "boiled" can mean "drunk" in English to say that the French must have been calling something drunk. What matters is the French definition, not the English definition of the translated word.

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

[/color]That doesn't tell us what a "baramin" is. Unless we know what you call a "baramin" then we can't even test whether we have evidence of a species evolving outside its "baramin".

Baramins, are the kinds of creatures God created. All attempts at taxonomy are purely hypothetical and man-made, Baraminolgy however is the closest model, or closest ranking system as to what Genesis says.

BTW, would you accept fossil transitional series of either transitional individuals or transitional species?

Transitional? your statement is starting at the assumption these transitional fossils or species exist? I don't know what you mean. From what i've studied on fossils, there is no evidence for ''transitional fossils''.

There you go. Baraminolog disproved, evolution strongly supported (what you call "proved").

I see no evidence for evolution from what you pasted. You need actual evidence for your belief animals evolve.

That simply is not true. Putting your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes and saying "there is no evidence for evolution" doesn't make the evidence go away. As you should have noted, I posted a bit of the evidence for evolution above.

There is no conclusive evidence for evolution. The only real evidence for evolution would be if we observe it, but we simply don't.

BUT, evolution has been "proven" to be true as much as any scientific theory has.

Repeating evolution is true, does not make it so...

 

[Mallon]

dictionary says:
a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.
Circle | Define Circle at Dictionary.com

You should be using a Hebrew dictionary. If you did, you would realize the Bible does not describe the earth as a sphere, but as a circle (or the surface of a compass).

 

[Mallon]

Dr. Denis Lamoureux has a great video discussing the evidence for and against different interpretations of Genesis:

4_predictions

A must-see for all.

 

[gluadys]

Oh, The flat earth myth; not in the sense that the earth was flat as a myth but that the people in medieval times believe the Earth was flat as a myth. Basically it was meant to make those who lived in medieval times look stupid and modern man appear so smart. It's another "we are so smart and our parents were a butch of idiots" ego trip.

No Smidlee, it was people in ancient times (like when the Old Testament was written) who believed the earth was flat. People in medieval times knew it was a sphere.

The Bible does not record the medieval view, but the ancient view.

 

[Smidlee]

No Smidlee, it was people in ancient times (like when the Old Testament was written) who believed the earth was flat. People in medieval times knew it was a sphere.

The Bible does not record the medieval view, but the ancient view.

There is good reason to believe people knew the earth was a sphere long before the coming of Christ. Earth in scriptures doesn't necessary refers to Planet Earth. Earth in scripture many times in scripture could be translated continent, land. (it was clear in Genesis the dry land was called earth.) Planet Earth was not part of the common language like it is today (neither was the word continent). I wouldn't be surprise at all if we learned the ancient Egyptians knew the earth was a sphere.

 

[shernren]

Earth in scripture many times in scripture could be translated continent, land.

Just like in Genesis 6-9, right Smidlee? Good to see you've learned some real translation skills my man.

In terms of baraminology, I think it's always good to remember that this is what baraminologists themselves have to say about the biological similarity between humans and chimpanzees:

Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome. The sequence is in >361,000 pieces with a median length of 15,700 nucleotides. The sequence differs from the human genome by 35 million nucleotide mismatches (1.23%) and 10 million alignment gaps (~3-4%). Rather than attempting to explain this similarity, I here propose principles that can guide creationist research in this area. I find that creationist genomics requires three important theories that still need to be developed before fruitful research can commence. The first need is a theory of biological similarity. The level of similarity observed between the human and chimpanzee genomes cannot be adequately explained simply by the will of the Creator, unless a theory can be developed to explain why the Creator would will such similarity. The most promising candidate for explaining biological similarity is a modified form of ReMine's message theory. The second greatest need for interpreting genomes is a theory of the genome, particularly its importance and biological function. The third need is a better understanding of baraminology and historical development of organisms.​

(bolding added, italics in original) Old thread here and original paper here.

 

[Mallon]

I wouldn't be surprise at all if we learned the ancient Egyptians knew the earth was a sphere.

Actually, we know the Egyptians believed the earth was flat because they describe it as being something like a snow-globe; flat bottom and domed sky above:

The Bible describes the exact same thing.

 

[lucaspa]

There is good reason to believe people knew the earth was a sphere long before the coming of Christ.

When did Eratosthenes measure the curvature of the earth? About 200 BC. When was most of the OT written? On or before 500 BC. So at the time the OT was written, people still thought the earth was flat.

Earth in scriptures doesn't necessary refers to Planet Earth. Earth in scripture many times in scripture could be translated continent, land. (it was clear in Genesis the dry land was called earth.)

True. But the dry land was thought to be part of a larger flat structure.

 

[lucaspa]

What WAS a kind might be a better question. I suppose one definition might be the common ancestor of all the things that evolved from that particular kind. If there was all that evolving, then we would expect a hard time in seeing clear kinds. This is just what we see! It fits the evidence.

Not really. Because even with "all that evolving" there should be clear demarcation between "kinds" because you can't have one cross over from the other. However, that is not what we see. For instance, we have the platypus with characteristics of both reptiles and mammals. Under "kinds", this should not happen.

You can't have one without the other. It is a package deal, we must take or leave.

Of course you can have God without the Bible! What Bible did Moses have? NONE. Yet he most definitely had God. You insist on a literal Adam, Eve, and Noah. What Bible did they have? Yet they had God. Proof that it is not a "package deal".

Are you saying that people who have never heard of the Bible are then bereft of God? That God is incapable of communicating with them because they don't have the Bible? Wow. What a limited God that would be.

Nope. The whole world uses the calendar set to Jesus. They do it, as far as I know, not in any way because they believe, but because God arranged all time to point to Jesus!

How is the Jewish calendar set to Jesus? How is the Hindu calendar set to Jesus?

Science wasn't here. Science doesn't qualify as an observer for the far past. Not even the fairly recent past of the days of Jesus.

As long as the past even left physical evidence we can study today, then of course science can study the past. How about Meteor Crator? An event in the far past that we did not observe. Do you have any doubt that Meteor Crator is the result of a meteor impact?

But Jesus' resurrection left no physical evidence that persists until today. No body, and the risen Jesus ascended, so we don't even have Jesus' physical body walking the earth today. So, it's not that science cannot study the past or "observe" it, but that science is limited in doing so. The Resurrection is outside the limitations. So, as I said, from science's pov, that was not observed.

So? Americans claim to have seen Elvis.

And the disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus! In denigrating personal eyewitness, you are denigrating the basis of Christianity! Nice going, dad.

Well, then they are wrong. So?? Like you thought they were real clever and to be believed?

It's not about their being believed. It's about alternatives to evolution and creationism. There are alternative theories out there. So having evolution possibly be wrong does not make special creation true. It could be something else.

Nope! Wrong. The creatures of Eden were just in Eden. It was some time before they spread out.

Not according to Genesis 1. Nor even in the text of Genesis 2. There is nothing in the text to tell us the creatures stayed in Eden after they were brought to Adam and he named them. What you are doing, dad, is inventing things that are not in scripture.

The point you used was that human lifespans were a thousand years old, so we would not find their remains outside Eden. But mice, voles, moles, etc. were outside Eden and their lifespans were 1,000 times shorter. We should find their bones. We don't. You limited your argument to humans, but you forgot that their are many animals besides humans on the planet.

[qoute]Say what? Does having kids shorten life spans?[/quote]

You tell me. What the text says is that there were people already outside Eden when Cain left. Otherwise, there would not be a woman to marry or enough people for him to found a city. It appears that you are trying to get the Bible to say just what you want by 1) inventing things that are not there and 2) ignoring things that are. Is this an honest way to listen to God? Again, who are you defending: God or a particular interpretation of the Bible?

 

[lucaspa]

If evolution were wrong, it means ... the Bibles right?

No. As several of us have been pointing out, theories stand or fall on their own. They are not linked such that one being wrong means the other is correct. Special creation has already been shown to be false. It's dead and cannot be resussitated. If evolution is wrong, then some theory other than special creation or literal interpretation of the Bible (why did you say "Bibles" plural?) is correct.

 

[lucaspa]

First of all it is the scientists that contradict the bible not science.

First, it is an interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible.
Second, it is actually God contradicting that interpretation of the Bible.

Also before , when everyone thought the earth was flat:

Isaiah 40:21-23 (The Message)

21-24Have you not been paying attention?
Have you not been listening?
Haven't you heard these stories all your life?
Don't you understand the foundation of all things?
God sits high above the round ball of earth.

Sorry, but someone gave you false witness on the translation. The Hebrew word is "circle". Hebrew does have a word for "ball" that is used elsewhere in the Bible, but not here.

The only places in Isaiah where the Hebrew word for "ball" is Isaiah 22:18 and 29:3. Isaiah 22:18; Isaiah 29:3 - King James Version - KJV - Online Bible Study Tools

The word in Isaiah 40:22 is different and means only a circle or circumference: Chuwg - King James Version Hebrew Lexicon

I am afraid you have changed the Bible so that it can appear to say something it does not.

 

[it'sme]

Sorry, but someone gave you false witness on the translation. The Hebrew word is "circle". Hebrew does have a word for "ball" that is used elsewhere in the Bible, but not here.

The only places in Isaiah where the Hebrew word for "ball" is Isaiah 22:18 and 29:3. Isaiah 22:18; Isaiah 29:3 - King James Version - KJV - Online Bible Study Tools

The word in Isaiah 40:22 is different and means only a circle or circumference: Chuwg - King James Version Hebrew Lexicon

I am afraid you have changed the Bible so that it can appear to say something it does not

Actually I didn't think this was a serious question.
After reading that scripture and you are standing on the earth, no matter which way you looked there is a circle on the earth, what part of that is flat? Also how wide is the circle? Is it a centimeter wide? Is it a yard wide? What direction was the circle?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circle

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

 

[Calypsis4]

quote= ucaspa:
All in all, there is no reasonable possibility right now that evolution is wrong.

Wrong. There is no possiblity that evolution could be true for even if it did exist it would be in violation of natural law. Starting from the so-called 'big bang' right down to our day there is no way for evolution to operate at the same time natural law governs natural processes. Everything from the necessary a priori first cause to the Law of Biogenesis, to the laws of entropy are all against the formation of life on any world including earth.

It has been so strenuously tested that there are very few tests it could possibly fail; we have tried all the tests.

No, it has never been observed. Evolution is the change from simple organisms to more complex ones supposedly resulting in the vast array of life we see in existence today. But scientists can't even cause organisms to change into other organisms outside of their family/order. Genetically speaking; lions and tigers can produce offspring (ligers) and horses and donkeys can do likewise (mules) but they are all hybrids! Humans, on the other hands, cannot be successfully crossed with apes even though we are supposedly from a common ancestor! Why? Because God Almighty placed the genetic barriers between different organisms and they WILL NOT change into other organisms. Variation within the kind...yes, but no change from one class of organism into another is ever seen.

Right now the only data that would call "descent with modification" or common ancestry into question would be to find mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian strata.

No. There is no 'descent with modification' except within the family/order of the organism. You are talking about a lot of wishful thinking but empirical investigation never reveals change from one organism into another kind of organism.