Issues with Creation

[Underdog77]

Then you haven't looked very closely at the fossil record. The fossil record shows us not only what lived, but when and how things lived. It shows us that not all animals that are represented in the fossil record were alive at one time and that new species and types of animals came onto the scene over time as others went extinct.

Lots of new thing were produced and things certainly changed quite a bit.

How come we don't find any mammals with the dinosaurs? How come the we can see the evolution of hominids by looking at the location and timeframe of fossils that have been found? How come all of this is predicted by evolutionary theory and continues to be verified with each new find?

You keep talking about new 'kinds'. New 'kinds' are abundant in the fossil record. At one point, mammals were a new 'kind' as well as birds. They did not exist for the entire history as layed out in the fossil record.

Evolutionary theory and mainstream geology explain this evidence quite well. It makes sense of what we see an does a better job of predicting what we will continue to find than any other hypothesis that has been proposed.

First of all I would like links or even books, I will read a whole book just to find your evidence. I keep asking for some and people generally don't/won't/or can't give them to me.

Second, I don't really have the time to respond to this today (I am a teen...I do have a computer limit) but I promise to get back to this either Wednesday or Thursday.

 

[notto]

First of all I would like links or even books, I will read a whole book just to find your evidence. I keep asking for some and people generally don't/won't/or can't give them to me.

Second, I don't really have the time to respond to this today (I am a teen...I do have a computer limit) but I promise to get back to this either Wednesday or Thursday.

Here is a well researched and document listing of new 'kinds' coming about and old ones going away as laid out in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

 

[theFijian]

1 corinthians 15: 39

The context the verse is set in is about the resurrection body, what are you trying to get at by quoting this verse? Paul seems to be distinguishing mankind from the animals in the respect that mankind will be raised again whereas animals will not.

Andy

 

[Underdog77]

Here is a well researched and document listing of new 'kinds' coming about and old ones going away as laid out in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Relatively long, but I read it and get back to you.

 

[herev]

Technically you can interpret anything to mean anything you want even if it is ridiculous and that is what I mean. My 'interpretation' is more accurate, if not completely accurate, than TE or OEC.

I can say "I walked down the street to the store" and you can say it means whatever you want but what would most accurate is to believe I meant that I literally walked down the street to the store.

I recognize that others may think the Bible means something different but they have no passages that indicates it.

there is a difference between stating factually that you walked down the street or that I SAW you walking down the street--it is not open to interpretation--BUT if you wrote that you walked down the street and thousands of years later, you weren't here to ask, some may that down meant literally downhill, while others would say that was an expression. In that case, they would be interpreting what you wrote. We don't have the original writers (nor the orignal writings, for that matter) to ask, so we must interpret. When you state that your interpretation is more accurate, THAT is an opinion

 

[herev]

So what about the Bible? Is God in charge enough to reveal to us His word?

yes, and he reveals to us in many ways. There's universal revelation, special revelation and natural theology to name a few. In reference to the last, we can see God has revealed himself through the creation. As we are created by God to be in his image (we are then the creation), then we can look at man and discern some things about God. We can also look to the created earth--the creation to see how God has revealed himself there.

 

[notto]

Relatively long, but I read it and get back to you.

Nobody said that understanding millions of years of evidence as laid down in the fossil record and put together through researching thousands of fossils was going to be easy. Of course it's long, there is a lot of evidence and information there to discuss. Hopefully it will clear up just what kinds of things we find in the fossil record for you. If you haven't gone through something like that before, your statements on the fossil record would seem to have been a bit premature.

 

[herev]

Oh but it does. The Bible says God created in 6 literal days and evolution (any form of it) says the earth and everything come about over millions and millions of years.

no, your literal interpretation and evolution are in conflict, my interpretation of the Bible is not in any way in conflict with evolution

 

[Underdog77]

there is a difference between stating factually that you walked down the street or that I SAW you walking down the street--it is not open to interpretation--BUT if you wrote that you walked down the street and thousands of years later, you weren't here to ask, some may that down meant literally downhill, while others would say that was an expression. In that case, they would be interpreting what you wrote. We don't have the original writers (nor the orignal writings, for that matter) to ask, so we must interpret. When you state that your interpretation is more accurate, THAT is an opinion

With the Hebrew language, that is a fact. Anything else you say about that is either ignorant falsehood or blatant lying.

 

[Underdog77]

yes, and he reveals to us in many ways. There's universal revelation, special revelation and natural theology to name a few. In reference to the last, we can see God has revealed himself through the creation. As we are created by God to be in his image (we are then the creation), then we can look at man and discern some things about God. We can also look to the created earth--the creation to see how God has revealed himself there.

So if God is in charge enough to reveal His word to us and we know that He said He created the universe and everythin in it in 6 literal days then evolution is impossible!

 

[herev]

I don't how many times I've explained the Biblical evidence and I'm tired of writing it so go to the "Old and Young Earth-Translations" thread and read my post which is #18. It ought to explain Yom in a good way but again if it is too muddled I'll rewrite it in better form.

Also, when I claim to be a literalist (a name I would not choose but rather was bestowed upon me and the others like me) it simply means that I know the creation account depicts 6 literal days. I do know that some of the Bible is figurative, poetry, and prophecy but most of it is clearly non-literal. The creation account on the other hand is clearly literal. The reason people want to change that is because the feel the need to compromise to the evolution belief.

you missed the point in a couple of places. While you, as an obviously very intelligent 17 year old (that was intended as a serious compliment) and many others, noted scholars, teachers, preachers, etc. believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are to be read literally, many others have studied it and not come to that conclusion. If you are going to say that there must be biblical evidence to support a non-literal reading, then why not in Ecclesiastes, as well--why only in Genesis is it required that I prove biblically that there is adequate reason to interpret non-literally?
additionally, it really doesn't matter to me how the word yom is translated--I have read those posts and studied them, regardless, this is not evidence of a need to interpret literally.

 

[Underdog77]

Nobody said that understanding millions of years of evidence as laid down in the fossil record and put together through researching thousands of fossils was going to be easy. Of course it's long, there is a lot of evidence and information there to discuss. Hopefully it will clear up just what kinds of things we find in the fossil record for you. If you haven't gone through something like that before, your statements on the fossil record would seem to have been a bit premature.

You don't know how many books I've read on fossils, geology, etc... I've that stuff before I'm just giving ya'll a fair chance to present what you believe is evidence. I know my stuff, I'm just trying to be fair.

 

[Underdog77]

no, your literal interpretation and evolution are in conflict, my interpretation of the Bible is not in any way in conflict with God's word

Your interpretation is a hokey, inaccurate, compromising interpretation.
It does not follow the language and there is no way you can logically counter that.

 

[herev]

With the Hebrew language, that is a fact.

fact is a strong word, I like facts--show me one

Anything else you say about that is either ignorant falsehood or blatant lying.

that is a falsehood and blatantly insulting. Do you honestly believe that anyone who hold a different opinion from you is either ignorant or lying? That put yourself way up there on a pedestal, you could get hurt falling--Be careful

 

[herev]

So if God is in charge enough to reveal His word to us and we know that He said He created the universe and everythin in it in 6 literal days then evolution is impossible!

But we don't KNOW that he created everything in it in six literal days--that is an interpretation, circular logic begins here

 

[herev]

Your interpretation is a hokey, inaccurate, compromising interpretation.
It does not follow the language and there is no way you can logically counter that.

hokey--good word, but actually, it's not phony, it just doesn't match yours. Show me how the language insists that this is literal.
Why is it that you have been alive less time than my Hebrew teacher has been teaching Hebrew and you know better than she?

and additionally, I've been studying this issue since before you were born--now that doesn't make me right--I'll grant you that, but you show a lot of gall in suggesting that yours is the only "logical" way to read the Bible.

 

[notto]

You don't know how many books I've read on fossils, geology, etc... I've that stuff before I'm just giving ya'll a fair chance to present what you believe is evidence. I know my stuff, I'm just trying to be fair.

Then why would you make a statement that the fossil record doesn't show much change in animals? Why would you make a statement that suggests that what we see is the same as life today with a few extinctions? Chances are that there are more species and types of extinct animals represented in the fossil record then are currently alive today. Like I said, it would appear that you haven't looked very closely at what we know about the fossil record.

 

[herev]

again, Underdog, I care not that you believe in a literal creation--God bless you for it, I support people reading, studying, and learning for themselves, but when you tell me that if I believe otherwise then my faith is weak, or that I don't believe God, or that I believe men more than God, you must prove that--problem is--you can't. You don't know me. We both presumably believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who came to earth and died for our sins, was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God. The rest are small matters and we can debate them in heaven. For you to even come close to implying that my interpretaion of 2 chapters in the beginning of the OT, which were written thousands of years before Christ, which were written of a time in which there were no witnesses, which occurred even thousands of years before Moses wrote them down--then you have crossed a line into judging and that is not your place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First of all I would like links or even books, I will read a whole book just to find your evidence. I keep asking for some and people generally don't/won't/or can't give them to me.

Second, I don't really have the time to respond to this today (I am a teen...I do have a computer limit) but I promise to get back to this either Wednesday or Thursday.

the best book i am aware of on the topic of human evolution is:

Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata


here is my review of it

This is simply the best book i've found on human evolution. The subtitle is "The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent", don't be put off if you don't have a degree in biochemistry. Unlike most other technical and scientifically sophisticated books, in this one, the author holds your hand. He does it very well, introducing binominal and poisson distribution analysis both in the text and in appendices, for example. You are aware of his careful setting up the pieces that you need in order to understand the take home message of each chapter, and you are grateful, even if you already know the material, for the 'nice' way he does it. I finished the book wishing he would rewrite many biology and engineering textbooks i have been subjected to over the years by authors who assumed if you didn't know exactly what you were reading, then you shouldn't have bought and tried to read his book in the first place. For this characteristic alone the book is deeply and joyfully to be praised.

I am aware of the divisive character of the debate on human origins, this book will not settle it. But it will be a book that can be recommended to bring your reasonable intelligent but somewhat scientifically ignorant friend up to speed on the issues from a unabashed secular scientific viewpoint. It will, i would hope, set a standard for introductory books in the field. For if it can get a hearing, and even become popular then other authors will be forced to help people understand their arguments by giving them the tools to analyze and understand their positions, not just assume them. Now this doesn't negate the need to do your homework in order to be a serious student in any field, many things will take lots of reading to get the basis for advanced arguments. Something that will never be done in one, or even a set of books. But as the authors prove a reasonable grasp of human evolutionary arguments from a biochemical/genetic point of view is not that sophisticated of a field to require volumes, just this one.

Lest i miss an important issue, i would like to state that the author, like most secular scientific people makes the mistake of drawing metaphysical conclusions from scientific data. This i belief to be the problem of scientism, the unjustified extension of method-science into metaphysics or religion. The authors would certainly disagree with me. In any case, their philosophic position is clearly stated, open and presented in a manner that is not belittling of a religious prespective. So even if you are a theist i believe that there is much to be gained from reading this book, don't let the scientism put you off.

thanks for reading this review, and please get the book, it is certainly a most important topic, whether you agree with evolutionary analysis or not, you must be informed.

it would go a long away towards giving you the basis of the field.

 

[Faith In God]

The context the verse is set in is about the resurrection body, what are you trying to get at by quoting this verse? Paul seems to be distinguishing mankind from the animals in the respect that mankind will be raised again whereas animals will not.

Andy

nicely explained away. Paul still said what he said, and would not speak lies into the word of God.

'All flesh is not the same'. that kind of goes against saying that all life came from a single source.