Life evolved. Deal with it.

Speedwell said:

You don't understand it very well if you think it denies God's authorship of the universe and everything in it. The theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God one way or the other.

Click to expand...

Evolution touches on no other issue than the development of life on earth. However, the explanations and answers provided deny the authority of God that is presented in Scriptures. Therefore, it at the very least denies the existence of the God of the Bible.

Kenny'sID said:

Aren't germs in the here and now so we can see them in action?

Click to expand...

Of course! Just like ToE.

Catch up.

tstor said:

Evolution touches on no other issue than the development of life on earth. However, the explanations and answers provided deny the authority of God that is presented in Scriptures. Therefore, it at the very least denies the existence of the God of the Bible.

Click to expand...

So what you're on about is your interpretation of scripture, not about the existence of God.

SeventyOne said:

You're certainly free to live in your delusion if that's what you wish.

The Scriptures have more than 2 chapters on the creation. Regardless, the two in Genesis are not different. Chapter 1 would be a literary device we call a frame story. Your reasoning for rejecting them because you deem them as different isn't because they actually are different, but rather just a lack of comprehension on your part.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A good many bible scholars agree that they are two different stories by two different authors writing about a century apart. And what about the three other creation stories in the Bible?

JackRT said:

Evolution does not usurp any claims of God. What it does is present an evidence based understanding of life on this planet. It happens to differ from some ancient creation stories.

Click to expand...

How about that ?! Nothing new - "it differs" from what God says,
and usurps
HIS WORD that says "everything reproduces itself" (paraphrased for whatever it is gives birth to the same) ...
Besides nothing in history ever evolved (as always needed in a very strange and impossible way) as the 'theory' keeps changing to try to explain away the truth.

HitchSlap said:

Of course! Just like ToE.

Catch up.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest you do more than catch up if you can't grasp the difference in the two. What a ridiculous comparison.

Speedwell said:

So what you're on about is your interpretation of scripture, not about the existence of God.

Click to expand...

Not only my interpretation of Scripture, but the interpretation of Scripture throughout the ages of the Jews and the church. It is the plain reading of the text and is the demanded interpretation from the original languages.

Speedwell said:

So what you're on about is your interpretation of scripture, not about the existence of God.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd even try to hide behind the very weak interpretation defense anymore. Pretend all you want but the bible is clear.

tstor said:

Not only my interpretation of Scripture, but the interpretation of Scripture throughout the ages of the Jews and the church. It is the plain reading of the text and is the demanded interpretation from the original languages.

Click to expand...

Whatever floats your boat. I don't buy it, but as long as you don't try to teach it in the public schools I have no problem with it.

Speedwell said:

Whatever floats your boat. I don't buy it, but as long as you don't try to teach it in the public schools I have no problem with it.

Click to expand...

I am against public schools, so I have no desire to teach anything in them.

Genesis chapter 1 reads like a poem *about* creation.

But what if we try to read it more literally?

Astrophysics is my hobby interest, and I've recently noticed some ways it accords with modern planetary formation theory.

(Warning, if you've never read it, I suggest to stop reading here, and get a clear mind, and try to read it like a poem, with an opening to the inspiration of it, first. That way, you might get the *real* sense of what it is about.)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Looking to see if it could correspond to what we have learned about our solar system and Earth, we notice a few things --

1) the amount of time for verse 1 is not stated (so it could be....8-10 billion years for instance). "heavens" simply means the Universe here

2) verse 2 seems to suggest a water world (echoed again in some later verses), which accords with some hypotheses in mainstream science about early Earth being largely a water world for a brief time (brief that is compared to billions of years)

3) verse 3 seems to indicate the beginning of the first "day" -- a day/night cycle -- like a planet has in relation to a star when the planet rotates and is not tidally locked to the star. So "light" would be that of the sun, necessarily. The notions that the 'light' as that of the Big Bang doesn't really fit this way of looking at the text. The light is the sun, as shown by the day/night cycle (the "fourth day" is addressed later below)

4) continuing in Genesis chapter 1 we don't have any indication one way or another if the "days" are consecutive, that is contiguous, continuous to each other, or if they may have been widely spaced in time. This level of precise detail simply isn't being addressed.

4.5) In the Bible, visions from God are a way scripture is revealed we know, as indicated for example (one of many examples) in 1 Samuel, chapter 3, verse 1. Also we know that often in a vision, the person receiving the vision does not understand all or often even much of it. They can only report what they see, without understanding. Using words they have.

5) the overall point of the chapter looks to be that in addition to God created all that is -- 'the heavens', the Universe -- seems to be the majesty of life on Earth unfolding, and appreciating the grand, stately unfolding of the wonder of life, over time

6) We notice the sun, moon and stars become visible on "day" 4, as if not visible before then. This makes sense as seen from the surface of the Earth, as if from a camera on the surface, in view of the reality that the Earth was warm and cloudy (everywhere, all the time) for on the order of a billion years or more, and even after cooling some would still have few or no clear days for some much longer time even after that. Life began under clouds though we do know with certainty, because we now know some early signs of microbial life on Earth dating back to 4.1 bn years ago, which is in the time when we expect heavy cloudiness was still constant.

7) Notice we should avoid presuming that "day" 4 was the first cloudless day, but is the first of the "days" in which the sun, moon and stars could be clearly seen from the surface, and may be been long after the first partly cloudy day.

Last, let me point out it is not necessary to read a vision as literal -- in scripture visions are most often instead stylized representations, and not necessarily like a mere camera style video, but it is interesting that it's hard to hold onto the idea it is only stylized. It may correspond more than we'd expect to exact moments in time, literally.

Still, one needn't know a single thing about astrophysics to get the message of Genesis chapter 1 correctly. It's not about mere concrete history. It's not about geology, weather, etc. Those aren't the point. It's about something else, and to get that one needs to read it forgetting all the doctrines and even preconceptions, like this very post.

If I want to get the real message of Genesis 1, I need to read it like I....just woke up, with a fresh mind, on the dawn of a new day.

Kenny'sID said:

I don't think I'd even try to hide behind the very weak interpretation defense anymore. Pretend all you want but the bible is clear.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The doctrine of Perspicuity. But it's interesting that you mention "defense." What is it that you suppose I am defending?

HitchSlap said:

Fantastic point!

http://io9.gizmodo.com/im-tired-of-seeing-this-charles-darwin-quote-taken-out-1678727678

Click to expand...

Below is the rest of the quote. It doesn't save Darwin or his theory. His "numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect" is still absurd to believe.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

tstor said:

There is no argument to be had.

Click to expand...

Got that right. If god creates all life on Earth, it was created to look like it evolved. Or, it actually evolved.

Either way, it still looks like it evolved.

PropheticTimes said:

Show me the fossils. There aren't any, NOT ONE. Not one kangaroo turning into a chicken. Not one ape turning into a man. Nothing. All the millions of fossils found in the fossil record and NOT ONE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Also no current half this/half that.

Theory debunked. Buh bye

Click to expand...

I don't know what's worse. The fact that creationists keep on with the same tired refrain they've been chiming for decades now or that new creationists continue to fall for it.

Either way, the ToE has not been debunked and is alive and well in the world of biology today.

Kenny'sID said:

I'd suggest you do more than catch up if you can't grasp the difference in the two. What a ridiculous comparison.

Click to expand...

I understand why you feel this way.

tstor said:

I am against public schools, so I have no desire to teach anything in them.

Click to expand...

Education, who needs it amirite? *high five*

JackRT said:

I disagree. A good many bible scholars agree that they are two different stories by two different authors writing about a century apart. And what about the three other creation stories in the Bible?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call such people Bible scholars.

HereIStand said:

Below is the rest of the quote. It doesn't save Darwin or his theory. His "numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect" is still absurd to believe.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Click to expand...

... sigh...

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

You need to get out more.

SeventyOne said:

I wouldn't call such people Bible scholars.

Click to expand...

Right, this is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.