Why I don't believe in evolution...

[The Barbarian]

Every living thing is made of carbon (soil's primary ingredient) and water. It's not a contradiction, it's a fact. God used water and carbon to make every living thing.

Fact remains that Genesis 1 says birds were produced by water, and Genesis 2 says they were produced by soil. It's a problem only if you assume that the creation account is a literal history.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Fact remains that Genesis 1 says birds were produced by water, and Genesis 2 says they were produced by soil. It's a problem only if you assume that the creation account is a literal history.

Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 say birds came from water...you are simply not reading those texts correctly. What translation are you using?

An English teacher could easily explain why to you.

1. Dry land was already created
2. Genesis chapter 2 elaborates on the bird creation briefly introduced in chapter 1. There is no conflict there.

I cannot explain it any more simply than this. It's not rocket science...it's simple English comprehension.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Let me explain this further with a few points to illustrate

In the Bible, in what text does it say crabs, lobsters, amphibians, mollusks, sea anemones, star fish, were created?

Where do the above creatures live...where are their young born, on land or in the water?

Are the above creatures swimmers or creepers?

The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.

There is no contradiction here...you simply are not reading the texts correctly. Add a bit of common sense and logic and even a limited knowledge of the types of animals/creatures found in the water and there is a really really simple explanation.

Also, I would suggest that when determining doctrine, it is foolishness to simply use one Bible translation (in this case the King James). You must find consistency across a range of translations that use different source material (codexes) for their basis. This is a fundamental difference between what educated scholars do, and those of us who are not...we take but one source and use that as fact (i am certainly no saint on that point)

For example, the Guttenburg translation (King James) appears to generally imply, or perhaps it may be read to even state, that animals (its moving creatures not birds) come up out of the water. However, if you read the original codexes, you will find that is not in fact that way it should be translated. Even so, if read in context with Genesis Chapter 2, Genesis chapter 1 and 2 do not actually contradict each other...they complement because one adds further information to the other (and creationists have absolutely no problem with that, it happens all through the Bible).

I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...as much as one may try to twist the two texts into proof of "Old Earth" evolution in terms of the creation process.

The unresolved fact actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved! Additionally, even if they did evolve, all of these creatures would have 100% needed to have evolved during Adam's lifetime. We know that the time he lived simply is consistent with that.
One may ask, oh but he was dated until after he and Eve sinned. That is true, however, there is further evidence of the fact they were not in the garden long...there is no mention of Cain and Abel until after the expulsion from the Garden. Clearly these two young men, even if possibly born in the garden, had no wives at the point of Abels death. This means that it is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination to suggest millions of years in the garden of Eden (not even thousands). It simply does not remain consistent with the breeding process of humans at the time. Attempting to twist the narrative in order to fit with evolution is so extreme its vastly more ridiculous than simply taking the narrative as is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 say birds came from water...

Well, let's take a look. From the KJV:

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

you are simply not reading those texts correctly.

I don't see how you could make it anything other than it says. An English teacher could easily explain why to you. In Genesis 1, the action is "waters bring forth" and object is moving creatures, and specifically fowl. Here the text says the waters brought forth birds.

In Genesis 2, the action is "out of the ground, the Lord God formed" and the obects are "beasts of the field and every fowl of the air. Here, the text says the ground brought forth birds.

2. Genesis chapter 2 elaborates on the bird creation briefly introduced in chapter 1. There is no conflict there.

Other than what from what exactly the birds were produced. In Genesis 1, it's water. In Genesis 2, it's the ground. Now, if this is a literal narrative, it's a problem. On the other hand, if God is speaking figuratively, meaning that living things were produced from non-living matter, it's not a problem.

I cannot explain it any more simply than this. It's not rocket science...it's simple English comprehension.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Well, let's take a look. From the KJV:

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Let me explain this further with a few points to illustrate

In the Bible, in what text does it say crabs, lobsters, amphibians, mollusks, sea anemones, star fish, were created?

Where do the above creatures live...where are their young born, on land or in the water?

Are the above creatures swimmers or creepers?

The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.

There is no contradiction here...you simply are not reading the texts correctly. Add a bit of common sense and logic and even a limited knowledge of the types of animals/creatures found in the water and there is a really really simple explanation.

Also, I would suggest that when determining doctrine, it is foolishness to simply use one Bible translation (in this case the King James). You must find consistency across a range of translations that use different source material (codexes) for their basis. This is a fundamental difference between what educated scholars do, and those of us who are not...we take but one source and use that as fact (i am certainly no saint on that point)

For example, the Guttenburg translation (King James) appears to generally imply, or perhaps it may be read to even state, that animals (its moving creatures not birds) come up out of the water. However, if you read the original codexes, you will find that is not in fact that way it should be translated. Even so, if read in context with Genesis Chapter 2, Genesis chapter 1 and 2 do not actually contradict each other...they complement because one adds further information to the other (and creationists have absolutely no problem with that, it happens all through the Bible).

I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...as much as one may try to twist the two texts into proof of "Old Earth" evolution in terms of the creation process.

The issue actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved! Additionally, even if they did evolve, all of these creatures would have 100% needed to have evolved during Adam's lifetime. We know that the time he lived simply is not consistent with that.
One may ask, oh but he was dated after he and Eve sinned. That is true, however, there is further evidence of the fact they were not in the garden long...there is no mention of Cain and Abel until after the expulsion from the Garden. Clearly these two young men, even if possibly born in the garden, had no wives at the point of Abels death. This means that it is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination to suggest millions of years in the garden of Eden (not even thousands). It simply does not remain consistent with the breeding process of humans at the time. Attempting to twist the narrative in order to fit with evolution is so extreme its vastly more ridiculous than simply taking the narrative as is.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.

Birds are not crabs, or other shellfish. Birds are mentioned specifically as being produced by water in Genesis 1, and by the ground in Genesis 2.

I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...

It's a problem only if you consider the creation account to be a literal narrative. Otherwise, it's not a problem at all.

The unresolved fact actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved!

That actually isn't a major problem for creationism, since humans evolved rather late in the Earth's history, so most other animals would be about. Of course, it's not a literal history, so that's not a problem at all.

I'm aware of many other problems with regard to creationism and Genesis, but the contradictory statements about birds in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (but only if you assume YE creationism) doesn't require consideration of evolution or any other scientific fact.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Birds are not crabs, or other shellfish. Birds are mentioned specifically as being produced by water in Genesis 1, and by the ground in Genesis 2.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] this is bordering on the level of complete stupidity...I have already addressed your apparent interpretation of birds coming from water. It simply does not even imply that...

Barbarian, are you familiar with the reason why a comma is used in writing?

a quick refresher...(How, Why And When To Use Commas Correctly In Writing (justpublishingadvice.com)

When it comes to writing, using too many short sentences can seem too simplistic for many readers.
You can quickly fix this issue by using a comma to lengthen the sentence while keeping your grammar in check.
If you are not confident in your writing yet, use a punctuation checker to help you.
Here is an example of using a comma to connect independent sentences.

She ran very quickly to catch the bus, but then she realized she forgot her phone.​

If there is a subject and verb in each phrase, you put the comma after the first clause because each one is a complete thought.
It is a great way of using commas because you can move from one point to another very quickly.​

I again repeat what i have said multiple times to you.

1. you are simply NOT reading the text correctly.
2. In fact it does not appear to even say Birds came up out of the water, it could be read as saying moving creatures came up out of the water (thus appearing to reference beasts of the field). The explanation is to compare it with Chapter 2 and then we are able to easily understand that in fact its creatures like amphibians, crabs, mollusks, anenomies, shellfish etc that is being talked about. (you completely ignore that these creatures even exist in your interpretation).

Finally, again i say, use some common sense and logic regarding naming of the animals. This does not fit in with the timeline of Adams life and death if put in evolutionary terms. IF you attempt to claim evolution of said creatures happens over less than 1000 years or so, you immediately give absolute credibility to Answers in Genesis and Is Genesis History.

Also, I have an interesting question for evolution... did prey animals evolve first or predators? (Its a bit of a chicken or the egg question really and the basic answer co-evolved doesnt really explain the dilemma here)

 

[The Barbarian]

1. you are simply NOT reading the text correctly.
2. In fact it does not appear to even say Birds came up out of the water, it could be read as saying moving creatures came up out of the water

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

It says that the water brought forth birds. Pretty clear here. "Creature" and "fowl" are objects of the transitive verb "bring forth."

Likewise,
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Likewise, "formed" is the transitive verb for the objects, "beast" and "fowl."

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, I have an interesting question for evolution... did prey animals evolve first or predators?

Good questions. Actually, "prey" is not a "job description", as "predator" is. Many predators also can end up as prey, for example,and some "prey" occasionally eat meat. Would bacteria that infect other cells be "predators", or would they have to be metazoans to qualify, in your opinion?

(Its a bit of a chicken or the egg question really and the basic answer co-evolved doesnt really explain the dilemma here)

It's not really a problem at all. The first heterotroph was almost certainly an herbivore. Does that count? Since the same sort of feeding can be used to consume sessile animals, there's no great leap in function there. I don't think you've given this enough thought to define your question meaningfully.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

OK this is just ridiculous. This guy who can't speak a lick of ancient Hebrew keeps insisting there is a contradiction in the Bible by ignoring basic rules of exegesis and an insistence on a 400 year old rendering. This is the sort of low quality argument one might expect from some petty internet atheist trying to disprove Biblical inerrancy.

Clearly, the account in Genesis 2 is a brief summarization of the more detailed, specific account of Genesis 1. This has been commonly understood for thousands of years. Whereas I have heard defenses given on hard sayings and common objections to a myriad of biblical criticisms and challenges, I have never seen anyone make anything of this. Can anyone really think Moses would actually contradict himself only one chapter later, even if it were allegory?

Weak sauce.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me explain this further with a few points to illustrate

In the Bible, in what text does it say crabs, lobsters, amphibians, mollusks, sea anemones, star fish, were created?

Where do the above creatures live...where are their young born, on land or in the water?

Are the above creatures swimmers or creepers?

The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.

There is no contradiction here...you simply are not reading the texts correctly. Add a bit of common sense and logic and even a limited knowledge of the types of animals/creatures found in the water and there is a really really simple explanation.

Also, I would suggest that when determining doctrine, it is foolishness to simply use one Bible translation (in this case the King James). You must find consistency across a range of translations that use different source material (codexes) for their basis. This is a fundamental difference between what educated scholars do, and those of us who are not...we take but one source and use that as fact (i am certainly no saint on that point)

For example, the Guttenburg translation (King James) appears to generally imply, or perhaps it may be read to even state, that animals (its moving creatures not birds) come up out of the water. However, if you read the original codexes, you will find that is not in fact that way it should be translated. Even so, if read in context with Genesis Chapter 2, Genesis chapter 1 and 2 do not actually contradict each other...they complement because one adds further information to the other (and creationists have absolutely no problem with that, it happens all through the Bible).

I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...as much as one may try to twist the two texts into proof of "Old Earth" evolution in terms of the creation process.

The unresolved fact actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved! Additionally, even if they did evolve, all of these creatures would have 100% needed to have evolved during Adam's lifetime. We know that the time he lived simply is consistent with that.
One may ask, oh but he was dated until after he and Eve sinned. That is true, however, there is further evidence of the fact they were not in the garden long...there is no mention of Cain and Abel until after the expulsion from the Garden. Clearly these two young men, even if possibly born in the garden, had no wives at the point of Abels death. This means that it is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination to suggest millions of years in the garden of Eden (not even thousands). It simply does not remain consistent with the breeding process of humans at the time. Attempting to twist the narrative in order to fit with evolution is so extreme its vastly more ridiculous than simply taking the narrative as is.

Could you explain that last paragraph a bit more? Just trying to understand what you're saying is a conflict with respect to Adam and theistic evolution. So God creates life (let's say hundreds of millions of years ago). Adam then names the animals (sometime in the last 1 million years ago). So where does the literalist conflict come into play?

 

[Job 33:6]

.

Also, I have an interesting question for evolution... did prey animals evolve first or predators? (Its a bit of a chicken or the egg question really and the basic answer co-evolved doesnt really explain the dilemma here)

There cannot be a prey without a predator, nor predator without prey. Though the natural interest in consuming another is its own action. So I would say that predators were born out of prey, meaning that prey pre existed the predators (though they were not technically prey until predators ate them).

And as far the chicken and the egg question, eggs of course came first (reptilian eggs, amphibian eggs etc.). Eventually chickens evolved from reptiles, from amphibians and thus continued their lineage of laying eggs.

These seem like easy questions.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK this is just ridiculous. This guy who can't speak a lick of ancient Hebrew keeps insisting there is a contradiction in the Bible by ignoring basic rules of exegesis and an insistence on a 400 year old rendering.

If you're saying that the English translation is in error, I'd be pleased to see your evidence for that.

Can anyone really think Moses would actually contradict himself only one chapter later, even if it were allegory?

That's the point, isn't it? If it was an allegory, it wouldn't be a contradiction.

There seems to be a difference of opinion in the two accounts, whereby the name for God is different in the two. The Yawehist, vs. the Elohist, in the estimation of many Biblical scholars.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

If you're saying that the English translation is in error, I'd be pleased to see your evidence for that.



That's the point, isn't it? If it was an allegory, it wouldn't be a contradiction.

There seems to be a difference of opinion in the two accounts, whereby the name for God is different in the two. The Yawehist, vs. the Elohist, in the estimation of many Biblical scholars.

You talk a lot of garbage.

Put truth on the left, nonsense on the right, and appeal to scholarship. Now all of a sudden the nonsense has a covering...for anyone not willing to challenge you. There may be scholarly "estimation" in regards to the ways in which the name of God is rendered, but there isn't a shred of scholarly backing to what you specifically suggested regarding the supposed contradiction of Genesis 1:20 and Genesis 2:19.

Your argument is completely farcical. The KJV is not very accurate, other translations fail to support your argument, you do not speak ancient Hebrew, and Genesis 2 is a brief summarization. You have nothing. Your assertion is laughable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your argument is completely farcical.

All you have is denial, and the assertion that the Bible is wrong. Not a very good position, I think.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I deny falsehood. I assert that the Bible is 100% true and stands alone as the only authority for matters of life, worship, and godliness. This is the only position for a born again believer.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

All you have is denial, and the assertion that the Bible is wrong. Not a very good position, I think.

How is it an assertion? What textual evidence supports your view?
I am deeply concerned that what I'm fact is happening is that consistent and logical arguments are not being presented on both sides.
Yes bias exists, however when corrected, there must be movement towards an honest resolution.
One cannot present deeply flawed arguments, have the appropriate corrections pointed out, ignore those very very obvious mistakes...And fail to modify ones view!

That is a completely dishonest way to carry on. I honestly believe that is a person burying their head in the sand in order to convince themselves that the firecracker lying on the ground immediately behind their exposed private parts, when it does go off, won't hurt!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Could you explain that last paragraph a bit more? Just trying to understand what you're saying is a conflict with respect to Adam and theistic evolution. So God creates life (let's say hundreds of millions of years ago). Adam then names the animals (sometime in the last 1 million years ago). So where does the literalist conflict come into play?

The conflict lies in the rationale that "all the land animals evolved within Adams lifetime".
Evolution does not allow for all of those land and flying species to evolve in less than millions of years. Adam did not live anywhere near long enough for said evolutionary process to take place.
The other very significant problem is that that vaste majority of scholars claim the book of Genesis to be a narrative. That poses problems for evolution and for a theist, the problems go far beyond the narrative...I would love a theistic evolutionist to provide me with an entire theme of the Bible story from that perspective.
The flood for example...has implications in theology from the overall theme of the fall and plan of salvation that is so intricately integrated to claim it's not global, or is just a story, it destroys the entire biblical theme.
To claim evolution, denies the relationship between a creator God and Jesus dying on the cross to save His perfect creation. To create something and breath the breath of life into that man's nostrils is an extremely personal and very physical interaction. Such an interaction is completely at odds with the idea God set things in motion and then sat back with his arms folded!
God said he notices even if a sparrow dies, and goes ok to say how more more important are men and women to him...this seems far too personal for a theistic evolution world view.
Finally the real biggy...
My assumption is a theistic evolutionist presupposes that evolution is absolute truth.
If so, that must mean they modify the Biblical narrative, which obviously is not absolute truth, to fit the evolutionary model!

I find that very problematic. If the Bible is not absolute truth, what is the point of even being a Christian...Genesis is unreliable because Moses made up a lot of stuff (remembering he wrote more books of the Bible than any other author)...if the beginning of the Bible isn't reliable, what does that say about the end...the book of Revelation must be nothing less than a fanciful load of tripe that a lonely man who had lost his mind isolated on a an island wrote in times of absolute delusion. Perhaps the Romans drugged him?

Unless the complexities of such issues as these are explained...this is farsical.
It's a big problem...I am keen for logical, coherent and consistent answers. I will be honest, they are not likely to change my mind...but I can't know this unless I test my own views alongside those of other world views!

 

[Job 33:6]

The conflict lies in the rationale that "all the land animals evolved within Adams lifetime".
Evolution does not allow for all of those land and flying species to evolve in less than millions of years. Adam did not live anywhere near long enough for said evolutionary process to take place.

Are you saying that Adam couldn't have named all the animals because dinosaurs were extinct before Adam lived? Is that where you're pointing out a scriptural conflict? Just trying to figure out what verses you're referring to.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

How is it an assertion? What textual evidence supports your view?
I am deeply concerned that what I'm fact is happening is that consistent and logical arguments are not being presented on both sides.
Yes bias exists, however when corrected, there must be movement towards an honest resolution.
One cannot present deeply flawed arguments, have the appropriate corrections pointed out, ignore those very very obvious mistakes...And fail to modify ones view!

That is a completely dishonest way to carry on. I honestly believe that is a person burying their head in the sand in order to convince themselves that the firecracker lying on the ground immediately behind their exposed private parts, when it does go off, won't hurt!

He has done this time and time again. I gave a very good exegetical breakdown of the second chapter of James and the relationship between faith and works, and he responded by plugging his ears and posting the same thing repeatedly. I laid it out point by point, providing context, giving examples, and letting scripture interpret scripture. He pretended as though he didn't notice any of it. He just kept parroting James 2:24 again and again as if it were some kind of "I win" card. It's the kind of response that's typical of a man so set in his thinking that no amount of reason or scripture in the world can do a thing to change it. Such a man is not here to learn or swap ideas, but to prejudicially impose onto others his own view of reality.