Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It is about questioning, from a science standpoint, these old stories from religious books (being this is the Science and Religion section). God magic can explain virtually anything no matter how unlikely or ridiculous, which ends any reason to debate the validity of the old stories at all. But I still maintain that even if god magic was involved (which it would have to be to cause such a global flood, then completely hide any evicence of it afterwards as there is no evidence of any kind for it today), he/she/it chose a very inefficient, cruel and time consuming method to do the killing.

That approach is inconsistent with god magic don't you think, especially since there is no reason to teach a lesson to the people being killed, and if the intent was mainly to kill all but 8 humans it would have saved a tremendous amount of time and hassle for the imaginary Noah and his gang if god had just made all the other humans vanish into thin air (which he could have done, of course, with more god magic). But that wouldn't make for a very interesting story I suppose. More likely that the writers of Genesis wanted to embellish the much earlier flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh, but they followed it in the same order without much imagination for some reason.

Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.

So, from one unlikely and ridiculous "story" to another.

[Tcg]

Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.

Yes, we all know the value of an argument based on incredulity. Beyond that, you consist of dead matter and yet are alive and are able to type and presumably talk.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

Living organisms were all created in 2 days (5th and 6th day). Nothing in there at all about a long, drawn out, 100 million year evolutionary process.

As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones.

Doesn't say "done."

It doesn't say...

It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you. Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that.

Again, implication.

Addition. You weren't happy with it as it is, so you changed it.

So then, ostriches aren't birds?

Who said that? I didn't.

You said birds were flying animals.

Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.

(note that by your standard for the bird kind, cats and dogs are in the carnivore kind)

Nope. Binomial nomenclature has no "kinds." To vague a word.

I am free to use words as I see fit, regardless how certain people feel about it.

Then you can hardly complain if your ideas are rejected.

For example, you think all birds, comprising a huge variety of organisms, are of one kind.

I do.

But I suspect that you consider humans and chimpanzees, who are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape, to be two different kinds. So you're stuck behind a rock and a hard place.

Well, I guess I am stuck...because after all, according to your religion (evolution), humans and chimps are related.

According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.

No, by your bird classification, canines and felids are one kind, the carnivora. Just one order of the carnivoriformes. There is much less genetic, anatomic and evolutionary distance between dogs and cats then there is between groups of birds.

That all depends on what is meant by "kind"

Which is why Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.

, which I stated (imo) is limited to the genus, and not the order, as you suggest here.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

Too vague?

See above. No point in denial.

Ah, so scripture was wrong until the NIKJV was published? You sure about that? How do you know this new change isn't wrong?

I don't know,

So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?

No electricity, either. Or viruses, or hibernation. Lots of things are true that aren't in the Bible. The point is that evolution is consistent with the Bible, but the text itself rules out literal 24 hour days in the creation story.

I don't see a reptile evolving into a bird anywhere in there.

Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?

[Miles]

Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.

Gotta agree. Particularly the ridiculous part.

Genesis 2:7 & 19

7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man

19 The Lord God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air.

The real clincher here tho is that god couldn't simply wave a wand and *poof* Adam and animals would suddenly appear, but that he had to use dust, which I imagine was magic faerie dust. So much for being all powerful.


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #252]

Yeah, but the idea that dead matter came to life and began to talk strikes me as unlikely and ridiculous.

That's a bit of a simplfication, to say the least. The "dead matter came to life" part may have been of the order of a measly few hundred million years if it happened entirely on Earth, or much longer if some kind of panspermia scenario is viable. But let's stick with the former. In that case we have some 3. 5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million, between the first single-celled organisms appearing and something that could "talk" (assuming that means an animal that could make sounds to communicate with others of its "kind", which happened long before humans came along).

So you have to look not at something that could "talk", but the transition from "dead matter" as you put it, to the simplest organism that we'd call "life" today (most likely some sort of single-celled entity that barely qualifies as a living thing that can use energy and reproduce). That is a much less complicated proposition than jumping directly from dead matter to something that can talk, and of course evolution does not suggest that dead matter can come to life and talk since it makes no inferences on how life originated in the first place ... only how it diversified (evolved) once that first step did happen.

Lastly, since the writers of the biblical texts had no knowledge of microorganisms simply because they couldn't see them, they are not described in the Genesis creation myth. What "kind" do these living things belong to? Surely you don't deny that bacteria and archaea are living things (and they can't "talk").

[We_Are_VENOM]

As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Hmm. Trying to figure out how does one "rule out the days of Genesis being literal 24-hour ones", when the text clearly states a "day" is comprised of 3 parts...."day", "evening" and "night"...wow, fast forward x amount of years later, it is the same thing.

It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.

Well in that case, it doesn't say "not finished yet", either...and that hasn't stopped you from believing that things were "not finished yet".

The Bible is clear; God created all "kinds" in a matter of 2 days, and there is no scriptural evidence of any other "kinds" being created after this account.

Now of course, you can believe what you want...but just know that what you are believing is unscientific and more importantly, unscriptural.

Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that.

Evolutionist: Humans evolved from primates

Bible: So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Sure, consistency.

Addition. You weren't happy with it as it is, so you changed it.

Nothing was changed. An implication was made based on an interpretation of the text, which I still say; after it was declared "good" but God, it was considered "done" by God.

You can say "but it doesn't say "done", though".....and then I will say "well, it doesn't say "not quite finished yet so I need to do more", either.

But at the end of the day; where is the 100 million year evolutionary process in Genesis? I don't see it. Dogs produce dogs.

Then you can hardly complain if your ideas are rejected.

As much rejecting of "ideas" that I am guilty of on here, I can hardly complain.

According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.

Big difference between "could be", and "are". You do understand the difference, correct?

Which is why Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.

I clearly stated that "kinds" are lmited to genus....if you call that vague when "genus" is clearly defined in science (which is something I thought you'd appreciate), then I don't know what to tell ya.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....whatever name you want to call them is up to you.

So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?

And how do you know if the translation you provided was right? I didn't say mines was right...my only point was; not all translations renders it the same way that you provided.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?

True, those things you mentioned are not in the Bible, but guess what; we are talking about evolution right now and the mentioning of those other things is a red herring.

BTW...I will do a couple of more exchanges with you on this subject and give you the last word.

[Tcg]

It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....whatever name you want to call them is up to you.

I'm not sure what you may being trying to prove here, but according to the text of the flood myth, birds were not one single kind:

Genesis 6:20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

As can be clearly seen here, birds are considered distinct from "every kind of animal" and there existed more than one kind of bird.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

Nice to see your definition shifting so quickly.

It is one of those good shifts, though. You see, I am not a dinosaur enthusiast (not saying that you guys are), and quite frankly, there are tons of animals that existed in the past that I am just simply unaware of.

So, when you show me an alleged "bird" with no wings, then I have to make adjustments to my beliefs as the evidence pours in.

Evidence was presented, I acknowledged it, and adjusted my belief...isn't that what any genuine truth-seeker is supposed to do??

Ohhh, I get it...when a scientist does it, it is sincerely the most honorable thing in the world...but when anyone else does it, especially an unbeliever in evolution, it is "definition shifting".

Smh.

I have no issues with you updating your knowledge and commend that, but given your entire argument is based on "kind" it would seem strange that you don't know what all the "kinds" are, nor what actually composes one of the simple ones like 'bird kind'. I have NEVER seen anyone present any solid definition of what a 'kind' is and when pressed on a given one, it always falls apart as shown.

It has nothing to do with being 'honorable'. Science always follows observation. ALWAYS. Science deniers only seem to follow observation when it suits them and/or when it doesn't threaten their chosen theology.

You can SYH all you want, It doesn't really bring anything to the debate.

Great, what "kind" was it then? They were pretty big, so if it's one of the original "kinds" the ark is filling up fast. Maybe you could enlighten us heathens as to what all the "kinds" are? Apparently we just found a new one.

That is where things get tricky. I think "kinds" are limited to genus. Once you leave the genus, you leave the kind.

Hold on, now you want to mix scientific terms with Biblical ones? I realize you said "I think", but that is not Biblically based or scientifically based, so now you are purely guessing. I'm also curious why you choose genus.

See:

http://birding-world.com/bird-classification-works/

It seems class would be more appropriate, but then again once you accept scientific taxonomy, your whole theory goes out the window.

[The Barbarian]

As you learned, even ancient Christians were aware that the text itself rules out the days of Genesis as being literal 24-hour ones. [/quote]

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Before there was a sun to have them. Which is logically absurd. This is how the text tells you that it's not a literal history of a week of 24-hour days.

It doesn't say "done." You added that to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.

Well in that case, it doesn't say "not finished yet", either...and that hasn't stopped you from believing that things were "not finished yet".

But unlike you, I don't pretend that the Bible says that. The evidence shows it. You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you. Now of course, you can believe what you want...but just know that what you are believing is unscientific and more importantly, unscriptural.

Yes the Bible doesn't mention protons and nuclear decay and common descent and lots of other things that are true. It's just consistent with all of that. [/quote]

Evolutionist: Humans evolved from primates

Bible: So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever.

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.

Nothing was changed.

See above. "Done" was your additon.

An implication was made based on an interpretation of the text,

Which is the excuse of every person who adds things to the text.

You can say "but it doesn't say "done", though".....and then I will say "well, it doesn't say "not quite finished yet so I need to do more", either.

The Bible says neither of those things. You just chose one and added it.

But at the end of the day; where is the 100 million year evolutionary process in Genesis? [/quote]

Right were it mentions protons. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible.

Dogs produce dogs.

But first wolves produced dogs.

According to your religion (creationism) they aren't. According to my religion (Christianity), they could be.

Big difference between "could be", and "are".

Yes. The former merely indicates that it's consistent with evolution. The latter would declare that evolution is true. As you learned, the Bible is consistent with evolution.

Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.

I clearly stated that "kinds" are lmited to genus....

In one place. Then you switched the story and declared that all birds (an entire class) were one "kind." You seem to have made my argument for me.

if you call that vague...

Claiming "kind" is limited to genus in one breath, and then claiming it covers an entire class in another breath demonstates that the term is very vague for you.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

It is pretty clear. Birds are a "kind" of animal....

Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.

(regarding claims that the Bible was wrong before a particular modern version)
So how do you know which one is right, if you can't tell?

And how do you know if the translation you provided was right?

You made the claim. I'm just asking you to support it.

(regarding claim that nothing is true if it's not found in the Bible)
Or electricity. Or magnetism. Or many other things. If you are now claiming that nothing can be true, if it's not in the Bible, care to show me the verse?

True, those things you mentioned are not in the Bible, but guess what; we are talking about evolution right now and the mentioning of those other things is a red herring.

So now it's "there can be things that are true, that aren't in the Bible, but evolution can't be true if it's not in the Bible." But you failed to give us any reason to believe that.

BTW...I will do a couple of more exchanges with you on this subject and give you the last word.

I think your major dissatisfaction is that God has the last word.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Before there was a sun to have them. Which is logically absurd. This is how the text tells you that it's not a literal history of a week of 24-hour days.

Not if "let there be light" was the commanded manifestation of the sun. That may be how the text tells us that it was a literal 24-hour day.

But unlike you, I don't pretend that the Bible says that. The evidence shows it.

Neither did I. And you have no evidence of a Biblical 100 million year evolutionary period that has to do with creation, or ANYTHING.

You just made something up and inserted it into the Bible to make it more acceptable to you.

Says the guy who made up something (a phantom 100 million year timeframe) to fit an unscientific/unbiblical theory regarding a man-made bio-religion (evolution).

Since as Jesus says, a spirit has no body, and that God is a spirit, we realize that the "image" is in our minds and living souls, not because God has a nose or fingernails or whatever.

Red herring. That has nothing to do with you stating that the Bible is consistent with evolution, yet the Scriptures (particularly the man-ape thing), saying otherwise.

You weren't happy with the Bible as it is, so you changed it.

I am happy with the Bible as it...which is that God created all of the animals in 2 days, not in a 100 million years as some people want to believe in order to fit their bio-religion.

See above. "Done" was your additon.

Um, I did not say that the Bible said "done". Done was my own implication.

And when I quoted what the Bible said, "God saw that it was good", the quote doesn't have "done" in there, does it? No, it doesn't.

Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop.

Which is the excuse of every person who adds things to the text.

"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."

The Bible says neither of those things.

Right, so you believe the Bible is compatible with evolution, despite the Bible not saying it. Gotcha.

You just chose one and added it.

"Perhaps if you simply go back and read post #247, you will realize how wrong you are and maybe these obvious red herrings will stop."

Right were it mentions protons.

Well, we will have that conversation once a debate about whether the Bible is compatible with protons is engaged.

But first wolves produced dogs.

Right, and I stated here plenty times that "canines produce canines", which covers wolves producing dogs, dontcha think?

Yes. The former merely indicates that it's consistent with evolution. The latter would declare that evolution is true. As you learned, the Bible is consistent with evolution.

I understand why you would want it to be consistent with the Bible. But I need you to understand that it isn't consistent with the Bible.

Christians reject your "kinds"; it's so vague and flexible you can stretch it and twist it to be one thing here, and another there.

It is rejected, yet it is in the Bible; the exact word. Wow.

In one place. Then you switched the story and declared that all birds (an entire class) were one "kind." You seem to have made my argument for me.

Yes. Birds are one "kind" of animal. If there is any solid/valid argument made that is contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet.

Claiming "kind" is limited to genus in one breath, and then claiming it covers an entire class in another breath demonstates that the term is very vague for you.

And yet birds, comprising an entire class, you've tried to squeeze into one "kind", while two members of an order, you've tried to separate into two "kinds." It's just a word you use for "whatever I want it to be at the time." Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

I guess you will feel that way, if you assume that a mammal can't be a bird (bat)....but then your assessment will be contrary to the Bible (which states that bats are birds)...when you previously stated that the Bible and evolution are compatible.

SMH.

Primates are a "kind" of animal. So are vertebrates. Now you've tossed all animals with backbones into a kind.

You mentioned primates here, not I.

You made the claim. I'm just asking you to support it.

I don't recall claiming that the NKJV was "right". Do you? Show me.

So now it's "there can be things that are true, that aren't in the Bible, but evolution can't be true if it's not in the Bible."

But you failed to give us any reason to believe that.

Well let me put it to you this way..

1. Theistic evolution is possible and "may" be true, but I have no good reasons in science or in the Bible to believe that it is true, and I have what I believe to be good evidence to the contrary that it is true.

So, theistic evolution is rejected based on #1.

2. Natural evolution (without God) is naturally impossible and cannot be true, as I have good evidence against it and no good evidence for it.

3. Conclusion: Evolution is a false theory.

I think your major dissatisfaction is that God has the last word.

Huh?