Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

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




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up any and all problems with your new doctrines, than any story is equally plausible.

"God did it" = a miracle

It is in the Bible = scriptural

I'm pretty sure that if this global flood actually had happened a large number of plants would not have survived

(more non-scritural miracles invented)

God did it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.


.

So much for being all powerful? The idea is that God created; from NOTHING. It doesn't get any more powerful than that.

[The Barbarian]

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up any and all problems with your new doctrines, than any story is equally plausible.

"God did it" = a miracle

If said miracle is in the Bible. If not, it's just someone's imagination.

The stated miracle is actually stated in the Bible = scriptural

The stated miracle is not actually stated in the Bible = not scriptural

[The Barbarian]

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

God says living things came from dead matter. I believe Him. You should, too.

[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.


.

So much for being all powerful? The idea is that God created; from NOTHING. It doesn't get any more powerful than that.

DUST . . .

..................................................Dust storm: Dubbo, Parkes, Nyngan

. . . IS HARDLY "NOTHING."

If god didn't need dust to make man and animals why do you suppose he bothered with it? For fun?



.

[The Barbarian]

Even ancient Christians knew that the text itself said it wasn't a literal history. It is logically absurd to have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

Not if "let there be light" was the commanded manifestation of the sun.

That's not in scripture. It's you addition to make it the way you want it to be.

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

And you have no evidence of a Biblical 100 million year evolutionary period that has to do with creation, or ANYTHING.

I do have extensive evidence for an Earth billions of years old. Would you like to learn about some of it?

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)

You were misled about that. There is abundant evidence for billions of years of Earth.

to fit an unscientific/unbiblical theory regarding a man-made bio-religion (evolution).

As you discovered, an ancient Earth is entirely consistent with the Bible, and there is abundant scientific evidence for it.

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. It's not our bodies that are in the image of God.

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

That has nothing to do with you stating that the Bible is consistent with evolution,

You were led to believe that our "image" was like God, in a physical sense. As you see, now, that's false.

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

I am happy with the Bible as it...

I see your denial, but your other words are more convincing.

See above. "Done" was your additon.

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

Yes. You added it to make it more acceptable to you.

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

It's compatible with electricity, too, despite the Bible not saying it.

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.

That is the creationist belief, but it is not the Christian belief.

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.

But God doesn't use it in any of the ways you use it. First you said it was limited to genus. Then you said it included an entire class of organisms. You use it for whatever you want it to be at the time. Wow.

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.

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

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

I don't recall claiming that the NKJV was "right".

So you just tossed that up, not believing it to be right?

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,[/quote]

Since evolution is observable every day, that's wrong. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

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

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

"Few hundred million years" = Time of the Gaps.

, or much longer if some kind of panspermia scenario is viable.

Panspermia = "Anything but the "G" word".

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).

"In all of that time, anything could of happened".

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.

When I said "came to life and began to talk", it was me fast-forwarding it...but, since it didn't happen at all, it doesn't matter if things happened fast or in slow motion.

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").

That is actually a problem for your side of things, not mines. Because not only do you have to explain how life naturally arose from nonliving material, but that is a separate question as to where did the consciousness (life, sentience) came from.

Two totally different problems, and not one single solution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

There is a "kind" of animal (in this case, birds), and then there are variations within the kind (pigeons, parrots).

No problems there.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I have no issues with you updating your knowledge and commend that

I really couldn't tell.

, 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.

I said on more than one occasion that "kind" as it relates to this subject is genus. I don't know how many more times I have to say it.

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.

Threaten their theology? Not the case with me. If I choose to accept the ToE, my faith/theology is not in jeopardy.

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

LOL.

Hold on, now you want to mix scientific terms with Biblical ones?

Do you know what a synonym means? A synonym is two words that mean the same thing...and in this case, I am saying "kind" (Bible) means the same thing as "genus"...and I fail to see what the problem is here.

I realize you said "I think", but that is not Biblically based or scientifically based, so now you are purely guessing.

That is my "hypothesis". There, another religious folk using a "scientific" term.

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.

It doesn't matter which term you use to categorize them, as long as they are in the same category...thats all that matters.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up any and all problems with your new doctrines, than any story is equally plausible.

"God orchestrated the worldwide Flood" (Genesis chp 6-9). Seems scriptural to me. What about you? No?