Technology???

Status
Not open for further replies.

RiverJordan

Inactive
River, I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Please use some common sense. Human evolution is a black / white issue.
I can see that from your perspective, pretty much everything is a black/white issue.

Explain to me how you tie up genesis with human evolution. If you reject genesis, what do you visualise?
Again you show your black/white thinking. If I don't read Genesis the same way you do, then I must be "rejecting" it. No other possibilities even occur to you.

In simple terms, what is the point of Genesis 1&2? Is it a newspaper article written by God's ghost writer with the most important aspect being "this is how I did things"? If so, why so vague on the details? What does "let the earth bring forth..." mean? To me, that sounds like the earth "brought forth" all those things on its own according to God's design, and then He said "It is good".

When it says "And God said 'Let there be light'", that's not the same as "God directly made light", is it? God "let it be", didn't He? In fact, pretty much everything in Genesis 1 is God letting things happen.

As far as humans, again Genesis is pretty thin on the details. So if it's supposed to be a blueprint for how God makes things, why so vague? It just says "God created mankind in his own image", but it doesn't say how. In Genesis 2 we're told that man was "formed from the dust of the ground", but that can't be literally true since we're composed of a lot more than dust from the earth's ground, aren't we?

So there's a consistent theme in Genesis. When God creates, he "lets" things happen and doesn't give every last detail of the process. Why? Because whether God created via letting evolution work or by making us like little clay figurines isn't the point of Genesis. The point is that we fall short of God's glory and are in need of salvation. By obsessing over the details, you've lost sight of the big picture, overall point of the whole account.

With earlier species of hominids, that's consistent with the them of God letting the earth "bring forth" things. I believe that when H. sapiens reached a stage of intelligence, conscience, and morality, that's when God "breathed life" into us. That's when we acquired souls. After all, everything else on earth has life, doesn't it? So why do we have souls and chimps don't? We both "have life" do we not?

It's obvious. The "life" we have is different in that it is the gift of a soul, given directly by God.
 

Glomung

Account Closed
BTW, all living things have "souls".
The "type" of soul is the issue.
Rational soul - humans
Sensitive soul - animals
Vegetative soul - plants (and any other living thing not listed above)
 
In Genesis 2 we're told that man was "formed from the dust of the ground", but that can't be literally true since we're composed of a lot more than dust from the earth's ground, aren't we?

Not that i believe that the bible is a science text book.

Just to clarify what is dust.
As i undrestand, dust is composed of various such.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
Composition of the human body
Major, minor and trace elements
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All are necessary to life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought to be necessary for life, or play a role in good health (e.g., fluorine, which hardens dental enamel but seems to have no other function).
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Aha,

I agree with what you posted, but remember, we're talking about fundamentalist hyper-literalism here. If it says "dust of the ground", it means actual dust from the actual ground. In fundamentalist-world, if you reject that, you must reject all of the Bible and become an atheist. :eek:
 
With earlier species of hominids, that's consistent with the them of God letting the earth "bring forth" things. I believe that when H. sapiens reached a stage of intelligence, conscience, and morality, that's when God "breathed life" into us. That's when we acquired souls. After all, everything else on earth has life, doesn't it? So why do we have souls and chimps don't? We both "have life" do we not?

It's obvious. The "life" we have is different in that it is the gift of a soul, given directly by God.
Did you miss Heb 2:7? Please explain that one to me. Is God being vague / figurative? Do you see the monkeys God used to put souls in as being just beneath the angels? You don't see intelligence leading to accountability? Would you say the mentally handicapped and kids are accountable for their sins?
 
You claim we can't see evolution happen. I provided you multiple documented examples of new species evolving from older species, across a wide variety of taxa, and in both wild and lab conditions.

River, how many times to tell you that what you have is only semantics?

To this day there is no clear, entirely established, unchanging definition of “species”.

So when you ask us YECs to prove evolution wrong, how exactly can we do that, since we, just like you, don’t even know what exactly the definition of “species” is?

And if you somehow believe that you have a clear definition of species, let me wake you up to reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

So, if even mainstream evolutionists admit there is no clear definition for species, why exactly would you call that new Goatsbeard a new species? Just to play around with people here? Just to show something “in support” for your empty claim that you can see evolution happening right in front of your eyes?

In the end,
“A good way to start an argument among biologists is to ask them what seems a simple question: "What is a species?" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html

So why don’t you show me again evolution. Happening right now. Right in front of our eyes. After all, isn’t that what you claimed?


Your only response was to wave them all away with "that's not evolution".

Because, well… it isn’t.


You're not saying "you can't see evolution" because you think it hasn't happened, you're saying that because you believe it can't happen.

Doesn’t this look like: you see evolution happening because you believe it happens?


In your black/white world

Truly ironic. See above why.


if it turns out that evolution does happen, then you're only left with one choice....the Bible is 100% wrong, God doesn't exist, and you must become an atheist.

Indeed.

But I’m not so worried, because, well, evolution doesn’t happen. :)

See also further below, why to expect me to worry is false.


You're just not capable of anything else...anything in between the two extremes.

Indeed. And let me remind you that God Himself also isn’t capable of that. It’s not our way and God’s way, it’s only God’s way. So make sure you’re taking God’s way, instead of mankind’s ways. Because very soon there will be no human ways anymore.


So out of fear of that, you blankly deny anything and everything that might even hint at evolution being real.

Out of fear that my God, the Biblical God, would be wrong?

Really? Well, let me tell you a couple of things:

1. unlike you, who wipe the floor with the Old Testament and are thoroughly convinced that you’ll go to Heaven, I’m not even sure that I’ll make it to Heaven; I certainly don’t deserve it;

2. let me assure you that I do want to watch all sorts of movies, read all sorts of books, do all sorts of other things, like ordinary people. And the only reason for not doing all those things is one and one alone: the Biblical God.

Now you tell me the things you don’t do out of fear that evolution would be wrong…


As far as your quotes, would you like to examine them, one by one, and see if whatever source you've copied them from is telling you the whole story?

If by “the whole story” you mean that in the rest of the books, or articles, the authors argued for evolution (instead of against evolution), don’t bother - I already expect that. Aren’t they evolutionists, after all?

But that, however, doesn’t make what they said (what I quoted them to have said) less true.

As for the veracity of those quotes, yes I checked them personally myself. In other words I didn’t just take them from YEC sites and pasted them here. I checked the veracity either on google.books, or on mainstream sites (such as rationalwiki) with pages dedicated to what they call “quote mining”. So yes, I can affirm that indeed those fellows indeed said what I quoted them to say.

So let’s not lose time and instead talk about clear opposition between evolution and the Bible. I already showed you multiple such cases - feel free to talk about that.

Oh, and the Bible also claims uniformitarianism to be wrong. Not only in the general, by claiming the entire universe was affected by man’s sin, but also in particular, for example here: 2 Peter 3:3-4.

KJV:
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”


Are you at all interested in seeing if maybe...just maybe...you're wrong?

See above.


When it says "And God said 'Let there be light'", that's not the same as "God directly made light", is it?

Actually, that’s exactly what it means: direct creation. By speech. Even the term “universe” means exactly that: a unique spoken verse from God.

Fiat lux. God’s fiat is indeed creation (creation out of nothing, which is the real creation). Unlike man’s fiat. Which is always an empty claim, instead of the real thing. Think about fiat money, for example. Lysander and I have talked about that somewhat.


In fact, pretty much everything in Genesis 1 is God letting things happen.

Oh boy…

River, let’s try it the other way around: is there anything, anything at all, in the Bible that you believe is true? Literally true?

Because if we talk about interpretations, we could interpret things until Jesus comes, and that wouldn’t be fortunate for either of us, would it?

As for the rest of your comments in regard to Genesis, how about this: “after their kind”…

So no evolution. No matter how much you’d like it.

Not to mention that Jesus Himself said that God made them male and female:
Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6.

So where exactly is the evolution?

And how could you have missed these Genesis verses: Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2 ?

Not to mention all the contradictions that you’re forced to postulate for the sole reason of somehow trying to make evolution fit the Bible…

Such as:
“I believe that when H. sapiens reached a stage of intelligence, conscience, and morality, that's when God "breathed life" into us. That's when we acquired souls.”


So previous “people”, or whatever you call them, weren’t actually alive? Interesting. Then how exactly did they manage to eventually produce what we call humans?



Interesting. Where does this idea come from?

I’m also interested in that answer, because that idea certainly doesn’t come from the Bible.

According to the Bible, plants are not even alive, let alone having a soul. The Bible says that life is in the blood.

The Bible doesn’t use the term “live” in relation to plants, but instead it says that plants "grow" or "flourish”.

And the Bible doesn’t use the term “die” in relation to plants, but instead it says that plants “wither" or "fade”.

This again makes a clear separation between the Bible and evolution. I find that remarkable: that no matter what we’re discussing, evolution claims an opposed view to the Bible.

And here are some other problems that Christian evolutionists (or Christian big bangers, in case of Ross) must face:
http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe

And trust me, those are not all…

As for animals having souls, I couldn’t find Scriptural support for that, but I find interesting that 2 evolutionists contradict each other in regard to fitting evolution into the Bible. As for me, well, I think it’s the most impossible task in the world, so if I were you I wouldn’t bother. But I know you won’t drop evolution, so I guess you’re left with just that: the most impossible task in the world…

And, River, one more time:
- whose world is this? one or two words, please;
- do you believe in the Bible? yes or no, please.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
Did you miss Heb 2:7? Please explain that one to me. Is God being vague / figurative? Do you see the monkeys God used to put souls in as being just beneath the angels? You don't see intelligence leading to accountability? Would you say the mentally handicapped and kids are accountable for their sins?
??????????? You're not making any sense at all.
 

RiverJordan

Inactive
River, how many times to tell you that what you have is only semantics?

To this day there is no clear, entirely established, unchanging definition of “species”.
This is all you have? Saying that since defining "species" requires different approaches for different situations, that means evolution doesn't happen? LOL! :rolleyes:

We do have definitions for species...different definitions in different contexts. In most cases, if two populations are unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring, they are different species. That's what the Goatsbeard example was. Ah, but how can that apply to things like bacteria that reproduce asexually, or plant species that self-pollinate? In those cases, reproductive isolation can't apply, so we need a different definition of "species" for them. And then what about fossils? We can't tell if they were able to interbreed, and the species definition for asexual reproduction doesn't apply either, so we need yet another definition for "species" when it comes to fossils.

Of course to a black/white thinker, the above is waaaaaaaaay too nuanced. In your world, if there's not a singular, universal definition of "species", then the whole of evolutionary biology is wrong. All or none.

Doesn’t this look like: you see evolution happening because you believe it happens?
Does you see erosion happen because you believe it happens? See how ridiculous that sounds?

Indeed. And let me remind you that God Himself also isn’t capable of that.
Once again, you declare yourself to be the sole arbiter of the mind of God. Nothing else is possible.

1. unlike you, who wipe the floor with the Old Testament
And here we go again. :rolleyes: I don't read the OT in a hyper-literal sense like you, therefore the only other possibility is that I reject it wholesale and "wipe the floor" with it. Fascinating.

Now you tell me the things you don’t do out of fear that evolution would be wrong…
Like I said, if evolution is wrong, I want to be the person who proves it.

As for the veracity of those quotes, yes I checked them personally myself. In other words I didn’t just take them from YEC sites and pasted them here. I checked the veracity either on google.books, or on mainstream sites (such as rationalwiki) with pages dedicated to what they call “quote mining”. So yes, I can affirm that indeed those fellows indeed said what I quoted them to say.
Good.

So let’s not lose time and instead talk about clear opposition between evolution and the Bible. I already showed you multiple such cases - feel free to talk about that.
So you don't want to discuss the quotes you posted? Why not? Why would you post them and then refuse to discuss them? What are you worried might happen?

Oh, and the Bible also claims uniformitarianism to be wrong. Not only in the general, by claiming the entire universe was affected by man’s sin, but also in particular, for example here: 2 Peter 3:3-4.
I don't think you know what uniformitarianism means in science.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means: direct creation. By speech. Even the term “universe” means exactly that: a unique spoken verse from God.
Except it doesn't say "God created light". It says "God said, 'Let there be light'".

River, let’s try it the other way around: is there anything, anything at all, in the Bible that you believe is true? Literally true?
"Literally" is a subjective term that means different things to different people.

As for the rest of your comments in regard to Genesis, how about this: “after their kind”…
But it doesn't say what a "kind" is, does it?

So no evolution. No matter how much you’d like it.
Well, at least you made one thing clear. Your "no evolution" stance has nothing to do with science or anything like that, but is 100% about your hyper-literal approach to scripture.

Not to mention that Jesus Himself said that God made them male and female:
Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6.
And where exactly did Jesus say "Oh, and God didn't do that via evolution"? In fact, where does Jesus say anything about the methods God used to create things?

And how could you have missed these Genesis verses: Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2 ?
But again, no description of the method. I fully agree that God created us and everything else. You and I just disagree on the method.

Not to mention all the contradictions that you’re forced to postulate for the sole reason of somehow trying to make evolution fit the Bible…
Only to those who think in strictly black/white terms.

Such as:
“I believe that when H. sapiens reached a stage of intelligence, conscience, and morality, that's when God "breathed life" into us. That's when we acquired souls.”

So previous “people”, or whatever you call them, weren’t actually alive? Interesting. Then how exactly did they manage to eventually produce what we call humans?
??????????????? Where did I say they weren't alive? o_O

And, River, one more time:
- whose world is this? one or two words, please;
- do you believe in the Bible? yes or no, please.
Yet again you descend into questioning my faith. Pathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top