 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Apollos wrote: | | 4. God showed Adam the entire creation – and NOT ONE creature was a suitable companion If evolution were true, then Adam would have some form of a ape/human relative (i.e. parent or sibling) that was relatively close in appearance, abilities, etc. Since none were found, scripture clearly presents that man did not evolve from some ape/human ancestor. Remember that scripture states that a ‘kind’ only produces after its ‘kind’. |
The question assumes the historicity of the story. If one does not accept that assumption, the point is moot. If the creation story is a myth, the story-teller is free to tell it as s/he sees fit. It is not necessary for it to conform to historical/scientific reality.
As for the manner of the creation of humans, the 18th century (pre-Darwinian) commentator on scripture, Matthew Henry, notes the importance of the verb "formed". He argues from this that the creation of humanity was not instantaneous, but a process which took some time. Living, as he did, a century before Darwin, he did not specifically have the process of evolution in mind, but evolution is a process which takes time and formed humanity. There is no serious disagreement with scripture here. Only those who are committed to an image of creation as magic will have difficulty with this.
As for 'kind' only reproducing after its 'kind', this is fully in accord with the theory of evolution, so long as some degree of variation is allowed and reproduction is not a matter of cookie-cutter sameness.
| Quote: | | 5. Eve was created from Adam If Adam was the first human and there were no other suitable companions for him, how could Eve be formed from Adam? We all know that reproduction requires a male and female. Or are you suggesting that Adam was both asexual and sexual? (Asexual to produce Eve and sexual for him to have sons and daughters through Eve.) God forming Eve from Adam is confirmed in the NT in several areas. |
Again the question assumes the historicity of the story. Without that assumption the question is meaningless. The story-teller tells the story without any implications for history or science.
The question also shows an ignorance of evolutionary process. Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. The first true human would be a member of a population of proto-humans, differing from them only in a small, but significant variation. S/he would not be conscious of the difference, nor would others in the population be conscious of the difference. There would be no problem in finding a mate in that population. The variation (whatever it was) that marked this individual as human would be passed to his/her offspring. They would continue to mate with their near-human kin, passing the human characteristics to their offspring. Eventually the whole population would be human. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 823
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gbunty,
I've read your posts. It would take a lot of effort to respond to all of the confusion. Why do you remain unspecific about your understanding of evolution? I suppose that you are saying, that micro-evolution, has produced macro-evolutionary change that is considered act of creation but, were is the evidence?. The so-called evidences of evolution I've seen are cartoons, graphs of imaginary ancestors and scientific testing interpreted using assumptions.
In the bible it is stated, that God created this world in six days, and defines each day as consisting of a morning and a evening. The unbeliever has no clue why the seventh day is not bounded in the same manner. It is written in the bible, that kind only begets kind and thus, scientist haven't proved otherwise. Unbelievers are forced to deny the flood of Noah because it wipes out the time span needed for the fantasy of evolution to have a chance of occuring, and so, they must blaspheme God when they do so. And, God prophesied, that mankind would be so foolish as to do this in the last days. God has also prophesied, that once men have rejected the truth they will turn to believing fables, and so it is today. These prophesies are for the christians, signs of the end. How did the ignorant fisherman 2000yrs ago know what the smart guys would do as unbelievers in the future? Look in evolution books and you'll find all the cartoon pictures of imaginary (fabulous) world's any scientific mind needs to prove that the Bible's a myth. While the fossil record denies the very tenet's of evolution and supports the truth that there was the flood of Noah. But, fossils are only hard evidence that many wish to keep buried. With many words the scientist denies the flood of Noah occurred but he offers no proof.
Unbelievers do not believe the Bible, except they first rewrite it to their liking or suddenly become ignorant of plain english.. But, they're offended if they themselves are misquoted or misunderstood. Unbelievers, strive to bring God's book, down to the level of their own opinion because it's inherent authority offends them. It's one thing to be honest about unbelief and take a stance. But, why pretend that the Bible is in support of evolution? Why wouldn't an unbeliever just discard the Bible and get on with life and let the ignorant live in bliss? Is the goal to spread unbelief? But, where is 'a' proof of evolution. The diversionary diatribe about the possibility of diversity and adaptation producing some new creature fails because the new creature fails to appear. You might propose that the grand forceful impetus of evolutionary processes work so slow that we are circumstantially living in an age where the there aren't examples to look at. Or you might reason that the changes occur so minutely over such a long time that no one will notice when it happens if it does. Where is the new creature, the new kind of animal?
As for me, I believe the Bible as written but, gbunty, you seem to be a pretend believer. You question another man's belief in the Bible and say they're ignorant of some hidden evolutionary truth and lack your proper Bibical understanding but, you fail to submit proof of your ascertians. Shouldn't you provide something scientific to consider? We present the Bible as historical evidence and propose that science offers no evidence contrary to it. I've submitted to you the fact that the 'AV' is God's word and that you cannot refute it's statements of truth. In return all I heard from you is uncertainty as to how to define scientific terms to your liking It seems to be very difficult for you to define your terms and meanings. Yet, you claim others don't understand what you know evolution to be. Well, define evolution in 1000 words or less. By the way, I have noticed that some evolution web sites have this same problem. If this isn't possible for you to do how can you expect us to discuss what you mean to say about these issues. I would like for you to provide if possible, one scientific evidence of evolution for our discussion. Thank you, if you do.
joman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | Gbunty,
I've read your posts. It would take a lot of effort to respond to all of the confusion. |
Yes, I've posted a lot, and it probably seems overwhelming. Take your time. Ask one question at a time. I'll be happy to take the time to clarify.
BTW, do you think you could start breaking up your posts into short paragraphs? Makes them easier to read.
| Quote: | | Why do you remain unspecific about your understanding of evolution? |
Not intending to be. If you will point out where I need to be more specific, I'll try to oblige.
| Quote: | | I suppose that you are saying, that micro-evolution, has produced macro-evolutionary change that is considered act of creation but, were is the evidence?. The so-called evidences of evolution I've seen are cartoons, graphs of imaginary ancestors and scientific testing interpreted using assumptions. |
Probably because you are getting your glimpses of evidence from anti-evolutionist sources. I remember a very funny sequence of cartoons Duane Gish used to illustrate the "impossible evolution" of a cow to a whale. But if you want to see the real fossils of whale ancestors (not cartoons, actual pictures of fossilized bones) just do a google on Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, etc. There will be artist's renditions as well. Is that what you are referring to as "cartoons"? Remember the artist's renditions are a convenience for scientific laypersons who want to have an idea of what a critter may have looked like. They are NOT evidence, and no scientific conclusion about evolution is ever based on an artist's rendition.
| Quote: | | It is written in the bible, that kind only begets kind and thus, scientist haven't proved otherwise. |
Scientists can't prove or disprove anything about "kinds" until creationists agree on what a "kind" is. So don't go around mocking the scientists until you have done you're own homework. You haven't answered these questions yet.
Is a polar bear of the same "kind" as a panda? Why or why not?
Is a pine tree the same "kind" as a fir tree? Why or why not?"
If polar bears and panda bears are the same "kind", yet do not reproduce, because they are different species---what is it that makes them the same "kind"?
If "kind" is not equivalent to species (which are defined by the reproductive barrier), yet "kind" is delimited by some sort of barrier that sets a maximum limit on variation, what sort of barrier are we looking for?
How do we know when we have found it?
| Quote: | | Unbelievers are forced to deny the flood of Noah because it wipes out the time span needed for the fantasy of evolution to have a chance of occuring, and so, they must blaspheme God when they do so. |
Not true. It was Christians who proved the flood was not global back in the early 19th century. And they did it through the science of geology, not evolution. The global flood was shown to be impossible by 1831. Darwin didn't set foot on the Beagle until 1833 and did not publish Origin of Species until 1859. So the theory of evolution was not a factor in showing that there was no global flood.
Now, of course, this does not mean that the bible is lying about there being a flood. It just means that "whole world" in the Noah story should be interpreted from the perspective of the people of the time, just like "all the world should be taxed" in the gospel of Luke really means just "all the Roman Empire".
| Quote: | | How did the ignorant fisherman 2000yrs ago know what the smart guys would do as unbelievers in the future? |
They didn't. People of today read their own ideas into the prophecies. They've been doing that for a long time. You might like to look up how key passages of biblical prophecy were interpreted in 1500 or 1835.
| Quote: | | While the fossil record denies the very tenet's of evolution and supports the truth that there was the flood of Noah. |
Wrong on both counts. The fossil record is very consistent with the predictions of evolution and very inconsistent with the theory of the flood.
The first fossil Archeopteryx (we now have four) was found in Germany in 1861. Almost immediately some scientists suggested it was a transitional form from dinosaurs to birds (though for a long time some scientists upheld an alternate theory that had birds derived from crocodiles.) The recent discoveries of several species of feathered dinosaurs in China supports the prediction.
There are thousands of fossils and not one has yet been found which rules out evolution, both in terms of their form and in terms of where they are found in the geologic strata.
On the other hand, fossils present realities that are not consistent with a global flood. Pollen grains, for example, are particularly hardy and common fossils (unlike most plant parts). Yet not one single pollen grain from one single flowering plant is found in any layer lower than the Cretaceous. If all plants were created at once and covered both the high and the low places on earth, why is it that all fossil pollen is found in the most recent geologic strata near the top of the geologic column?
| Quote: | | But, they're offended if they themselves are misquoted or misunderstood. |
Especially if they are deliberately misquoted to make it sound that they disagree with their own conclusions, and if the misquoting is repeated again and again and again after they have asked to have it corrected.
Such deliberate misrepresentation of another person's opinion falls into the category of bearing false witness and all too many creationist authors are plainly guilty of breaking this commandment.
| Quote: | | Why wouldn't an unbeliever just discard the Bible and get on with life and let the ignorant live in bliss? |
Basically that is what unbelievers do. They are not particularly interested in re-interpreting the bible or convincing people who do not want to be convinced. They do get upset, however, when creationists want to use public money to tell the children of unbelievers lies about science in public classrooms.
| Quote: | | But, where is 'a' proof of evolution. |
Why stop with one?
Here are 29 to get you started.
If there are arguments you don't understand, feel free to ask about them. If there are things in the article you believe to be untrue, please explain, with evidence, why you object to them.
| Quote: | | The diversionary diatribe about the possibility of diversity and adaptation producing some new creature fails because the new creature fails to appear. |
Wait a minute. "New creature" is also a term you have not defined. Let's go back to this question:
Of course, we may have to sort out what you mean by "new creature". Here are some examples of new species in the making. Do these fit your concept of "new creature".?
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/~pnosila/timema.html
Well, have you looked at them? In your opinion, are these "new creatures"? If not, why not?
| Quote: | | You might propose that the grand forceful impetus of evolutionary processes work so slow that we are circumstantially living in an age where the there aren't examples to look at. |
No, not proposing that at all. New species of bacteria are made routinely in labs around the world. New species of mosquitoes have appeared in the London subway tubes within the last 50 years. There are the two examples I linked to above. And a lab-produced replication of sunflower speciation a few years back. And lots more observed instances of speciation.
| Quote: | | Where is the new creature, the new kind of animal? |
If the examples above do not fit what you are looking for you will have to define "new","creature" and "kind" more specifically to explain why not.
| Quote: | | As for me, I believe the Bible as written but, gbunty, you seem to be a pretend believer. You question another man's belief in the Bible and say they're ignorant of some hidden evolutionary truth and lack your proper Bibical understanding but, you fail to submit proof of your ascertians. |
If I have made an assertion that is testable, without backing it up, please point it out to me, and I will get back to you.
But remember that intepretations are a matter of judgement and opinion. They cannot be proven, only believed.
| Quote: | | Shouldn't you provide something scientific to consider? |
If it is a scientific or historical assertion, I certainly should. If I have been remiss, please point out to me where.
| Quote: | | We present the Bible as historical evidence and propose that science offers no evidence contrary to it. |
Before the bible can be presented as historical evidence, one first needs to check out the accuracy of the biblical passage as history. Non-historical parts of the bible cannot be used as historical evidence.
In cases where it is debatable whether the passage is historical or not, some criterion needs to be found to determine that.
Remember, that having evidence in favour is a stronger position than not having evidence against. Just because there is no evidence against X, it does not mean that X is true. Only that X has not been shown to be false---yet. Possibly it will never be shown to be false. It has still not been shown to be true, either.
| Quote: | | I've submitted to you the fact that the 'AV' is God's word and that you cannot refute it's statements of truth. |
I do not know why one particular translation of the sacred scriptures should be called God's Word. The original text is surely also God's Word, no? And any accurate translation of that text. Furthermore, no written text comprises the fulness of God's Word, but only that portion of God's Word which has been put to writing.
However, I agree that I cannot refute the statements of truth that comprise God's Word. Nor has it ever been my intention even to try.
| Quote: | | In return all I heard from you is uncertainty as to how to define scientific terms to your liking. |
Oh, it would be easy to define scientific terms to my liking, but that is bad scientific form. The point is to define scientific terms to fit the reality they refer to. And sometimes that reality has many facets so that definition does not come easily.
| Quote: | | Well, define evolution in 1000 words or less. |
That I can do very easily.
Evolution is a change in frequency of alleles in a given population transcending generations.
| Quote: | | I would like for you to provide if possible, one scientific evidence of evolution for our discussion. Thank you, if you do. |
See the 29 I linked to above. Perhaps you would like to choose no more than three to discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
