-->
@ethang5
Well, some things are just logical.
Does Evolution Really Contradict the Bible?
Posts
Total:
132
The reason why we know at least the writers of the bible thought that the earth and all of its inhabitants were created in days is that there are other measurements in the bible, there are different measurements for length, width, etcetera, etcetera, if it wasn't days, then the bible wouldn't have said days, otherwise you'd be assuming things unjustifiably.
-->
@ethang5
Explain - as in - debunk decades of years of peer-reviewed study, modern biology, all of the fossil records, etcetera, etcetera, here are some starting sources:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'll save you the reading: "That's how god wanted it to look / that's just the systems god set up to do it by / well who do you think is running those systems?"
Followed by equivocation on what various bible words mean.
-->
@ethang5
The bible says nothing about the age of the Earth or the universe.
The bible is so ambiguous and unclear it says very little about anything other than your gods wrath and love of war.
-->
@ethang5
Flawed beings is so subjective it has no meaning and can thus be applied to any being no matter what it's form and function consists. Atheists even call God a "flawed being". The argument is illogical gibberish.
By "flawed beings", I think Ragnar means in terms of our physical bodies. One quick look into human bodies make it apparent that there are many flaws in the design.
-->
@ethang5
Flawed - "Having or characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection."
This means that the being described, god, has a or is characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection - which directly contradicts the idea that god is perfect, I imagine that's the perspective.
-->
@ethang5
But if you're referring to humans, then yeah, what PressF4Respect said
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does the real world show evidence of wise, omniscient design? To be plausible, an argument must take all the facts into account. The scientific study of biology shows us that existing species have serious flaws, belying claims of a beneficent creator. Intelligent design spokesmen ignore vestigial organs, anatomical inefficiency, destructive mutation, the sheer wastefulness of natural processes, and the findings of molecular genetics. The constant interplay of random mutations honed by selection pressures during evolution produces many instances of poor design.
-->
@FLRW
Does the real world show evidence of wise, omniscient design? To be plausible, an argument must take all the facts into account. The scientific study of biology shows us that existing species have serious flaws, belying claims of a beneficent creator. Intelligent design spokesmen ignore vestigial organs, anatomical inefficiency, destructive mutation, the sheer wastefulness of natural processes, and the findings of molecular genetics. The constant interplay of random mutations honed by selection pressures during evolution produces many instances of poor design.
But it is you who are ignorance of what happend because when god made man it was perfect then man sinned and he had sickness and has to go to the ciropracter all the time becuase his body is not perfect. and man keeps on getting worse because man was meaninged by god to last forever but then you look at noah and he lasted 950 years but you look at modern mens they wont last long. And kids they sit around all days and do the mortil kombat and eat junkie food and coke because sin gets worse through time and they will last even less time.
Randomly ending up with a chess board.
Randomly ending up with 4 squares perfectly.
God making hooved hyena Whales.
No but.
Does Every animal alive today come from the two of each Noah gathered?
Also Picture God making animals to go extinct.
Actually.
Picture god making meteorites then placing them up in the air and holding them there for a second and then letting em go.
-->
@Stephen
If the bible says very little, then it isn't ambiguous.
Learn what the words you want to use mean.
-->
@PressF4Respect
By "flawed beings", I think Ragnar means in terms of our physical bodies. One quick look into human bodies make it apparent that there are many flaws in the design.
Anyone who seriously thinks this is so hubristic he is probably beyond logic. Whether a design is "flawed" or not depends on the designer's purpose. A car is a "flawed" boat to one who thinks sailing off his doomed island is purpose.
The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one. Sorry, the "flawed" argument is just plain illogical.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are attempting to imply a ton of evidence to people whom you know will not read a word of your wall-o-text links. This tells me you don't really know evolution. You go to sites and read what they've prepared for laymen like you. And you laymen swallow hook line and sinker what is laid out for you without a single critical thought.
Pick your best evolution evidence from your wall above and make a thread, and I will do 2 things, first I will show you science saying how faulty your evidence is, and I will show you how little science you actually know.
I had a debate with Nevets in Mar/Apr this year on this very subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1822-genesis-creation-and-darwins-evolution-theory-co-cooperate
Curious that over a dozen of you are tickled by this posit, but only one [none of you and Dr. Spy hasn't been here for sevenmonths] bothered to vote.
My resolution sides with Jarrett's, and I concluded that Darwin's theory was compatible with Genesis, age of the universe notwithstanding. I oppose the typical Christian view that imposes a six-day creation. "Day" is not a clear concept of 24-hours in ancient Hebrew, anyway, and besides, Earth was not created until the third "day" and all of them may have been millions to billions of year each. A careful read of the O.T. will demonstrate that there are chronological gaps just in Genesis, so the 6,000-year existence popularized by 19th century Christianity is hogwash.
-->
@PressF4Respect
This is meant to directly contradict the notion of creationism, as God is supposed to be omniscient.
Do you always operate at 100%? No, you don 't have to do that. What makes you think God does? I saying that God in omniscient in no way implies that he must always act thereby. Tell me one thing about creation that was perfect. Nothing. However, the problem with the view that everything should have been perfect disregards that creation continues today, and Darwin admitted that. Evolution is the continuation of the extended creation event. Or, did you imagine that God created for 6 days, and rested, then retired?
Nope. Even survival of the fittest is a testament to the ongoing progress from imperfection to perfection. It's a process, not a single event.
-->
@Theweakeredge
if it wasn't days, then the bible wouldn't have said days
Was the Torah originally written in English? Nope. Have a care to understand the ancient Hebrew, which has a longer perception of "day" [as translated poorly into English through several other languages] from then to now. Besides, the 24-hour day may not have existed until at least "day" 3, when Earth was first formed. Take nothing you read biblically verbatim. Just because the Bible is the most popular work in print does not imply that it is the most accurate work in print.
-->
@ethang5
Wrong answer, actually debunk these starter citations or your entire point is mute, you have no logical reasoning for supporting your claim. Debunk these claims or no dice.
-->
@fauxlaw
Also incorrect, as I mentioned before, other measurements were kept in English translated units, therefore if the units of time were not days as we understand them, they wouldn't be called days, please address the rest of the actual argument.
-->
@janesix
If Darwinian evolution is impossible, why did Darwin, himself, acknowledge the "Creator" in his first edition "On the origin of Species" "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." This is from his concluding paragraph.
-->
@Theweakeredge
other measurements were kept in English translated units
Are cubits, shekels, or talents, English units of measure? Nope.
-->
@ethang5
Very true.
The bible talks about the time or years from Adam and Eve forward - but not specifically about the days prior. After all God in the first verse created the heavens and the earth. And it is not until verse 3 that day is mentioned.
How long between 1 and 3?
I dnk. If it is millions of years- then the answer is based on assumptions. If it is much less - then again based on certain assumptions.
-->
@Tradesecret
@fauxlaw
The biggest assumption is that the bible is in anyway a completely accurate record of anything.
The bible is basically some facts (people and places), embellished with a super-natural creation hypothesis and an associated godhead....And this was all compiled a few thousand years ago by a variety of literate but fallible humans.
A few thousand years ago, a day was a day, one rotation of the Earth marked by sunrise and sunset. How this period of duration was measured is irrelevant.
Assumptions were and are made to substantiate illogical ideas.....And even though we now have a far greater understanding of time and events....Some people are still having to make assumptions in order to substantiate outdated theistic hypotheses.
And Darwin, a conditioned thinker would consider creation and a creator....Creation and creator is a logical assumption for an evolutionist to make.
-->
@fauxlaw
Never claimed they were, I'm saying that they are English translations of other measurements, if the periods of time at the beginning of the bible weren't talking about days, then they wouldn't have said days, to conclude otherwise is to make unnecessary assumptions. It is not, however, an assumption to say that a day is a day.
-->
@Tradesecret
not until verse 3 that day is mentioned.
actually, the 5th verse. Longer time, still.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Never claimed they were,
Oh, but you did, as I quoted from your #51:
other measurements were kept in English translated units
the implication of which is that the terms I applied in my #53 are, by your statement, translated to English from another language. Nether cubit, nor shekel, nor talent [the latter also in reference, as shekel, to money] are English-originated words, but are transliterated, not "translated" directly from ancient [1] and mid-hebrew [2, 3]. The first translated-to-English Bible occurred in the 16th century by Wm. Tyndale, but that was from modern Hebrew and Greek, so already at least a lingual generation from mid- let alone ancient lexicons, which used the term Yom [in Hebrew] which is not a simple 24-hour period as we understand "day" today, as well as in the 16th century of English by Tyndale. You cannot assume words hold their meaning throughout the history of one lexicon, let alone more than one. Not to mention what changes in culture affect language, and the more so when considering multiple languages that do not share a culture, particularly over centuries and millennia.
-->
@ethang5
If the bible says very little, then it isn't ambiguous. Learn what the words you want to use mean.
I know what it means, and if these scriptures weren't so ambiguous may be people wouldn't need Christians or the church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them or defend them. Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread.
-->
@zedvictor4
The biggest assumption is that the bible is in anyway a completely accurate record of anything.
Never made that assumption. I know it is not accurate. But then, not a jot of it was written by God, let alone translated by him.
embellished with a super-natural creation hypothesis and an associated godhead
As if only by the Hebrew culture. Curious that multiple cultures around the world, having no connection to ancient Hebrews, have similar respective creation motifs, even by cultures immediately proximate to Canaan. And many have their own holy writ; it is not exclusive to Judaism, or to Islam, but also Hindu, Asia, ancient Polynesia, Europe, etc. Do not discount them in your critique of Semitic cultures.
a day was a day
Yes, but a yom is not necessarily the equivalent of a day. And a full rotation of Earth is a sunrise to the next sunrise, not merely to sunset from the first rise. But even that changes once one considers perspectives of other planets of our solar system, so the Genesis perspective is not the only perspective.
Assumptions were and are made to substantiate illogical ideas
Are not scientific theories all assumptions before some are proven as evident truth? Therefore, all assumptions are not merely illogical ideas, for logic transcends known facts and even has navigation in the unknown, else we would never bridge the known to the unknown, continuously encroaching on it as theory becomes fact. Who are you to conclude, even for yourself, that God remains one of the illogics? The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't. You may personally believe he is myth, but are unwilling to admit that you just don't know, and further insist that knowledge comes only by the limitation of only the five senses. There are more, but if you choose to ignore them, that is your limitation, but not mine.
Creation and creator is a logical assumption for an evolutionist
Which cannot explain why Darwin edited On the Origin of Species fully six times; the first of which acknowledged a Creator, and the latter five did not. Seems he had a logical shift. Not even Darwin was certain of himself. So much for assumptions. You do it, too.