Genesis view?

[sub_zer0]

Churlant I am interested in your view on the creation/fall of man and the flood. Don't leave me guessing just write what you think then I will do the same...


anybody else, shoot!

[towski]

Churlant I am interested in your view on the creation/fall of man and the flood. Don't leave me guessing just write what you think then I will do the same...


anybody else, shoot!


I think the story of creation is a composite of creation myths over centuries of human development. Ancient man had no science, and no way of explaining either why we existed, or how we got here. It's a cold, scary world out there, and stories of creation give man a common purpose for our existance.

By the fall of man I assume you mean the expulsion from the garden. I think this story ties up a couple of things. Why is their pain and sadness in life? It's our fault, because of original sin. What is the nature of evil? Temptation. Why do women experience pain in childbirth? Because Eve succumbed to temptation. Again, a composite of earlier stories and mythology.

The flood is more interesting to me. I think this is the only story that may actually have some historical basis. There have been several theories regarding a real people driven from a real homeland by a real flood. Through the mists of history, this story evolved, and became, like the fall of man, a way to explain a variety of things. The dangers of sin and evil, the good that can come from a faith in god, even why we have rainbows.

[Art of War]

Churlant I am interested in your view on the creation/fall of man and the flood. Don't leave me guessing just write what you think then I will do the same...


anybody else, shoot!

Oh, goody goody I love these threads. Of course you do have some unfinished buisness. I suggest filling in the other hole in your anti-evoltuion thread before you dig yourself a new one.

Basically I chalk the genesis stories up to a morality tale. Especially the Noah's flood. The sheer dynamics of it are impossible. I believe that the story is not only derived from other ancient myths but i can have some basis in fact, as most myths do. I attribute the original flood stories in the mideast (not Noah's story, the originals) to a localized flood that seemed to cover the world. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates floods on a yearly basis I have no doubt that one year of particularly bad flooding could join the two rivers covering the land between them. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence what so ever for a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Read the source this time. :flowers:

[Dangerrmouse]

Try tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh. (Predating the bible myth collection)

This http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/noahtran.htm

is a fascinating read about the link with the flooding of the Black Sea basin with the meltwater from the ending of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

[sub_zer0]

I think the story of creation is a composite of creation myths over centuries of human development. Ancient man had no science, and no way of explaining either why we existed, or how we got here. It's a cold, scary world out there, and stories of creation give man a common purpose for our existance.

You don't need science to explain creation. You just need faith really. The Bible is clear and concise about the pre-flood world. This catastrophic event, ie the flood, altered the earth, again VERY much as well as the original sin did.

If you like I can go into more depth as to the pre-flood earth, which is extremely interesting, scientific and compliments the Bibles account.

By the fall of man I assume you mean the expulsion from the garden. I think this story ties up a couple of things. Why is their pain and sadness in life? It's our fault, because of original sin. What is the nature of evil? Temptation. Why do women experience pain in childbirth? Because Eve succumbed to temptation. Again, a composite of earlier stories and mythology.

I take Genesis as completely unique and literal...

[towski]

You don't need science to explain creation. You just need faith really. The Bible is clear and concise about the pre-flood world. This catastrophic event, ie the flood, altered the earth, again VERY much as well as the original sin did.

If you like I can go into more depth as to the pre-flood earth, which is extremely interesting, scientific and compliments the Bibles account.



I take Genesis as completely unique and literal...


Pretty much the reply I expected. We really don't need another thread for you to quote bible verses, but have at it...

[sub_zer0]

No need... I know how you guys act when I try to share information about tthe Bible and how it makes sense to the world and evidence we have. Just because I quote the Bible...

Just started the topic to see if any doubts raised in my head, they didn't...

[Duo_Maxwell]

since when did quotes out of a book with no verification constitute proof?

Sub_zero would clearly reject quotations from the Holy Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Genesis is a story. Nothing more.

[towski]

No need... I know how you guys act when I try to share information about tthe Bible and how it makes sense to the world and evidence we have. Just because I quote the Bible...

I really don't have a problem with your pov, zero. I just have a problem with proselytizing in general, and with people who come onto the forum intent on one thing, all others be darned.

[sub_zer0]

since when did quotes out of a book with no verification constitute proof?

Sub_zero would clearly reject quotations from the Holy Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Genesis is a story. Nothing more.

Duo the Bible took 1600 years to make. Over 40 authors from all walks of life. Different times, different moods, different continents yet still rermained in harmony. Most discrepencies/contradictions/copyist errors or whatever you wanna call them can be proven to be of no consequence to what really matters in the book and the others can be proven that they aren't what the skeptics believe them to be. Not to mention a great number of them are taken out of context and not studied properly. In English and in the original Hebrew or Greek.

All in all the Old Testamant and the 400 years between the New Testamant, the NT still shadows the OT brilliantly.

For a laymen example:
a. "The Paradise Lost of the book of Genesis becomes the
Paradise Regained of Revelation."
b. "Whereas the gate to the Tree of Life is closed in Genesis,
it is opened forevermore in Revelation." (Geisler and Nix)

The Old Testamant is historically accurate, prophetically accurate by hundreds of years in time between the prediction and fulfillment. Scientifically correct when speaking of things relating to it.

Not to mention staying in harmony with such matter involving hundreds of controversial topics, such as:
a. The origin of man and the universe
b. The nature of God
c. The nature of man, sin, and man's redemption

When will you guys see the significance of this book? It is accurate. Just because you don't believe in God is nonsense and shouldn't affect the fact that the Bible is and can be verified.

"No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted,
scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion
or psychology...has been subject to such a mass attack as the
Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness
and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? And yet,
the Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and
studied by millions." - Bernard Ramm

"It is the only volume ever produced in which is to be found a
large body of prophecies relating to individual nations (more
than ten in Isaiah alone), Israel, all the peoples of the
earth, certain cities, the coming Messiah and His kingdom."
- Wilbur Smith

"...in all of my archaeological investigation I have never
found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement
of the Word of God." - Nelson Glueck

Don't get it twisted either, their is sufficient evidence that the ones we read today are "sufficient to ensure that we are reading the words of the original"

[dittohead not!]

Did you ever notice how Genesis says God created first the "fishes of the sea", then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man? Doesn't evolution follow the same sequence?

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[sub_zer0]

Did you ever notice how Genesis says God created first the "fishes of the sea", then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man? Doesn't evolution follow the same sequence?

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Kinda... but it says that God created them.

[JD3]

Kinda... but it says that God created them.

Evolution doesn't dispute that.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Oddly Sub zero claims the bible is true, yet does not provide any evidence.

Really, I'm not surprised.

Scripture is not proof in the real world nor will it work here.

[dittohead not!]

Oddly Sub zero claims the bible is true, yet does not provide any evidence.

Really, I'm not surprised.

Scripture is not proof in the real world nor will it work here.


There is a way to test out the truthfulness of the Bible:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

James 1:5

[Dangerrmouse]

"If you are stupid, ask the invisible guy in the sky for intelligence. He is so generous, and never tells anyone off, he'll give it to you, no strings attached."

What does this test, apart from one's credulity?

[NiteGuy]

"If you are stupid, ask the invisible guy in the sky for intelligence. He is so generous, and never tells anyone off, he'll give it to you, no strings attached."

What does this test, apart from one's credulity?

No danger, that's about it. Well, that and one's gullibility.

[mataj]

Forgive me, but I'm having hard time taking this seriously

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Gen 6,1-4
:lol:

[sub_zer0]

Oddly Sub zero claims the bible is true, yet does not provide any evidence.

Really, I'm not surprised.

Scripture is not proof in the real world nor will it work here.

Duo, I have plenty of evidence... But another threrad another time.

[sub_zer0]

1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Allow me to help you better understand the meaning of this particular part in scripture...

The "sons of God" could very well be a reference to Lamech who were the leaders of that particular time; kings, tyrants, etc... Some old school Jewish scholars thought for them to be angels. But the Old Testamant Hebrew word for "sons of" means to bear the character of someone or something.

Now these "mighty men which were of old" on earth could very well be Nimrod (Genesis 10:8) as well as a mighty hunter for the Lord (10:9). Do not be fooled they were tyrants of the time to the people and the Lord could not tolerate such a situation as His "spirit shall not always strive with man."

[mataj]

Allow me to help you better understand the meaning of this particular part in scripture...If your explanation is correct, you'll burn in hell for this. Jesus specifically forbids you from giving any straight answers about the Bible to the unbelievers like me:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Mark 4,10-12

[lawman]

sub-zero, man, I'm a strong believer in the principles of the First Amendment -- freedom of speech, freedom of relegion -- so believe me when I say I don't go out of my way to criticize people for their personal beliefs, no matter how ideosyncratic they may be. But when you come here and specifically ask us to take you on, again and again, well, as far as I'm concerned, you've made yourself fair game.

Duo the Bible took 1600 years to make... Most discrepencies/contradictions/copyist errors or whatever you wanna call them can be proven to be of no consequence to what really matters in the book...
Actually, no, they can't. You dropped out of the thread you started on that very topic when Craig and NiteGuy and I and others pinned you down on some specifics about some fairly consequential matters, such as the nature of God. It was also made clear that even your coreligionists (such as jamesrage) don't necessarily agree with you on what "really matters" in the book (e.g., the Trinity). It's also just intellectually dishonest (and rhetorically silly) to maintain that what "matters" coincides with whatever can be interpreted as consistent, while whatever remains irreconcileable "doesn't matter." Furthermore, you never answered the questions about how or why you distinguish the Bible from any number of other religious foundation documents, also sprinkled with human error but mostly thematically consistent, which also claim unqiue status as divine.

The Old Testamant is historically accurate, prophetically accurate by hundreds of years in time between the prediction and fulfillment. Scientifically correct when speaking of things relating to it.
Actually, no, it isn't any of those three things. The Bible is historically inaccurate in any number of ways. As has already been mentioned, there's no evidence of a global flood. There's also no evidence in the unbroken historical archives of ancient Egypt to support the story of the Oppression and the Exodus, although apologists have been trying to pin it down for generations. There's also no evidence to support the story of the conquest of Canaan, or the unified kindom of Solomon. It's also quite clear from Roman archives that Quirinius never ordered a census in Galilee during the period when Herod the Great was still alive, contrary to Luke (and if he had, it certainly wouldn't have been according to the ludicrous method described in the story). And this is just a sampling.

As for prophecy, well, obviously it's easy for later writers to interpret events in a way that "fits" earlier prophecies, although usually only symbolically, and even then the strain is often obvious. It's no more true for the Bible than for any other belief system, however, including New Agers interpreting Nostradamus. Moreover, if you really believe in prophecy -- and thus, predestination -- that brings us back to the thorny question (which I posed, but you didn't answer, in a previous thread) of how you reconcile it with free will.

As for science... well, the evolution threads speak for themselves, really, including the self-defeating and frankly embarrassing move you made (and never returned to defend) of posting claims against evolution copied without attribution from a web page that disproves those very claims. I think it's interesting to note in passing, however, how God in his omniscience consistently avoided sharing anything with his transcribers that would have contradicted or advanced the state of scientific knowledge extant at the time and place they were writing. You'd suppose he might have clued his "chosen people" into something as useful as, say, the bacteria theory of disease, but nope.

Not to mention staying in harmony with such matter involving hundreds of controversial topics, such as:
a. The origin of man and the universe
b. The nature of God
c. The nature of man, sin, and man's redemption
Let me get this straight... you're arguing the book is valid on the grounds that the New Testament is "in harmony" with the Old? First of all, it's not even true (Jesus' "new covenant" pretty thoroughly changes the rules of the game on your point "c," certainly)... but more importantly, even if it were true, how would it be relevant?

When will you guys see the significance of this book? It is accurate. Just because you don't believe in God is nonsense and shouldn't affect the fact that the Bible is and can be verified.
When will you see that many people find it possible to be Christian (the decided majority of believers, in fact) without taking the Bible literally as an account of how the world came to be, and swallowing all the patent nonsense that entails?

(continued...)

[lawman]

(...concluded)

sub-zero-
As for your randomly selected quotations... let me throw something a bit more contemporary (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/15/23544/992) back at you: Your religion may be inspiring to you. It may have stories that are inspiring to me. It may have mnemonic value; critically important value at that. It may be rich in tradition and culture... It may offer hope to people who have no hope left. It may serve as a useful insight into human nature. Humans may indeed have a preexisting facility to acquire belief systems similar to the one for language.

...[but]I strongly suspect that the core, underlying, supernatural claims of religion are nonsense. If you want me to not be an atheist and share your particular flavor of supernatural belief, you need to be able to perform the magic or produce the supernatural being you claim exists and subject that creature to a battery of tests under controlled conditions.

... It makes no sense for YHVH to kill off every living thing on earth with a flood or any other psychotic method of genocide if he can do whatever he wants and his goal is to engender love for His masterful and benevolent rule. It is in fact an act far, far, to the right of Hitler and Ghangas Kahn combined; it makes those two pikers look like candy-stripers. And the flood is just one of many monstrous acts.

... It makes no sense that an omnipotent being who wishes so much to be recognized and loved would conceal its existence with a sustained vigor well beyond the designation of paranoid. It does makes sense that if H & R Block can open up a branch office in every small town, that a motivated, omnipotent being could do the same, and personally man it himself 24/7 with angels out front serving food and drink.

... In general, and this one applies to all Abrahamic Faiths and most others: It makes no sense that the oral histories of a few bands of rival roaming shepherds during the bronze age would harbor the one and only true secret of how the Cosmos came to be. It's far, far, more likely that they made this **** up over many generations, and we can tell that is probably exactly the case, because again, it makes no sense at all, and there is a long line of historical antecedents in ANE Mythology leading right up to the early Christian version. We can literally read old scrolls and accounts and see the various components of the God of the OT come together from other deities.

And even if the entire universe turns out to be an artificially manufactured object made by Intelligent Agency, as fascinating as that would be, it makes no sense to automatically assume the entire 10^36 cubic light-year Cosmos was made exclusively for us.

...Lastly, no matter how sophisticated one's apologetics are, it makes no sense that a being can be simultaneously omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, while evil and pain exists and still provide us with free will while at the same time expecting us to choose door number two or be condemned to eternal torture. All those qualities and conditionals taken together are mutually exclusive in more ways than I can count. If you argue otherwise, no matter how slick and polished your arguments, you're arguing that circles can be squares.

...there is no evidence the universe is a few thousand years old and a ****load of evidence that it is much older. There is no evidence that there was ever a Garden of Eden and there is a mountain of evidence that neither humans or many other species descend from a single mating pair in the geologically recent past. As would be predicted by both the Garden Story and the Ark Story.

And without that Garden and the whole bit of blaming Eve for disobeying before she knew what disobeying was, which remember makes no sense to start with, and blaming us for all eternity, which again recall makes no sense, there is no original sin and thus no need for salvation from it, which means your entire religion is built on something for which there is no evidence for.

... Yes, it would be nice if there was a magic invisible sky wizard who took care of us when we die and redress injustices committed against you while alive by others. It would be nice if your kid or your mom or your loved one who was cruelly cut down by painful lingering cancer was still 'out there' somewhere. It would be nice if there was a Santa Claus, and I don't mean that to sound flippant; Who wouldn't want there to be a Santa Claus?

...[but] It doesn't make sense, there is no evidence for it, and I'm an adult. I deal in reality as it is, not as I wish it would be, so that I can perhaps change that reality. And that's important. Because if I could be said to 'believe in' anything, it's that I believe in the human potential for progress, problem solving, and flexibility. That's how we've managed to solve problems in the past.
(All due thanks to "DarkSyde" of Daily Kos, the author of the diary here excerpted.)

[Soc.Dem.]

The Old Testamant is historically accurate, prophetically accurate by hundreds of years in time between the prediction and fulfillment. Scientifically correct when speaking of things relating to it.


:lol: :lol: :laughter: :rofl: :p

[Soc.Dem.]

Did you ever notice how Genesis says God created first the "fishes of the sea", then the "fowls of the air", then the "beasts of the field", and finally man? Doesn't evolution follow the same sequence?

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Actually, Genesis gives to different accounts of the creation of the world.

In Genesis 1, we find the most quoted version where God creates the world over six days, and man is created on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2, God creates the heavens and the earth "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up", he creates Adam before he created plants, aniamals and then finally Eve.

[Dangerrmouse]

... In Genesis 2, ... he creates Adam before he created plants, aniamals and then finally Eve.

maybe He needed the practice before attempting His masterpiece.

[dittohead not!]

"If you are stupid, ask the invisible guy in the sky for intelligence. He is so generous, and never tells anyone off, he'll give it to you, no strings attached."

What does this test, apart from one's credulity?

You can change the wording of James 1:5 and make fun of it if you want, but it is the key to testing the truth of scripture.

If the scriptures are true, then James 1:5 is also true. Therefore, you can test the theory that the Bible is correct by asking God.

No answer = maybe the Bible is just a lot of ancient writings with no connection to god at all, or maybe that particular verse has been mistranslated. Either way, the literal truth of the Bible is highly questionable, and we're expected to use our God given reason to figure things out.

Ansewer = no: The Bible is certainly just a lot of ancient writings, and we're expected to use our God given reason to figure things out.

Answer = yes: The Bible is literal and you'd better get with the program.

It almost melds scientific experimentation with religion. If you're not willing to try the experiment, then you're just believing what you want to believe.

[Strel]

I take Genesis as completely unique and literal...

Based on what, exactly?

What good is a faith that constanly requires to you ignore reality?

I wouldn't buy a used pencil on terms like that, much less a religion.

[Churlant]

Based on what, exactly?

What good is a faith that constanly requires to you ignore reality?

I wouldn't buy a used pencil on terms like that, much less a religion.

Eh? But what if it was one of those pencils that lets you create links in space/time, thus traveling back and forth through history?

I'd think that would be cool and worth ignoring reality for. :D

-JC

[dittohead not!]

Eh? But what if it was one of those pencils that lets you create links in space/time, thus traveling back and forth through history?

I'd think that would be cool and worth ignoring reality for. :D

-JC

Very cool. I have some, in fact, and am willing to allow you to purchase one as a preferred customer, right now before I put it on ebay. The price is right, and easy terms can be arranged OAC. Just email me your offers.

[Strel]

Duo, I have plenty of evidence... But another threrad another time.

If you had it, you would have posted it.

I think you are boxing above your weight class here.

[NiteGuy]

Very cool. I have some, in fact, and am willing to allow you to purchase one as a preferred customer, right now before I put it on ebay. The price is right, and easy terms can be arranged OAC. Just email me your offers.

No thanks. The price for the pencil is pretty good, I admit. But, man, $60 for shipping and handling? Sounds kinda steep to me. :D

[Duo_Maxwell]

Duo, I have plenty of evidence... But another threrad another time.

lol. I would talk about your general failure in the previous threads, but others have done so already.

If you learn one thing here learn this:

Scripture does not consitute proof.

[sub_zer0]

It was also made clear that even your coreligionists (such as jamesrage) don't necessarily agree with you on what "really matters" in the book (e.g., the Trinity).

I find sufficient proof in the Bible for the trinity and everything else if you don't you don't believe in it apparently because there is. Just because you still don't think the way I told you of how the Bible is to mean, doesn't mean that it is wrong and that it can be disproven.

The Bible is historically inaccurate in any number of ways. As has already been mentioned, there's no evidence of a global flood. There's also no evidence in the unbroken historical archives of ancient Egypt to support the story of the Oppression and the Exodus, although apologists have been trying to pin it down for generations. There's also no evidence to support the story of the conquest of Canaan, or the unified kindom of Solomon

The Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C. Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which to reckon. So Israel was in Canaan.

The Biblical account of the Israelites initial stages of conquest in Canaan started about 1400 B.C. But for those who can't take the Bible for what it says... When Egypt ruled the land of Palestine it mapped the land and these maps mention four stations from south to north: Iyyim-Dibon-Abel-Jordan—the exact order in which they appear in the Bible.

"In 1887, an Egyptian peasant fortuitously discovered a large cache of clay tablets at Tell el-Amarna. Dating from 1400-1370 B.C. These letters also reflect an anxious disunity among the various Canaanite kings, and an eager tendency for them to forsake their Egyptian alliance and become politically affiliated with the invading Habiru or ‘Apiru (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 276). Many scholars associate the Habiru with the biblical Hebrews (cf. Archer, 1974, pp. 271-279; Harrison, 1969, 318-322).

Thus, an analysis of these documents suggests that they reflected a Canaanite perspective of the Israelite conquest. There are some significant parallels between the general information in these letters and the biblical narrative. A communication from Megiddo mentioned that several towns located in the region of Arad in the south had already fallen to the invaders. According to Numbers 21:1-3, the Israelites destroyed many cities in this southern region. Also, there were no letters found from the first cities destroyed during the Israelite incursion (e.g., Jericho, Gibeon, et al.). "

Let us also not forget that archeological findings can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations.

We all have the same evidence. The way you interpret the evidence is dependant on your presuppositions.

As for prophecy, well, obviously it's easy for later writers to interpret events in a way that "fits" earlier prophecies, although usually only symbolically, and even then the strain is often obvious. It's no more true for the Bible than for any other belief system, however, including New Agers interpreting Nostradamus. Moreover, if you really believe in prophecy -- and thus, predestination -- that brings us back to the thorny question (which I posed, but you didn't answer, in a previous thread) of how you reconcile it with free will.

Prophecy is a stament from a prophet who is completely within the Holy Spirit, a truely blessed individual usually referring to individuals or to countries or kings.

Predestination does not apply. All a prophecy is, is words said that relate to something that hasn't happened yet. These words are acted out through mankinds free will. Just because God knows what is going to happen doesn't mean it has to happen, we all have free will. The thing is, God knows how you will use it, thus His conclusion will always be what you were going to do.

I think it's interesting to note in passing, however, how God in his omniscience consistently avoided sharing anything with his transcribers that would have contradicted or advanced the state of scientific knowledge extant at the time and place they were writing. You'd suppose he might have clued his "chosen people" into something as useful as, say, the bacteria theory of disease, but nope.

These prophets and me for that matter do not care about such worldly things. It will happen regardless, this world is melting and corrupting and becoming worse and wors each passing second. It is impossible to stop it. These prophets knew of God and were completely tuned into Him, why on earth would they care about scientific understanding? They know the creator. Why do they care about the bacteria theory of disease? They know life - God.

you're arguing the book is valid on the grounds that the New Testament is "in harmony" with the Old? First of all, it's not even true (Jesus' "new covenant" pretty thoroughly changes the rules of the game on your point "c," certainly)... but more importantly, even if it were true, how would it be relevant?

Like I said the Bible is done by 40 authors over a millenia. For the two Testaments to be in harmony is no small feet, that is why it is relevant. And as far as Jesus' new covenant is concerned, why do you think they burned animals as sacrifices to the Lord? It is a blood sacrifice to acknowledge to God the need for a Savior one who will die for us to save us from our sin. So the new covenant of Jesus fits perfectly to the Old Testament.

When will you see that many people find it possible to be Christian (the decided majority of believers, in fact) without taking the Bible literally as an account of how the world came to be, and swallowing all the patent nonsense that entails?

That is fine, but evidence does fit into the Bible's account for creation, point blank, the pieces aren't all there, but everything else is just a theory, so I am not worried.

[Strel]

I find sufficient proof in the Bible for the trinity and everything else if you don't you don't believe in it apparently because there is. Just because you still don't think the way I told you of how the Bible is to mean, doesn't mean that it is wrong and that it can be disproven.

This is a keeper.

The Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C. Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which to reckon. So Israel was in Canaan.

The Biblical account of the Israelites initial stages of conquest in Canaan started about 1400 B.C. But for those who can't take the Bible for what it says... When Egypt ruled the land of Palestine it mapped the land and these maps mention four stations from south to north: Iyyim-Dibon-Abel-Jordan—the exact order in which they appear in the Bible.

"In 1887, an Egyptian peasant fortuitously discovered a large cache of clay tablets at Tell el-Amarna. Dating from 1400-1370 B.C. These letters also reflect an anxious disunity among the various Canaanite kings, and an eager tendency for them to forsake their Egyptian alliance and become politically affiliated with the invading Habiru or ‘Apiru (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 276). Many scholars associate the Habiru with the biblical Hebrews (cf. Archer, 1974, pp. 271-279; Harrison, 1969, 318-322).

Thus, an analysis of these documents suggests that they reflected a Canaanite perspective of the Israelite conquest. There are some significant parallels between the general information in these letters and the biblical narrative. A communication from Megiddo mentioned that several towns located in the region of Arad in the south had already fallen to the invaders. According to Numbers 21:1-3, the Israelites destroyed many cities in this southern region. Also, there were no letters found from the first cities destroyed during the Israelite incursion (e.g., Jericho, Gibeon, et al.). "

Let us also not forget that archeological findings can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations.

We all have the same evidence. The way you interpret the evidence is dependant on your presuppositions.



Prophecy is a stament from a prophet who is completely within the Holy Spirit, a truely blessed individual usually referring to individuals or to countries or kings.

Predestination does not apply. All a prophecy is, is words said that relate to something that hasn't happened yet. These words are acted out through mankinds free will. Just because God knows what is going to happen doesn't mean it has to happen, we all have free will. The thing is, God knows how you will use it, thus His conclusion will always be what you were going to do.



These prophets and me for that matter do not care about such worldly things. It will happen regardless, this world is melting and corrupting and becoming worse and wors each passing second. It is impossible to stop it. These prophets knew of God and were completely tuned into Him, why on earth would they care about scientific understanding? They know the creator. Why do they care about the bacteria theory of disease? They know life - God.



Like I said the Bible is done by 40 authors over a millenia. For the two Testaments to be in harmony is no small feet, that is why it is relevant. And as far as Jesus' new covenant is concerned, why do you think they burned animals as sacrifices to the Lord? It is a blood sacrifice to acknowledge to God the need for a Savior one who will die for us to save us from our sin. So the new covenant of Jesus fits perfectly to the Old Testament.



That is fine, but evidence does fit into the Bible's account for creation, point blank, the pieces aren't all there, but everything else is just a theory, so I am not worried.

And where did you cut and paste this from, young man? :thinking:

Also, am I to understand that your argument is "because some facts in the Bible are true, these other, unrelated facts must also be true"? Am I getting that right?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Rule A5, get to know it Sub-zero.

Respect the copyrights, patents, trademarks and/or other proprietary rights of any sites and authors you post material from. When posting articles, post no more than 'several' paragraphs with proper citation and a link to the source.

http://www.whistlestopper.com/rules.php

[Russikan]

Why do you think they burned animals as sacrifices to the Lord? It is a blood sacrifice to acknowledge to God the need for a Savior one who will die for us to save us from our sin. So the new covenant of Jesus fits perfectly to the Old Testament.

Or since animal sacrifices were done by many religions that do not believe in either a creator or man being inherently flawed, you just infer what you want to into the practice of animal sacrifice and it is not so much consistent as that you can make up reasons why it might be consistent.

That is fine, but evidence does fit into the Bible's account for creation, point blank, the pieces aren't all there, but everything else is just a theory, so I am not worried.

Actually the evidence completely refutes it. <MOD EDIT>

[sub_zer0]

I don't do it intentionally, damn... the only thing quoted was the thing with the quotes around it... http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/433

Or since animal sacrifices were done by many religions that do not believe in either a creator or man being inherently flawed, you just infer what you want to into the practice of animal sacrifice and it is not so much consistent as that you can make up reasons why it might be consistent.

No, that is what the Bible teaches. They sacrifice the animals for the Lord it plainly states that. It isn't about different religions that may do the same thing, its about the one the word of God talks about.

Actually the evidence completely refutes it. And for the umpteenth billion time, FIND OUT WHAT A THEORY ACTUALLY IS BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING SO MORONIC!

I know exactly what I'm defending and I know there is evidence to support it.

[dittohead not!]

I know exactly what I'm defending and I know there is evidence to support it.

The rest of us are waiting with baited breath for this evidence you keep refering to.

[Craig]

Sub_Zer0, how would you define the term "scientific theory"?

[sub_zer0]

Sub_Zer0, how would you define the term "scientific theory"?

scientific theory

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

[Craig]

Evidently, those aren't your own words- can you provide a link please?

[dittohead not!]

scientific theory

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

We could go with your personal definition, or we could look it up in a real dictionary. If we do the latter, we find:

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Right here: http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

"Widely accepted" means that several researchers have verified the theory independently. Until that happens, it's still an hypothesis.

I have an hypothesis that you have no evidence at all to back up your assertions. I'm going to test that hypothesis by asking you for that evidence yet again. It still won't be a theory if you can't, but at least I will have gathered some useful data.

[Duo_Maxwell]

scientific theory

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

what the?

That is a bad definition. Never use the term to define the term.

[lawman]

I find sufficient proof in the Bible for the trinity and everything else if you don't you don't believe in it apparently because there is. Just because you still don't think the way I told you of how the Bible is to mean, doesn't mean that it is wrong and that it can be disproven.
I wasn't talking about what I believe -- I was talking about what other self-identifying devout Christians believe, thus demonstrating that there are differences of interpretation even about what you consider the "essential" parts of the Bible. BTW, just as a matter of logic, saying something can't be proven wrong is a far cry from saying you can prove it to be right.

The Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C. Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which to reckon. So Israel was in Canaan.
I'm familiar with the Merneptah Stele, and I think you overstate its importance. To quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele) from a good summary: Because of the fact it mentions "Israel" and is the first known record of "Israel" in history, the stela has gained some notoriety. Many Egyptologists refer to it as the "Israel stele" because of this, though the title is an erroneous one, as the stela is clearly not about Israel at all. In fact, there is only one line about Israel – "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" – and very little about the region of Palestine as a whole, as Merneptah inserts just a single stanza to the Canaanite campaigns and multiple stanzas to his defeat of the Libyans.
...debate surrounds "Israel". As the stela mentions just one line about Israel it is difficult for scholars to draw any information at all about Israel. The stela does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had a determinative for "country" applied to them). However, after that there is not much else that can be drawn about Israel at this time.

The Biblical account of the Israelites initial stages of conquest in Canaan started about 1400 B.C. But for those who can't take the Bible for what it says...
"What it says," actually, makes no use of BC/AD dates; all such things must be interpolated. And if it did place the conquest of Canaan c. 1400 BC, well, that would be kind of embarrassing, since it's fairly well established that the region was under the thumb of Egypt's Rameses II (and his successor Merneptah -- see just above) a couple of hundred years later than that.

Let us also not forget that archeological findings can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations.
Let's start with not forgetting it yourself! You keep making absolute statements out of what are actually very questionable interpretations, as if ignoring scholarly disputes on the subject will make them go away.

Prophecy is a stament from a prophet who is completely within the Holy Spirit, a truely blessed individual usually referring to individuals or to countries or kings.
As what you're trying to prove is the validity and divinity of the Bible, this statement is circular. First you used the supposed strength of the prophecies to claim special status for the Bible; now you're using the supposed special status of the Bible to distinguish Biblical prophecies from others. Bzzzt -- try again.

Predestination does not apply. All a prophecy is, is words said that relate to something that hasn't happened yet. These words are acted out through mankinds free will. Just because God knows what is going to happen doesn't mean it has to happen, we all have free will. The thing is, God knows how you will use it, thus His conclusion will always be what you were going to do.
Never mind circular -- this statement simply makes no sense. It contradicts itself. Do you actually understand what "predestination" means?

These prophets knew of God and were completely tuned into Him, why on earth would they care about scientific understanding? They know the creator. Why do they care about the bacteria theory of disease? They know life - God.
Umm, gee, wasn't it you who was just claiming that the Bible represented an accurate scientific understanding of the world? Make up your mind.

If you're ready to admit that it doesn't, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd be happy to accept your concession. Going beyond that to claim that getting it wrong was okay because scientific understanding isn't even worth caring about, though -- that's pushing things a bit.

You seem to be forgetting that what you set out to do in this thread was demonstrate why the Bible should matter to anyone. If you now insist it gets an exemption from ordinary standards of accuracy because it matters so much as a sacred document, as if we'd all agreed on that, well, you're not just moving the goalposts, you're asking us to forfeit the whole damn game.

[eugene40]

since when did quotes out of a book with no verification constitute proof?

Sub_zero would clearly reject quotations from the Holy Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Genesis is a story. Nothing more.


I would like to thank you for not mocking the great and powerful flying speghatti monster..... he will forgive you for your past mocking.

[sub_zer0]

scientific theory

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

dictionary.com for petes sake.

[sub_zer0]

I have an hypothesis that you have no evidence at all to back up your assertions. I'm going to test that hypothesis by asking you for that evidence yet again. It still won't be a theory if you can't, but at least I will have gathered some useful data.

I have the same evidence as everybody else has. Ask questions if you are interested.

[Craig]

I did a little work and discovered where Sub_Zer0 got his definition from: http://www.dictionary.com

Interestingly, it comes from a relatively well respected online dictionary. However, it's still a poor definition insofar that it is noticeably silent on the issue of needing to be based upon facts or confirmed hyptheses. Equally interesting is that if you search for "theory" in Dictionary.com, you also come up with:

n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis, possibility]

I know some disingenous members of the forum are going to jump at the second half of this definition as being true for evolution, but we've already know that the theory of evolution is based upon facts, including observed examples of speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5. These forum members may not agree that the speciation described in the link constitutes facts, but it would be outright dishonesty for them to not discuss why they think there is a problem with these facts and simply continue on merrily asserting that evolution is not based upon fact.

But, back to the point at hand. We can reject the definition of theory given by Sub_Zer0 because scientists would reject it, and we can also reject it based upon the fact that Dictionary.com itself gives a better definition under "theory".

[Craig]

dictionary.com for petes sake.

And Sub_Zer0, you might just think that regularly forgetting to include a link is "no big deal" but actually it is a big deal. Essentially, you are plagiarizing from another person, stealing an idea of theirs and claiming, (intentionally or not), that it is your own. In an academic setting, if you are caught plagiarizing, your are immediately given a 0% for the assignment and are referred to the dean. It's a serious offense.

Granted, everyone forgets to include a link from time to time, and in such cases, they should simply be reminded that they need one. But you've forgotten at least three times in a row now, despite being reminded, and so I think it needs to be clear that citing your sources is extremely important, and not something to be taken for granted.

[sub_zer0]

I wasn't talking about what I believe -- I was talking about what other self-identifying devout Christians believe, thus demonstrating that there are differences of interpretation even about what you consider the "essential" parts of the Bible. BTW, just as a matter of logic, saying something can't be proven wrong is a far cry from saying you can prove it to be right.

Most definately lawman, I agree whole heartedly. But as a Christian myself, this is what I and Christians believe.


I'm familiar with the Merneptah Stele, and I think you overstate its importance. To quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele) from a good summary:


"What it says," actually, makes no use of BC/AD dates; all such things must be interpolated. And if it did place the conquest of Canaan c. 1400 BC, well, that would be kind of embarrassing, since it's fairly well established that the region was under the thumb of Egypt's Rameses II (and his successor Merneptah -- see just above) a couple of hundred years later than that.


Let's start with not forgetting it yourself! You keep making absolute statements out of what are actually very questionable interpretations, as if ignoring scholarly disputes on the subject will make them go away.

I am not ignoring anything which is why I put. "Let us not forget... blah, blah". Come on now...

As what you're trying to prove is the validity and divinity of the Bible, this statement is circular. First you used the supposed strength of the prophecies to claim special status for the Bible; now you're using the supposed special status of the Bible to distinguish Biblical prophecies from others. Bzzzt -- try again.

Distinguishing what Biblical prophecies from whom?


Never mind circular -- this statement simply makes no sense. It contradicts itself. Do you actually understand what "predestination" means?


Umm, gee, wasn't it you who was just claiming that the Bible represented an accurate scientific understanding of the world? Make up your mind.

If you're ready to admit that it doesn't, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd be happy to accept your concession. Going beyond that to claim that getting it wrong was okay because scientific understanding isn't even worth caring about, though -- that's pushing things a bit.

Yes I know what predesitnation means. He just knows what the outcome is and that doesn't mean that He foreordained things. Man had/has free will so things couldn't be set into stone or foreordained or predestined. See what I am saying?

You seem to be forgetting that what you set out to do in this thread was demonstrate why the Bible should matter to anyone. If you now insist it gets an exemption from ordinary standards of accuracy because it matters so much as a sacred document, as if we'd all agreed on that, well, you're not just moving the goalposts, you're asking us to forfeit the whole damn game.

No I started, by wanting peoples take on Genesis. What exemption, how is it disproved by these standards?

[sub_zer0]

If your explanation is correct, you'll burn in hell for this. Jesus specifically forbids you from giving any straight answers about the Bible to the unbelievers like me:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Mark 4,10-12

Allow me to help you better understand what this is referring to.

"Unto you it is given to know the myster of the kingdom of God" which means to the believers in Christ the truth shall become clear to them. "but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables". The word "without" is better translated as "outside" as it is concerning the kingdom of God. Now I know what you are saying that I am not to teach the details of the kingdom of God to prove His message to anyone. But that is not its meaning. It seems to mean to me that the "outsiders" cannot see or hear the truth in it's original form for their personal fear of being converted and "their sins should be forgiven."

[sub_zer0]

I know some disingenous members of the forum are going to jump at the second half of this definition as being true for evolution, but we've already know that the theory of evolution is based upon facts, including observed examples of speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5.

The model of creation on the Genesis account relies heavily on speciation to occur. Especially for Noahs Ark.

[Craig]

The model of creation on the Genesis account relies heavily on speciation to occur. Especially for Noahs Ark.

Oh really? And how does it rely upon speciation?

[sub_zer0]

Oh really? And how does it rely upon speciation?

Some of the grouping of species, certainly are descendants of the first created kind. That would make sense during the flood making it much easier for all animals to fit into the ark. All the top, or at least near the top of the heirarchiacal structure, species were present in the ark.

[mataj]

Allow me to help you better understand what this is referring to.

"Unto you it is given to know the myster of the kingdom of God" which means to the believers in Christ the truth shall become clear to them. "but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables". The word "without" is better translated as "outside" as it is concerning the kingdom of God. Now I know what you are saying that I am not to teach the details of the kingdom of God to prove His message to anyone. But that is not its meaning. It seems to mean to me that the "outsiders" cannot see or hear the truth in it's original form for their personal fear of being converted and "their sins should be forgiven."I highly appreciate your kindness and courage. Namely, if you sincerely trying to help me understand, you are risking your god's wrath. Jesus told you not to explain theese things to me in understandable manner.

Then again... Maybe you are doing as Jesus told you, and speaking to me in some sort of parbles & riddles here, how can I know? Looks like I'm pretty much left to my own resources here. The only thing I can rely on is the Bible, and my own interpretation of it.

[sub_zer0]

I highly appreciate your kindness and courage. Namely, if you sincerely trying to help me understand, you are risking your god's wrath. Jesus told you not to explain theese things to me in understandable manner.

Then again... Maybe you are doing as Jesus told you, and speaking to me in some sort of parbles & riddles here, how can I know? Looks like I'm pretty much left to my own resources here. The only thing I can rely on is the Bible, and my own interpretation of it.

Again, that is not Jesus' meaning in saying that. Jesus spoke to His desciples the same way, in parables. Jesus is simply stating that these parables are to help man cope with the truth of the kingdom of God. And to keep it disguised from the unbelievers. For once they find out they will become believers. I believe that is what Jesus is trying to say more than, do not teach the unbeliever with a understandable manner.

But Jesus did not always speak in the manner of parables. Look at Matthew 4:17 it is said loud and clear "Repent, for the kingdom of God is close at hand." He also instructed His disciples to preach the same message (Mt 10:7).

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
for He has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord."
(Luke 4:18-19)

Allow me to reiterate. Jesus came to bring good news. News of the truth for everybody that has been afflicted by the prince of this world, Satan. For all whos eyes have been shut becoming blind to the kingdom of God. Jesus came to say that you can escape from this kingdom of darkness, earth. The Lord God will usher us into the kingdom of God for those who have been awakened to the truth, who feel Gods Holy Spirit in them. This is the good news, this is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Dangerrmouse]

Look up Sagging and Hogging. Ships do it as they rise and fall over the waves. Timber ships are affected to the point where any wooden ship more than 300 feet long will break its back. That is why the biggest wooden ship ever built to this day is that size. One mythical but physically impossible ship is half as long again.

[sub_zer0]

Look up Sagging and Hogging. Ships do it as they rise and fall over the waves. Timber ships are affected to the point where any wooden ship more than 300 feet long will break its back. That is why the biggest wooden ship ever built to this day is that size. One mythical but physically impossible ship is half as long again.

How long does it take to affect a boat more than 300 feet long?

[mataj]

Again, that is not Jesus' meaning in saying that. . . . How can I know that you know what Jesus meant? That you understand his words better than I do?

How can I know, whether you are talking straight to me (and risking the hellfire for it), or in parbles & riddles?

[Dangerrmouse]

Why do men have nipples?

[Russikan]

No, that is what the Bible teaches. They sacrifice the animals for the Lord it plainly states that. It isn't about different religions that may do the same thing, its about the one the word of God talks about.

And I am trying to tell you that it is exeedingly easy to think of an explination for why the sacrifice could be consistent with Christianity. However, in the human mind cause comes before effect. So the cause of their animal sacrifices would be something in the past, like for example the preponderance in pagan religion of sacfices to get the blesing of God.

[serenity]

Why do men have nipples?


That's just a myth propagated by homosexual activists.

[DRMIZER]

Churlant I am interested in your view on the creation/fall of man and the flood. Don't leave me guessing just write what you think then I will do the same...


anybody else, shoot!There are 2 Genesis stories. Pick one. The book of Genesis was written by many priests to attempt to give some foundation to the beginning, which made sense to them at the time. It is not "gospel", nor should it be. Much too much is made of this book. It neither adds nor detracts from personal salvation. It can be confusing to those who do not understand its purpose.

The balance of the book was written in an attempt to explain other biological and physical principles of importance to them. . .i.e. the flood, child birth, the origin of sin, etc.

[sub_zer0]

How can I know that you know what Jesus meant? That you understand his words better than I do?

How can I know, whether you are talking straight to me (and risking the hellfire for it), or in parbles & riddles?

Well for one, I have the Holy Spirit in me.

And two, because it isn't just my view on it, these views are represented by a large number of Christians and Biblical scholars.

[Dangerrmouse]

So why do men have nipples?

[DRMIZER]

So why do men have nipples?Do you have a nipple fetish or what? :lol:

[Soc.Dem.]

Well for one, I have the Holy Spirit in me.

Prove it! :devil:

[mataj]

Well for one, I have the Holy Spirit in me.In this case, I'd imagine, you obey your lord, Jesus Christ, and speak to unbelievers in parbles, riddles & rebuses only. Therefore you don't explain the meaning of the Bible to me comprehensibly. That means, that my interpretation is the right one. Yours is probably same as mine, but you may not utter it.

And two, because it isn't just my view on it, these views are represented by a large number of Christians and Biblical scholars.Why of course, they all speak to unbelievers in riddles, because the Bible tells them to.

[sub_zer0]

In this case, I'd imagine, you obey your lord, Jesus Christ, and speak to unbelievers in parbles, riddles & rebuses only. Therefore you don't explain the meaning of the Bible to me comprehensibly. That means, that my interpretation is the right one. Yours is probably same as mine, but you may not utter it.

No I do not speak to unbelievers in parables or riddles that is what Jesus did. Read my post again, carefully and if you don't get the meaning then read it again. It is very comprehensible.

I would like to challenge your interpretation and mine on whatever passage you like or one that you think stirs controversy. I do not think they will be the same, but you never know.

[sub_zer0]

Prove it! :devil:

I am in line with the word of God. I told you that I do. I accepted Christ on my own when I was seven. Did it again years later, I am now 21 I know the Holy Spirit, I have felt it's power and believe me it is in me.

[Soc.Dem.]

I am in line with the word of God.

Not all Christians would agree that you are in line with the word of God

I told you that I do.

Simply saying something is not proving it.


Did it again years later, I am now 21 I know the Holy Spirit, I have felt it's power and believe me it is in me.

Believing is not proving.

[Craig]

Some of the grouping of species, certainly are descendants of the first created kind. That would make sense during the flood making it much easier for all animals to fit into the ark. All the top, or at least near the top of the heirarchiacal structure, species were present in the ark.

Interesting, but there's a few problems. For one thing, we have no reference to speciation in the Bible. Positing that it necessarily occurred, in order to explain the Bible, takes us outside the realm of Biblical truth. Put another way, while speciation helps to explain this event in the Bible, we're now making speculations in which we have no idea about their veracity, since the Bible is silent on the issue. But this perhaps is a relatively minor issue, nit-picking that does nothing to prove that speciation did not occur. So let's move on to even more fundamental problems.

The major problem is that in admitting speciation, you are admitting a form of micro-evolution occurs. In the broadest sense, evolution simply means a change in species over time, and speciation is a very good example of this. Now, you can claim that God controls or directs this speciation, but even this claim is still operating in the realm of theistic evolution.

So you can see the problem here. By accepting that speciation occurs, you also are compelled to admit that microevolution occurs. You can't say that speciation occurs and microevolution does not, because, as I've already stated, speciation is just a form of microevolution- by definition, speciation is part of microevolution. You have two options. You can reject speciation and claim it doesn't occur, which means that you don't need to accept microevolution. However, you are left with the problem of how to explain what happened after the Flood, since your explanation relied upon speciation. You now also have the problem of how to deal with speciation that has been observed. The second option is that you admit speciation occurs, and by extension, that microevolution occurs too. This is the most logical route to go, but it means that you'll have to shift your position towards theistic evolution of some form.

Technically, you do have a third option of obstinately maintaining that speciation occurs and no form of evolution occurs. The problem with this is it will reveal you as utterly hypocritical and self-deceiving, because speciation is a form of evolution, by definition. You can reject this definition, but to do so would be merely to play semantic games; you might not call speciation by the name "evolution", but really, a process of evolution is what you are describing with the term "speciation". Might I also add that taking this third option is a blunder equal to citing problems with evolution from the Talkorigins webpage without discussing their arguments against these so-called problems. It's an extremely bad choice to make, both in terms of logical implications and in terms of how you people will respond to you in future discussions on the forum, but technically, you can choose it if you want.

[Craig]

There's a second major problem too. According to the Bible, there were "fowl" and "cattle" among the many species on board Noah's Ark. In your post, you suggest that it's from these first created creatures that we see speciation occurring which leads to the variety of species we see today.

The problem is that I can attack your premise that the creatures on Noah's Ark are the first created creatures. In fact, the fossil record contradicts this claim. We have transitional fossils for both "fowl" and "cattle" which provides evidence that both of these groups mentioned in the Bible evolved from earlier ancestors. And, I'm not about to make this claim without backing it up with evidence, which can be found here:
Birds http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
Cattle http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#arti

In other words, the fossil record supports the evolutionary perspective, and not the Creationist one. So, you're back to where you were with the previous criticism: you can reject speciation, you can accept speciation and by extension microevolution, or you can obstinately maintain that speciation is not a form of evolution. The consequences for each are discussed in my previous post.

[Void Image]

So why do men have nipples?

I really, really want to hear Sub_zero's answer to this question.

[sub_zer0]

No, you are wrong. This is my interpretation of the evidence as far as the fossil record goes. Since I'm a creationists I can get a picture of the pre-flood and post-flood world (assuming it happened for my presuppositions) through the eyes of the Bible. With that a possible solution to the fossils could be due to the order of burial during the year long flood and the local catastrophes that happened during and after.

Perhaps this is the reason for not many human fossils, again in light of Scripture, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.(Gen. 6:7)."

I'll quote from the Bible but give an explanation...

This massive, global flood, started with the breaking up of the fountains of the deep (Genesis 7:11). Along with that the windows of heaven were opened. That breaking up of the fountains would tend to bury bottom, sea dweilling creatures first.

As the waters rose further up the land (Genesis 7:15), the land creatures would most likely be buried last. Water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants. Land-based swamp plants would be buried before plants further up on land.

These land-based animals, such as mammals and birds, being relatively mobile (especially birds) could escape to higher ground and in the end be one of the last to succumb.

People, being the most intelligent and advanced would do everything they possibly could to avoid this horrible flood. Not to mention Noah warned them. They would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end. Once dead, they would tend to bloat and float atop the water, in turn being picked clean by the birds and so forth. That is one reason as to why human fossils are rare.

Also, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." That is another reason as to why they are rare.

And furthermore, these land-based animals, being moree mobile and intelligent than most for the most part would tend to be buried last by the flood. Their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters (Genesis 8:1-13). Remains would tend to become destroyed, etc. This intelligence could partly describe the seperation of dinasaurs and mammals.

Microevolution most certainly occurs and I believe in it. How could I not? And as you said it is a BROAD definition of evolution.

In the broadest sense, evolution simply means a change in species over time, and speciation is a very good example of this.

A more precise definition would be that evolution is the intermediate process of changing from one specie and creating an entirely new one thus making it more complex. When using that, microevolution does not apply to evolution. Macroevolution is more in line with evolution than microevolution as that is more variation than anything.

[sub_zer0]

Not all Christians would agree that you are in line with the word of God

Challenge me on my interpretation of it then. It all matches up.

Simply saying something is not proving it.

Quit asking me to then.

[Craig]

No, you are wrong. This is my interpretation of the evidence as far as the fossil record goes. Since I'm a creationists I can get a picture of the pre-flood and post-flood world (assuming it happened for my presuppositions) through the eyes of the Bible. With that a possible solution to the fossils could be due to the order of burial during the year long flood and the local catastrophes that happened during and after.

Perhaps this is the reason for not many human fossils, again in light of Scripture, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.(Gen. 6:7)."

I'll quote from the Bible but give an explanation...

This massive, global flood, started with the breaking up of the fountains of the deep (Genesis 7:11). Along with that the windows of heaven were opened. That breaking up of the fountains would tend to bury bottom, sea dweilling creatures first.

As the waters rose further up the land (Genesis 7:15), the land creatures would most likely be buried last. Water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants. Land-based swamp plants would be buried before plants further up on land.

These land-based animals, such as mammals and birds, being relatively mobile (especially birds) could escape to higher ground and in the end be one of the last to succumb.

People, being the most intelligent and advanced would do everything they possibly could to avoid this horrible flood. Not to mention Noah warned them. They would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end. Once dead, they would tend to bloat and float atop the water, in turn being picked clean by the birds and so forth. That is one reason as to why human fossils are rare.

Also, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." That is another reason as to why they are rare.

And furthermore, these land-based animals, being moree mobile and intelligent than most for the most part would tend to be buried last by the flood. Their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters (Genesis 8:1-13). Remains would tend to become destroyed, etc. This intelligence could partly describe the seperation of dinasaurs and mammals.

All this is interesting Sub_Zer0, but you still haven't responded to the first part of my post about speciation being by definition a form of microevolution. I'll take a look at this; in the meantime, I'm waiting for your response.

Edit: My bad, I can see that you did respond on this issue. I was only looking at the first part of your discussion.

[Craig]

No, you are wrong. This is my interpretation of the evidence as far as the fossil record goes. Since I'm a creationists I can get a picture of the pre-flood and post-flood world (assuming it happened for my presuppositions) through the eyes of the Bible. With that a possible solution to the fossils could be due to the order of burial during the year long flood and the local catastrophes that happened during and after.

Perhaps this is the reason for not many human fossils, again in light of Scripture, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.(Gen. 6:7)."

I'll quote from the Bible but give an explanation...

This massive, global flood, started with the breaking up of the fountains of the deep (Genesis 7:11). Along with that the windows of heaven were opened. That breaking up of the fountains would tend to bury bottom, sea dweilling creatures first.

As the waters rose further up the land (Genesis 7:15), the land creatures would most likely be buried last. Water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants. Land-based swamp plants would be buried before plants further up on land.

These land-based animals, such as mammals and birds, being relatively mobile (especially birds) could escape to higher ground and in the end be one of the last to succumb.

People, being the most intelligent and advanced would do everything they possibly could to avoid this horrible flood. Not to mention Noah warned them. They would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end. Once dead, they would tend to bloat and float atop the water, in turn being picked clean by the birds and so forth. That is one reason as to why human fossils are rare.

Also, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." That is another reason as to why they are rare.

And furthermore, these land-based animals, being moree mobile and intelligent than most for the most part would tend to be buried last by the flood. Their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters (Genesis 8:1-13). Remains would tend to become destroyed, etc. This intelligence could partly describe the seperation of dinasaurs and mammals.



I see several problems here. The entire argument topples like a house of cards when I point out that there is no geologic evidence for a global flood, despite the fact that there is geologic evidence for every other major global catastrophe. The argument also topples when I point out that you still haven't dealt with the other forms of dating besides Carbon 14 decay.

Another problem that arises is that fossil evidence indicates that floods are one of the best times for fossil formation. Many dinosaur fossils have been found in areas that were subject to prehistoric floods. This knowledge makes this claim:

Once dead, they would tend to bloat and float atop the water, in turn being picked clean by the birds and so forth. That is one reason as to why human fossils are rare.

extremely problematic and inconsistent with scientific evidence. For these reasons, we should reject the explanation of the fossil record of the Flood that you have given.

[Craig]

Microevolution most certainly occurs and I believe in it. How could I not? And as you said it is a BROAD definition of evolution.

A more precise definition would be that evolution is the intermediate process of changing from one specie and creating an entirely new one thus making it more complex. When using that, microevolution does not apply to evolution. Macroevolution is more in line with evolution than microevolution as that is more variation than anything.

Oh, so after all this time that you spend trying to disprove evolution, you now come out of the closet and admit that you accept microevolution? Hmm... that makes a lot of your previous efforts rather silly, don't you think?

And, despite your attempt to redefine evolution, it applies both to the micro and macro forms. I know Answers in Genesis likes to obsfucate this fact, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where you got it from, but I've called them on it just as I've called you on it.

And now, this brings us back to 64 million dollar question which you failed to answer last time: http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=635558&highlight=Darwinist#post635558

[Soc.Dem.]

Quit asking me to then.

I'm not asking what you believe.

I'm challenging you attempts to use the Bible as evidence in a debate about scientific theories.

[Strel]

We are waiting for an answer on the nipples!

[sub_zer0]

Oh, so after all this time that you spend trying to disprove evolution, you now come out of the closet and admit that you accept microevolution? Hmm... that makes a lot of your previous efforts rather silly, don't you think?

Microevolution means change within species. Macroevolution means change from one species to another. Microevolution is small scale change, macroevolution is large scale change.

So the question is do you believe microevolution to be directly related to macroevolution?

[::Major_Baker::]

so you are now acknowledging the existence of evolution as a theory....

[sub_zer0]

The argument also topples when I point out that you still haven't dealt with the other forms of dating besides Carbon 14 decay.

What about the RATE group?

RATE is the Institute of Creation Research's acronym for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. It is a group put together for the purposes of studying the geologic record in terms of radioisotope dating.

There have been a number of misconceptions about this group: that it is throwing out data which does not conform to Bible; that it is intent on proving radio decay dating wrong, etc. A number of those who support the Setterfield research seem to feel that it is therefore necessary to be against the purpose and work of the RATE group. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, one of the RATE team members, is a personal friend and was kind enough to give us the following statement for this page to help clear up the above misconceptions and any others:

It needs to be stressed that the RATE group recognises that there is physical evidence in the rocks that massive amounts of radioactive decay have occurred through the earth's history, and that there is a systematic trend in the radioisotopic 'ages' of the rocks in the geologic record from oldest at the bottom to youngest at the top. However, there are many anomalies and there is much evidence of radioisotopic inheritance and mixing because of global tectonic processes having stirred the mantle and added magmas to the crust, which has likewise been stirred by the crustal rock cycle. The objective of the RATE research is to develop a model which is consistent with the radioisotopic data and with the Biblical record of a recent creation and catastrophic global flood. The need to spend money on analyses of rock samples by reputable laboratories is to ensure that we have data to model that are free of any bias that may have occurred in laboratories where the 'target ages' are known before the analyses. Also, many rock units have been radioisotopically dated by only one or two radioisotopic systems, whereas we need to see if there are patterns in the results when rock units are 'dated' by all the major radioisotopic systems. This is where money has needed to be spent, but this procedure is obtaining original results that are proving invaluable in developing a model and an understanding of the radioisotopic data within our Biblical framework for earth history.

We would like to stress, additionally, that the Setterfield research is presenting reasons why there are old age results in the field of radioisotope dating. The RATE group is looking, as Dr. Snelling indicated above, for the patterns and anomalies that exist in line with completely new data sets.

We sincerely hope that this is enough to clear up misconceptions which are going around regarding the two different approaches

http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm#rate

That is another form of dating.

Another problem that arises is that fossil evidence indicates that floods are one of the best times for fossil formation. Many dinosaur fossils have been found in areas that were subject to prehistoric floods. This knowledge makes this claim:

"Once dead, they would tend to bloat and float atop the water, in turn being picked clean by the birds and so forth. That is one reason as to why human fossils are rare."

extremely problematic and inconsistent with scientific evidence. For these reasons, we should reject the explanation of the fossil record of the Flood that you have given.

OK that seems unfair...

[Craig]

Microevolution means change within species. Macroevolution means change from one species to another. Microevolution is small scale change, macroevolution is large scale change.

So the question is do you believe microevolution to be directly related to macroevolution?

I would say that species not being able to breed with one another and produce viable offspring, which is a definition of speciation, is a fairly large scale change, wouldn't you? In fact, I can see that I've actually partially misunderstood macroevolution, which goes to show why you need to constantly read up on the subject of evolution to ensure your discussions don't slip into inaccuracies. According to Talkorigins.org:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch").

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Uh oh Sub_Zer0, now you've got a real problem. By accepting speciation, you've actually unwittingly accepted that macroevolution occurs. Whoops. :lol:

[sub_zer0]

I would say that species not being able to breed with one another and produce viable offspring, which is a definition of speciation, is a fairly large scale change, wouldn't you? In fact, I can see that I've actually partially misunderstood macroevolution, which goes to show why you need to constantly read up on the subject of evolution to ensure your discussions don't slip into inaccuracies.

Like I said, macroevolution is the change into NEW species. As in monkey to man. You know evolution.

According to Talkorigins.org:



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Uh oh Sub_Zer0, now you've got a real problem. By accepting speciation, you've actually unwittingly accepted that macroevolution occurs. Whoops. :lol:

But it says "change below the level of species," so it doesn't change species, correct? That is macroevolution.

[Craig]

What about the RATE group?


We will have to see about the RATE group. At the moment, I'm not convinced, particularly based upon the fact that I see no indication that this research has been published in a scholarly paper and that the theory is currently being reviewed by other experts in the field.

[sub_zer0]

We will have to see about the RATE group. At the moment, I'm not convinced, particularly based upon the fact that I see no indication that this research has been published in a scholarly paper and that the theory is currently being reviewed by other experts in the field.

Do not worry it is peer-reviewed, ;p

http://www.nwcreation.net/store/books/radioisotopesandtheage.html

[Craig]

But it says "change below the level of species," so it doesn't change species, correct? That is macroevolution.

Try again:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch").

[sub_zer0]

Originally Posted by TalkOrigins
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species . It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch").

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

So you see the difference between them now?

[Craig]

Do not worry it is peer-reviewed, ;p

http://www.nwcreation.net/store/books/radioisotopesandtheage.html

Perhaps I am not seeing something here, but where does it say this article is peer-reviewed? And for that matter, who reviewed it?

[sub_zer0]

Perhaps I am not seeing something here, but where does it say this article is peer-reviewed? And for that matter, who reviewed it?

Well they have published their findings in a book, I think its peer-reviewed... I saw it somewhere can't remember where though.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by TalkOrigins
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species . It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch").

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

So you see the difference between them now?

You still missed the point. Speciation is identified as a form of macroevolution, which I bolded in my discussion. Reread the section that you've quoted here from me- speciation appears under the section of macroevolution.

[Craig]

Well they have published their findings in a book, I think its peer-reviewed... I saw it somewhere can't remember where though.

Peer-reviewed usually applies to scholarly articles, and not books. Remember, I can publish my findings that support the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a book, but it doesn't mean that they're true or that it's a peer-reviewed article.

[sub_zer0]

You still missed the point. Speciation is identified as a form of macroevolution, which I bolded in my discussion. Reread the section that you've quoted here from me- speciation appears under the section of macroevolution.

Speciation, while not assuming evolution, is that multiple lineages were created independantly and given a degree of genetic adaptability. Just because one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to it. You are trying to carry-over speciation into macroevolution, microevolution fits the need for it with the idea of a creator. It doesn't mean that a bacterium can give rise to a human. It is that type of mechanistic thinking that takes God out of the picture.

Those multiple lineages were created by God and endowed by their creator a degree of genetic adaptability. It is fair to believe that when this world was created and the animals that live in it those were the multiple lineages and they were created with superior genetics compared to what they have now as after the original sin life began to decay.

[Craig]

Speciation, while not assuming evolution, is that multiple lineages were created independantly and given a degree of genetic adaptability. Just because one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to it. You are trying to carry-over speciation into macroevolution, microevolution fits the need for it with the idea of a creator. It doesn't mean that a bacterium can give rise to a human. It is that type of mechanistic thinking that takes God out of the picture.

Those multiple lineages were created by God and endowed by their creator a degree of genetic adaptability.

As usual, there's a problem with this, and I'll let Talk Origins do the talking, since they are probably a lot more concise than I am:

Claim CB901.1:

Species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 51-52, 87-88.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 109.

Response:

1) What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.


2) Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).


3) Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html

Note that the last is simply a rephrasal of the 64 million dollar question from Darwinist that remains unanswered.

See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html

[sub_zer0]

What limits genetic variation? Sin. Since the original sin the genetics of everything has been decaying and slowly becoming more corrupt thus resulting in a limit in variations.... Like I said it is fair to assume that we were first created, before sin, as geentically superior beings to all other things, and the same goes for the rest of things below humans.

But then again that is out of the evolution box...

[Craig]

Also relevant:

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:

1) We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2) The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3) As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4) Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5) There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

[Craig]

What limits variation? Sin. Since the original sin the genetics of everything has been decaying and slowly becoming more corrupt thus resulting in a limit in variations.... Like I said it is fair to assume that we were first created, before sin, as geentically superior beings to all other things, and the same goes for the rest of things below humans.

Explain, not in abstract terms, but in a concerte, empirically identifiable manner. You can't just throw out an idea like that without explaining how it works. How exactly does sin limit variations? For that matter, how can we empirically identify this as occurring? And, why does comparative anatomical analysis of the fossil record also support macroevolution? You've underestimated the evidence for evolution. It's supported by numerous pieces of evidence.

More to the point however, you've accepted that microevolution occurs and that parts of macroevolution (speciation) also occur. You've illustrated that you actually accept evolution as a fact, and it's rather aspects of the theory, rather than the fact of evolution, that you disagree with. In other words, you original post about evolution being no more proven than creationism is silly, because you accept both evolution and creationism as facts, rather than just creationism, as the initial article suggested.

[sub_zer0]

Explain, not in abstract terms, but in a concerte, empirically identifiable manner. You can't just throw out an idea like that without explaining how it works. How exactly does sin limit variations? For that matter, how can we empirically identify this as occurring? And, why does comparative anatomical analysis of the fossil record also support macroevolution? You've underestimated the evidence for evolution. It's supported by numerous pieces of evidence.

Yes I can just throw an idea out there. You asked, I gave an answer, I don't need to prove it anymore than I want to as it is proven to me through faith.

More to the point however, you've accepted that microevolution occurs and that parts of macroevolution (speciation) also occur. You've illustrated that you actually accept evolution as a fact, and it's rather aspects of the theory, rather than the fact of evolution, that you disagree with. In other words, you original post about evolution being no more proven than creationism is silly, because you accept both evolution and creationism as facts, rather than just creationism, as the initial article suggested.

You must not know how to read. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Microevolution occurs speciation occurs within microevolution. Those are my stances.

Evolution, the big picture, says there must have been involved processes which by natural causes, increased the genetic information. Speciation within the creationist model is to be there instead of of increased genetic information released into the biosphere. This increase in genetic information from the creationists model is from an intelligent source, or God. Thus once first created everything was genetically superior to what is now. But it has been breaking down.

[dittohead not!]

Microevolution means change within species. Macroevolution means change from one species to another. Microevolution is small scale change, macroevolution is large scale change.

So the question is do you believe microevolution to be directly related to macroevolution?

Then you have to believe that one set of bears, for example, evolved into all of the various types of bears we see on Earth today. OK, so you have a little problem with the speed of microevolution, but what the heck. Now, there are some other problems to solve:

Does it bother you at all that the ark would have had to have been bigger than the Titanic by far in order to have just two representatives of each species on Earth, even before this microevolution?

How about the problem of gathereing species from each of the seven continents, when only the area around the Mediterranean sea was known to Noah and his people?

Once you've solved that little delimma, how did the bears get to North America, the llamas to South America, etc.?

Or, could it be that the flood story is just that, a story? Maybe one with a point that it pays to be prepared for the unexpected?

[Craig]

Yes I can just throw an idea out there. You asked, I gave an answer, I don't need to prove it anymore than I want to as it is proven to me through faith.

You still need to account for the comparative anatomy of the fossil record.
And even then, we can still question this premise. Sin in the Bible illustrates that we've entered a fallen state. The idea that sin necessarily implies that macroevolution cannot occur is not found in the Bible. This means that your ideas about sin and evolution are your own, based upon how you understand the Bible, and that's not the same thing as it being what is actually said in the Bible. It's an important distinction.

Furthermore, I can make a counter-philosophical argument: The Fall due to sin in the Bible actually provides evidence for macroevolution. The pre-Lapsarian world would not have changes in species because they'd be complete and unchanging. When sin enters the world, it causes the world to fall into change, and therefore we should expect macroevolution as part of this changing and inconstant world, one where many species die out and only few survive.

You must not know how to read. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Microevolution occurs speciation occurs within microevolution. Those are my stances.

Evolution, the big picture, says there must have been involved processes which, via natural causes, increased the genetic information in the biosphere. Speciation within the creationist model is expected to occur in the absence of the evolutionary idea that there were increases in the information within the biosphere.

I do know how to read. And my point is that your view is far closer to an evolutionary perspective than you'd care to admit. It all revolves around your difficulty in understanding what constitutes a scientific theory. As we've explained to you time and time again, evolution is not a simple entity. It is composed of many seperate ideas, the entirety of which is collectively known as the theory of evolution.

What you've refused to listen to is that accepting evolution as a fact is not the same thing as accepting the entirety of the theory of evolution. What we've argued all along is that the core aspects of evolution are facts- but this does not mean the entirety of the theory is necessarily fact. You've said that you accept microevolution and speciation as fact and these are two of the fundamental aspects of evolution. In effect, you accept microevolution and part of macroevolution as being true. This also means that part of the theory of evolution is fact- which is exactly what we've been saying all along.

Basically, in order to truly reject evolution, you have to reject the entirety of the theory, including microevolution and speciation. Otherwise, you accept some part of the entirety of the theory of evolution as fact. Even supposing that it turned out that you are entirely right, and that microevolution and speciation are the only things that can occur- we still won't be throwing out the theory of evolution entirely, because parts of it still work! Nor does it make sense to label microevolution and speciation simply as "Scientific Creationism", (or "Intelligent Design" for that matter), because they were posited as part of evolutionary theory, and comprise a part of the theory.

So, exactly I stated before in my last post, "you've illustrated that you actually accept evolution as a fact, and it's rather aspects of the theory, rather than the fact of evolution, that you disagree with."

Do you finally understand what we've been saying about fact versus theory all along now?

[sub_zer0]

Furthermore, I can make a counter-philosophical argument: The Fall due to sin in the Bible actually provides evidence for macroevolution. The pre-Lapsarian world would not have changes in species because they'd be complete and unchanging. When sin enters the world, it causes the world to fall into change, and therefore we should expect macroevolution as part of this changing and inconstant world, one where many species die out and only few survive.

Makes sense.

[NiteGuy]

You still need to account for the comparative anatomy of the fossil record.
And even then, we can still question this premise. Sin in the Bible illustrates that we've entered a fallen state. The idea that sin necessarily implies that macroevolution cannot occur is not found in the Bible. This means that your ideas about sin and evolution are your own, based upon how you understand the Bible, and that's not the same thing as it being what is actually said in the Bible. It's an important distinction.

Furthermore, I can make a counter-philosophical argument: The Fall due to sin in the Bible actually provides evidence for macroevolution. The pre-Lapsarian world would not have changes in species because they'd be complete and unchanging. When sin enters the world, it causes the world to fall into change, and therefore we should expect macroevolution as part of this changing and inconstant world, one where many species die out and only few survive.



I do know how to read. And my point is that your view is far closer to an evolutionary perspective than you'd care to admit. It all revolves around your difficulty in understanding what constitutes a scientific theory. As we've explained to you time and time again, evolution is not a simple entity. It is composed of many seperate ideas, the entirety of which is collectively known as the theory of evolution.

What you've refused to listen to is that accepting evolution as a fact is not the same thing as accepting the entirety of the theory of evolution. What we've argued all along is that the core aspects of evolution are facts- but this does not mean the entirety of the theory is necessarily fact. You've said that you accept microevolution and speciation as fact and these are two of the fundamental aspects of evolution. In effect, you accept microevolution and part of macroevolution as being true. This also means that part of the theory of evolution is fact- which is exactly what we've been saying all along.

Basically, in order to truly reject evolution, you have to reject the entirety of the theory, including microevolution and speciation. Otherwise, you accept some part of the entirety of the theory of evolution as fact. Even supposing that it turned out that you are entirely right, and that microevolution and speciation are the only things that can occur- we still won't be throwing out the theory of evolution entirely, because parts of it still work! Nor does it make sense to label microevolution and speciation simply as "Scientific Creationism", (or "Intelligent Design" for that matter), because they were posited as part of evolutionary theory, and comprise a part of the theory.

So, exactly I stated before in my last post, "you've illustrated that you actually accept evolution as a fact, and it's rather aspects of the theory, rather than the fact of evolution, that you disagree with."

Do you finally understand what we've been saying about fact versus theory all along now?

Craig, if he is finally admitting to acceptance of speciation, but denies macroevolution, he has an even bigger problem.

Because speciation, at least as it applies to hominids, pretty much proves macroevolution. Let me explain.

Evolution doesn't say (contrary to sub-zer0's contention) that we evolved directly from apes or chimpanzees. What it does say, is that, somewhere down the evolutionary "family tree", there was a common ancestor to us and to the great apes, and at some point, this common ancestor "split off" or "branched out" both the apes, and the early humans.

Which of course, explains why genetically, we are more than 95% identical, but maintain separate speciation.

It's certainly not microevolution that did this, sub-zer0. It's pure, unadulterated macroevolution. Still some gaps in the fossil record, that finds this ultimate ancestor? Sure. But it does not at all negate the fact that it happened. Absence (so far) of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

And that's what is so dishonest about creationism. Not being able to produce evidence of every fossil, or every biological change doesn't automatically mean that the only other possible explanation is God. It just means that we haven't discovered every possible fossil yet, or tried every possible biochemical test. Then again, it's a damned big sandbox, and relatively speaking, we've only just started to dig.

[sub_zer0]

What you've refused to listen to is that accepting evolution as a fact is not the same thing as accepting the entirety of the theory of evolution. What we've argued all along is that the core aspects of evolution are facts- but this does not mean the entirety of the theory is necessarily fact. You've said that you accept microevolution and speciation as fact and these are two of the fundamental aspects of evolution. In effect, you accept microevolution and part of macroevolution as being true. This also means that part of the theory of evolution is fact- which is exactly what we've been saying all along.

Basically, in order to truly reject evolution, yo