Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael

I too look forward to the restoration of conditions as in Eden.
These prophecies describe that restoration .

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

These conditions may have prevailed in Eden, before the fall, but I look at the fossil record with T. rex and all his buddies which had HUGE teeth, designed solely for eating smaller animals.

Dear iouae,

Do you actually think that God could not make T-Rex's eat plants only? Of course He could. He made lions eat straw, then He can make T-Rex's to eat fruit or leaves, or yes, even straw also.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Perhaps you are recalling what Winston Smith, a character in George Orwell’s “1984” said:

It was as though some huge force were pressing down upon you – something that penetrated inside your skull, battering against your brain, frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.​

In 6days’ case, in just this thread I see at least 13 posts where 6days has declared that logic necessitates a pre-existent creator to bring the universe into existence. But now he shows that for him logic is actually a disposable hindrance when it interferes with tribal creation beliefs.

Dear DavisBJ,

Hey, I don't understand your last paragraph. The last sentence. I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say. Can you reword it? This happens a lot with you, but I've never mentioned it before. I just dismiss it. But not this time.

Much Love And Thanks Davis,

Michael

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Now that's a different story. If God wanted to call 'white' black and 'black' white, or orange, or red, He could have. But 2 + 2 = 4 stays the way it is. You just don't seem to understand.

God gave Adam the names to call the animals He created and formed. Genesis tells us this. God also caused man to call this the Milky Way. We are all children of His being weaned on Milk(y Way). Do you understand now, or no?

Sorry Michael but you are still missing the point and I'm afraid I can't think of a way to put it simpler.

 

[6days]

I do believe however, that as soon as they were out of Eden, meat eating became as normal as today.

It was not until after the flood that God gave permission to eat meat. In all likihood, meat eating was something that happened gradually over the the first 1500 years as sin continued to corrupt God's perfect creation.

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

I hope that I'm not butting in here, but you need to read Gen. 9:3. Noah was given permission to eat meat. Before that, everyone was eating plants and fruit, etc. This is why 6days keeps telling you to read Genesis. If you read the first 9 chapters, you would have the entire story that you seek. And yes, God can make everyone and every thing vegan again, which means no one will eat meat.

Hope this helps. He gave Noah and his family, and descendants to eat meat, and the animals to eat meat also. Now you've got the real deal.

Praise The Lord God,

Michael

Hi again Michael

I do concede that God put Adam and Eve into a beautiful garden in Eden and commanded them to eat vegetarian only. And they did that for ???? years.

The garden of Eden does NOT occupy all of Eden. It is on the East of Eden.

Genesis 2:

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And Eden does not occupy all of earth either, since Adam and Eve were banished from Eden.

So on earth is a land called Eden.
And on the East side of this land is a garden of unspecified size.
And Adam and Eve were to "dress and keep" this garden.
How big a garden could two people "dress and keep"?
This is not a big place. They had no power tools or transport.

Inside this garden all is perfect. There are no ravenous beasts. Inside my back yard there are none either. My garden has nothing to threaten me, and I dress and keep it - sort of. It has a fig tree and a grape vine and mulberry trees to eat from, with some swisschard and a few other plants.

Suppose God banishes me from my garden, into a world full of thorns - well into the wilderness like we have today. Immediately one is on Survivor or Naked and Afraid or like on any one of the survival programs, like Dual Survival, Survivor-man, Bear Grilse, Man-Woman-Wild etc.

And like them it's eat whatever you come across, or die. If you cannot find fruit, you eat grubs. Or snakes, or birds eggs, or literally anything.

My guess is that they hunter-gathered as well as tried to cultivate some crops, as well as had domestic animals like sheep and chicken which they ate. This was a hostile world outside of Eden. It is exactly like today. Even the most beautiful tropical island can have mosquitoes and bugs which can drive one insane. And the rest of human history proves that eke-ing out a living from the land means eating whatever you find.

 

[TheDuke]

It was not until after the flood that God gave permission to eat meat. In all likihood, meat eating was something that happened gradually over the the first 1500 years as sin continued to corrupt God's perfect creation.

So hold on, lions and sharks are like that because of man's sin?

You theists don't cease to amaze.


I guess an all-knowing being was incapable of foreseeing this corruption, eh?

 

[TheDuke]

But some is more special than others, wouldn't you think?
Some religious texts give better information about history, culture, etc. than others, right?

Your bias is showing I just said that none of it is special, obviously you'd very much like to believe otherwise. Care to share your rationale?

But plausibility of one part of a document tends toward the credibility of the document as a whole--doesn't prove it, but supports it.

Unfortunately no. Think of it this way, a mathematical proof of a theorem requires all the steps to be valid. Having even 99.9% of the document seem credible does not support the credibility of the remainder at all. You have to validate EVERYTHING. As I've said before, inferring the supernatural from some historical accounts is a huge leap of faith (or logical fallacy, if you will).

And physical facts don't scare me--it's the interpretations that you have to watch out for. You seem to confuse the two

Excellent! then there is still hope for you.
Let's try to get things straight.

Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality or an actual occurrence

Interpretation (to interpret) - to explain the meaning of something or to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance

Scientific method - exploration and documentation of facts; analysis and comprehension of patterns in the facts leading to Laws; consolidation of laws into Theories; validation of theories through forecast of yet unknown facts
(as you can see, no interpretations necessary)

And yes, interpretations do scare me, like the inquisition or sectarian warfare

I've been trying, and you still don't seem grateful.

yeah :chuckle: don't give up, I'm listening.

The video series was indeed interesting, but MAJOR propaganda, both in content and in style. I don't see much difference in style between that and some of the creationist stuff that was caricatured in the series.

Well I guess style is subjective, of course I picked a somewhat more provoking video for the fun of it, but I am disappointed if your only conclusion after having watched it, is that it's propaganda.
Propaganda for what exactly, if I may ask?

So here's a thought for you: Throughout history up until, say, the Renaissance, science and religion have been inextricably linked (for better or worse). Think Celtic druids with their henges, or Mayan temples and their calendars. You believe that science has somehow severed those links and is no longer chained to religion, do you not?

Would you consider the possibility that the science of today is no better disconnected from the religion of today than were the Celts and Mayans?

Interesting question. I cannot be sure of what significance that connection used to be. I'm sure it's possible to find counter-examples in ancient Greece, even in medieval Arabia, where religion had no influence.
But within the modern context, I'm doubtful religion has any role left to play. However I'm looking forward to your opinion on this.

Cheers

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

Do you actually think that God could not make T-Rex's eat plants only? Of course He could. He made lions eat straw, then He can make T-Rex's to eat fruit or leaves, or yes, even straw also.

Michael

This extract is from...
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=198

How do scientists know what dinosaurs ate without looking at their teeth?

Answer 1:
Coprolites, or fossil "poop", are one way that paleontologists (scientists who study ancient life other than humans) try to understand what dinosaurs and other fossil animals ate when they were living, but as you can imagine, it's not always so easy to tell who made the coprolites. One famous example of a coprolite that actually was attributed to a specific dinosaur (in this case, Tyrannosaurus rex) was reported on by paleontologists, Dr. Karen Chin and colleagues, in the June 1998 issue of the scientific journal, Nature.

This is truly a huge coprolite, weighing in at 17 inches (44 cm) long, 6 inches (15 cm) high, and 5 inches (13 cm) wide. The coprolite is dated at 65 million years of age and since T. rex was the largest meat-eater around during that time (Late Cretaceous), the process of elimination suggests that this coprolite is T. rex dung. Other evidence that this belonged to a meat-eater like T. rex are the crushed up bone fragments that Dr. Chin found embedded in the coprolite. These shattered bone fragments tell us that T. rex was capable of chewing its food (previously scientists thought food may have been dissolved in the stomach), and that T. rex was feeding on Triceratops - some of the bone fragments are from the bony frill found at the back of the Triceratops skull. Amazing how many things you can learn about a dinosaur from its poop!"

 

[Jose Fly]

You are saying that the fossil record is full of instances of some type of coelacanth, be it ancient, modern or something else, between 65 million years ago and now, such that scientists would be misinformed to think that the coelacanth (in any form) actually went extinct 65 million years ago?

No. The point is, "coelacanth" is a diverse order, containing many different species, most of which are extinct. So when creationists say (as Henry Morris did) "They found a live coelacanth, that proves it hasn't evolved in X million years", they're wrong. The species known from the fossil record are different in many respects from the ones that exist today.

If you are saying "no", then do you understand my point that recent human observations trump scientific conclusions about what has or hasn't been extinct for 65 million years?

If your point is that when we discover actual living organisms that we previously thought were extinct, then that trumps the previous conclusion about them being extinct.....well, yeah.

 

[6days]

I'm sure it's possible to find counter-examples in ancient Greece, even in medieval Arabia, where religion had no influence.*
But within the modern context, I'm doubtful religion has any role left to play. However I'm looking forward to your opinion on this.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems you think secular humanism is not a religion. I'm sure we can find examples of societies that attempted secular humanism as a form of state sponsored religion. Start with North Korea.*

 

[Derf]

Hey Jose,
Thanks for the reply.

No. The point is, "coelacanth" is a diverse order, containing many different species, most of which are extinct. So when creationists say (as Henry Morris did) "They found a live coelacanth, that proves it hasn't evolved in X million years", they're wrong. The species known from the fossil record are different in many respects from the ones that exist today.

I appreciate you giving us Henry Morris' point. My point was different, and I would hope you would consider it carefully before arguing against Henry Morris' point. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who keeps arguing with someone else that's not in the "room".

My point was that scientists believed coelecanth was extinct for at least 65 million years. Then they found one alive. Scientists were wrong about the date of extinction by a rather large number, and they were willing to concede the new date because of the evidence of more recent coelecanths.

The silvatherium was considered only recently extinct because (or at least partly because) there are pictures drawn of them by man, and man hasn't been around too long. So the pictures give us evidence of the timeframe in which sivatherium existed, or at least the end of the timeframe. Scientists didn't have to see one alive to acknowledge that they were alive recently--they had other evidence in the rock art.

If your point is that when we discover actual living organisms that we previously thought were extinct, then that trumps the previous conclusion about them being extinct.....well, yeah.

So it appears like you agree with my point.

Apply that to dinosaurs, which supposedly went extinct around the same time as coelecanth supposedly went extinct. If there were some evidence that suggested man had seen a dinosaur, either in art or in literature, would that not be evidence that needs to be considered rather than consigned to the graveyard of creationist's fables?

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

Hey, I don't understand your last paragraph. The last sentence. I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say. Can you reword it? This happens a lot with you, but I've never mentioned it before. I just dismiss it. But not this time.

Much Love And Thanks Davis,

Michael

Probably best if I decline your request for clarification. Since a person is responsible for recognizing and respecting the knowledge they are given, in your case, less is better.

 

[Jose Fly]

My point was that scientists believed coelecanth was extinct for at least 65 million years. Then they found one alive. Scientists were wrong about the date of extinction by a rather large number, and they were willing to concede the new date because of the evidence of more recent coelecanths.

Sure. When you find one actually alive, that tends to confirm that they still exist.

The silvatherium was considered only recently extinct because (or at least partly because) there are pictures drawn of them by man, and man hasn't been around too long. So the pictures give us evidence of the timeframe in which sivatherium existed, or at least the end of the timeframe. Scientists didn't have to see one alive to acknowledge that they were alive recently--they had other evidence in the rock art.

Honestly, that's not something I've studied up on, so I can't really comment at this point.

Apply that to dinosaurs, which supposedly went extinct around the same time as coelecanth supposedly went extinct. If there were some evidence that suggested man had seen a dinosaur, either in art or in literature, would that not be evidence that needs to be considered rather than consigned to the graveyard of creationist's fables?

I'm not sure how that's analogous or relevant to the coelacanth, where they found actual live specimens.

 

[6days]

So when creationists say (as Henry Morris did) "They found a live coelacanth, that proves it hasn't evolved in X million years", they're wrong.

Are you fabricating quotes?

 

[6days]

Sure. When you find one actually alive, that tends to confirm that they still exist.

Yes... not extinct 65 million years ago like evolutionists said. They didn't have some primitive type lung. They didn't evolve into land critters...etc
Thank goodness science helps keep in check the evolutionists just so stories.

 

[Jose Fly]

Derf,

So from just a quick browsing around, it looks like there is at least one fossil specimen of Sivatherium maurusium from the Quaternary Period, which extends to 0.126 million years ago.

 

[iouae]

It was not until after the flood that God gave permission to eat meat. In all likihood, meat eating was something that happened gradually over the the first 1500 years as sin continued to corrupt God's perfect creation.

I think they were prohibited from eating meat in the garden.

I don't take Gen 1:30 as saying anything more than that plants photosynthesise food, and animals eat plants. Its a general statement, not a command.

When thrown out of Eden all dietary restrictions were lifted (if for no other reason than pure survival).

When they left Eden, all men were in rebellion, and would eat what they wanted including meat.

Genesis 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

I believe that as tilling the ground provided food for Cain, sheep provided food for Abel.

God blessed Abel's blood offering.

In Gen 9 God is only formalising that men after the flood were allowed to eat meat. Only 3 pre-flood people were affected by dietary laws, if there were any. Abel, Enoch, Noah.

 

[alwight]

It was not until after the flood that God gave permission to eat meat. In all likihood, meat eating was something that happened gradually over the the first 1500 years as sin continued to corrupt God's perfect creation.

Sharks can have quite amazing teeth that rotate forward to replace any lost while ripping their prey apart with their powerful jaws.
Presumably this arrangement must have been equally useful when they used to graze on seaweed? lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you fabricating quotes?

No, paraphrasing.

Yes... not extinct 65 million years ago like evolutionists said.

Nor were they the same as the ones that existed 65 million years ago, as creationists keep saying, even today.

 

[6days]

So when creationists say (as Henry Morris did) "They found a live coelacanth, that proves it hasn't evolved in X million years", they're wrong.

Are you fabricating quotes?

No, paraphrasing

OK. .. I guess your quote marks were accidental.


What Morris actually said (according to your link)

"The chief candidate for such a transitional form [sc., between fishes and amphibians] was long supposed to have been the coelacanth.... The coelacanth was believed to have finished* this transition sometime in the Mesozoic.... Evolutionists were embarrassed when it was discovered in 1938 that these fishes are still alive and well, living in the waters near Madagascar"