If Evolution

[6days]

Linnaeus was not puzzled about the diversity of life claiming God created diverse forms in the beginning.

No, that's wrong

Barbarian, your talking points from the 1960s contradict the facts.... you are wrong... again. Philosophia Botanica (1751) Linnaeus and the Linneans: The Spreading of their Ideas in Systematic Botany, 1735-1789

1.Darwin was wrong about God Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')

Darwin became an agnostic long after he wrote The Origin of Species

You are wrong about 'when' but at least you seem to acknowledge that he was wrong about God. Darwin had no knowledge of our Creator and the individual relationship He wants with us.

2. Darwin was wrong about Science

Darwin was mostly a philosopher, not a scientist.

Darwin cited dozens of experiments he had done with living things, and cites the findings of many other biologists.

As I said... he was not a scientist. Yes, he was a keen observer, but made many poor conclusions. Would you like me to show you?

3. Darwin was wrong aboutGeology... was formed by small amounts of water over vast amounts of time. He used this valley to support his belief in deep deep time. (He sort of took that belief and said humans evolved one mutation at a time, over almost endless time). But the Santa Cruz river valley leads down from the Andes Mountains, glaciers and glacial lakes and the valley was almost certainly a result of catastrophic flooding of a galacial lake at the end of the ice age

That's really wrong

Before blindly defending Darwin, use Google. BTW... Darwin was also wrong about the atolls. I could show you, but you are not interested in facts which contradict your false belief system, and things you lear ed in the 60's.

4. Darwin was wrong about the fossils


Darwin said...
Re Cambrian explosion "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." Darwin understood the sudden emergence of diversity of life did not fit his model.

Re Stasis, Darwin said that the most eminent paleontologists and geologists (Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande Lyell, Sedgewick and more) argue for the immutability of species.
That is not to say that animals don't change...but they remain the same kind. (See Marks thread on this in religion channel) Darwin admitted animals remain same kind by saying "Why then is not every geological stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Darwin was wrong when he suggested that more time and more fossils would support his theory. Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing.

Stephen Jay Gould says "The extreme raity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret pf paleontology...."

Or from a couple other famous evolutionts...
Eldredge and Tattersall "...120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions.

As you know, even honest creationists now admit that the huge number of transitional fossils found since that time..

What we know is Darwin was wrong, and you are dishonest. Creationists (such as Kurt Wise who you like to mis-quote) thinks 'transitional' is a loosey goosey evolutionist word. Would you like me to show you again?

As you know, genetic data shows that all living thing on Earth are the same kind.

Your ignorance of genetics and Genesis 1is noted... and has been noted often previously.

7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
Darwin made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.

The claim that natural selection can't produce anything new...

Again... your worship of Darwin prevents you from admitting science has proved Darwin wrong. Selection eliminates... it never creates, as Darwin thought. (And, like before... your comments about ransom (sp) mutatations shows your faith in common ancestry... and a lack of genetic knowledge.

Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Odd then that so many prominent biologists who accepted evolution, have been Christians.

I think you have a poor grasp of Christianity. Why did Last Adam have to physically die for our salvation, if death existed before first Adam? (And the geneaologies connecting the two Adams?)


Darwin worshippers often refer to him as being Christian, although Darwin never discusses faith in Christ as his Lord and Savior.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe responds:Well, he didn't last long his time, did he?

There's no point responding to you when you have no interest in falsifying your ideas.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian offers detailed ways one might falsify evolution)

Stipe responds:

Barbarian chuckles:
He didn't last long that time, did he?

There's no point responding to you when you have no interest in falsifying your ideas.

C'mon Stipe. Everyone saw that I showed you all sorts of ways evolutionary theory could be falsified. Maybe you don't know enough to understand them, or maybe you're just doing your usual cut-and-run when you realize you're out of excuses.

Doesn't matter. If you aren't interested in dealing with the facts, just say so.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days
Linnaeus was not puzzled about the diversity of life claiming God created diverse forms in the beginning.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. When he discovered the family tree of living things, he assumed God created things in a preferred order. So he was very puzzled why things like minerals wouldn't fit into a family tree. Today, of course, we know why.

I restored, in red, the part you deleted to make it appear that I meant something I did not.

As I said... he was not a scientist.

His fellow scientists disagreed with you. He was elected to the most important scientific societies in England. As you learned, he was the first to correctly identify the cause of Pacific atolls, and also was the first to correctly identify barnacles as arthropods, not mollusks. Those two major discoveries were sufficient to ensure his recognition as a major scientist.

Yes, he was a keen observer, but made many poor conclusions.

Which is true of all great scientists. Errors are inherent in the process. The important thing is that he was the first to determine the way evolution works, the way Pacific atolls are formed, and the true character of barnacles. Which was why scientists then and now regard him as one of the greatest.

BTW... Darwin was also wrong about the atolls.

You're wrong about that. Before the United States set a nuclear weapon off at Enitiwok atoll, SeaBees drilled cores into the atoll. They went nearly a mile down, before hitting volcanic rock, confirming Darwin's findings.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0260bb/report.pdf

It happened precisely as Darwin predicted. As the volcanic cone subsided, the fringing reef of coral grew upward and formed an increasingly deep level of coral rock. This is another case where you'd have saved yourself some embarrassment, if you had depended on something more substantial than your imagination.

What we know is Darwin was wrong, and you are dishonest.

I wasn't the one who altered my statement to make it read differently. It probably seemed like a clever idea to you at the time, but now everyone knows.

Creationists (such as Kurt Wise who you like to mis-quote)

As usual, you're worked up because I showed you exactly what he said.

thinks 'transitional' is a loosey goosey evolutionist word.

Odd then, that he used the word in the title of his paper. He thinks creationists should be using a different word, because he doesn't like the implications. But that had nothing to do with the fact that he showed, in some detail, that you were wrong about transitional fossils. He lists over a dozen series of them, each with several to dozens of transitionals. His conclusion was that creationism has no explanation for these transitionals, which he called "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Again... your worship of your man-made doctrine of YE creationism prevents you from admitting science has repeatedly confirmed Darwin's predictions.

Selection eliminates... it never creates, as Darwin thought.

That's an easy idea to test. Dr. Hall observed a new, regulated enzyme system evolve in bacteria by random mutation and natural selection. Reality beats your doctrine.

As you realize the evidence for common descent is overwhelming and comes from numerous sources. You learned that genetic data confirms the tree of life first discovered by Linnaeus, as do the many transitional forms that Kurt Wise admits cannot be explained by creationists.

I think you have a poor grasp of Christianity.

I get that your interpretation of Christianity differs from that of most Christians. If you don't let it lead you into dishonesty or attempts to separate other Christians from the Body of Christ, it won't threaten your salvation.

Why did Last Adam have to physically die for our salvation, if death existed before first Adam?

The death God spoke to him about was a spiritual, not a physical death. If His Son came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. But we will live on after that death.

(And the geneaologies connecting the two Adams?)

Which are contradictory, if you insist on revising them into literal lists of ancestors.

Worshippers of YE creaionism often refer to it as being Christian, although it is directly contradicted in Genesis. Darwin was, when he wrote his book an Anglican, but late in life he became an agnostic.

 

[Stripe]

YE creaionism ... is directly contradicted in Genesis.

:rotfl:

Says the man who reckons "six days" is compatible with "billions of years."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

I think you have a poor grasp of Christianity. Why did Last Adam have to physically die for our salvation, if death existed before first Adam? (And the geneaologies connecting the two Adams?)

The death God spoke to him about was a spiritual, not a physical death. If His Son came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. But we will live on after that death. (The geneaologies ) are contradictory, if you insist on revising them into literal lists of ancestors.

Scripture clearly teaches that our salvation is a result of Christ defeating physical death. For ex. Heb. 2:14 "Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had[g] the power of death. 15 Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying".

The Gospel message is "preaching Christ crucified", a physical death which He defeated... a stumbling block to evolutionists. This stumbling block causes people to consider themselves "wise by human standards". (1 Cor. 1) Evolutionists in their own 'wisdom' preach a compromised gospel, unable to accept God's straight forward words such as the non contradictory 'literal list of ancestors' connecting first Adam to Last Adam

 

[The Barbarian]

Scripture clearly teaches that our salvation is a result of Christ defeating physical death. For ex. Heb. 2:14

Well, let's take a look...

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He had to become fully human and suffer and die as we do to atone for our sins. That does not erase what God said to Adam.

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

The fact that God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter, makes it clear that the death was not a physical one. Jesus died to save us from that spiritual death, but all of us still die physically.

Your new belief is contradicted by Scripture.

 

[6days]

Well, let's take a look...Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He had to become fully human and suffer and die as we do to atone for our sins. That does not erase what God said to Adam.

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

The fact that God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter, makes it clear that the death was not a physical one. Jesus died to save us from that spiritual death, but all of us still die physically.

Barbarian.... as stated in my above post... evolutionists reject the straight forward words of scripture. The verse in Hebrews (as well as others in Corinthians and Romans) links physical death(flesh and blood) to first Adam's sin. Physical death entered our world from one mans sin (first Adam), and that curse was defeated by Last Adam. We too can take part in the physical resurrection.

Genesis 2:17 is the verse you reference. Adam did become spiritually separated from God when he sinned, and the physical dying process began. The Hebrew word for 'die' in that verse does not mean sudden death. Youngs Literal translation "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die."

Evolutionists are unable to answer why Last Adam had to suffer physical death... and not just spiritual death n order to redeem us.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian.... as stated in my above post... evolutionists reject the straight forward words of scripture.

They reject your modern re-interpretation of it. Which is quite a different thing.

As you should have known, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. But since Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter, we know the death from which Jesus saved us, was not a physical death. If that had been His purpose, we would not be dying physically.

 

[Stripe]

They reject your modern re-interpretation of it.

Nope.

"Six days." Loud and clear. No modernity about it. No interpretation. If you think it does not mean "six days," it is incumbent upon you to provide compelling reason to show why.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope.

Because you don't know much about the Bible, you've been led into revising scripture to fit man's desires.

"Six days."

Actually, "yom." Which can mean "in my time", "part of a day", "forever", "always", etc. And as Christians have known, revising it to be a literal history leads to logical absurdities, like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

Your modern interpretation won't work.

No modernity about it.

It's quite new. Over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine acknowledged that the "yom" of Genesis could not be literal days. Even into the 20th century, almost all creationists were old Earth creationists. That was the creationism presented at the Scopes trial, for example, where the creationist advocate admitted that the creation in Genesis could have taken millions of year.

The 19th century Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon:
In the 2nd verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
https://americanvision.org/1353/why-young-people-leaving-church/

Your new interpretation is no older than the 20th century. It was the invention of Seventh-Day Adventists.

No interpretation.

As you know, ancient Christians like St. Augustine had already understood that Genesis "days" were not literal ones.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because you don't know much about the Bible, you've been led into revising scripture to fit man's desires.



Actually, "yom." Which can mean "in my time", "part of a day", "forever", "always", etc. And as Christians have known, revising it to be a literal history leads to logical absurdities, like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

Your modern interpretation won't work.



It's quite new. Over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine acknowledged that the "yom" of Genesis could not be literal days. Even into the 20th century, almost all creationists were old Earth creationists. That was the creationism presented at the Scopes trial, for example, where the creationist advocate admitted that the creation in Genesis could have taken millions of year.

The 19th century Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon:
In the 2nd verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
https://americanvision.org/1353/why-young-people-leaving-church/

Your new interpretation is no older than the 20th century. It was the invention of Seventh-Day Adventists.



As you know, ancient Christians like St. Augustine had already understood that Genesis "days" were not literal ones.

Because you don't know much about the Bible, you've been led into revising scripture to fit man's desires.

Actually, "yom." Which can mean "in my time", "part of a day", "forever", "always", etc.

The meaning of yom is always, ALWAYS determined by context.

The context of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 shows that day (yom) in both passages are literal 24 hour days.

And as Christians have known, revising it to be a literal history leads to logical absurdities,

Revising scripture to be a figurative history leads to logical absurdities, like Jesus lying about man being made at the beginning of creation.

like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

Why is that illogical? Sure, we associate morning with sunrise, and evening with sunset. But morning and evening are relative terms, not absolute.

Your modern interpretation won't work.

Says the one rejecting the plain reading of Scripture.

It's quite new. Over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine acknowledged that the "yom" of Genesis could not be literal days. Even into the 20th century, almost all creationists were old Earth creationists. That was the creationism presented at the Scopes trial, for example, where the creationist advocate admitted that the creation in Genesis could have taken millions of year.

The 19th century Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon:
In the 2nd verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
https://americanvision.org/1353/why-young-people-leaving-church/

Oh good, you can quote men who wrote their opinions on the Bible.

Your new interpretation is no older than the 20th century. It was the invention of Seventh-Day Adventists.

NOPE.

It's WAY older than the 20th Century.

Here, I quote someone from around 28 AD, you might recognize Him:

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? What did Moses command you? . . . But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.

As you know, ancient Christians like St. Augustine had already understood that Genesis "days" were not literal ones.

Is this a masked attempt at an appeal to authority?

St. Augustine was a man who was not inspired by God when he produced his writings.

The meaning of yom is always, ALWAYS determined by context.

 

[Stripe]

Because you don't know much about the Bible, you've been led into revising scripture to fit man's desires.

Nope. It really does say "six days." No "interpretation." No "modern revision."

"Six days."

If you have compelling reason to show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says, now would be the time to present it. :up:

We know why your only recourse is to talk about what you think dead people believed.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Because you don't know much about the Bible, you've been led into revising scripture to fit man's desires.

Nope.

Yep. You have a very superficial acquaintance with scripture. You're clearly surprised to learn about it.

It really does say "six days."

So when it says:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

You're telling us it means He did it all in one day, not six? C'mon, Stipe. Have you ever actually read it, or are you just copying stuff you found on other websites?

No "interpretation."

So your literal interpretation says it was done in six days, and it was done in one day. That should suggest to you that your modern revision is not very reliable.

We know why your only recourse to insist that you're right, when the text itself says you are wrong.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes.

It's a pity he doesn't think.

So your literal interpretation says it was done in six days, and it was done in one day.

Nope.

Even if we accept your nonsense assessment, the Bible still teaches "six days."

When you come up with something sensible that shows "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says, then we will need to respond to justify the plain reading.

Until then, we stay where we are and you lose what little credibility you had left.

:mock: Blablaman.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a pity Stipe doesn't think.

Nope. Even if we accept your nonsense assessment, the Bible still teaches "six days."

You have a very superficial acquaintance with scripture. You're clearly surprised to learn about it. So when it says:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

You're telling us it means He did it all in one day, not six?

As it is with all cafeteria Christians, you're copying the parts you like, and deleting the parts you don't like. The text itself says your new interpretation is wrong. This is why you should spend a little time learning about the Bible before you just accept what some man tells you about it. Read everything in context and learn what He has to say to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

The meaning of yom is always, ALWAYS determined by context.

That was the point St. Augustine made. In the context of mornings and evenings, it would be absurd to imagine them being without a sun to have them. So in context, one has to conclude that they are not literal days.

Revising scripture to be a figurative history leads to logical absurdities, like Jesus lying about man being made at the beginning of creation.

Well, let's look at the context. God tells us explicitly what was there at the beginning of creation:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.


And neither male nor female were there. So Jesus was wrong, or you are. Not much of a choice, is it?

Why is that illogical?

Because you're trying to set God against God. Bad idea.

Sure, we associate morning with sunrise, and evening with sunset.

That is how they are defined, yes. If you have to redefine words to make your case, that should be a pretty good clue that your case isn't a very good one. You're rejecting the plain reading of Scripture.

Oh good, you can quote men who wrote their opinions on the Bible.

Not everyone's opinion is equal. You against Augustine is still a loss for you, albeit not as badly as when you argued against God.

 

[6days]

They (evolutionists) reject your modern re-interpretation of it.

"For in six days God created the heavens and the earth"

As you should have known, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.

You reject context to suit your false belief system. There is a reason translations don't say "on the day"... The wording is "in the day". Its easy to understand why it is translated that way.

But since Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter, we know the death from which Jesus saved us, was not a physical death.

You reject the Gospel refusing to accept why Jesus had to physically die in order to take our punishment and defeat "the final enemy".

If that had been His purpose, we would not be dying physically.

Because Jesus defeated physical death with the resurrection, we have the assurance that we too will be resurrected but without our sin nature. Jesus defeated the curse of physical death with a physical resurrection.

Actually, "yom." Which can mean "in my time", "part of a day", "forever", "always", etc.

Ye... same as the word "day" in English. We always understand the meaning by the context. The context of the creation days does not allow anything other than a normal day and night. The word is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament, with a variety of meanings, always determine by context.

Over 1500 years ago, St. Augustine acknowledged that the "yom" of Genesis could not be literal days.

You embarassed yourself previously using Augustine to support your evolutionary beliefs. Augustine did understand that the word 'YOM' had a variety of meetings. But because he did not understand Hebrew and was using a Latin Bible he thought that the creation was rather instantaneous. Using inflated chronologies from the Septuagint, Augustine thought that creation had happened approximately 5600 BC. But.... it matters not so much what Augustine says, it is what God's word clearly states and how that affects the gospel.

 

[The Barbarian]

"For in six days God created the heavens and the earth"

You reject context to suit your false belief system. There is a reason translations don't say "on the day"... The wording is "in the day".

Matches the Hebrew. Modern English has an oddity. We say "in the year" like everyone else, but in the last few hundred years, for days, we say "on the day."

From Macbeth:
They met me in the day of success, and I have learned by the perfectest report they have more in them than mortal knowledge. When I burned in desire to question them further, they made themselves air, into which they vanished.

You've assumed the original was written in modern English. As you learned, the death God spoke of to Adam was a spiritual one, not a physical one.

Adam was never immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern in Genesis that Adam might become so:

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever”—

Your modern revision of scripture assumes things manifestly denied by God.

 

[Stripe]

It's a pity Stipe doesn't think.

Oh, but I do. :thumb:

You just haven't provided anything but nonsense.

The Bible says "six days." You've got your ideas about what dead people said, but beyond that, nothing to convince us that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

It's pretty stupid to insist that "in the day" must mean "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

At least your appeal to dead men's ideas (or your insistence on what they were) might fool a lesser thinker. Your inability to use simple English only exposes your own stupidity. :chuckle:

As I see it, you've got two choices:

"Six days" means what it plainly says and the Bible and Darwinism are incompatible, or:

"Six days" does not mean what it plainly says.

You want the second option, but nothing you provide is at all convincing. You've been insisting on your way for years now. Will nothing convince you to think rationally?

Even atheists — who assert that the Bible is contradictory — have a more rational take on this challenge. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk