Is macroevolution true?

[noguru]

I have no problem with scientific arguments.

But that is not what you originally said. I was pointing out that your strategy of persuasion was not scientific. Do you claim that it was? You then said that "I was going to 'scientific argument' myself out of salvation." Here are the comments in question.

Here is your original comment:

The only "accepted beliefs" I am challenging are those having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

These did not happen "naturally".

God exists, He loves you and wants you to love Him.

Then I responded:

Now that is a truly valid scientific argument that follows logically from the empirical evidence. No theological proclamations there.

I do have a problem with psuedoscientific arguments which imply that the Bible has serious errors,

Then why do you keep usin them?

because this tends to degrade belief that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, and that His sacrifice for our sins was necessary for our salvation.

It does no such thing. It may do so in your mind, but it does not in my mind.

You have caved to evolutionary propaganda and therefore do not believe in the accuracy of scripture.

No, I have looked at the evidence under the paradigm umbrella of natural philosophy. I have given my honest assessment of what such an inquiry leads to in terms of the explanation for origins.

On the other hand, you have caved to religious "fundamentalist" propaganda claiming that you must throw out the baby with the bathwater. IOW, if Genesis is not literally true then the rest of the Bible and the salvation it offers is meaningless.

 

[bob b]

On the other hand, you have caved to religious "fundamentalist" propaganda claiming that you must throw out the baby with the bathwater. IOW, if Genesis is not literally true then the rest of the Bible and the salvation it offers is meaningless.

But it is not just Genesis.

Should I start quoting other verses of scripture from other books of the Bible and see how you rationalize ignoring them also?

 

[noguru]

But it is not just Genesis.

Should I start quoting other verses of scripture from other books of the Bible and see how you rationalize ignoring them also?

Bob we have been through this all before.

Are these other places where other contributors make a referrence to Genesis. These referrences do not specify whether the creation account is literal. Are Biblical contributors required to referr to only the sections of previous scripture that are literal?

 

[bob b]

Bob we have been through this all before.

No we haven't.

Shall I start with the quotations?

 

[lucaspa]

But it is not just Genesis.

Should I start quoting other verses of scripture from other books of the Bible and see how you rationalize ignoring them also?

OK, let's. How about Luke 2:1. It says in plain Greek that the "whole world" was enrolled. Do you think that Inuits, Japanese, and Zulus were enrolled in caesar's census. Why not?

How about these verses: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? They say, in plain Hebrew, that the earth is immovable. Are you going to give up that the earth orbits the sun or rotates on its axis?

No one "ignores" Genesis 1-3. It's just that we realize it was written to convey theological messages, NOT history. The theological messages are just as valid in modern science as they were in the Babylonian science in which they are set.

As the Scriptures say, "He will be proved right in what he says, and he will win his case in court." Rom 3:4 NLT

Why don't you believe God is right in what he says in His Creation? Why do you insist that God must create the way you say He must?

 

[bob b]

Why don't you believe God is right in what he says in His Creation? Why do you insist that God must create the way you say He must?

Because this is what He clearly said in scripture and the physical evidence also validates His word.

The Creation Week account is not a single Hebrew word open to various interpretations as are the verses you posted . Neither is the extensive and detailed account of a worldwide Flood.

 

[noguru]

No we haven't.

Shall I start with the quotations?

You mean you have new quotes? Did they add new words to the Bible in the past 2 months?

Here are some referrences, but there are probably more.

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 13:19
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 

[lucaspa]

Because this is what He clearly said in scripture and the physical evidence also validates His word.

The problem you are having is that the physical evidence contradicts creationism. The physical evidence supports evolution. That's why you are trying to change the discussion from whether "macroevolution" is true to this. You can't argue that evolution is false.

The Creation Week account is not a single Hebrew word open to various interpretations as are the verses you posted . Neither is the extensive and detailed account of a worldwide Flood.

But Genesis 2:4 has at least 4 days of "creation week" occurring in a single day! And there is no doubt about the translation of the word "beyom" there. It is within a 24 hour period. It is used in Genesis 2:1 and 2:2 specifically to limit day 7 to a 24 hour day. Otherwise the ambiguity of "yom" would mean that the day of rest never ended.

BUT that means that Genesis 2:4 has "the heavens and the earth" created in 24 hours. Not a "creation week". Of course, Genesis 2 gives you other problems, such as the order of creation does not match what is said for "creation week".

So, bob, if you are going to insiste on a literal Genesis 1-8, which literal creation story is correct? They can't both be, because they contradict.

Also, we have 2 accounts of the Flood. They are intertwined, but they also contradict each other.

If "whole world" can mean "Luke's world" in Luke 2:1, why can't "whole world" mean Tigris-Euphrates Valley in Genesis 6-8? It is their "whole world" and now we are dealing with a local flood, not a worldwide one.

Again, God's Creation absolutely says that there was no worldwide Flood. Why do you call God a liar?

 

[noguru]

Because this is what He clearly said in scripture and the physical evidence also validates His word.

The Creation Week account is not a single Hebrew word open to various interpretations as are the verses you posted . Neither is the extensive and detailed account of a worldwide Flood.

The Creation account cannot possibly be a single word, but what support do you have for the claim that it is not open to interpretation?

"The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is not a single word. It is in Genesis, is it literal?

The worldwide flood was probably a localized flood that encompassed all of the known world to the people of that region.

I have a sneaking suspicion that after all is said and done regarding this new tangent, you will claim that it was someone else who took our focus from the empirical evidence and laid it upon a critique of scripture. But it let it be known now that it was you who started this tangent.

 

[lucaspa]

You mean you have new quotes? Did they add new words to the Bible in the past 2 months?

Here are some referrences, but there are probably more.

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

These are from the same story, told in both Mark and Matthew. You have stripped the context. Shame on you. The context is a dispute about divorce. In these chapters Jesus declares 1) that a man -- Moses -- wrote scripture and 2) Moses got it wrong. This, of course, blows away Bible inerrancy. What Jesus is doing here is not certifying Genesis 1 as history, but using it how Genesis 1 was meant to be used -- theology. Because humans are created by God and are male and female, it is not fair to have a law by which men can divorce women whenever they choose (Deut 24:1). That God created by evolution doesn't affect the theological point Jesus was making.

Mark 13:19
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

Since science is agnostic on the subject of whether God created and this says nothing about how God created, it's not relevant.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Out of context again. Paul is making a theological argument that we have a physical body and a spiritual body. Our physical body must die first before our spiritual body can be released. Physical before spiritual. And he is using the Adam story as it is meant to be used: theologically, not historically. In evolution, it is obvious that our physical body evolved before God chose to impart us with a spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Again, out of context. Paul is using the story to make theological rationalization for his position against women. The verse before says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Paul had to use Genesis 2 because in Genesis 1 men and women were created together.

Taking quotes out of context from the Bible is just as bad than taking them out of context from anywhere else. No, it's worse.

Stop parsing out the Bible to make it mean what you want it to mean and start reading it in context to see what God wanted it to mean.

 

[noguru]

Hey hey easy now. I agree with you. I was posting these because these are the quotes Bob likes to use to support his claim that the creation account in Genesis is literal.

 

[bob b]

The Creation account cannot possibly be a single word, but what support do you have for the claim that it is not open to interpretation?

"The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is not a single word. It is in Genesis, is it literal?

The worldwide flood was probably a localized flood that encompassed all of the known world to the people of that region.

I have a sneaking suspicion that after all is said and done regarding this new tangent, you will claim that it was someone else who took our focus from the empirical evidence and laid it upon a critique of scripture. But it let it be known now that it was you who started this tangent.

I am comfortable arguing either source.

I believed in evolution most of my adult life, but 23 years ago while reading about DNA it suddenly dawned on me that the idea was "absurdity squared".

In the 23 years since then progress in understanding how life works has increased my earlier perception to "absurdity cubed" or higher.

BTW, the idea of a "local" flood is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The waters of the Flood rose for months and abated over an equally long period.

And if the waters rose so slowly the need for an Ark of the stated size would have been absurd. One could just walk over the nearest hill. You have heard that water seeks its own level haven't you?

 

[noguru]

I am comfortable arguing either source.

I believed in evolution most of my adult life, but 23 years ago while reading about DNA it suddenly dawned on me that the idea was "absurdity squared".

In the 23 years since then progress in understanding how life works has increased my earlier perception to "absurdity cubed" or higher.

BTW, the idea of a "local" flood is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The waters of the Flood rose for months and abated over an equally long period.

And if the waters rose so slowly the need for an Ark of the stated size would have been absurd. One could just walk over the nearest hill. You have heard that water seeks its own level haven't you?

Bob I really don't care about whether you think something is "dumb" or "absurd". I would have to say that you are not a very good source for an honest and/or accurate opinion. I thought you were going to support your first assertion that there are other parts of scripture that support your literalist view of the creation account.

I guess you have never seen even seen a local flood first hand. There was a small local flood in my home town in 1955. It sure seemed like the end of the world to the people who lived there then. My grandparents lived on a mountain. If they lived in the valley they would not have had enough time to get out of the way of the water. They were stranded on the mountain for days. I wonder why there were so many people stranded in New Orleans after Katrina. :think:

 

[bob b]

Hey hey easy now. I agree with you. I was posting these because these are the quotes Bob likes to use to support his claim that the creation account in Genesis is literal.

You must be thinking of someone else. If not show me where I ever posted these passages of scripture. The first one I would have posted is from 2 Peter 2:5 :

[for if God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

and also 2 Peter 3:5

Knowing this first, that in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying
Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed by water perished.

 

[noguru]

You must be thinking of someone else. If not show me where I ever posted these passages of scripture. The first one I would have posted is from 2 Peter 2:5 :

[for if God] spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

and also 2 Peter 3:5

Knowing this first, that in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying
Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed by water perished.

And can you explain how these support your claim?

And just to remind you we were discussing the creation account not Noah's flood.

 

[bob b]

The problem you are having is that the physical evidence contradicts creationism. The physical evidence supports evolution. That's why you are trying to change the discussion from whether "macroevolution" is true to this. You can't argue that evolution is false.

I will argue the evidence if you wish. I just wanted to establish that you were not a Bible-based Christian, only a "modern" Christian who twists scripture to fit evolutionary dogma.

But Genesis 2:4 has at least 4 days of "creation week" occurring in a single day!

Adam wasn't around until the 6th day, so he probably summarized.

And there is no doubt about the translation of the word "beyom" there. It is within a 24 hour period. It is used in Genesis 2:1 and 2:2 specifically to limit day 7 to a 24 hour day. Otherwise the ambiguity of "yom" would mean that the day of rest never ended.

????

BUT that means that Genesis 2:4 has "the heavens and the earth" created in 24 hours. Not a "creation week".

I agree with that but fail to see a problem. Creation week includes more than just the initional creation of the physical Earth.

Of course, Genesis 2 gives you other problems, such as the order of creation does not match what is said for "creation week".

Genesis 2 was Adam's account from his own viewpoint and is not necessarily cronological as Gen 1 is.

So, bob, if you are going to insiste on a literal Genesis 1-8, which literal creation story is correct? They can't both be, because they contradict.

They are both correct and do not conflict.

Also, we have 2 accounts of the Flood. They are intertwined, but they also contradict each other.

It is possible that Moses edited accounts by Noah and his sons into a single account. Where do you imagine that they conflict? BTW, eyewitness accounts frequently appear to conflict at first glance.

If "whole world" can mean "Luke's world" in Luke 2:1, why can't "whole world" mean Tigris-Euphrates Valley in Genesis 6-8? It is their "whole world" and now we are dealing with a local flood, not a worldwide one.

What a dumb idea. Have you ever examined a map of that area that gives elevations? The Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea ideas are slightly better but still dumb.

Again, God's Creation absolutely says that there was no worldwide Flood. Why do you call God a liar?

I don't. I believe what he said. Why don't you?

BTW. One of your sources (another thread) writes for that atheist site talk.origins.

 

[noguru]

I will argue the evidence if you wish. I just wanted to establish that you were not a Bible-based Christian, only a "modern" Christian who twists scripture to fit evolutionary dogma.

Yes, ancient and "traditionalist" Christians don't/didn't ever twist scripture.

Adam wasn't around until the 6th day, so he probably summarized.

But if it is the inerrant literal word of God why would we be concerned with Adam's perspective?

Genesis 2 was Adam's account from his own viewpoint and is not necessarily cronological as Gen 1 is.

Again, if it is supposed to be the inerrant literal word of God, then why do we need to consider Adam's perspective?

They are both correct and do not conflict.

I agree, as long as you don't claim that they are the inerrant literal word of God.

It is possible that Moses edited accounts by Noah and his sons into a single account. Where do you imagine that they conflict? BTW, eyewitness accounts frequently appear to conflict at first glance.

Why would he do this? Should he have left the inerrant literal word of God intact?

What a dumb idea. Have you ever examined a map of that area that gives elevations? The Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea ideas are slightly better but still dumb.

Is everything that you don't agree with is dumb on some level, Bob?

I don't. I believe what he said. Why don't you?

No you believe a specific "traditionalist" interpretation of what is written. And at the same time you deny the implications of the empirical evidence.

BTW. One of your sources (another thread) writes for that atheist site talk.origins.

You make claims that anyone who doesn't toe your party line is an unbeliever. Is this supposed to undermine the accuracy of their explanations or the logic that person uses?

 

[bob b]

But if it is the inerrant literal word of God why would we be concerned with Adam's perspective?
Again, if it is supposed to be the inerrant literal word of God, then why do we need to consider Adam's perspective?

Your words not mine. God obviously inspired the account, but Adam furnished the wording. In any case there is nothing wrong with it.

Is everything that you don't agree with is dumb on some level, Bob?

Certainly your stuff is.

You make claims that anyone who doesn't toe your party line is an unbeliever.

Not guilty.

 

[noguru]

Your words not mine. God obviously inspired the account, but Adam furnished the wording. In any case there is nothing wrong with it. .

So the writers perspective should be taken into account? And I agree there is nothing wrong with it if it is not taken as an inerrant literal account.

Certainly your stuff is. .

Well thank you for the compliment. I have learned that when you claim something is dumb or naive that in most cases this is far from the truth. I strongly suspect this another of these cases.

Not guilty.

Yes, you are correct. I overgeneralized. Sometimes you do acknowledge that I am a believer. But when you think it is a succesfull strategy to say that I am an unbeliever, you do not hesitate to do so. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth as they would say.

So are you going to post those other portions of scripture that you claim support your literalist view of the creation account in Genesis?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I am completely open to the idea that macroevolution could be falsified. Macroevolution is science, afterall, and it could be argued that all science must be falsifiable.

If macroevolution were falsified tomorrow, that would have little effect on my current worldview. I would be interested in what evidence/experimentation falsified macroevolution, and would go from there. The falsification of macroevolution would not be the end of scientific inquiry into biological life, but a new beginning.

Without evolution, would you be able to make any sense out of biology? I've seen many evolutionists make the claim that such a thing can't be done.