toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[Stripe]

Barbie thinks the bible was written in English. :chuckle:

 

[jeffblue101]

Intelligent design is a religious belief. Here's what it was invented for, according to the guys who invented it:

since Barbarian is an atheist, he finds the idea of someone holding a religious belief repulsive.

 

[Stripe]

since Barbarian is an atheist, he finds the idea of someone holding a religious belief repulsive.

Not exactly. He just has some weird compartmentalism going on. Somehow, if it's about God, you're not allowed to talk about science. :idunno:

 

[jeffblue101]

Not exactly. He just has some weird compartmentalism going on. Somehow, if it's about God, you're not allowed to talk about science. :idunno:

Maybe my statement was a bit strong. Barbarian's mindset best reflects that of a fideist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbie thinks the bible was written in English.

Barbarian had to explain to Stipe that "yom" (the word in the Hebrew language) does not literally translate to "day." It can mean all sorts of periods of time.

But it remains true that only by redefining "morning" and "evening" can Stipe make his new interpretation of Genesis work.

And the same issue is true in the Hebrew for what was translated as "morning" and "evening."

In this case evening and morning are associated with a "vision" that definitely covers many years. And the best literal translation would seem to be, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that was told, true it is.", even though some translations do us "evenings and mornings". The word evenings appears only once in the King James Version, and not from 'ereb, but from 'arabah (#6160) and the word mornings never occurs. And the above is the only other place that 'ereb and boqer occur in combination with yowm.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

 

[genuineoriginal]

But it remains true that only by redefining "morning" and "evening" can Stipe make his new interpretation of Genesis work.

And the same issue is true in the Hebrew for what was translated as "morning" and "evening."

The Hebrew translated as "morning" בֹּקֶר has the root from "to look at" and the Hebrew translated as "evening" עָרַב has the root from "to draw far away".

It is the light which allows something to be looked at in the morning and it is the light that departs at evening, so your attempt at redefining the Hebrew words to insist on the sun being present is without merit.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, the scholars who did Young's Concordance are more trustworthy than you are. But if your argument is that the Bible is incorrect in terming these "morning" and "evening", I'd be willing to look at your evidence.

Got any?

 

[Stripe]

Typical Barbarian. Insist the words do not mean what they say by insisting that the English versions mean something else and then, when shown up, insist the other party provide evidence that the words do not mean what they say in Hebrew.

The dude's a crackpot. :chuckle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Barbarian had to explain to Stipe that "yom" (the word in the Hebrew language) does not literally translate to "day." It can mean all sorts of periods of time.

But it remains true that only by redefining "morning" and "evening" can Stipe make his new interpretation of Genesis work.

And the same issue is true in the Hebrew for what was translated as "morning" and "evening."

In this case evening and morning are associated with a "vision" that definitely covers many years. And the best literal translation would seem to be, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that was told, true it is.", even though some translations do us "evenings and mornings". The word evenings appears only once in the King James Version, and not from 'ereb, but from 'arabah (#6160) and the word mornings never occurs. And the above is the only other place that 'ereb and boqer occur in combination with yowm.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

The site you quote there states that evolution makes no sense, and you are quoting it as a reference for evolution?

The site you quote believes in YOUNG EARTH creationism.

From the same site:

3 PRINCIPLES
Why EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE!
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html

The Evidences for a Recent Dating for Adam,
about 14,000 to 15,000 years Before Present
http://www.whyevolution.com/adam.html

 

[The Barbarian]

The site you quote there states that evolution makes no sense, and you are quoting it as a reference for evolution?

No, I'm using it to show that even many YE creationists know better than to deny what "morning" and "evening" means in Genesis.

In this case evening and morning are associated with a "vision" that definitely covers many years. And the best literal translation would seem to be, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that was told, true it is.", even though some translations do us "evenings and mornings". The word evenings appears only once in the King James Version, and not from 'ereb, but from 'arabah (#6160) and the word mornings never occurs. And the above is the only other place that 'ereb and boqer occur in combination with yowm.

Surprise.

 

[Stripe]

No, I'm using it to show that even many YE creationists know better than to deny what "morning" and "evening" means in Genesis.

What do "evening and morning" mean in Genesis? :idunno:

 

[eameece]

Intelligent design.

Show me a science that proves the Bible.

 

[eameece]

Genesis was initially written to the israelites who were wandering in the desert for 40 years. Do you really think they could not envision an evening and a morning without a megaton hydrogen-helium thermonuclear oven hundreds of thousands of miles away? They knew how bright the presence of God was in pillar of fire that followed them. It didn't take much imagination to see how there could be a bright point of light in the sky during the first three days of creation when the very physical shekinah glory of God moved about the face of the earth.

Not only that, but God managed to turn the light on and off 3 times.

 

[eameece]

That's because after a few days He made a replacement and permanent source. :duh:

Who says?

The Bible doesn't say the first light went away, and yet it did.

Why not and why? Because you say so? We know the light was separated from the darkness. How do you think that was achieved?

That's not the issue; God works in mysterious ways.

Because there's no other explanation or conclusion possible. Light just means light, and it must be separate from darkness in order to be light. There was no Sun, and no rotating Earth, so morning and evening could not refer to a 24-hour day, but to a "day" in God's time reckoning, not ours.

And Jesus explained His parables.

Often he did not. Often he said, "they who have ears to hear, let them hear."

Do you know what the explanation of six days is?

Phases of development often come in seven stages. It's an archetypal number. Notice how often it appears in Revelation, for example. It is said that evolution also occurred in seven stages.

Naw, it's just a theory.

Theory is part of science, and evolution is a theory because there is evidence for it.

Lucky we know How God created life then, huh?

Do we? All the Bible gives us is a short fairy tale. Good enough for 6-year olds, but not for educated, thinkin' folk.

You need to go back and read again what I said. :thumb:

Ditto to you. :wave:

 

[Stripe]

Not only that, but God managed to turn the light on and off 3 times.

Bible says He separated the light from the darkness. A reasonable way to do that would be to block the source of light with a rotating Earth. Of course you want to ignore what the bible plainly says.

 

[Stripe]

Who says?

The bible. :duh:

The Bible doesn't say the first light went away, and yet it did.

The bible doesn't say a lot of things. :idunno:

That's not the issue; God works in mysterious ways. Because there's no other explanation or conclusion possible. Light just means light, and it must be separate from darkness in order to be light. There was no Sun, and no rotating Earth, so morning and evening could not refer to a 24-hour day, but to a "day" in God's time reckoning, not ours.

Or else there was and it does. :idunno:

Often he did not. Often he said, "they who have ears to hear, let them hear."

Name one. :thumb:

Phases of development often come in seven stages. It's an archetypal number. Notice how often it appears in Revelation, for example. It is said that evolution also occurred in seven stages.

Which is evidence for or against what?

Theory is part of science, and evolution is a theory because there is evidence for it.

It's a theory because someone made it up and millions haven't let go. :chuckle:

Do we? All the Bible gives us is a short fairy tale. Good enough for 6-year olds, but not for educated, thinkin' folk.

I have a degree in Earth Science. What do you have?

Ditto to you. :wave:

The bible does not say the sun rotates. Yet it does. Why does the bible need to specify that on days 1-3 the Earth was rotating?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Show me a science that proves the Bible.

Intelligent Design is a science and Albert Einstein himself believed it.
He made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire

(Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])

I reckon' Einstein wasn't a real scientist though huh....

 

[eameece]

Bible says He separated the light from the darkness. A reasonable way to do that would be to block the source of light with a rotating Earth. Of course you want to ignore what the bible plainly says.

You are assuming there is a rotating Earth because it is "reasonable" to you to add an explanation which the Bible authors knew nothing about. I think evolution happened, and that it is a "reasonable" interpretation of the creation story. I guess we're even.

 

[eameece]

Intelligent Design is a science and Albert Einstein himself believed it.
He made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":




(Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])

I reckon' Einstein wasn't a real scientist though huh....

So, show me the work in which Einstein described the beginning of heaven and earth and life in terms of intelligent design.

"Universal causation" and "the harmony of natural law"; are those your definitions of "God"?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Because there's no other explanation or conclusion possible. Light just means light, and it must be separate from darkness in order to be light. There was no Sun, and no rotating Earth, so morning and evening could not refer to a 24-hour day, but to a "day" in God's time reckoning, not ours.

Where it states God separated the light, it is telling of the matter/energy in the universe clumping together after the Big Bang, with the darkness being between the light sources. When the universe began, there were no objects or even space itself for their to be darkness. So light literally was the 1st creation.

The beginning statement of Genesis is an opening sequence, not an actual occurrence, and the light was created before the 1st Day (meaning the universe had already long been laid out before God started sculpting it). One will see this if they look at the context closely.

*This also leaves room for a young Earth.

Do we? All the Bible gives us is a short fairy tale. Good enough for 6-year olds, but not for educated, thinkin' folk.

Not so much a fairytale now :thumb: