1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Deeje, Mar 11, 2018.

  1. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,180
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    The word means circle and just describes the horizon. The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22
    Oh good grief! Everything the Bible gets wrong is meant figuratively of course. Here is an interesting article by Louis Jacobs Lecturer in Talmud, Leo Baeck College, London. "The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc" Jewish Cosmology - Friends of Louis Jacobs
    You wrote and I quote: "Since God is the author of the Bible, he also decided what its contents should be." Please Deeje tell us which of these Bibles God decided the contents of:
    The Jewish, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Anglican, the Greek Orthodox or the Ethiopian? Bibles

    You are a great asset for atheists Deeje. If it hadn't been for the inspiration you and your posts give me I would never have spent so much time researching the many ways the Bibles are wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,007
    Ratings:
    +5,275
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Since when did being dogmatic win a debate? You have obviously never tested the theory you subscribe to. If you had, you would see what is clearly evident...there is no real evidence....there is only lots of pie in the sky suggestion.

    Did you read sapiens "Evolution in Action" post? It is supposed to be evidence from science that evolution has taken place, but really read it. No, let me show you what it really says as opposed to what some may think it says....

    What is this saying? Spots on the tails of guppies prove that guppies remain guppies. As if spots on their tails are really "evolution".....are they serious? Adaptive change is not evolution. The guppies will always be guppies.
    The "evidence" is as weak as dishwater.

    OK...what about this one? Read it. What does the bolded portion say?

    Like Darwin's findings on the Galapagos Islands.....habitat differences produce variety within a taxonomic family. This is again "adaptation" not evolution. The lizards were still lizards of the same family.

    "When they later measured characters that had earlier been shown to be at least partly inherited, such as leg and toe length, the width of the head and scale color and shape, they found that these features now varied between the different lizard populations in a pattern that depended on their habitat.

    This finding is especially interesting because it hints at how speciation might occur in nature. If the experimental groups of A. oculatus had been kept in isolation for many more generations, the differences between them might have eventually become so great that zoologists would classify them as separate species."

    Suggestions masquerading as facts.

    The peppered moth was found to still be a peppered moth. Adaptation had facilitated a color change to ensure survival. Again this is not evolution but two moths of a different color belonging to the same family. They will never be anything but peppered moths.

    Natural selection provides the basis for adaptation. Every creature is endowed with this ability but it never produces a species outside of its "kind". Blind Freddy can see how flimsy the "evidence" really is just by reading what they actually say.

    If you want to fall for this weak argument, then that is up to you. Are you that easily convinced by nothing but speculation and suggestion?
     
    #562 Deeje, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
  3. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,185
    Ratings:
    +1,248
    Religion:
    Often the quickest path from ignorance to arrogance and/or condescension
    Yes, I believe science is based on this presumption - pie in the sky - and some seem to be eating it all to the detriment of the rest. :D :D :D
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,007
    Ratings:
    +5,275
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I agree with this part..."We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God......Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived."

    God is a teacher and yes, humans had a simplistic view of creation before science was ever a subject for study.
    The heavens were a testimony to round discs in the sky. The sun and moon were both round and as we have come to realize over time, almost all the heavenly bodies are round. It is hard to understand a round earth having "four corners" though, isn't it? (Revelation 7:1)...unless you cut it in quarters like an apple.

    "Jewish preoccupation was with the God of the cosmos not with the cosmos itself. There was, to be sure, a profound interest in natural phenomena but chiefly as pointers to God who initiated them and whose glory was revealed through them."

    This is very true. Who has argued with this? David appreciated creation but it was because of its Creator and the wisdom he showed in what David observed. He was no scientist.

    The truth can be found in all Bibles. According to the apostle Paul "...the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart"

    It is the word of God itself that has the power to reach and to teach a receptive heart. Unreceptive hearts, like Jesus' parable of the soil in which the seed of truth is planted, will never see anything grow. The seed gets choked out of existence. (Matthew 13:3-9) Everyone will fall into one of those categories that Jesus described.


    Men might be able to mess with a word here and there, or the punctuation and even by adding books that don't belong....but they will never change the Bible's message. I became a JW studying the KJV....a translation I have come to dislike intensely. Go figure. :shrug:

    That is excellent ArtieE. Then I have done my job, which is to make people think and evaluate things. Those so informed will never be able to use the excuse that they didn't know or that they were never informed...will they?
     
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,007
    Ratings:
    +5,275
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Just one particular branch of science seems to be the problem....and yes, it is like a virus affecting the rest.
    A collective state of mind that seems to be spread by contact with large egos and liberal doses of derision. :p
    We all know that only unindoctrinated, I mean uneducated morons would refuse a slice of that pie. :D
     
    #565 Deeje, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
  6. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,757
    Ratings:
    +4,325
    Adaptive change is evolution by definition. "Evolution" is the name we give to the process that CAUSES adaptive change within a population, whether it be a few spots on a tail or the development of entirely distinct species, it is still "evolution".

    Also "guppies will always be guppies" is not an observation that contradicts common ancestry or evolution. Variation occurs within the taxa, and over time produces variations that result in the diversification of that taxa. Guppies remain guppies, but produce variations of guppies. Mammals remain mammals, but produce variations of mammals. Eukaryotes remain eukaryotes, but produce variations of eukaryotes. Thus, all life shares common ancestry because all living things are eukaryotes.

    Why do you not understand these extremely basic facets of evolutionary theory when you've been discussing it for this long, Deeje? Even if you don't agree with it, you should at least be familiar with what evolution theory actually IS and SAYS by now. Why aren't you?
     
    #566 ImmortalFlame, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,007
    Ratings:
    +5,275
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Why can't I swallow the whole scenario? For the simple reason that "evolution" is not just adaptation. Adaptation is given as proof that evolution happens. But adaptive change never takes a creature outside of its taxonomic family. Macro-evolution "suggests" that adaptation necessarily leads to macro-evolution, when there is not a shred of actual evidence that it is even possible outside of their imagination.

    The example shared by sapiens should make you all cringe if you believe that this is science. To say that something "might have" happened and then behave as if it did, is not true science in anyone's definition....it is science fiction.
     
  8. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,180
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    I expected you to simply come up with arguments why you think the articles are wrong but you didn't so that is progress from your part.
    OK fair enough. May I then ask that you, instead of saying just "The Bible" specify which Bible out of the 6 you use and then the translation? I ask because for example in the KJV Psalm 51:5 says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." while The New International Version says: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

    The Book of Daniel is particularly confusing.

    The Greek text of Daniel is considerably longer than the Hebrew, due to three additional stories: they were accepted by all branches of Christianity until the Protestant movement rejected them in the 16th century on the basis that they were absent from Hebrew Bibles, but remain in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.[22]
    Book of Daniel - Wikipedia
    No and I fully agree. I am also doing my best to inform people. And on that note I would like to quote from an article I just found searching for evolution in connection with the Bibles. "Those who oppose evolution as incompatible with biblical Christianity run the risk of pressing the text beyond what is written and placing an unnecessary barrier before non-Christian investigators. We believe Christians should help people understand that evolution as an explanation for biological life is compatible with scripture."
    Evolution and the Bible | Xenos Christian Fellowship
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,757
    Ratings:
    +4,325
    For this to be true, you need to provide a clear, specific definition of "kind" and a an example of how you can test whether or not two or more organisms (or populations of organisms) classify as the same or different "kind".

    I have asked this hundreds of times in countless debates about evolution, and I have never once been given such a definition or any such kind of test. Unless you can clearly show what a "kind" is and how you can determine what "kind" something else, you cannot possibly assert that animals remain within certain "kinds". So, please furnish me with a precise definition and a test.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,007
    Ratings:
    +5,275
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    This will require more effort than time allows at present. I'll be back after a good nights sleep. The tyranny of time zones. zzzzz
     
  11. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,757
    Ratings:
    +4,325
    I'm not asking you to "swallow the whole scenario". I'm asking you to at least acknowledge and understand very basic facts about what evolution actually says. I'm not sure how you got this reading when I made it extremely explicit that my argument was that even if you don't agree with evolutionary theory, you should still be at least familiar with what it says after debating it as extensively as you have. So why aren't you?

    Again, evolution is the name we give to the process that causes adaptation. Saying "adaptation isn't proof of evolution" is like saying "things with mass being attracted to each other isn't proof of gravity".

    As my post clearly explained, that's not what evolution does and evolution has NEVER claimed populations diversify outside of their taxa.

    I'm having a hard time taking you seriously right now, Deeje. I literally JUST SAID THIS in the very post you're quoting. Here it is again:

    "Also "guppies will always be guppies" is not an observation that contradicts common ancestry or evolution. Variation occurs within the taxa, and over time produces variations that result in the diversification of that taxa. Guppies remain guppies, but produce variations of guppies. Mammals remain mammals, but produce variations of mammals. Eukaryotes remain eukaryotes, but produce variations of eukaryotes. Thus, all life shares common ancestry because all living things are eukaryotes."

    Macro-evolution has been directly observed multiple times.

    So, to you, someone using uncertain language is proof that what they're saying is complete fantasy? In that case, if they had replaced all "might haves" with "definitely did", would you change your mind and consider what they say to be fact?
     
    #571 ImmortalFlame, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,185
    Ratings:
    +1,248
    Religion:
    Often the quickest path from ignorance to arrogance and/or condescension
    Yeah, that's me and all the rest of the more sensible - uneducated morons - keep believing that Deeje - except I don't have a religious belief dictating what I think, unlike yourself. :p :p

    Free yourself from this delusion! :D
     
  13. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    15,634
    Ratings:
    +11,056
    Religion:
    None
    It stands in every test it has been subjected to and has never been falsified.

    Yes there is a theory of evolution, hence the appellation "theory" of evolution.

    Evolution Resources from the National Academies


    Please provide evidence in the form of citation ot link to your claimed conflicting data. Lets see if it can be falsified and if it has been peer reviewed. I.e. meet the scientific method
     
    #573 ChristineM, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,180
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    Sure. It's Easter Holiday and I'm in no hurry.
     
  15. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3,185
    Ratings:
    +1,248
    Religion:
    Often the quickest path from ignorance to arrogance and/or condescension
    Don't let the bedbugs bite! :p
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,180
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    There is no precise definition. According to the Bible a kind can be anything from a broad class of animals down to separate species. A stork and a heron are different kinds. Locust, bald locust and grasshopper are different kinds. Biblical Kind
     
  17. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,757
    Ratings:
    +4,325
    In my experience, this appears to be about the best that can be offered, and not a single time have I ever seen anyone present a test to determine "kind". As far as I'm concerned, evoking "kind" without a clear definition or a test means you're basically saying nothing meaningful and have already conceded the debate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,905
    Ratings:
    +3,952
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Just about every physicists, chemists, biologists, earth scientists, astronomers, technologists, engineers, and so on, will tell you that.

    The only people who would tell you otherwise, are not scientists, such as the creationists and pseudoscience ID.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You have two different pieces from two different puzzles and are force fitting them into a very distorted picture.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I've already said this several times in this very thread but people are ignoring it.

    Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it. This doesn't mean we can't kill all the light colored fish and get dark colored fish. But this is not the way new species arise. This is the way dark colored fish arise.

    No experiment supports change in species or the fact of missing links. A dog suddenly arises from a wolf and a giraffe suddenly arose from its parents.

    The site's working better today, I'll try an example. Perhaps the entire area where proto giraffes lives was overrun by a toxin or event that killed every single individual exposed except some that ate an antidote generally shunned or unavailable to other proto-giraffes. It was the eating of this food, a behavior, which allowed a few oddballs to survive. Genes underlie this behavior so the proto-giraffes bred a new species. This is what we see. This is how major change in species occurs. There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness.
     
    #580 cladking, Mar 29, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
Loading...