Science and the Bible...

[ARGOSY]

47 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

There is so much evidence for evolution, I cannot explain all of it to you without taking days, but I will explain a few things.

The fossil record shows that organisms change over time. We can use carbon dating to check how old a certain fossil is, and we can use DNA and recognition testing to see what the creature is. When we look at lots of different fossils of the same creature from different times, we see that it has changed. For example; horses. Horses are one of the animals we have a complete record for by looking at fossils. 60 million years ago, the horse was a dog sized creature that lived in the rainforest. Slowly they evolved until they are the plain dwelling, 2 metre high animal we know and love today. For ease of reading I will put a diagram of this below. 

Peppered moths

 Before the industrial revolution in Britain, most peppered moths were of the pale variety. This meant that they were camouflaged against the pale birch trees that they rest on. Moths with a mutant black colouring were easily spotted and eaten by birds. This gave the white variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive to reproduce. Pollution in industrial areas blackened the birch tree bark with soot. This meant that the mutant blackmoths were now camouflaged, while the white variety became more vulnerable to predators. This gave the black variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, the black peppered moths became far more numerous in urban areas than the pale variety.

Darwin's birds

Darwin studied the wildlife on the Galápagos Islands. He noticed that the finches on the different islands there were fundamentally similar to each other, but showed wide variations in their size, beaks and claws from island to island. For example, their beaks were different depending on the local food source. Darwin concluded that, because the islands are so distant from the mainland, the finches that had arrived there in the past had changed over time.

Sedimentary rock is created when layers of sand, rock, fossils ect are compressed and turn to rock. This however takes millions of years to form. If you have a large surface area of sedimentary rock (going upwards), then you shall find that the fossils of particular animals change, and get more like the animal we know today when you get nearer the surface.

That is just a bit of the evidence for evolution, there is soooooooo much more. I challenge you to find anything that supports creation as the origin of life and species.

Again, I do not mean to offend anyone, and we are all entitled to our own opinion. Have a nice day

Regarding peppered moths and finches, I completely agree that wildlife can adapt rapidly and change outward morphology and even physiology, however this is insignificant at a genetic level.  The "evolving" occurring is normaly deleterious on a genetic level, or more commonly involves selection for certain alleles and allele combinaions. Thus the allele frequencies across an isolated population may adapt rapidly to suit a differing environment due to selection pressures, but no evolution ever occurs on the scale required by the theory of evolution.

[MorningGlory]

51 minutes ago, Sister said:

Can I give my two cents worth?

We are all created beings (creatures) even the angels are creatures.

But the animals were created on day 5 and man on day 6.  There is a separation here.

 Genesis 1:26   And God said, Let us make man in our image, AFTER OUR LIKENESS: and let them have DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Man is way above the animal kingdom, because we are created in God's image meaning we can .... speak, read, reason, plan, design, love, discuss, build, destroy and know the difference between good and bad.  There are intelligent animals yes, but they are programmed to receive.  We learn by experience, and the animals are not given the same abilities man is given to think and act in the likeness of God, so the two can never compare.  We have been given all of God's qualities because he is raising children not pets.

Also besides man's superior intellect, I believe we do resemble God in body shape, even though he is spirit, he has a form.  He has hands, not claws, feet not flippers, hair not furr, he even wears clothes!

You only have to read revelations to see what Jesus looks like in his true form, and if he is the express image of his Father, then I guess that's what God looks like too. (Rev 1:14)

 

Don't fall over or anything, Sister, but I totally agree with your summation here. 

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, Goldenshark123 said:

 

Sedimentary rock is created when layers of sand, rock, fossils ect are compressed and turn to rock. This however takes millions of years to form. If you have a large surface area of sedimentary rock (going upwards), then you shall find that the fossils of particular animals change, and get more like the animal we know today when you get nearer the surface.

 

 

Here's a comment from https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/how-fast/      Fossils HAVE TO harden quickly otherwise they will rot.  Sedimentary rock forms quickly:

""  If a tree fell over in a forest or into a lake or stream and just lay there for millions of years, wouldn’t it just rot away? Bugs, termites, fungus, chemical action would soon turn it back into dust. But if that tree got suddenly and deeply buried in mineral-rich sediment, then minerals could crystallize throughout the log and turn it to stone before it had time to decay. To my encouragement, he replied, “You know, I believe you’re right about that!”

 A museum in central Tasmania has a “fossil hat” on display. A miner had dropped his felt hat, and the limey water had turned it into a “hard hat” (which the curator was kind enough to let me feel and photograph). That same process, mineral in-fill, can turn wood, bones, and shells into fossils in a short period of time. Indeed, fossils can be made in the laboratory!  ""

[thereselittleflower]

On 2/26/2016 at 8:21 AM, Sister said:

Can I give my two cents worth?

We are all created beings (creatures) even the angels are creatures.

But the animals were created on day 5 and man on day 6.  There is a separation here.

 Genesis 1:26   And God said, Let us make man in our image, AFTER OUR LIKENESS: and let them have DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Man is way above the animal kingdom, because we are created in God's image meaning we can .... speak, read, reason, plan, design, love, discuss, build, destroy and know the difference between good and bad.  There are intelligent animals yes, but they are programmed to receive.  We learn by experience, and the animals are not given the same abilities man is given to think and act in the likeness of God, so the two can never compare.  We have been given all of God's qualities because he is raising children not pets.

Also besides man's superior intellect, I believe we do resemble God in body shape, even though he is spirit, he has a form.  He has hands, not claws, feet not flippers, hair not furr, he even wears clothes!

You only have to read revelations to see what Jesus looks like in his true form, and if he is the express image of his Father, then I guess that's what God looks like too. (Rev 1:14)

 

I hate to disagree with MG here but I have to disagree with some of what you've written here.

There is a saying  All swans are white - that is,  until someone finds a black swan.  

The West used to hold the belief that all swans were white.  This was held as true until in 1697 the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Australia. This was an unexpected event in (scientific) history and profoundly changed zoology.

So an 'All swans are white' belief or hypothesis is accepted as factual and true because no one has seen a black swan.   But once someone has seen 'a black swan', the claim 'all swans are white' has been proven false and can no longer be held as true.

There are animals who are doing things we have long thought were the prerogatives and domain of man alone.

All we need is one 'black swan' to your "white swan" claim that "intelligent" animals are programmed to receive and that they don't learn by experience for your claim to be false.

A black swan has indeed been found, and its name is Koko.  Koko is a gorilla who learns like a child learns, who has created concepts not taught her, just like a child does, by putting two and two together through her own experiences.   

Koko loves, Koko discusses, etc.

So being made in God's image must mean something more than this.  

And it is not our physical appearance.  Gorillas and monkeys, etc have a man like appearance.  They have hands, not claws, feet not flippers. Some even have no fur and have hair.   Are they made in God's image too?

 

 

[Kan]

Zion made the point about the different ways the Bible can be read, and which do we trust?

You can read the Bible any way you want, but if the primary result leaves you unconverted, then you are on your own, and your own reasoning you will follow. The Bible was written so that people could be guided by the Holy Spirit in its reading.

Some claim to have that guiding, but their doctrines are obviously false. 

The first sign of conversion is an obedient heart which does not hate God's commandments, and does not place its own opinion above the word of God. 

So it is a personal matter, and the deceived will be around with their nonsense and mental religion, as well as rebellion such as with atheism. What we have in the world is confusion in these matters.

It is up to the individual to recognize that they do not meet up with the standards of God's righteousness, and that they have to be subject to the grace of learning. 

It is not unusual for a deceived person to claim guidance by the Holy Spirit. But a true learner will rely on the plain text and state how they reason with it, rather than saying that their view is the only one possible.

So spiritual insight involves submission, humility, reasoning and sharing. And Heaven help us when someone pretends to have all those.

[Goldenshark123]

Man is in no way abive the animal kingdom. We are animals, yes we posses higher intelligence than most animals, but that only comes from a 1% differnece in DNA from chimps up to humans. This is quite an interseting topic, so I will elaborate further. If we make up an arbitary definition of intelligence for now, let's say intelligence is the ability to build, compose poetry, do maths and science. Let's make that our definiton of intelligence for now. Chimps can't do any of that, so everything that separates us from chimps, comes from a 1% of DNA. Humans have built skyscrapers, looked into outer space and created technologies like computers, phones, appliances ect. The most brilliant chimp ever would probably be able to do some hamd signals or something, so the difference between hand signals and a skyscraper, comes from one percent DNA. So, imagine that there is a species 1% different from us, in the direction that we are different from chimps. Think about how intelligent they would be! So I wonder, that if we as a species are simply too stupid to understand some things around us. But one thing we do understand is evolution.

It is clear from carbon dating that other animals were around millions of years before humans, and it is clear that the differnce between their existence is millions of years from 'one day'. Please don't get any information from answers in genesis. It is a deluded, misguided site/ museum whose arguments have been disproven. 

As for evolution from one species to another, macroevolution is just an extension of microevolution. 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natutal selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. You might think that microevolution is too small to influence macroevolution, but it isn't. Remember that evolution has been at work for 3.8 billion years.

[Kan]

2 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Man is in no way above the animal kingdom. We are animals, yes we posses higher intelligence than most animals, but that only comes from a 1% differnece in DNA from chimps up to humans. ...

Which is why we have to appeal to a higher intelligence than ourselves.

[Goldenshark123]

Our intelligence and whether we want a higher power to exist are irrelevant. There is no evidence to prove a higher power exists.

[ARGOSY]

33 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Our intelligence and whether we want a higher power to exist are irrelevant. There is no evidence to prove a higher power exists.

There is no evidence for genetic evolution, yet you believe it.  There is no evidence for abiogenesis yet you believe it don't you. There is no evidence for the spontaneous creation of matter yet you believe it don't you. These are faith choices not science choices.

 

On the balance of logic there is in fact more evidence of supernatural intervention over history , and the existence of a higher power than there is in spontaneous creation of matter and biology, and subsequent increases in genetic diversity since the so-called original prokaryote type organism.   

Other than the standard  fossil sequences   (horses/humans), which are frankly dodgy when analysed carefully, I'm sure there are legitimate fossil sequences as well. This does not confirm the evolution of genetic complexity, but just shows the natural adaptability of nature. Over to you, where's your evidence of evolution?

[Sister]

15 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Don't fall over or anything, Sister, but I totally agree with your summation here. 

I just fell off my chair!

Peace Sister, it's all good.