Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But when challenged on the text of Genesis and asked to produce the internal indicators of the text that show the author intended to understood in a non-literal manner, you can't do it. 

I believe the internal indicators are in the account itself, so I'll list a few below.

1. God brings the animals to Adam for him to name and to look for a suitable helper.

It is not physically possible for all of the animals to have been brought to Adam for naming. Thus, this is, at least in part, figurative. The text indicates a search for a suitable helper, but there was not one found. Clearly, God did not intend Adam to look for a suitable animal helper, so this must be taken figuratively.

2. God removes a rib from Adam and fashions the human helper, Eve.

This is not as clearly figurative, since God clearly could have used a literal rib, but here is some question about the translation of the word used for rib (tsela). I would suggest a more figurative meaning was intended.

3. There are implications made from the account of the fall of humanity that also suggest figurative interpretation.

The account portrays a talking, legged serpent that has tricked Eve into disobedience. There is nothing to suggest that conversation with animals was a routine occurrence, but Eve is clearly unphased by having a conversation with this creature. The serpent is punished for its role in the disobedience with the loss of its legs. This suggests that an animal was, at least in some part, responsible for the fall of humanity. God speaks to the serpent as Satan, but it is the animal that is punished with the loss of legs and with enmity with humanity. Clearly, the text shows that Eve was the first to disobey, but references throughout Scripture indicate that Adam was to blame. This is all suggestive of figurative language.

I'm sure you will disagree, but those are a few of the indicators that I believe suggest a non-literal interpretation.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And since the New Testament takes a literal approach to Creation, you are calling the God who inspired the NT a liar.

I would not dare do any such thing. The New Testament contains references to Adam and Eve, but does the New Testament refer to six 24-hour days of creation? I believe Adam and Eve were special in a spiritual sense as the first couple that God chose to relate with. I believe their choice of disobedience brought sin into the world that now captivates all who do not make the choice to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Although it happened long ago, their choice of disobedience mirrors choices I must make in my daily life - choose based on what I want versus what God has revealed to me. Praise God that I am no longer held captive by my own sinful choices and can willingly choose to follow Him.

[one.opinion]

16 minutes ago, Cletus said:

I am not talking about anemia or malaria.

No, I was giving an example.

16 minutes ago, Cletus said:

I am talking about lizards growing wings and going from cold blooded to warm blooded creatures.

If that's what you wanted to refer to specifically, then why did you say the following:

Quote

here is a real good probability killer.  an animal would have to mutate and breed to carry on its "evolved" gene.  but the offspring keeps being bred back to a non mutated gene pool.  sooner or later that gene will be bred out of the gene pool.

I showed you an example of a mutation kept in the gene pool, instead of being bred out as you erroneously claimed it would.

But if you want to move to lizards growing wings, let's take a look. As I've mentioned in this thread, the Archeopteryx family shared characteristics with both birds and dinosaurs. It had wings and feathers like a bird, but had the teeth and tail, and other skeletal features similar to a dinosaur. Additionally, it had claws on the same limbs as the wings, a feature no modern bird has. The fact that Archeopteryx had both dinosaur and bird features strongly suggests that it was transitional between the two groups.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Cletus said:

or since no modern bird has it... that gene died off.  theoretically speaking.

But if Archeopteryx is truly transitional like our observation suggests, the wings and feathers have certainly stuck around.

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Cletus said:

but if.  sounds hopeful.

I was shooting for tactful. Fossil evidence and genetic evidence both strongly support a dino-to-bird transition.

 

15 minutes ago, Cletus said:

how did the duck billed platypus get a duck bill and fur...and venom.

The platypus is a monotreme, an egg-laying mammal. Monotreme are also believed to be transitional; in this case, between reptile and mammal. Often, the apparent transitional forms die out, but this is a case where a small group (platypus and echidna) survived.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5877/730?%3Fsa_campaign=Email/subcol/--/

22 minutes ago, Cletus said:

mutations dont last in the wild.

Actually, they do. I’ve already shared one example in humans. Lactase persistence is another. Most mammals become lactose intolerant as they mature, but several mutations have crept into the human genome that allow continued production of the enzyme (lactase) that allows our guts to break down and digest lactose. Some human populations have greater genetic lactase persistence than others, but the mutations are thousands of years old.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1946

[Guest shiloh357]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I believe the internal indicators are in the account itself, so I'll list a few below.

1. God brings the animals to Adam for him to name and to look for a suitable helper.

It is not physically possible for all of the animals to have been brought to Adam for naming. Thus, this is, at least in part, figurative. The text indicates a search for a suitable helper, but there was not one found. Clearly, God did not intend Adam to look for a suitable animal helper, so this must be taken figuratively.

How do you know it is not possible?   Were you there? How many animals were there?   An all-powerful, all-knowing God could not possibly effect a situation that goes outside the limited scope of what you can conceive as possible?

And since you say it was "figurative,"  I would remind you that you are making a textual argument that should be based on textual evidence.  So when you use the term "figurative,"  what is it figurative of???   That's where your argument has always broken down in the past.  You cannot, with any credibility assign the mantle of "figurative" to a particular text element  without being able to show why it is figurative and why the author wants us to see it that way.

If the name of the animals is figurative, what are the textual indicators that tell us that the author wants us to see something figurative in the text?    Simply claiming that something is physically impossible, simply based on your inability to accept what is written, doesn't fulfill that request.   You need to show something, a figurative device of some kind, a literary device in the text that is the author's tip off to the reader that it is figurative.

Quote

 

2. God removes a rib from Adam and fashions the human helper, Eve.

This is not as clearly figurative, since God clearly could have used a literal rib, but here is some question about the translation of the word used for rib (tsela). I would suggest a more figurative meaning was intended.

 

The word simply means "side."  The side or rib area is where God took flesh and bone and made Eve.   Again, where are the textual indicators that tip us off that this means something non-literal?   What evidence suggests that Eve came into existence by another means than what is given in the Bible?
 

Quote

 

3. There are implications made from the account of the fall of humanity that also suggest figurative interpretation.

The account portrays a talking, legged serpent that has tricked Eve into disobedience. There is nothing to suggest that conversation with animals was a routine occurrence, but Eve is clearly unphased by having a conversation with this creature. The serpent is punished for its role in the disobedience with the loss of its legs. This suggests that an animal was, at least in some part, responsible for the fall of humanity. God speaks to the serpent as Satan, but it is the animal that is punished with the loss of legs and with enmity with humanity. Clearly, the text shows that Eve was the first to disobey, but references throughout Scripture indicate that Adam was to blame. This is all suggestive of figurative language.

 

Well, why is that a problem in a supernatural environment where man is sinless and can talk to God face-to-face?

The fact that the Bible places the fault with Adam and not with Eve does not suggest a figurative meaning at all. Eve, was deceived, but Adam was not (I Tim. 2:14).   Adam and only Adam was told by God not to eat of the tree.   Eve was told by Adam. It was Eve that the serpent lied to.  But it was Adam's responsibility, as the head caretaker of the garden, and as the one who had received the instructions directly from God to protect Eve and the garden.    The text seems to imply that both Adam and Eve were present when the serpent deceived Eve and Adam not only failed to protect her, but ate of the tree.    Eve was deceived, but Adam disobeyed God with both eyes open, knowing fully he was doing.    Adam consciously and knowingly rebelled against God and that is why he is the one credited with bringing sin into the world, not Eve.

So, it is not an issue of being figurative or not.   It is a theological issue that evidently completely escapes you.  

You clearly have no clue what a textual indicator is and so you are relying on what you think is possible or not.   Pretty much every "indicator"  you raise only demonstrates that your problem with the creation story is theological and nothing more, as you cannot produce any textual evidence that the author had something else in mind when he penned Gen. 1-3.

 

Quote

I would not dare do any such thing.

Not in so many words, but when God inspired the NT to give a literal view of Genesis 1-3, and you say it is not literal.   You're not contradicting men; you're contradicting the God who inspired them.

Quote

The New Testament contains references to Adam and Eve, but does the New Testament refer to six 24-hour days of creation?

I am not saying it refers to every element of the creation story.   But Adam and Eve are understood to be literal, historical people.  The deception by the serpent is taken literally:  "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."  (2Co 11:3)

 

Quote

I believe Adam and Eve were special in a spiritual sense as the first couple that God chose to relate with.

No, the Bible says that they were the first people.   You run into serious theological problems if you say otherwise.

 

Quote

I believe their choice of disobedience brought sin into the world that now captivates all who do not make the choice to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on their behalf.

No, it wasn't "their" choice;  it was Adam's choice.   You need to align with the Bible and stop trying to edit it fit your

Quote

Although it happened long ago, their choice of disobedience mirrors choices I must make in my daily life - choose based on what I want versus what God has revealed to me. Praise God that I am no longer held captive by my own sinful choices and can willingly choose to follow Him.

Their disobedience to God's word mirrors your own disobedience and refusal to accept what God's word says.  You are captive to a secular mindset that rejects the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, Cletus said:

as long as we have been around if a mutation happened or an evolution of a creature, we would know about it.

I think we are thinking of two different things when the word “mutation” is used. I think of the change in DNA sequence, whereas you are thinking of something on a much more visible scale. I understand better what you are stating now, thanks for your patience.

The theory of evolution would suggest that small, heritable changes in DNA sequence do develop into larger, more observable changes. Of course, this is harder to prove than the stability of DNA-level mutations.

[Tristen]

Hi all, hope no one minds me jumping in mid-conversation.

When Darwin first lamented the lack of transitional fossils, he was referring to fossils with transitional structures. For example, until recently it was believed that reptilian scales evolved into feathers – so a transitional fossil would show an intermediate between scales and feathers. The connotation of transitional fossil has since changed to mean any fossil that can be putatively squeezed between two other creatures on a phylogenetic tree (presumably to make the term more evolution-friendly – since, according to Darwin's usage, there are still no transitional fossils). However, the latter connotation is largely meaningless; since every creature can be considered somewhat mosaic (i.e. every creature has some physical structures in common with other species) – especially given the concept of convergent evolution (i.e. when something doesn't neatly fit, we can just assume the problematic structures evolved separately, independently). The assumption that we are all somewhat mosaic forms the basis of Darwin's tree of life (i.e. Common Ancestry) – and so could not inform his definition of transitional fossil.

Archaeopteryx is, at best, a mosaic. It is readily recognised as a bird (with true feathers), but also shares some structures found in some reptiles. That makes it unique, but not legitimately transitional. This has long been understood in informed secular circles, but Archaeopteryx is too valuable and effective as a propaganda tool to allow it slip from the narrative.

For example, in the 1947 text “Human Destiny”, biophysicist (and ardent evolutionist), Lecomte Du Nouy, wrote;

“In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.” (pg 71-72). (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.77857)

In 2011, Nature recognised the iconic significance of Archaeopteryx in the evolutionary mind-set when a group presumed to reclassify it as pre-avian.

“This finding is likely to be met with considerable controversy (if not outright horror), in part because of the historical and sociological significance that Archaeopteryx has held, but also because it may mean that much of what we thought we knew about the origin and early evolution of birds will need to be re-evaluated.” (https://www.nature.com/articles/475458a)

As early as 1977, fossils of undisputed true birds were dated to 60 million years earlier than Archaeopteryx (https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/bone-bonanza-early-bird-and-mastodon?mode=magazine&context=1152). Archaeopteryx is a unique, extinct bird (see http://science.sciencemag.org/content/259/5096/764). There is no objective reason to assume it represents anything more.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

11 hours ago, Cletus said:

as far as transitional creatures, why have so few survived?  the monotremes lived?  but all the creatures inbetween ape and modern man died?  but the apes are still here?  man is here... but everything in between is gone.  ape is here.....and all in between is the theory.  the unsubstantiated part.  the unknown part.  and in every "transition creature" what you will find is the same.  and then people do as you have done in your posts to me.  they use something like lactase to prove lizards changed to birds.   based on theory.  to sugest from a fact(alleged) to theory.

as long as we have been around if a mutation happened or an evolution of a creature, we would know about it.  we would have pictures or paintings.  documentation.  thats because it dont happen.  and evenmore, what is the root word of creature? 

The Evolutionists find ONE fossil they THINK is transitional. If Evolution were true, the earth would be pregnant with transitional fossils.    But all they have one or maybe a few fossils that are simply declared transitional and we are supposed to accept that declaration without question, as if scientists are infallible and their declarations carry the force of Ex-Cathedra.

We should be able to find billions of years of regression in the fossil record at every stage of transition, but we don't have that for any  species.   What evolutionists do is throw up examples of how a species of horse evolved into a different species of horse.   Or a species of bird that changed over time into a different species of bird.   They throw up examples of how one strain of bacteria "evolved" into a different strain of bacteria. That is held up as proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Evolutionists find ONE fossil they THINK is transitional. If Evolution were true, the earth would be pregnant with transitional fossils.    But all they have one or maybe a few fossils that are simply declared transitional and we are supposed to accept that declaration without question, as if scientists are infallible and their declarations carry the force of Ex-Cathedra.

In my certainly inexpert estimation , the number of transitional fossils is less than what would have been expected 150 years ago. However, there are more fossils that scientists are transitional than you realize. We talked a little about Pakicetus a little bit ago. Remember, it is believed to be part of a series of transitional fossils. Scientists believe it was terrestrial, but semi-aquatic, but there are several other fossils specimens in the series toward modern whales and dolphins. You can find more of the series and other examples of series - dinosaurs to birds, synapsids to mammals, and others here (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/). I certainly wouldn't take this as rock-solid proof of evolution, but if you want to argue against it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to be more familiar with the evidence.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

In my certainly inexpert estimation , the number of transitional fossils is less than what would have been expected 150 years ago. However, there are more fossils that scientists are transitional than you realize.

They are assumed to be transitional.   Science has never produced anything to convincing except to those who already pre-disposed to accept those claims without evidence.

Quote

We talked a little about Pakicetus a little bit ago. Remember, it is believed to be part of a series of transitional fossils. Scientists believe it was terrestrial, but semi-aquatic, but there are several other fossils specimens in the series toward modern whales and dolphins.

Yes, I have heard of it and they already stated it was a land animal, not aquatic after they found a full skeleton.   The claim that it was aquatic was back when  all they had was the head.   It's like like how scientists constructed the entire low-browed had of the neanderthal from a handful teeth.    I mean, the stuff we are expect to accept simply because "scientists" say-so is astounding.

Quote

You can find more of the series and other examples of series - dinosaurs to birds, synapsids to mammals, and others here (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/). I certainly wouldn't take this as rock-solid proof of evolution, but if you want to argue against it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to be more familiar with the evidence.

I am familiar enough with the so-called "evidence" to know that  we are being sold a bill of goods and that people who don't just accept these claims at face-value and bow the knee to the assumed infallibility of the scientific community and think for themselves are ridiculed as ignorant. 

Anyone with any commonsense knows that if transitional fossils were real, the earth would be chock full of them down through strata after strata, and scientists would have no problem showing a complete line of evolution for every species.