Evolution

I can tell you have very little interest in proving evolution, I can see you believe it happened and that’s enough for you and should be enough for anyone else. I hope you don’t mind if I don’t take your word for it.

As for proof, once again, please read the OP, the OP asked for you to comment on whether you believe in evolution or not and give your reasons why. There was no asking for proof one way or another. It is interesting that you have not responded to OP yet, so what is your purpose in posting to this thread?

 

How so? If the men who wrote (no quotation marks needed) the Bible wrote everything in it, any evidence in it is written by them. If it came from God, it came from God; if they made it up, it's made up. Correlations of events in the Bible to real life events similarly proves nothing other than that that event happened - if a battle or an exodus can be proven to have happened, a visitation or a smiting on the next page is not proven merely by virtue of being in the same book. A book does not have to be composed solely of lies in order to contain a lie, and it would be fallacious to believe otherwise. To my knowledge, the Bible has never predicted anything, nor has anything contained within its pages suggested that the men who wrote it were privy to information that only God could have given them. Nothing prehistoric at the time (e.g. Genesis) could have be proved or disproved at the time, just as it cannot be proved or disproved now.

So, unless you have something else, I think that no, there is not much more about the Bible to prove that it is the word of God than that the men who wrote it said so.

 

I have very little interest in proving something that is beyond my capacity and resources to prove. Are you actually surprised? I think that you are trying to imply that I have said things that I haven't - that I have claimed that evolution is proven, that I have refused to divulge that proof despite claiming to have seen it, and that I have insisted that everyone else should believe in it unquestioningly without proof. Whether that is your intention or not, I have definitely never made that claim, so I don't see what point you are trying to make by saying that you hope I don't mind if I don't take your word for it.

I don't remember whether I have responded directly to the OP, but I think it would be utterly facetious to suggest that I haven't answered their questions. Maybe it's because my beliefs aren't based purely on loose feelings or inklings that you are confused, but I very much have stated them, over and over again.

 

Okay, just for you I will repeat what has already been answered in this thread, seeing as you seem adverse to reading a thread you’re posting to.

The word used in Genesis is the Hebrew word Yowm and Strong’s says this about that word:

yowm (yome)
​

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

If you’ll notice even the literal meaning of the word can have two meanings and that the figurative meaning is a space of time defined by an associated term.

What you don’t understand is the Bible is a whole book not just the lines of Genesis that you are talking about. If one was to just read the lines that you are talking about here, perhaps you might believe that “day” means 24 hours but once you read Hebrews 4:1-10 you realize that last day of rest was 4000 years old in Paul’s “day” (please notice here that even in common English usage the word “day” can mean other than a 24 hour day) and that “day” of rest has still not ended some 2000 years later making that “day” rest at least 5000 years long and there is no reason to believe that the other “days” were any shorter.

PS also please note that in Paul’s “day” there was no theory of evolution or scientific guesses that he Earth was billions of years old and so Paul was not “changing” the meaning of the word “day” just so the Bible was in harmony with what scientists would believe thousands of years later.

 

oh so true

 

I have never said that the Bible is always literally true. I’ve made over 3000 posts and if you can show me once out of all those posts that I said that the whole Bible should be taken literally, please show me.

No it’s not, it’s a matter of understanding the Bible as a whole not just picking out one scripture out of context and saying well that’s what it must mean.

I am not a fundamentalist not now, not ever, so I don’t really care how it’s suppose to operate.

As for; “we could say that the sequence given in the Bible is correct, and science is wrong about the sun existing before the earth and vegetation.” Go right ahead but the truth is simply that the universe and Earth were created (Genesis 1:1) before the preparation of the Earth for human habitation (Genesis 1:2 - 31).

 

Like I said, nonsensical clutching at straws.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. If you're willing to agree that particular words and details aren't crucial, and that overall context is important we may not differ as much as I thought, although you did seem ready to defend a literalist view in your initial dismissal of my observation about sequence. My own understanding of Genesis 1 is that it wasn't meant to be a science treatise. I see it as conveying the power and majesty of the creator, to make the point that the universe was created by a superior intelligence, and to stress the importance of the Sabbath, which even God observes. The sequence may have to do with something other than chronology--to demonstrate the supremacy of God over the various forces of nature worshipped as divine by other peoples of the ancient world.

For example, there's a general similarity to the Sumerian creation story, but with telling differences. Heaven (An), earth (Enlil), and the primeval sea (Nammu) were deities to the Sumerians but mere inanimate objects created by Yahweh in the Bible. Likewise, the Sun (Utu) and moon (Nanna) were major gods to the Sumerians, but mere "lights" hung by Yahweh in Genesis. Practically all of the major pagan religions of the period worshipped one or another of these natural objects as deities, including some respected Greek and Roman philosophers, and the Bible treats them as mere inanimate creations of the All Powerful Yahweh. The point of which came first may be irrelevant.

This is why I see no reason for Christians to go to the mat on evolution. Evolution by process of natural selection seems to be the most adequate scientific explanation of species development around, supported by evidence from a wide variety of disciplines and so far meeting the test of refutability. Most scientists and many Christians accept it, and as long as it doesn't deny a role for divine involvement, I see no problem with it. To Christian Darwinists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, the divine involvement came earlier in the planning stage, in establishing the laws of nature which favor life and the eventual emergence of intelligent life forms. ( I might mention that the late Jesuit paleontologist and mystic, Father Tielhard de Chardin,saw evolution as the very centerpiece of God's plan, and if that is the case, we may not want to brush it aside too hastily.)

 

Desperate nonsense? No more than anything you’ve said.

I’ve never said these processes don’t exist but they have other purposes than evolution and are not in of themselves proof of evolution.

Yes, the Bible does say it is the Word of God but unlike evolution that is not the only reason for believing that it is true.

You do go on but I have never said that the whole Bible should taken literally and as for when it should or not I have always said that the Bible can interpret itself and does not need me to interpret it.

 

Not very knowledge able are you, at least about the Bible?

 

I've heard enough people claim that the Bible predicted things and then seen their incredibly spurious evidence. If you have something really impressive, whip it out. If not, please don't try to make something out of nothing.

Well that's hardly a ringing indictment! Your argument doesn't have to be 0.1% less ridiculous than someone else's to be Right. It just has to be good. Yours isn't good, and whether mine is or not isn't really relevant to that.

No, they're not "proof", and I never said they were, and it's disingenuous of you to keep referring to proof when no-one that you're talking to is talking in those terms.

And yes, in and of themselves, they're not proof, or evidence. But we're not talking about them "in and of themselves", are we? We're talking about several things which are indisputably true making up evolution. Isolating one factor and insisting that it proves nothing on its own is facetious.

Actually, there is good reason for believing in evolution, since even you can admit that it is evidenced even if it is not 100% proven. Whereas you have so far failed to present any good reason to believe that The Bible is the Word of God. You don't have to, because this is a thread about evolution, but since you insist that it has more factual basis than evolution, I'd be interested to see what you think that factual basis is.

Yes, and I have always said that the notion of a book being "self-interpreting" is nonsense and you have consistently failed to refute that. You have at least adopted a fairly consistently literalist stance until now. If you just did that for shits and giggles and never meant a word of it, how is anyone supposed to know that?

 

Actually, what I’m implying is that you said:

Inevitable - unavoidable: impossible to avoid or to prevent from happening; something certain: something that is certain to happen.

And all I’m saying is:

If you don’t even remember answering the OP's questions, then perhaps you haven’t.

 

Yes, you are.

 

It seems to me that words and details in the Bible are crucial but just a first literal interpretation of what is read is not always correct and one must be willing to look at the whole Bible to find out what the Bible is saying at any one place. Such as what I've already pointed out, that a quick perusal of the first chapters of Genesis could give the impression that the days are only 24 hours but when reading Hebrews you find out that those days were over 4000 years long.

 

If those days were 4000 years long, how did all those plants survive without sunlight?

 

Yes, and I pointed out exactly how that is distinct from "proven" earlier on in the thread. I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

Why is this suddenly such a burning concern for you, 20 pages into the thread?

 

When you stop making statements as fact, then I’ll stop asking for proof of those statements.

See here you go again; “We're talking about several things which are indisputably true making up evolution.” and I’m not suppose to ask for proof of it. While there many things that are indisputably true and you can put them together and say they make up evolution. That just don’t mean it’s so.

you’ve mention a lot of things that are true but done of them are necessarily evidence of evolution.

Name calling is the last resort of a weak argument. From this it seems you’re argument is weak and you’re getting a little desperate.

Once again if you wish, you can check all my posts and see if I’ve jumped around in what I believe. If at anytime I have misspoken or have changed my belief, I have publicly in that thread admitted it.

 

I’m unsure why you fell it necessary to eventually try and hijack almost every thread you get involved it in but this time if you want to talk about this start a new thread!

 

Please read the thread if you have the question after reading what has already been said then I will find where it has already been answered and quote it for you.