Evolution compatible with Creation?

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
You obviously don't own a Bible. The King James version reads this way. Proverbs 31:16

Obvious, eh? I own a Bible and always have. King James version, too. Writing is my profession and the King James Bible is an essential literary source.

Let me say it one more time, a field. This was an agricultural society. You must live in the city.

You can say it as many times as you like. What are you, American? You may want to check out how large fields used to be in pre-Enclosure England. Or, for that matter, the size of some vineyards in Bordeaux, even today. Certain Grands crus come from vineyards not much bigger than a postage stamp. They've been that size since the fourteenth century.

The Grand Crus of the Côte de Nuits are some of the smallest appellations in France, less than a hectare in the case of La Romanée. Source

A hectare is 10,000 square metres, or about 320 feet by 320 feet. A woman with good, King-Solomon-approved biceps (and a couple of slaves to help her ) could manage that pretty easily.

Astyanax: the Bible contains many, many passages regulating the treatment of slaves.

I have been saying this the whole time. Slavery existed, the Law put protections in place to prevent abuse, and preserve peoples dignity.

This is God you're talking about, not an earthly king or politician. He didn't have to adapt his laws to the social realities of the time. Your point is absurd and nonsensical.

Today, some people have to be employees. They are not geared to be self employed. If we created a law making employees illegal, society would crumble.

An employee is not a slave; there is absolutely no comparison. Slaves were taken in war, or bred from other slaves. No aptitude test was applied to determine whether someone was fit to be free or condemned to a lifetime of slavery. Many slaves were far more educated and capable than their masters; in the Roman Empire, slaves often ran their masters' businesses, were entrusted with delicate business or diplomatic negotiations, bossed huge workforces (of other slaves), etc., etc. Google, for your own edification, the name of Tiberius Claudius Narcissus. The Emperors Diocletian and Pertinax were the sons of former slaves who had been manumitted (freedmens' sons enjoyed full Roman citizenship). The Empress Theodora was the daughter of a slave and was a former prostitute. Gibbon and other authorities agree she made a pretty good empress.

''Not geared to be self employed', eh?

Did you know that the Law had a command against charging interest? Our modern society is built on interest.

Such laws are stupid and people always find a way around them. Google the words 'riba' and 'takaful' and educate yourself.

As for the rest of your post: thank you for your sermon, and your professed concern. I propose you direct it at the ignorant, who may be grateful for it; the health and welfare of my presumptive soul is none of your business.

reply to post by Astyanax

Many slaves were far more educated and capable than their masters; in the Roman Empire, slaves often ran their masters' businesses, were entrusted with delicate business or diplomatic negotiations, bossed huge workforces (of other slaves), etc., etc. Google, for your own edification, the name of Tiberius Claudius Narcissus. The Emperors Diocletian and Pertinax were the sons of former slaves who had been manumitted (freedmens' sons enjoyed full Roman citizenship). The Empress Theodora was the daughter of a slave and was a former prostitute. Gibbon and other authorities agree she made a pretty good empress.

Thank you for helping me make my point on slaves, and their lot in life, if they are treated with respect and given incentive for advancement.

This is God you're talking about, not an earthly king or politician. He didn't have to adapt his laws to the social realities of the time. Your point is absurd and nonsensical.

Of course God didn't have to adapt to the social realities of the time, but He did. He allowed divorce, polygamy, and gave the people an earthly king when they asked for one.

You may want to check out how large fields used to be in pre-Enclosure England. Or, for that matter, the size of some vineyards in Bordeaux, even today. Certain Grands crus come from vineyards not much bigger than a postage stamp. They've been that size since the fourteenth century.

Interesting.

Check out the vineyards in Israel.

reply to post by dusty1

Thank you for helping me make my point on slaves, and their lot in life, if they are treated with respect and given incentive for advancement.

It sounds as though you secretly approve of slavery.

No matter how well a slave was treated and trusted, he was still subject to the whim of his master, and his life could be forfeit at any moment. And for every slave whose lot was comfortable or even luxurious, tens of thousands suffered conditions so abominable I would not impose them on a dog. What price child slavery? Concubinage? The scourge and the cage? Read Spartacus--not the Howard Fast bestseller but Louis Grassic Gibbon's classic--to learn what slavery in Rome was really like. It is not a tale for weak stomachs.

Enough pussyfooting. Time to 'fess up. You believe slavery is actually quite okay, don't you?

God didn't have to adapt to the social realities of the time, but He did.

And thereby condemned countless men and women to be the property of others, and to live lives of unbelievable suffering and misery. I thought your God was supposed to be good? Was it good to allow this horror, when He could have prevented it--most of it, at least--with a commandment?

This is precisely why I don't believe in this God of yours. If He existed, He would have to be the last word in unspeakable evil.

Check out the vineyards in Israel.

What does the size of a modern Israeli vineyard have to do with the size of European ones in the time of King James? Or with anything? Had you forgotten that the Jews were kicked out of Judea by the Emperor Hadrian in the second century? That the land now known as Israel was the home of Palestinian Arabs between then and the twentieth century? That Palestinians are Muslims and are forbidden by their religion to drink wine?

Keep it going, dusty1. You are providing me with more entertainment than I've had on ATS in quite a while.

reply to post by Astyanax

What does the size of a modern Israeli vineyard have to do with the size of European ones

Because the passage was written about life in Israel, not Europe.

Or do you believe the bible was written in Europe by King James?

Check out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The scourge and the cage? Read Spartacus--not the Howard Fast bestseller but Louis Grassic Gibbon's classic--to learn what slavery in Rome was really like. It is not a tale for weak stomachs.

Yeah, if the Romans obeyed the Mosaic Law, it would have prevented a lot of the abuses.

According to the Mosaic Law life was sacred and sexual relations were sacred.

It sounds as though you secretly approve of slavery.

"Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage." Billy Corgan

Please re-read my earlier posts.

He could have prevented it--most of it, at least--with a commandment?

Astyanax, that is an excellent point.

God has commandments right now, and few obey.


According to the story in Exodus, the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, and God freed them. Then they turned around and complained about the conditions of there release, many wanted to go back to Egypt and become slaves again.

Israel was unable to even consistently obey the commandments He gave them. They had trouble showing kindness and consideration as it was. They were a "stiff necked people".

Maybe He felt they couldn't handle it at the time.

What if God gives eternal life to everyone who lived as a slave? Would that be fair to you?

reply to post by dusty1

The passage was written about life in Israel, not Europe. Or do you believe the bible was written in Europe by King James?

Is this a rhetorical question? It barely merits an answer, but perhaps I need to spell things out for you.

The passage was translated in the King James version by Englishmen who were familiar with the fields and vineyards of their own time, and knew nothing about Israel. It was not the first translation: that would be the Vulgate, attributed to St. Jerome, which appeared in the fourth century. By the time the Vulgate translation appeared there had been no Jewish presence in Palestine for over two hundred years, and thus no Jewish vineyards.

How big were those Jewish vineyards, when they existed? Estimates for the population of Jerusalem in King Solomon's time vary around a mean of about 5,000. Estimates of the population of his consolidated kingdom of Israel also vary, with the highest figure suggested being around 100,000. How big do you think the fields and vineyards of Israel were?

Population of Israel in ancient times (table)

Was King Solomon historical? Includes population estimate.

Jerusalem in King Solomon's time population estimate.

What did you think this was, the Persian Empire?

If the Romans obeyed the Mosaic Law, it would have prevented a lot of the abuses. According to the Mosaic Law life was sacred and sexual relations were sacred.

If we were speaking face to face, I would have lost this argument by being struck speechless at your brazen audacity. Have you forgetten that we have the actual Mosaic law, recorded in the Bible, to show us that you are talking through your hat? Capital punishment for this, that and the other, and you have the gall to claim that life was held sacred? 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'--that your idea of upholding the sanctity of life?

Oppression of women and captial punishment for homosexuals, and you tell us sexual relations were sacred?

Institutionalization of slavery, and you claim this law was the work of a loving God?

God has commandments right now, and few obey.

And whose fault is that, if not Mr. Omnipotent and Omniscient's?

Israel was unable to even consistently obey the commandments He gave them... Maybe He felt they couldn't handle it at the time.

What, Mr. Omnipotent couldn't even deal with his fractious children? Some God!

What if God gives eternal life to everyone who lived as a slave? Would that be fair to you?

No, it does not strike me as fair. How does that compensate for a lifetime of misery? What about all the people who lived cushy lives on earth, and purpotedly got eternal life, too?

It is no more fair than giving eternal damnation to people for sins committed in a limited span on Earth.

Eagerly awaiting the next installment of100% organic fertilizer, I remain

yours sincerely,

Scamandrius

EDIT TO ADD: I read your earlier posts. It seems you do indeed approve of slavery, or at least see nothing wrong with it. Amazing what slimy things crawl one sometimes finds crawling out from under the stones one upturns here on ATS.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Glad to see your reply but - you did not show with proof that indeed:
“the Bible puts the creation of the sun and the moon directly after the creation of plant life.”

All you did is like saying - 'because I say so'.

So just to repeat:


If as you (and Akilassa) say “the Bible puts the creation of the sun and the moon directly after the creation of plant life.”


Then please prove that what I said is wrong - logically. I would like to know how you and others can desprove these glaring three facts (although there are many more).THAT IS.


Fact 1:
1) Linguistically: 'Light' comes from a source, the – sun, moon stars ('owr and ma'owr.).

→ Is it even remotely possible in your opinion that the above facts (in Point 1) linguistically is correct?

→ If NO, are you saying then that the people of who created that site made a BIG MISTAKE including it in the list. If so, what's YOUR PROOF linguistically – that is, the Hebrew word 'owr CANNOT mean: b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars).

That's all I wanna know.

Here's the list you've provided:

Part of Speech: feminine noun

Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light

Fact 2:

2) Scientifically - for how could plant life (phyla kingdom) grow, survive, spread in the '3rd creative day (Gen 1:9-13) w/o photosynthesis provided by the sun and..

→ If as you say ““the Bible puts the creation of the sun and the moon directly after the creation of plant life.” – scientifically and logically speaking as supported by KNOWN facts. Can you please let me know HOW can plant life EXIST without the AID of PHOTOSYNTHESIS?

Here's a simple definition of Photosynthesis geared to kids:

Photosynthesis for Kids
Going by the simplest possible definition, photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert the carbon dioxide into their food, with the help of the energy derived from the Sun. The most essential components of this process include direct sunlight, water, carbon dioxide and chlorophyll. Other then the plants, even some algae and bacteria species resort to this process in order to generate food. That, however, doesn't mean that only these plants and organisms benefit from this process. Various other living beings, including humans are either direct or indirect beneficiaries of the process of photosynthesis.

www.buzzle.com...

Note how even a fifth grader knows this fact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75ef2cdb4bfa.jpg[/atsimg]


→ If you don't BELIEVE and can DEBUNK these glaring facts, then you've (I'm sorry to say this) gone the way of MADNESS. Both scientific and common sense and logical reasoning has flee away from you. I hope I'm wrong.


3) Scripturally - if the sun was created in the 4th day? – Gen 1: 14-19)

→ If as you say ““the Bible puts the creation of the sun and the moon directly after the creation of plant life.” then the Facts (points) above are the must be FALSE. Yes?

So please PROVE me wrong:

1) Linguisticically
2) Scientifically
3) Scripturally.

I await your answer – hopefully you will not wiggle out of this. If you can't debunk these three points, please by all means, ask around – check with ur fellow evolution believers maybe they can help you.


Please no mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Now as you can see – my clear presentations just on these simple facts shows what I've been saying for a while now. That is:

Even though the Bible is NOT a scientific book it is in full agreement and compatible with true science.
That is, the Creation account is compatible with true scientific facts!

Side note:
Here's another clue why your understanding of the Genesis account is wrong. The Hebrew word for "created" and "made". What's the difference?

Ciao,
edmc2

MrXYZ – just to let you know, I'm not ignoring your question about the age of man. I'm researching it as well as mrSmth's qs. I just need to get this topic out of the way since so far nobody has provided an honest answers just platitudes

Evolution has nothing to do with creation.

Evolution describes the way life evolves, not how it started.

You want a creator, go ahead and even if you prove how life started it would have no impact on what evolution describes.

reply to post by Astyanax

The passage was translated in the King James version by Englishmen who were familiar with the fields and vineyards of their own time, and knew nothing about Israel. It was not the first translation: that would be the Vulgate, attributed to St. Jerome, which appeared in the fourth century. By the time the Vulgate translation appeared there had been no Jewish presence in Palestine for over two hundred years, and thus no Jewish vineyards.

How big were those Jewish vineyards, when they existed? Estimates for the population of Jerusalem in King Solomon's time vary around a mean of about 5,000. Estimates of the population of his consolidated kingdom of Israel also vary, with the highest figure suggested being around 100,000. How big do you think the fields and vineyards of Israel were?

You mean the Hebrew word sa*dheh', which means field?

Hebrew wives had stature and responsibility.

Oh, and Hebrew women at times were prophetesses.

You don't have to like it.

Eagerly awaiting the next installment of100% organic fertilizer, I remain

Nice.

You keep getting further and further away from the topic.

Remind me to never let you drive. You have a hard time staying on the road.

What, Mr. Omnipotent couldn't even deal with his fractious children? Some God!

Free will.

Think about it.

EDIT TO ADD: I read your earlier posts. It seems you do indeed approve of slavery, or at least see nothing wrong with it. Amazing what slimy things crawl one sometimes finds crawling out from under the stones one upturns here on ATS.

Again nice try.

I myself am a slave.

Our civilizations have grown because of slave labor. The technology we have, the jewelry we wear was probably handled by slaves at some point in history.

You are very concerned with slavery.

You keep complaining about a being that you say doesn't exist.

So exactly what are you personally doing about the slavery that exists today?

Would you put aside your comforts, your entertainment, your material possessions, if you knew people suffered so that you could have them?

reply to post by dusty1

You mean the Hebrew word sa*dheh', which means field?

So you googled the Hebrew word for 'field'. What does this prove? Support your case with some facts, as I have done--or at least try to come up with a logically consistent argument.

Hebrew wives had stature and responsibility.

Saying so does not make it so. Support the claim with credible historical or documentary proof.

Oh, and Hebrew women at times were prophetesses.

A high-status occupation if ever there was one, I'm sure.

Here is a list of Old Testament prophets from a Christian web site. I count 66 prophets and 12 prophetesses, none of whom gets a book to herself or even, indeed, much of a mention. Why is that? Was Mr. Omniscient a male chauvinist, or did His evident preference for male prophets reflect the true status of women in Hebraic society?

Incidentally, Mr. Omniscient is often portrayed in the prophetic books of the Old Testament as having 'repented' of His deeds. See, for example, 1 Samuel 15:35. Not so omniscient, then--apparently He can't actually foresee the future!

You keep getting further and further away from the topic. Remind me to never let you drive. You have a hard time staying on the road.

A typical, lying creationist tactic: projecting your own misdeeds onto someone else. Here is where this conversation began; I was replying to a claim you made that was already off topic. You'd been wittering away about slavery and Mosaic law to MrXYZ long before I came on the scene. It was you, not I, who dragged the thread off topic.

Free will. Think about it.

I have thought longer and harder about free will than, I suspect, you ever have. Free will does not dispose of the problem of evil. God, if He existed, would still be the ultimate author of all the world's pain and suffering, because--being putatively omnipotent--he could end it any time He liked, yet does not. And before you begin another of your off-topic excursions, this time about how God loves us that's why He gave us free will and would you rather be an automaton blah blah blah, be advised that you will be crushed in the argument. If you want to know why, read the links in this paragraph--at least the first of them--and then we'll talk.

I myself am a slave.

You are not, and it is a gross travesty and insult to the real slaves of ancient and modern times to say you are. How dare you.

Our civilizations have grown because of slave labor. The technology we have, the jewelry we wear was probably handled by slaves at some point in history.

Yet again, you offer arguments in favour of slavery. How nauseating.

So exactly what are you personally doing about the slavery that exists today?

You tried this before with MrXYZ. Get lost.

reply to post by edmc^2


Amen Brother

And *crickets*

Originally posted by WfknSmth
Im a little confused... what exactly is your question?

Then we have this rotten compromise called "Theistic evolution".
Its like an approach towards modern science by the catholic church and other religious groups, trying not to look too out of touch imo.
Theistic evolution makes the least sense to me: The allmighty spacegod created everything perfect but nature is still improving it.
This concept is both, rejecting science AND its not even supported by the bible, more specifically, it opposes the central biblical teachings.
Fundamentalists call it blasphemy, Scientists call it just more BS.
Creation and Evolution are too divergent to find a compromise.

My post might come across like a rant but thats not what Im trying to do here.

My take is you just have to choose one:
Either pick Science with its empirical methods
OR pick Religion and just believe in whatever you want to believe.

PS: Jesus would probably say: "What is this bible-thingy you are talking about?"

the "it can only be one or the other" mentality is what holds people back.
also assuming its only those who believe in the bible that think it is possible is wrong to.

it is not about picking one side or the other to me, it is about finding out the truth. by limiting the truth into a war of its one or the other is not going to lead to the truth.

evolution is a fact, which does not conflict with the creation theory, its just that people think it does and must go to war to prove their right and everybody else is wrong.

it boils down to possibilities to me, if we do not have answers to certain things and are still looking for them to be proved, but we disregard possibilities that are possible its just we do not want to believe it, then we could of eliminated a path that would of led to the truth through what we believe and not because it is.

if it is possible a creator put basic lifeforms on this planet and else where with the purpose of evolving into it's environment, then it cannot be discounted. of course beliefs will always get in the way of such things and people will disregard things simply because they do not believe it or do believe it, but to me finding the truth about anything means including all possibilities untill they can be eliminated through proof, and i do not mean theories, i mean proof, like we see with evolution.

seriously i do not get the war with this all the time. evolution does not mean there is not a creator, and if there is a creator does not mean evolution has to be wrong.

are you seeking being right or what is? if it is what is, then all possibilities must be included untill they can be eliminated.

reply to post by Astyanax


So exactly what are you personally doing about the slavery that exists today?

You tried this before with MrXYZ. Get lost.

So you are doing nothing then?

You are complaining about a "mythical God" instead of righting the wrongs of our civilization?

O.K.

I will not blame you. It's not so easy.

Everyone who has ever lived and who has ever died, exists in the memory of the Creator. God knew these people personally.

You are angry.

You hate injustice.

According to the story we are made in God's image.

Do you really think that you have these feelings, and He doesn't?

Is the creation greater that the Creator?

Stop listening to the Pharisees.

"Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows" Luke 12:6,7

Isaiah 49:14; Isaiah 49:15 (Darby Translation) Darby Translation (DARBY) Isaiah 49:14 14But Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me. 15Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Even these forget, but I will not forget thee. Darby Translation (DARBY) Public Domain

Bible

reply to post by dusty1


Personal comments and preaching are off topic.
Please address the topics in the opening post.

Originally posted by lifeform11
the "it can only be one or the other" mentality is what holds people back.
also assuming its only those who believe in the bible that think it is possible is wrong to.

it is not about picking one side or the other to me, it is about finding out the truth. by limiting the truth into a war of its one or the other is not going to lead to the truth.

evolution is a fact, which does not conflict with the creation theory, its just that people think it does and must go to war to prove their right and everybody else is wrong.

it boils down to possibilities to me, if we do not have answers to certain things and are still looking for them to be proved, but we disregard possibilities that are possible its just we do not want to believe it, then we could of eliminated a path that would of led to the truth through what we believe and not because it is.

if it is possible a creator put basic lifeforms on this planet and else where with the purpose of evolving into it's environment, then it cannot be discounted. of course beliefs will always get in the way of such things and people will disregard things simply because they do not believe it or do believe it, but to me finding the truth about anything means including all possibilities untill they can be eliminated through proof, and i do not mean theories, i mean proof, like we see with evolution.

seriously i do not get the war with this all the time. evolution does not mean there is not a creator, and if there is a creator does not mean evolution has to be wrong.

are you seeking being right or what is? if it is what is, then all possibilities must be included untill they can be eliminated.

Although most people backing evolution in this thread do not believe in a creator, this thread has not been about disproving the existence of a creator.

Rather, we've been arguing against incorrect and illogical arguments put forward to prove creation wrong, particularly arguments that come from misunderstandings or "rewritings" of the bible.

Personally, I believe in a supreme being of which all is part. We all are likely to have slightly different beliefs or disbeliefs, and, as such are not much into attacking other people's beliefs. What we are doing is pointing out the evidence of evolution, and showing where the arguments so far used against it don't stand up to scrutiny.


One such argument is one you have put forth:
[quoe] if it is possible a creator put basic lifeforms on this planet and else where with the purpose of evolving into it's environment, then it cannot be discounted.
It is possible to look at the genetics of living things and see the branches of mutational change tracing backwards, until we can see a single root. So it appears that all living things have descended from the one original cell.

Of course you can disregard this and say god did it anyway, but this comes back to belief. Believing something that goes against science is silly, because there is no point to closing one's eyes to knowledge. It's not as if science is a threat to belief. Science can never disprove the existance of god. And the fear some folk nurse that god, who they believe to be a loving father, will burn them forever if they accept the findings of science without belief based reservations, is sad. They would never do such a thing to their own children, they believe god is good, yet they believe god would do such a thing to them.

Teaching that god is such a murdering monster must be the worst libel ever perpetrated on this world.

reply to post by lifeform11

Originally posted by lifeform11:
the "it can only be one or the other" mentality is what holds people back.
[...]
...evolution is a fact, which does not conflict with the creation theory.

This thread (and all threads attached to it in this forum) made it clear by now, that the evolution-theory is compatible with theistic points of view, though evolution isnt about the origin, as stated a thousend times now.

However evolution is not at all compatible with the belief sytem of Creationism, which is also pointed out pretty clear whith multiple examples.

Originally posted by lifeform11:
it is not about picking one side or the other to me, it is about finding out the truth. by limiting the truth into a war of its one or the other is not going to lead to the truth.
[...]
to me finding the truth about anything means including all possibilities untill they can be eliminated through proof

I appreciate your quest for harmony and Im not for conflict by all means... but:

I have to disagree that "it can only be one or the other mentality" is what holds people back.

If finding the truth is what you want to achieve, you really have to choose by which method you whant to approach it.

a) Using rational reasoning, measoring the known, reasearching the unknown untill you can define it?

or...

b) Blame supernatural phenomenons for all the unknown, believing vehemently in what you already "know" from the holy book, even rejecting and denying facts if they contradict the praradigm of biblical teachings?

So if the truth is your goal, what really holds you back is position b).

Throughout our history the catholic church and other religious institutions bannished science, persecuted scientists and went to war over and over again if anyone dared to contradict their beliefs...

So if there is a war between the worlds of reason and faith... who threw the first stone?

reply to post by edmc^2


Wow...um...you didn't actually prove anything except that the Bible has less knowledge of the creation of all things than a 5th grader.

I already showed you, repeatedly and in detail that you are wrong. The word used for 'light' at the beginning and the word used for light in the formation of the sun and the moon (which is a reflector, not a light, so the Bible fails epically there) are different. They aren't even the same gender.

On fact 1 you clearly didn't read the post I made nor look at the source provided. And you quote-mined my reference. You also haven't explained why two entirely different words are used

On fact 2: Obviously I'm saying the Bible is wrong....so it supports my position that plant life can't live without sunlight. The Bible here is wrong because it puts the sun's creation after the creation of plant life among other points.

Why has nobody bothered with the contention I made that the Bible's account is wrong because it puts birds in existence before land animals?

So please PROVE me wrong:

1) Linguisticically

Already did. You have yet to make an assertion with evidence about your point, you simply made random statements that did nothing to refute mine. I've already put forth a lot of evidence while you put forth nothing.

2) Scientifically

Why would I have to prove photosynthesis incorrect? It happens, and the Bible is wrong because it doesn't realize that plants can't live without the sun (among other reasons)

3) Scripturally.

I quoted the first 19 verses of Genesis to do this already.
And you never made a scriptural point.

I await your answer – hopefully you will not wiggle out of this. If you can't debunk these three points, please by all means, ask around – check with ur fellow evolution believers maybe they can help you.

...this has nothing at all to do with evolution, it has to do with you not realizing that I've already done what you've asked and you are now ignoring it. Please demonstrate the inadequacy of my assertions that I previously made in a point-by-point fashion, as that's where I'm referring you back to.

Please no mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Ah yes, I forgot that you refer to science and reason as 'mumbo-jumbo nonsense'
Now as you can see – my clear presentations just on these simple facts shows what I've been saying for a while now. That is:

Even though the Bible is NOT a scientific book it is in full agreement and compatible with true science.

Except in the passages where it gives us an incorrect value of pi, where it says the Earth is at the center of the universe, where it says the Earth is flat, that birds preceded land animals, that land plant life preceded sea life, etc...

That is, the Creation account is compatible with true scientific facts!

No, it really isn't.

Side note:
Here's another clue why your understanding of the Genesis account is wrong. The Hebrew word for "created" and "made". What's the difference?

God doesn't 'create' light, he 'let's there be' light. He speaks it into being.
Oh, and why didn't you bother doing the research yourself before making yourself look silly with this claim?

The word used for the sun and moon is
bara'

bara'
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles

Unfortunately, you have done nothing to refute my cliam.

reply to post by Kailassa

Personal comments and preaching are off topic.
Please address the topics in the opening post.

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Lets go back to the OP's question. Is evolution compatible with creation.

Yes if you want it to be. The pages above show some do not want it to be. Quoting from the various handbooks will not change either side.

I repeat. Evolution shows how life evolved. It cannot show how life started and does not try.

Evolution is so natural it is even mirrored in the business world. You either accept it or not.

All the creationists have to do is show in what way we are special. Prove we are not part of the world we live in.

Show me that and I will picket Darwin’s home which is ten minutes walk away from my house.

That is the rub. Religion was invented by man and puts us on top of the pile, all of them. So those that think they are special cannot see that everything on this planet is special.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Wow...um...

You are really good at that.

The condescending, dismissive um, that you use time and time again. If I had a dollar every time you used that, I would be, um, rich.

You are the same guy trying to "prove" the theory of evolution?

A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain.

Scientific Method

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. —Albert Einstein[1]

You're assertion that there is no Creator and that evolution is "proven" is a philosophy. You are entitled to that.
However it goes against the very principles that you say you believe.

In addition, if God reveals Himself, there will be a major adjustment to scientific theory.

Well, evolution could also be the result of Thor's hangover vomit from his wild night at the mead hall....but that doesn't mean that it's anywhere near probable or reasonable to think that.

I think Genesis lays it out pretty well. It does repeat itself. But for not being a scientific textbook it covers the basics. Like anything in life, you can't please everybody.

Spaghetti monsters, Thor's vomit and unicorns, didn't lay out the beginning of the universe, and life on this planet. They don't have a book that answers the questions of the human condition, who we are, why we are here, and what the future holds.

The interesting thing about scientific philosophy is you don't ever have to be certain about anything. Theories change and brilliant men are cast aside.

Someday science will find the Creator.

Until then, yes, there are things the Bible doesn't explain or address.

But I have learned that a gap in knowledge doesn't really mean anything.

reply to post by WfknSmth


i was not saying that science should believe things with no evidence and use it as a premise or starting point, i was saying that if we do not have the answers yet then just eliminating possible outcomes through bias rather than it being proven means you could be limiting a path that for all we know leads to the truth.