Evolution

[Jocund]

Regarding a "day" in Genesis: I don't think that theory is valid. It makes more sense to me that, because God was authoring Scripture for humans to read and understand, a "day" is equivalent to an Earth day. It doesn't make sense that God would use a commonly-understood term to mean an unknowable or incomprehensible amount of time while expecting humans to understand everything else that He wrote.

If it makes no sense to use a common term to mean something incomprehensible, why does Psalm 90:4 exist at all? It is interesting that figurative 1000 years is longer than the total life of any human (even Methuselah).

I disagree with the premise that "Gen days = figurative" (G=F) is invalid. Scripture can sometimes speak differently to each of us. I acknowledge that there are other perspectives that are valid (internally consistent) but that I do not find compelling. I think it's right as rain if you find "Gen days = literal" more compelling, but that's different than considering G=F invalid.

 

[Unearthed]

I don't understand all this talk about being "internally consistent", can somebody explain what is meant by this phrase please.

 

[StR0be]

Regarding a "day" in Genesis: I don't think that theory is valid. It makes more sense to me that, because God was authoring Scripture for humans to read and understand, a "day" is equivalent to an Earth day. It doesn't make sense that God would use a commonly-understood term to mean an unknowable or incomprehensible amount of time while expecting humans to understand everything else that He wrote.

Genesis 2:17 - but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Genesis 5:5 - Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

 

[Dino246]

Genesis 2:17 - but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Genesis 5:5 - Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

Context has a wonderful way of clarifying meaning.

 

[StR0be]

Context has a wonderful way of clarifying meaning.

And the context is?

 

[Dino246]

If it makes no sense to use a common term to mean something incomprehensible, why does Psalm 90:4 exist at all?

I would think that is obvious; it is relating God's perception of time to human perception. The comparison would be meaningless if "year", "day", and "night" did not mean what we commonly think of them.

I disagree with the premise that "Gen days = figurative" (G=F) is invalid. Scripture can sometimes speak differently to each of us. I acknowledge that there are other perspectives that are valid (internally consistent) but that I do not find compelling. I think it's right as rain if you find "Gen days = literal" more compelling, but that's different than considering G=F invalid.

Fair enough.

 

[Dino246]

And the context is?

For 2:17, it's not talking about evening and morning, light and dark. For 5:5, it's talking about a lifetime.

 

[StR0be]

For 2:17, it's not talking about evening and morning, light and dark. For 5:5, it's talking about a lifetime.

So you accept that "day" can mean differing periods of time? I thought that was what you were disagreeing with.

 

[Dino246]

So you accept that "day" can mean differing periods of time? I thought that was what you were disagreeing with.

Context determines meaning.

 

[Jocund]

I don't understand all this talk about being "internally consistent", can somebody explain what is meant by this phrase please.

Basically, internal consistency in philosophy is when an interpretation is true in all cases within its base premises. You can have two competing interpretations that are each internally consistent but contradict each other because they draw on slightly different premises.

It's an internal consistency when the interpretation in isolation agrees with its base premises. It's an external consistency when the interpretation agrees with another concept or body of doctrine. External consistency might be unimportant in some cases, or it may be a reason to compel favour in an interpretation.

A God-guided evolution is internally consistent with scripture; I find it more compelling because it is externally consistent with scientific theories and research that points to an evolutionary process. Others might find seven 24 hour period creation more compelling because they have had a divine revelation or respect a teacher that is in favour of seven 24 hour period creation.

External vs Internal consistency is all about frame of reference. If I were to say "both interpretations are consistent", it might confuse someone to think I was saying that the interpretations are consistent with each other. I hope I have not added confusion by using the term "internally consistent", but in either case I hope that I have made my meaning clear(er?) here.

 

[StR0be]

Context determines meaning.

Yes, I've indicated that I agree with you there so, taking into account the context, what is the meaning?

 

[Dino246]

Yes, I've indicated that I agree with you there so, taking into account the context, what is the meaning?

The context in Genesis 1 consistently points to a "day" being either approximately 12 hours ("daylight") or 24 hours. Nothing hints at the word meaning any kind of longer period.

 

[StR0be]

The context in Genesis 1 consistently points to a "day" being either approximately 12 hours ("daylight") or 24 hours. Nothing hints at the word meaning any kind of longer period.

Oh boy, this is hard work! Do you not see my point at all?
When God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, did He mean if he did, he would die within 24 hours?

 

[PC123]

As I said before, I am not a scientist and I have no intention of arguing as one. However, I have no idea how you can say this:

Please elucidate. Have you actually thought about the veracity of this statement?
I think it's better to deal with one issue at a time as I'm fairly sure that there are whole books, Ph.D. theses and research programs on many of these topics. Where did you get your information from? It takes more than looking at a few biased websites to get to the truth.

It's such a complicated topic that you have to look at things one by one like you said.

Lucy
As far as I know, Lucy is the only transitional fossil we have of a human that we can see. That's what I meant. Are there more?

If you prefer we can deal with this

What makes you think this? It would seem to be nonsense to me. Weren't they supposed to have lived a million years ago? Shouldn't it be incredible enough to find a single one?

Well, no... One fossil isn't incredible at all to me. Especially with few bones found over a large area as Lucy was...

Finding fossils is hard but they have found many fossils of humans, apes and many other extinct creatures that are much older. I expect to find communities of these beings, especially given the fact that they are trying hard to find them.

 

[PC123]

I'm glad you find it interesting. I don't think any of my views are unique to me and I didn't come up with any of them. I have never known anyone who agrees with me entirely though, or indeed that I fully agree with. It would be great to find some but equally good to find someone who can divest me of my errors. Either way, happy days, Jesus has His hand on everything.

It's all fun and interesting to think about and I'm humbled when I admit to God that I just don't know everything... We don't have all the information. Our feeble minds are easily tricked, they can fall in love with our own theories and are greatly limited compared to the knowledge and understanding of our Lord...
Great mysteries still lie way beyond our ability to comprehend... And I don't think those things will be known to us in this world... And so speculation is good. Conjecture is good. Exchange of ideas is good. And even debate is good...
To be honest I don't like debating about God but I look at this from a scientific point if view

 

[Unearthed]

Basically, internal consistency in philosophy is when an interpretation is true in all cases within its base premises. You can have two competing interpretations that are each internally consistent but contradict each other because they draw on slightly different premises.

It's an internal consistency when the interpretation in isolation agrees with its base premises. It's an external consistency when the interpretation agrees with another concept or body of doctrine. External consistency might be unimportant in some cases, or it may be a reason to compel favour in an interpretation.

A God-guided evolution is internally consistent with scripture; I find it more compelling because it is externally consistent with scientific theories and research that points to an evolutionary process. Others might find seven 24 hour period creation more compelling because they have had a divine revelation or respect a teacher that is in favour of seven 24 hour period creation.

External vs Internal consistency is all about frame of reference. If I were to say "both interpretations are consistent", it might confuse someone to think I was saying that the interpretations are consistent with each other. I hope I have not added confusion by using the term "internally consistent", but in either case I hope that I have made my meaning clear(er?) here.

Thank you very much for your explanation.

I'm really not sure that internal consistency is anything to shout about, to be honest.
I can make statements that are "internally consistent" but which do not agree with observations of the outside world.

 

[StR0be]

It's all fun and interesting to think about and I'm humbled when I admit to God that I just don't know everything... We don't have all the information. Our feeble minds are easily tricked, they can fall in love with our own theories and are greatly limited compared to the knowledge and understanding of our Lord...
Great mysteries still lie way beyond our ability to comprehend... And I don't think those things will be known to us in this world... And so speculation is good. Conjecture is good. Exchange of ideas is good. And even debate is good...
To be honest I don't like debating about God but I look at this from a scientific point if view

I typed "lucy transitional fossil" into the youtube search bar and found this:

You might find it answers some of your questions.

 

[Gideon300]

Who claimed that the flood split Gondwana?

I'm a Christian and I accept that evolution is factual if that's what you mean. There is no such thing as an evolutionist in my opinion any more than there is a gravityist.

No one can prove evolution. Gravity is real and measurable, even if not well understood. I've never met or heard of a person who rejects that gravity exists. So it is acceptable to say evolutionist. For every argument that evolution is "fact" I can point you to scientists who demonstrate that evolution is a fallacy. No one disputes gravity.

I'll tell you how absurd I consider evolution to be. It is said that whales were once land mammals that ended up back in the ocean. I note that there is an obesity epidemic. Some people could easily be evolving into whales. It sure looks like it at times. So how does it work? Does a human in the water suddenly get the urge to swim and not ever go back to shore? I can tell you what will happen. They will drown. End of evolution. I don't care how many fat people try it out. Or thin people for that matter. It's literally a dead end.

Just the transition from cold blooded reptiles to warm blooded mammals is an impossibility. I know something about closed loop temperature control. A reptile instinctively moves around to suitable spots to control its body temperature. Mammals have astounding internal temperature control. I reject evolutionists "JSH" arguments. "Just So Happened" is not scientific. Yet that is the fundamental principle of evolution. Now if God gets involved in the picture, it is no longer evolution. "Directed Evolution" is an oxymoron. It's another way that evolutionists try to fit contrary observations into preconceived notions. It does not work.

 

[Dino246]

Oh boy, this is hard work! Do you not see my point at all?
When God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, did He mean if he did, he would die within 24 hours?

No, He did not. He said, “In the day…”. That phrasing suggests a period of time, not a specific 24-hour period.

 

[StR0be]

No one can prove evolution. Gravity is real and measurable, even if not well understood. I've never met or heard of a person who rejects that gravity exists. So it is acceptable to say evolutionist. For every argument that evolution is "fact" I can point you to scientists who demonstrate that evolution is a fallacy. No one disputes gravity.

I'll tell you how absurd I consider evolution to be. It is said that whales were once land mammals that ended up back in the ocean. I note that there is an obesity epidemic. Some people could easily be evolving into whales. It sure looks like it at times. So how does it work? Does a human in the water suddenly get the urge to swim and not ever go back to shore? I can tell you what will happen. They will drown. End of evolution. I don't care how many fat people try it out. Or thin people for that matter. It's literally a dead end.

Just the transition from cold blooded reptiles to warm blooded mammals is an impossibility. I know something about closed loop temperature control. A reptile instinctively moves around to suitable spots to control its body temperature. Mammals have astounding internal temperature control. I reject evolutionists "JSH" arguments. "Just So Happened" is not scientific. Yet that is the fundamental principle of evolution. Now if God gets involved in the picture, it is no longer evolution. "Directed Evolution" is an oxymoron. It's another way that evolutionists try to fit contrary observations into preconceived notions. It does not work.

You should get out more!

The rest of your post is so laughable I won't spend any more time on it than this: