DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

So a gap in scripture could make an older earth?

 

It could, but that'd be tweaking the Bible in response to science. Something I did for a long time until I realized I'd eventually have to throw the whole thing out and pick up a textbook.

 

well you can pick your book (textbook), and I'll pick my book (Bible).

 

Is that how you cope with all the other inconsistencies? Fossils, for example? No offense, just wondering.

 

If taken literally, Genesis contradicts reality and has little meaning. Basically a literal meaning means that god is a trickster god is simply (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with us.
Which makes little sense.

A non-literal reading does not contradict observations and is more sensible.

 

If taken literally, Genesis contradicts reality and has little meaning. Basically a literal meaning means that god is a trickster god is simply (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with us.
Which makes little sense.

A non-literal reading does not contradict observations and is more sensible.

 

Unfortunately, my mother did not approve of non-literal interpretations. Ironic that she pushed my brother and I into the sciences, though. Just asking for trouble...

I expect many more like her exist. I mean there's only one reason why one would oppose science, it clashes with their beliefs. You see it with psychology studies, economic issues, and apparently and quite unfortunately, the hard sciences.

 

If you mean by inconsistent, the Bible not coexisting with textbooks, then yes.

 

If taken literally, then the Bible is obviously false.

But why would a deity make it so it appeared obviously false?

It should be obvious to all with just a little reasoning that it is not supposed to be taken literally. Secularly speaking, science is to understand the universe. Religiously speaking, science is to understand creation. The two are not that different, it is silly for the religious folks to conjure up an imaginary "war on religion" on the part of science.

 

Bill Hicks on the Trickster God. LOL
http://youtu.be/Jim_HBj7Bdk

 

Erm . . . You both do know that Gap creationism is anything but new, right ?
Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

Gap creationism further teaches that there were actually humans before 6000 years(so this creationists can grant the anthropoligists that the Sumerans&Co existed), but that were only soulless fleshly robots . Then the abrahamitic god destroyed the lot(hence the scientific founds of human cultures older than 6000 years and the two Genesis accounts). Then the abrahamitic god created Adam and Eve - the first humans with a soul.

But Jehovahs Wickedness, as far as I am informed, are rather followers of Day-age creationism.
They believe that humans exists only since 6000 years, but that the earth is older for a day is a millennium for their wrongly-so-called Jehovah.
Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism

 

I'm aware of such.

 

Yes but thats not where I was going.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- ELIJAH:
The six days mentioned in the Genesis Creation account are not literal 24-hour days. They are "creative days" that are viewed from the standpoint of Jehovah. The Bible makes it clear that "days" are counted in sets of thousands when applied to God. The barest minimum of "thousands" is applied to God only in terms of his relationship with mortal/dying humans. At all other times, "a day" equates to untold time spans in terms of God's relationship to the universe, the earth, the immortal angels, etc.



Regarding the barest minimum of thousands (when mortal/dying humans is involved), the Bible says the following—and keep your eyes on the bold and underlined words within each of the scriptural quotations:

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8 )

"{3} You make mortal man go back to crushed matter, and you say: 'Go back, you sons of men.' {4} For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night." (Psalms 90:4)



Did you notice by the words in bold and underline that "a thousand years to a day" is with reference to God's relationship to dying humans? That timeline does not apply to the age of the earth for the simple reason that Jehovah does not restrict himself to a thousand years for a day—especially since the Bible says God is eternal. An eternal person has no time limitations.

"Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalms 90:2 -- New World Translation)

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)


DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": Eternal means not having a beginning or an end.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal



The Bible says Jehovah is the source of all wisdom. A wise God would not have blinked the world into existence when he has all eternity on his side to do things carefully and precisely. The precision in the natural world indicates time and preparation was involved.

"With him there are WISDOM and mightiness; He has counsel and understanding." (Job 12:13)



CONCLUSION: Each of the six creative days would have lasted untold time spans. Bible chronology and human written history places the age of human existence to no more than 6,000 years. Since humans and animals were created on the sixth creative "day," logic tells us that this occurred towards the very end of the sixth creative day.

 

So you're saying your crappy god couldn't create all this stuff in a blink? Why bother even worshipping such an incapable plodder?

 

Every definition I've ever seen of the Christian god indicates that he's infallible. Are you saying that god could have made a mistake if he just blinked the world into existence? Are you saying god is fallible?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
Blinking things into existence is evidence of fallibility. It shows lack of wisdom—particularly for Jehovah God who had all the time in the world to plan and organize and get it just right. Jehovah is the epitome of wisdom.

"With him there are WISDOM and mightiness; He has counsel and understanding." (Job 12:13)



Jehovah is eternal. He had all eternity to take his time, plan things out carefully and precisely, and then execute a perfect product.

"Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalms 90:2)



That's exactly how it turned out.

"After that God saw everything he had made and, look! It was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)



RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why would an eternal God feel the need to blink anything into existence when he could just as easily plan and organize and present complexity and precision in everything he did?

What we see in the natural world are complexity and precision—both of which indicate deliberation. Something deliberately done indicates an intelligent being did it. This is what atheists and pro-evolutionists cannot overcome: the fact that everything in the natural world shows precision and complexity points straight to an intelligent Designer/God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome.


BTW: I'm still waiting for you to answer the 8 questions I asked you and Catenaccio on Page 3, Post 24 of this thread. Instead of answering my questions, Catenaccio started boasting about his university degrees. Let's see if you will do the dodging routine that he was doing in all of his posts to me. The last time I suggested you answer the questions, you did the disappearing act. That's not a good sign as far as my getting answers from you to the 8 questions, but time will tell. Below is a weblink that will get you there quickly.
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/246629-darwins-macroevolution-why-unscientific-3.html

 

I don't see how omnipotence and infallibility are compatible if blinking something into existence is error prone.

In the context of a thread solely about evolution, only two of those questions are relevant: 1) how does complex life arise and 2) how does evolution account for the development of intelligence. I've wasted more time than I care to answering both of those questions in other threads. You haven't demonstrated any kind of genuine interest in evolution. Instead, you go off on tangents about abiogenesis and the origins of the universe. You appear to want to have a conversation about your god's existence. So I won't be answering your questions because your thread is dishonest. I'll be happy to point you to research that answers your questions, but you don't actually seem to want that info.

 

You don't, because you're not using the logic and the wisdom Jehovah uses before he does anything.

I figured you would do the dodging routine that you've been doing since I last presented those 8 questions to you. Why am I not surprised by that?

TRANSLATION: You have no answer to any of the questions--including the 4 that are directly related to the macroevolution MYTH.

 

Call it a dodge all you want. I call it not wasting my time trying to make a blind man understand color.

 

1)The comparative phylogenetic analysis organism from the three domains of life provide compelling if not unequivocal proof that all life forms known today have descended from a common ancestor. While evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a massive, multi-disilplinary dataset the manner in which life came to be on this planet is not well understood. While there is absolutely no scientific evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution there are a number of hypothesis that have been put forth to explain how life began on Earth that have both supporting and conflicting empirical datasets.

2) It is not known how life came to exist on Earth. The two predominant hypothesis to explain the origin of the common ancestor of all life known today are Abiogenesis and Panspermia.

3) Humans did not create the Universe. The Universe is governed by three fundamental forces: Gravity, Electromagnetic and nuclear.

4) It is not thought that the fundamental forces were created by anyone.

5) It is thought that photosynthetic bacteria are responsible for seeding the planet with bioavailable oxygen. There is a tremendous amount of literature on how oxygen came to exist in the atmosphere if that is a topic you are intrested in learning more about.

6) Complexity in life forms is thought to be a result of the non-random process of natural selection. The increase in complexity has been shown to be a consequence of the process by which a self-organizing system optimizes its organization with respect to a locally defined fitness potential.

7) The results of the big bang theory are governed by the three fundamental forces mentioned above as well as the numerous non-fundamental forces observed in nature.

See answer 7.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that contradicts the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. Learn it and love it!!!! Additionally, the theory of evolution is completely neutral to supernatural beings as there is absolutely no evidence to support or contradict the existence of such a being.

 

1. There is evidence in the fossils that all life forms evolved from other species. Humans would be included in all life forms.

2. Yes.

3. Don't confuse family with species. They are at different levels in taxonomy. The answer to your question is both. Evolution develops new species as well as variants of existing species. The former takes a long, long time. The latter, not so long. The dog which has been bred by humans from the wolf is only about 10,000 years old. The evolution of the wolf took millions of years.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- FMW:
Where, might I ask, is this fossil evidence? Last time I checked, all of the paleontologists were complaining that the fossils record is full of gaps. You do understand what "gaps in the fossils record" indicate; don't you? It means there are no bones to be found that connects one species/type/family of creature to something that's entirely different.

Charles Darwin predicted that future generations would find fossils showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat and fossils showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear. Well, guess what? More than 150 years after Darwin published his book Origin of Species, paleontologists still can't find a single bone linking up one type of creature to something entirely different. I kid you not.



I will address your point #3 in a future post.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

As a reminder, ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.

As stated in my opening post, CREATION is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.


The term "micro-evolution" is actually a trick phrase used by evolutionists in the scientific community to imply evolution occurred. In reality, the animal merely adapted to its environment with minor bodily adjustments. It hasn't evolved into anything other than what it started out as.

The term "macro-evolution" refers to changes within an animal that is "above the species level." In other words, you wind you with an entirely different type of animal--such as a squirrel evolving into a bat or a whale evolving into a bear. Those are actual Charles Darwin claims that the fossils evidence has debunked.


The fossil record (bones of long dead animals) shows no evidence that macro-evolution ever occurred. Not one single set of fossils have ever been recovered showing one type or "species" of animal evolving into an entirely different type or "species" of animal. Yet, evolutionists in the scientific community continue to promote the macro-evolution myth.

 

That's abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution.

I'll bring up what was mentioned in another thread. How do you explain the presence of endogenous retrovirus DNA in organisms which perfectly coincides with evolutionary theory? Did God put that DNA there to trick us?