What's new

Evolution - A serious question.

nothing there contradicts the old testament

NOTHING!

You say right, Dutch! The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.

However, right at “the beginning,” the Bible puts an intelligent being, the Creator, in control of the creative work. Although many scientists are uncomfortable with this idea, it harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver!

The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation.

Was each one of those six days a literal 24-hour day? That is not what Genesis says. The word “day” in the Hebrew language (the language in which Genesis was written) can mean long periods of time, even millions of years. (Compare Psalm 90:4; Genesis 2:4.) For example, “the seventh day” in which we now live is thousands of years long. (Genesis 2:2,*3) Hence, the evidence shows that the entire period of six days should be viewed as tens of thousands of years long.

The order of the six creative epochs shows a procession of water, earth, light, atmosphere, plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally humans. (Genesis 1:3-27) This order of development is generally in agreement with the order uncovered by scientists.

But a noteworthy statement appears repeatedly in the account in Genesis chapter*1. For example, regarding the fifth creative day, Genesis 1:21 tells us: “And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds.” Regarding the sixth day, verse*24 reads: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”

Hence, it was the kinds of animals that were created, not every individual species. But the various “kinds” were created separately and are not descended from one another. Within each “kind,” there could be great variety, as we see in the cat “kind” or the dog “kind” or the human “kind.” But genetic factors put there by the Creator would always keep these “kinds” separate from one another. That is why a cat and a dog cannot mate and start another form of life.

This contradicts the evolution theory. But it does not contradict any observed facts. While animals produce much variety within their “kind,” no one has ever documented that one “kind” of animal has reproduced or evolved into a different “kind.”

What of the structural similarities that exist between certain kinds of animals? These are understandable when we consider that all of them are the product of one Creator and that they were designed from the same materials of the earth to live in a similar environment.

Additionally, Genesis provides an answer to a problem that scientists cannot solve: From where did life come? Scientists try to answer this question with various theories, but in truth they cannot. And the hard fact that has been proved repeatedly in scientific laboratories is that life can come only from already existing life, and from the same “kind” of life.

Genesis also tells us that life is older than the universe and that all other life in heaven and on earth issued from the original Source of life, the almighty Creator. Science cannot come up with a better explanation, one that harmonizes with all the scientific facts that we can observe.—Psalm 36:9; 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Revelation 4:11.
 
No, I honestly don't know. I know there does not seem to be consensus. It does seem like the rate fluctuates....

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/04/human-mutation-rates-whats-right-number.html

"Geneticists ... are having trouble deciding between one measure of how fast human DNA mutates and another that is half that rate.

The rate is key to calibrating the ‘molecular clock’ that puts DNA-based dates on events in evolutionary history. So at an intimate meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 25–27 February, a dozen speakers puzzled over why calculations of the rate at which sequence changes pop up in human DNA have been so much lower in recent years than previously. They also pondered why the rate seems to fluctuate over time. The meeting drew not only evolutionary geneticists, but also researchers with an interest in cancer and reproductive biology — fields in which mutations have a central role."

https://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079

"Last year, population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and his colleagues compared the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia with genomes of modern humans and came up with the lower mutation rate. Yet just before the Leipzig meeting, which Reich co-organized with Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, his team published a preprint article that calculated an intermediate mutation rate by looking at differences between paired stretches of chromosomes in modern individuals (which, like two separate individuals’ DNA, must ultimately trace back to a common ancestor).

Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”

I find it quite interesting that the mutation rate in the far history is higher than the more recent mutation rate.
 
No, I honestly don't know. I know there does not seem to be consensus. It does seem like the rate fluctuates....

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/04/human-mutation-rates-whats-right-number.html

"Geneticists ... are having trouble deciding between one measure of how fast human DNA mutates and another that is half that rate.

The rate is key to calibrating the ‘molecular clock’ that puts DNA-based dates on events in evolutionary history. So at an intimate meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 25–27 February, a dozen speakers puzzled over why calculations of the rate at which sequence changes pop up in human DNA have been so much lower in recent years than previously. They also pondered why the rate seems to fluctuate over time. The meeting drew not only evolutionary geneticists, but also researchers with an interest in cancer and reproductive biology — fields in which mutations have a central role."

https://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079

"Last year, population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and his colleagues compared the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia with genomes of modern humans and came up with the lower mutation rate. Yet just before the Leipzig meeting, which Reich co-organized with Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, his team published a preprint article that calculated an intermediate mutation rate by looking at differences between paired stretches of chromosomes in modern individuals (which, like two separate individuals’ DNA, must ultimately trace back to a common ancestor).

Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”

Did they bring up adaptive radiation or comparisons on a steady vs uncivilized, wild world?
 
But do mutations really produce entirely new species?

Not individually, but they do collectively.

If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macro evolution supposed to have taken place?

By the gradual transformation of a population into two different populations that can not interbreed.
 
Who cares? The old testament contradicts itself.


ooh really?

first thing in your link is ********, it is mistranslated.


so stopped reading.

read some more for fun.


then at the 5th one i was like ok just ********

On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5.
On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18.

that is 100% clearly a miss translation! and i think i touched on this one earlier in the thread


EDIT the 5th one i kinda touched on here:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ous-question&p=1133278&viewfull=1#post1133278

but ok
 
It's funny when people try to find "mistakes" in the Bible. What's next? Harry Potter?
 
ooh really?

first thing in your link is ********, it is mistranslated.


so stopped reading.

read some more for fun.


then at the 5th one i was like ok just ********

On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5.
On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18.

that is 100% clearly a miss translation! and i think i touched on this one earlier in the thread


EDIT the 5th one i kinda touched on here:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ous-question&p=1133278&viewfull=1#post1133278

but ok

Miss Translation in the library with the noose

miss translation lol
 
It has been warned to not translate the old testament. because this **** would happen.
people interpenetrating and misstranslating it for 1000 of years. so it becomes a hogwash of mistranslated contradictions.
and sometimes even translated so it fits a certain scientific narative.
so now 2000 years later it is easily dismissed *** nonsensical.

I hear lots of untrue hogwash from people deadset in the misstranslation making them look like an absolute fool. on of these fools is the fat republican who is against all abortion even rape abortion. the one who went and used kim davis as publicity stunt.
he acts all religious and stuff, but because of his "mistranslated" believes he is giving the christian judeo belief a bad name.


edit: mike huckabee
 
Miss Translation in the library with the noose

miss translation lol

you know exactly what i mean. yet instead of using a valid counter argument you chose to attack my lack of my knowledge of the english language.
that's an easy target right. actually that is cowardly.
 
you know exactly what i mean. yet instead of using a valid counter argument you chose to attack my lack of my knowledge of the english language.
that's an easy target right. actually that is cowardly.

I've read the old testament front to back. It's stupid. Like really it's crazy stupid. You think it's truth so you go ahead and try to validate it. Meanwhile I will just lol


and lol



and lol



and lol
 
Who cares? The old testament contradicts itself.

https://www.skeptically.org/bible/id8.html

Abrahamic religions belong in a museum, I hope I live to see it so.

There is not ONE SINGLE contradiction in the Hebrew scriptures! The list of "so-called" contradictions are either bogus or easily explained by reading the context or other verses that shed light on the matter! So, let's begin! You pick out one of those "contradictions" and then give me 5 minutes to show you where your wrong!
 
There is not ONE SINGLE contradiction in the Hebrew scriptures! The list of "so-called" contradictions are either bogus or easily explained by reading the context or other verses that shed light on the matter! So, let's begin! You pick out one of those "contradictions" and then give me 5 minutes to show you where your wrong!

This one is about killing. Should be fun. \m/

75.God prohibits the killing of the innocent. Ex.23:7.
God approves the killing of the innocent. Num.31:17; Josh.6:21; Josh.7:24-26; Josh.8:22-25; Josh.10:20, 40; Josh.11:15; 1 Sam.15:3.

Oh and pleasse explain each and every passage of god saying it's ok to kill the innocent. Your five mins starts now.
 
I've read the old testament front to back. It's stupid. Like really it's crazy stupid. You think it's truth so you go ahead and try to validate it. Meanwhile I will just lol


and lol



and lol



and lol

you're too hard on other people, not so with yourself. "Truth" is something, generally, that cannot be credited to the inner workings of the human brain. "Truth" is what is "out there" in the universe that "just is".

Reminds me of the hapless condition of liberals, like Bill Clinton, who live on the edge of sanity, if in any way contacting it at all, who can hang their hat on verbiage like "depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

It is probably most accurate to state that we humans haven't got a clue what "is" is. Thence, of course, we don't have a clue what "truth" is, either.

However, I sense you reject the OT because you listened to some Baptists or maybe Mormons declaring that the Bible is the word of God, with or without the caveat "as far as it is translated correctly", and figured out the mortal humans actually wrote it, albeit in their finest effort to produce a cohesive faithful defense of their place in the eye of God.

When you read the newspaper, or watch the news, do you get your hackles up half so high? When you attend a college course do you feel compelled to reject the prof? and the text, entirely out of hand and just hoot at it all?

nah, you wanna believe the bible is just stupid, so that's what you look for.

I, on the other hand, for all my hooting at the profs and scientists, the newspapers and the TV priesthood, can still find a lot of good stuff in the Bible.
 
There is not ONE SINGLE contradiction in the Hebrew scriptures! The list of "so-called" contradictions are either bogus or easily explained by reading the context or other verses that shed light on the matter! So, let's begin! You pick out one of those "contradictions" and then give me 5 minutes to show you where your wrong!

This one is about killing. Should be fun. \m/



Oh and pleasse explain each and every passage of god saying it's ok to kill the innocent. Your five mins starts now.

dont bother (s)alt13 is a closes minded poster
 
you're too hard on other people, not so with yourself.

Not true. I'm way harder on myself than I am with others. I've just been dealing with myself a lot longer than other people have so I have learned how to deal with it. I'll try to tone it down a bit.

"Truth" is something, generally, that cannot be credited to the inner workings of the human brain. "Truth" is what is "out there" in the universe that "just is".

I'm not sure truth is anything other than a silly word.

Reminds me of the hapless condition of liberals, like Bill Clinton, who live on the edge of sanity, if in any way contacting it at all, who can hang their hat on verbiage like "depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

k

It is probably most accurate to state that we humans haven't got a clue what "is" is. Thence, of course, we don't have a clue what "truth" is, either.

I think we can agree there.

However, I sense you reject the OT because you listened to some Baptists or maybe Mormons declaring that the Bible is the word of God, with or without the caveat "as far as it is translated correctly", and figured out the mortal humans actually wrote it, albeit in their finest effort to produce a cohesive faithful defense of their place in the eye of God.

Not at all. My parents share views much like your own. They don't think the bible is the word of god. They think it was written by mortal imperfect people. Among my prized possessions is a copy of the bible that was given to me by my grandmother whom I loved deeply. Honestly I read it. Ooops I can't see how anyone can read the OT and not find it to be immoral, disturbing, and inconsistent.
When you read the newspaper, or watch the news, do you get your hackles up half so high? When you attend a college course do you feel compelled to reject the prof? and the text, entirely out of hand and just hoot at it all?

I hackle even harder at the news. The old lady wants to pull her hair out half the time. I hoot in courses where it's appropriate. Who said I rejected the OT out of hand? I rejected it after considering it.
nah, you wanna believe the bible is just stupid, so that's what you look for.

I, on the other hand, for all my hooting at the profs and scientists, the newspapers and the TV priesthood, can still find a lot of good stuff in the Bible.

I'm not nearly as angry about it as you think I am. I celebrate Christmas and Easter with my family. That's really an understatement. I attend 4 christmas parties and 2 Easters. I sing the songs and my daughter has even participated in a nativity play. My whole family knows I don't believe(and I'm not alone in that) but it doesn't matter.

Still though I think the bible can be dangerous. Those that promote the truth of it, especially those that make a habit of using it to validate their own bigotry will get nothing but my contempt.
 
Not true. I'm way harder on myself than I am with others. I've just been dealing with myself a lot longer than other people have so I have learned how to deal with it. I'll try to tone it down a bit.



I'm not sure truth is anything other than a silly word.



k



I think we can agree there.



Not at all. My parents share views much like your own. They don't think the bible is the word of god. They think it was written by mortal imperfect people. Among my prized possessions is a copy of the bible that was given to me by my grandmother whom I loved deeply. Honestly I read it. Ooops I can't see how anyone can read the OT and not find it to be immoral, disturbing, and inconsistent.


I hackle even harder at the news. The old lady wants to pull her hair out half the time. I hoot in courses where it's appropriate. Who said I rejected the OT out of hand? I rejected it after considering it.


I'm not nearly as angry about it as you think I am. I celebrate Christmas and Easter with my family. That's really an understatement. I attend 4 christmas parties and 2 Easters. I sing the songs and my daughter has even participated in a nativity play. My whole family knows I don't believe(and I'm not alone in that) but it doesn't matter.

Still though I think the bible can be dangerous. Those that promote the truth of it, especially those that make a habit of using it to validate their own bigotry will get nothing but my contempt.

The Bible represents an age of "progressive" human efforts. I'm sure it won't look any stupider in the long run than our last 150 years of secular humanism/social progressive political movements. My point is to judge it in the context of the available alternatives of the age. . . you know, the barbarian hordes looting and burning and pulling down all the older piles of stone representing predecessor "progressives".

Concepts like invoking a higher authority than our own perogatives, putting laws into place hoping to curb abuses of the day, civilly-speaking, the ten commandments, and concepts like justice having enduring and absolute values. . . .

It was the text of emerging human conscience. . . . codified for mass consumption. Not entirely a bad aspiration. . .
 
Back
Top