Evidence for evolution, Installment 6: The bible requires it (page 2)

Blueblades

Now I finally know where they get those bugs, and insects that they eat on FEAR FACTOR!

Hmmm I read the Bible in Gen.7 vs 2,3 it syas, for some reason i do not understand to take 7 pairs pf certain animals which would make your hypothosis true. But a little bit later it says in vs. 7-9 that Noah and his family entered into the ark and "of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds and everything that creaps on the ground. Seems to me like more than a few animals were on the ark. Thinking there is not or that there couldn't be is like assuming that the fruit from the tree of good and bad were apples.

Michael

LMS-Chef

P.S. I can understand if you do not believe in God how the artical would make a lot of sence, but I do believe in God and I think he can do anything. Even keep animals hungry without eating and pooping ect.

Michael

seattleniceguy

Michael,

Thanks for your comments.

Seems to me like more than a few animals were on the ark. Thinking there is not or that there couldn't be is like assuming that the fruit from the tree of good and bad were apples.

Obviously, the account leads us to believe that "more than a few" animals were on the ark. However, surely you would admit that the ark could never contain the number of species that exist in the world today. That is the crux of the issue.

Even keep animals hungry without eating and pooping ect.

Again, this line of reasoning was only there to illustrate the impossibility of having a great number of animals on board. The idea is that, while there are obviously physical limits to the number of animals on board, there would have been other limits imposed. In the end, though, it really doesn't matter, unless you are suggesting that there were actually millions of animals on board.

In the end, though, if you resort to the "it was magic" argument, then you'll never have to worry about any kind of logical inconsistencies. Is it impossible to fit an elephant into a phone booth? Not if God does it! Magic! See, no problems! Since magic defies logic, it is not a useful argument in the real world.

SNG

rocketman

I'm a bit of a believer in (my own, I guess) theory that God is a very efficient being - He doesn't actually do, or even have to do, a lot of the work himself. To illustrate: It's common for people to refer to God as our Creator. Yet, how many humans, going by the Genesis account, did he actually create? Only two - and one was formed starting from material from the other. Today there's 6 billion-plus humans, and God created only two. Humans have multiplied and diversified all on their own by means of the ability (God-given if you will) to reproduce and adapt.

Another example may be the formation of stars. Simplistically speaking, we know that stars often form from material brought together by natural (again, God-given if you will) forces such as gravity, and then ignited into a nuclear furnace when their mass reaches a certain point, normally refered to as Jupiter-masses. I doubt God needs to actually do much of the work. He gets the credit by believers, of course.

So it is perhaps with the evolution. Species can diversify, at times quite rapidly, all on their own. God would only need to create a few species, perhaps in a burst of creative activity, then take a vacation and let natural selection take over. In the case of the Flood, I can see no other explanation other than rapid evolution, for the present diversification of life on earth....if one is to believe the Flood account as presented in Genesis. A big if...

Daunt

That's the most distinctive atribute to the christian religion in my opinion. It gives you the ability to not have any responsibilty for your reasoning. They have the benefit of not being able to explain themselves since it's mystic and magical. This leads people to a life of no definity. Anything can be magical to them. Them stumping their toe and calling it the devil's work then praising god for it healing. They can atribute this to us bombing a country saying it's god's work. Prove them wrong, you can not and most individuals are too afraid to acknowledge a person's religious ignorance because they themselves are just as deep into it. This leads down a long road of self deception and undefinence. Not saying it ain't a happy life, it's just a self deceiving one.

Qcmbr

Daunt - I actually agree with you except with one small caveat - every time God prepares a gospel / revelation / people they have changed the commandments very rapidly and have cut off revelation from God. Once men do that religion becomes just another excuse to exercise all the things that are carnal - hate , war, greed, pride, abuse, emotional responses as opposed to rational ones, the mystification and magicification(MUW!) of God and the excuse the believe anything.

If we take the actual words of the Christian canon said by Jesus alone you get a very simple gospel which involves sacrifice, humility, turning the other cheek, reverence, anger reserved for mocking God (temple) and for preaching beyond the original revelation (pharisees.)

The recorded history of mankind is littered with examples of a massive social leaps forward made by some few enlightened individuals then followed by years of drift back to carnal, animalistic activities (war being the prime example)

The old testament does not record the full story most of the time so we can't judge what the Hebrew wars full context was.

I think there must be a perfect harmony between science and religion - religion to me is a set of behaviours to govern our spiritual side coupled with absolute truth about our environment - where the problem occurs is when we try and shoehorn religion and current science evidence into the same spot where they clearly don't fit (ie when religion argued for the flat earth or the earth centric universe)

seattleniceguy

Shameless btt in case any of my regular readers missed it...

hooberus

In fact, since we are saying that a few thousands animals (at most) speciated into the millions we have today in the space of only 4300 years, we are not only relying on evolution, but we are relying on hyper-speed evolution. Therefore, if we accept that the story of the flood is true, than we must accept that evolution is true.

This entire thread is based on an equivocation argument. Evolutionists like to label all change as "evolution" and then make equivocation arguments. One type of change (rapid speciation - relying primarily on already existing genetic variation within one basic kind) is labeled "evolution" and is then used as implied "evidence for" another largely different (disputed) kind of change -molecules to man evolution (which involves transspecific change between basic kinds and the creation of new genetic variation and information supposedly by mutation). Evolutionists imply that if you accept the former that you must therefore accept the later (some also imply that if you reject the later then you must also rejct the former).

Even talk Origins admits: "It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with." http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html

More quotes (even from evolutionists) can be provided on the differences.

Midget-Sasquatch

Evolutionists imply that if you accept the former that you must therefore accept the later (some also imply that if you reject the later then you must also rejct the former).

I haven't ever heard someone be so "all-or-nothing" on those positions. Being dogmatic is seldom persuasive. But I have heard a more reasonable variant of the unbracketed thought - that there's solid evidence for microevolution which make changes on the macroscopic level plausible/likely over larger periods of time.

Evidence for evolution, Installment 6: The bible requires it

Share this