Evolution and Theology

[Piet_J_Strydom]

Those are the 3 verses that says if you darken the Sun, the Moon will not shine.

Then the nice one, Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;

And the cherry to top it off. Isaiah 30:26

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,

Do you suggest that the description that the Sun shines, and the Moon walks in Brightness is not reflection of Light?

Or do you want me to believe if anyone tells me that if you increase the intensity of light, the object it shines on will not glow brighter?

Well, even if you dont want to believe what you read, I can still use these verses to say that the Bible describes reflection of light, and the Quran does not.

Cheers.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Piet_J_Strydom

on 3 places the Bible says that if the Sun gets covered with a (Space) cloud, the moon will not shine!!! (Ezekiel 32:7) (Mathew 24:29) (Isaiah13:10)

Yet when producing the actual text:

@Piet_J_Strydom

Matt 26:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

@Piet_J_Strydom

Isaiah 13:10 the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Those both say the sun and moon will be darker. They do not say that the moon will be darker because the sun is darker.

You made that up.

@Piet_J_Strydom

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,

Tis one says that the moon and sun will both be brighter. It does not say that the moon will be brighter because the sun is brighter. If anything, it’s the other way around.

So you made that up too.

[Piet_J_Strydom]

Nope, there is an action exercised on the Sun where the Sun will be darkened…

Then there is a following result due to that action….

The Moon will not give her light.

What about Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;

[Piet_J_Strydom]

@Roy

@Piet_J_Strydom

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,

Tis one says that the moon and sun will both be brighter. It does not say that the moon will be brighter because the sun is brighter. If anything, it’s the other way around.

So you made that up too.

So, you are demanding that the verse does not say that if the Sin increased in its intensity, the Moon will shine brighter.

You demand no context, no insight in its description.

Pal, you are welcome to deny what you see.

Sorry to have waisted your time.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Piet_J_Strydom

@Roy

@Piet_J_Strydom

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,

Tis one says that the moon and sun will both be brighter. It does not say that the moon will be brighter because the sun is brighter. If anything, it’s the other way around.

So you made that up too.

So, you are demanding that the verse does not say that if the Sin increased in its intensity, the Moon will shine brighter.

Yes - because it does not say that.

[Piet_J_Strydom]

I noted what you said.

However, I can demand “Context” and call upon Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;

Which will give an understanding that If the Moon walks in Brightness, and the Sun shines 7 times stronger, then the Moon will be as bright as the Sun is now.

But I am sure you will reject any contextual understanding from the Bible, because you will perceive it as an attempt to steer away from the meaning you want it to be.

Greetings from South Africa.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Piet_J_Strydom

I noted what you said.

However, I can demand “Context” and call upon Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;

You can demand “context” if you like, but since Job and Isaiah were written by different people several centuries apart, there is no way that Isaiah can have been written in the context of Job.

@Piet_J_Strydom

But I am sure you will reject any contextual understanding from the Bible, because you will perceive it as an attempt to steer away from the meaning you want it to be.

Codswallop. I have no preferred meaning for these verses. I would not mind in the slightest if the Bible identified the Moon as shining only by reflecting the light from the Sun. It is not me that is trying to steer towards or away from particular meanings.

[Piet_J_Strydom]

True, different times, different prophets… But in the Biblical narrative, who is talking?

I thik you are making a presumption that I want to prove the Bible as True.

Not at all!!!

What I am doing however, it to show that the allegations the Muslim Scholar and Atheist makes against the Bible, is external observational claims removed from the Biblical explanations.

It works this way,

CS Lewis did it masterfully.

He ignored any longwinded explanations from the Atheist against the Bible.

And the topic at hand explained everything. “Mere Christianity”.

He did not care what the Theologians, Atheists, Muslim scholars, or any other Bible hater said.

He simply reflected the story the Bible told.

I dont care what your pre conceived ideology about God is, I dont even care what you think of these verses that I am using to show that the Bible describes specific “scientific principles” to its reader…All I can do is to at least demonstrate that the “Mere Bible verses” can diminish the claim that the Bible does not know that the Moon reflects light.

In its simplistic wording, it can be used to prove that the accusations against the Biblical descriptions, are invalid.

But, where the Bible is incredibly powerful is when it described a Nebular Hypothesis on how the Earth formed from Gas, Liquids, and solids. And in the most simplest way, allows the reader to understand that the Sun evolved the same way.

My observation is that the Bible says something, which the Atheist needs to combat vehemently.

Sorry pal, But the Nebular Hypothesis came from Genesis, and Immanuel Kant praised the God of the Bible for this insight.

Keep in mind that he memorized most of the Bible and only wrote his Theories of Pure reason etc, to stop the Naturalists AKA Atheists, form claiming that there is no God.

Today they all think Kant was an Agnostic, but not so. He clearly stated that ine can not prove that there is a God in the physical realm.

But then we can go back to 1755 and we see that he had a deep belief in the Creator of the Universe, and had great respect for the Bible.

The above is just some information to show how the Atheist can not claim the Bible as useless.

On the contrary, its “Mere Descriptions” are valid to its own interpretation.

Not yours!

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Not in the least. It show no such thing. You are imposing natural selection onto the data. There is no Natural selection present in the data. The “selection” if there is any could be due to anything.

Then please explain what natural selection would look like in that data set if that isn’t what it looks like.

Added in edit:

Conserved sequence

@RichardG

You have not witnesses the process in this case. You are imposing it.

Just like forensic scientists can solve a murder case without witnesses.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Then please explain what natural selection would look like in that data set if that isn’t what it looks like.

There is no correlation!

One is genetics the other is ecology at best.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

You have not witnesses the process in this case. You are imposing it.

Just like forensic scientists can solve a murder case without witnesses

False comparison.

Forensic medicine is only genetics
This is just an extension of what I have said earlier. Yu are obsessed with genetics and have lost the macro part of evolution. The genetics do not prove or even indicate what you claim.

Richard

Edit

Wiki is just spouting like an AI does. It does not understand what it says.

Conservation? Conservation of what!

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Piet_J_Strydom

True, different times, different prophets… But in the Biblical narrative, who is talking?

I thik you are making a presumption that I want to prove the Bible as True.

I’m not. But you are making a presumption that I want to prove the Bible as false.

@Piet_J_Strydom

I dont care what your pre conceived ideology about God is, I dont even care what you think of these verses that I am using to show that the Bible describes specific “scientific principles” to its reader…All I can do is to at least demonstrate that the “Mere Bible verses” can diminish the claim that the Bible does not know that the Moon reflects light.

In its simplistic wording, it can be used to prove that the accusations against the Biblical descriptions, are invalid.

But, where the Bible is incredibly powerful is when it described a Nebular Hypothesis on how the Earth formed from Gas, Liquids, and solids. And in the most simplest way, allows the reader to understand that the Sun evolved the same way.

My observation is that the Bible says something, which the Atheist needs to combat vehemently.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible does not describe what you claim it does.

@Piet_J_Strydom

Sorry pal, But the Nebular Hypothesis came from Genesis, and Immanuel Kant praised the God of the Bible for this insight.

Then you should be able to quote the portions of Kant’s text where he (i) cited Genesis and (ii) praised God for this insight.

You haven’t managed to do so yet, but you’re still making the same claims that you have repeatedly failed to support.

@Piet_J_Strydom

Keep in mind that he memorized most of the Bible and only wrote his Theories of Pure reason etc, to stop the Naturalists AKA Atheists, form claiming that there is no God.

I’m not going to keep that in mind, because you’ve given no reason for me to think it is true, and your record so far suggests it won’t be.

@Piet_J_Strydom

Today they all think Kant was an Agnostic, but not so. He clearly stated that ine can not prove that there is a God in the physical realm.

Since agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable/unprovable, that would make Kant an agnostic by definition.

P.S. I’m not your ‘pal’.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@T_aquaticus

Then please explain what natural selection would look like in that data set if that isn’t what it looks like.

There is no correlation!

One is genetics the other is ecology at best.

Ecology!??

(edit by mod-Phil)

@RichardG

Forensic medicine is only genetics

There is a vast amount of forensics besides genetics.

Blood spatter analysis, bullet matching, pollen sampling, wound examination, soil composition handwriting analysis, phone tracing, fibre matching, tyre and footwear treads, gait analysis, paint composition, …

@RichardG

Wiki is just spouting like an AI does. It does not understand what it says.

Wikipedia is written by people.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

There is no correlation!

One is genetics the other is ecology at best.

Just hot air.

Please explain what the pattern of sequence conservation would look like if natural selection acted on those lineages.

@RichardG

This is just an extension of what I have said earlier. Yu are obsessed with genetics and have lost the macro part of evolution. The genetics do not prove or even indicate what you claim.

More hot air. Phenotype comes from the genotype.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Please explain what the pattern of sequence conservation would look like if natural selection acted on those lineages.

A repeated stupid question is still a stupid question.

There is no connection. You cannot just assign Natural Selection to the pattern. It could be caused by any number of things. There is no justification for linking it to Natural Selection.

@Roy

@RichardG

One is genetics the other is ecology at best.

Ecology!??

Ecology is the sturdy of how organisms interact with each other and the environment. That is Natural Selection
You are laughing at your own ignorance.

And neither of you could tell me what Conservation has to do with with Natura Selection or Genetics let alone join the two together!

Conservation in Ecological terms is the study of the loss of earths biological diversity not the creation of it.

So stop laughing and get your act together!

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

There is no connection. You cannot just assign Natural Selection to the pattern. It could be caused by any number of things. There is no justification for linking it to Natural Selection.

Just hot air. You can’t explain anything about the pattern. You don’t understand genetics or natural selection. Your opinion on genetics is equivalent to a Flat Earther’s opinion on the evidence for a globe Earth. All you know is people think genetics holds evidence for evolution, so you have to bad mouth it with zero understanding of what the evidence is.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I am not going to pursue abusive and insulting discourse.

You have given not given any reason why your data has anything to do with Natural Selection other than blind assertion.

You have (apparently) not understood that, if there is no connection your question is meaningless and stupid.

You have not contradicted my claim that Natural Selection is ecology not Genetics. You have not answered how Conservation fits in. What is being conserved, and how that confirms Natural Selection.
In fact all you have done is claim I know nothing!

I admit that my knowledge of detailed genetics does not match yours, but I know what Genetics is, and I know what Natural Selection is.
Natural Selection only chooses the organisms that is best suited or adapted, inasmuch as they survive. Natural Selection does not choose anything. There is no intelligence, There is no decision making. And it does not have any baring on what Genetic changes happen, It only “sorts” after the event(s).
There is no correlation between genetic patterns and Natural Selection!

Now stop being abusive and either answer or shut up!

Richard

Edit,

I looked back at your original post, just to male sure i hadn’t missed anything.

You seem to claim that if a mutation persists it is proof of Natural Selection. (Conservation meaning retaining)

I am saying that it proves no such thing. All it shows is that a mutation is retained. It does not say that mutation is beneficial, or Naturally Selected to retain. It has no baring on the process of Natural Selection at all. Te sequence is retained! You are making an assertion that is not in the data. You are claiming a reason for the data that is not there. All you know is that the mutation is retained, Is there any reason why any specific change occurs (or does not) There is no reason within ToE for a sequence never to mutate again, nor is there any roof that says that it has mutated but that further mutation was rejected by Natural Selection. There is just no proof it is an assertion. Oerhaos no other mutation is physically vialbe. That is not strictly speaking Natural selection or even Survival of the Fittest, Until, or unless you can tell what makes a sequence persist, as it what it is doing, you cannot claim to know that it has anything to do with Natural Selection. It might just be one of the essential characteristics of mammals, so that if it did change they would no longer be mammals. It could then persist somewhere else altogether.
You cannot be certain that the only reason a mutation persist is by Natural Selection, There can and probably are many reasons for it.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@Roy

Perhaps Tour sometimes criticises evolution, but his main focus is definitely on abiogenesis, aka origin-of life research.

What’s your point? Because Tour talks more about origins of life doesn’t mean he doesn’t speak to evolution. He is not uni-focused, and speaks about many issues and researches many things.

He has a YouTube video on evolution with Rob Stadler that is one day old, and a second that is 12 days old. Both are over an hour long. There are more, and a promise of more to come. So at least recently, he is also addressing evolution. So no “perhaps.”

You may say you don’t have time to watch hour long videos. But what they have to say validates my assertion that evolution is a weak theory. There are also evolutionists who are still evolutionists but which say that natural selection is not an adequate explanatory mechanism to explain evolution

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@cewoldt

There are also evolutionists who are still evolutionists but which say that natural selection is not an adequate explanatory mechanism to explain evolution

But they do not dismiss it entirely!

All or nothing?Is that all you think?

All Scripture? No evolution?

Why can’t there be shades of grey?

Richard

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@Roy

@RichardG

One is genetics the other is ecology at best.

Ecology!??

Ecology is the sturdy of how organisms interact with each other and the environment. That is Natural Selection

It isn’t.

@RichardG

And neither of you could tell me what Conservation has to do with with Natura Selection or Genetics let alone join the two together!

‘Conservation’ in genetics is when a genetic sequence is retained with little or no change across a large number of generations. It is an indication that that genetic sequence is necessary for the survival of the organism and that individuals with mutations in that part of the genome do not survive (i.e. they succumb to natural selection).

It has nothing to do with conservation of species or ecological/biological diversity.

So this:

@RichardG

Conservation in Ecological terms is the study of the loss of earths biological diversity not the creation of it.

…is just another case of not knowing what terms mean in different technical contexts.

The reason you are being laughed at is that you act as if you had some expertise in evolution, but your posts make it obvious that you don’t even know the meaning of the technical terms you try to use.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

Ecology is the sturdy of how organisms interact with each other and the environment. That is Natural Selection

It isn’t.

An empty assertion or denial is no answer. You have not given your understanding that disproves mine.

@Roy

The reason you are being laughed at is that you act as if you had some expertise in evolution, but your posts make it obvious that you don’t even know the meaning of the technical terms you try to use.

@Roy

‘Conservation’ in genetics is when a genetic sequence is retained with little or no change across a large number of generations. It is an indication that that genetic sequence is necessary for the survival of the organism and that individuals with mutations in that part of the genome do not survive

@RichardG

You seem to claim that if a mutation persists it is proof of Natural Selection. (Conservation meaning retaining)

You do not other to read , or notice when I get something correct,(according to you)

You are the only one laughing and claiming I know nothing.
Furthermore, you seem to think that you have the perfect knowledge so that I must agree with you in all things.

I have demonstrated more than one that you are wrong about me and the Moderators have started to delete your abuse and mockery. I may not now what you so, but you do not know what I do. Your view of me is tainted by your view of yourself.

Richard