He does agree with me. We never discussed evolution. Try reading that agin. I did not indicate that I talked to him about evolution.
Yes, I do. They are a different kind of animal than a frog or horse. They do not have to all stay the same color or shape and the fact that they adapt to environmental conditions creates variety, as does the mix breeding of the varieties that result from those mutations. They do NOT, however, give birth to anything that is not the same “kind” of an animal. Horses will reproduce horses. Always have. Always will. This is what is actually observable and what the fossil record also supports.
Yes, I am. Did you have something you wanted to discuss? I replied to your other comment a few minutes ago.
So is my salvation impaired? Are we saved by grace through faith alone or a certain type of knowledge like the Gnostics did?
If that is the case and we are dealing with a literal account of creation then which creation account? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? We are dealing with two different creation accounts. Gen.1 is the normal story of creation with God calling light and making the earth and such which is no different from other ANE creation accounts. Then in Gen.2, really starting in Gen. 2:4, we have the earth start off as barren and dead, not a dark watery chaos as Genesis 1. Then God has a mist fall on the earth and make rivers and sea. Then God makes Adam the person while in Genesis 1 he makes lowercase adam which is humanity. God then makes all the animals and plants and then makes for Adam a companion. So, that we have two different creation accounts, both contradicting each other which one should we believe as the true account of creation @Truthseeker1? Genesis 1 or 2? Also if we are also to take the account of creation and how the universe was viewed to the ancient Hebrews then we must also take their ANE point of view that the earth is flat, the sun and moon revolve around the earth, that stars are just cosmic beings and that the earth us supported by the pillars and also rain, snow and hail come from the windows of heaven. But this is not the case but instead we must truly see the Genesis creation account as a literary story using ANE devices but when God gave the story it was to tell a radical different point of view from other ANE religions and stories of creation. Instead of multiple gods fighting over control over the universe there is only one God. Instead of humans being made out of the blood of fallen gods to be the slaves of the winning side of deities God makes us from dirt to be His co-workers in creation.
@Truthseeker1 Here is what I mean by what I when God used the ANE environment to tell a story of creation to them in a way they could understand.
I had not seen a Molecular Biologist speak out against the theory of evolution before, so in that sense this is new material to me.
I hope you had a chance to consider my work, because it is very much in line with the Bible verses at the end of the presentation. Nothing is taken away from the Bible or from the Glory of God, I hold a literal view of the Old Testament and show how a sequential view of Genesis 1 and 2 is actually much more consistent with the rest of the Bible, including eliminating obvious contradictions. Actually, there is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who states the creation narrative in Genesis 2 is local.
The first slide that a appears in the presentation states “My science teacher told me evolution is a scientific fact, is this true?”
There are no scientific facts using the scientific method. The best we have are well excepted theories, and evolution is clearly a well accepted theory. Right now I would state the theory of evolution is on better ground than the theory of gravity, as we do not know why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and what 80% of the mass of the universe is.
One of the details I go into in my book is what is science and what is not according to the scientific method. The scientific method has a hypothesis developed, the hypothesis is tested against either experimental data or observed data and conclusions are drawn based on statistical adherence of the data or a failure to do so. The work is then nominated for publication were the data and conclusions are peer reviewed to confirm the proper scientific method is followed. When new data is observed through experimentation of discovery, previous hypotheses are reexamined in the light of the new data to see if they are still valid. If Dr. Berlinski has any data that contradicts previously published work, he needs to publish this in a peer reviewed journal.
A guy talking on video is not science, it is propaganda. Just like “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore is propaganda, not science. Because you find that something Al Gore said in the movie was not true does not refute climate change theories.
This is what you said.
So what is the “very thing” you talked about? Based on what you said it appears you talked about evolution.
Even if it isn’t evolution he doesn’t agree with your “If evolution is true then the bible is not true”. Which actually I found surprising.
Good chart, Quinn. Thanks for posting. I tend to focus on how there are multiple interpretations as you have outlined, all of which can be faithful.
The theory of evolution does not claim that birds can give birth to frogs or horses.
Evolution talks about a large number of small changes taking place in whole populations over a large number of successive generations. It doesn’t talk about a small number of large changes taking place in single individuals over single generations. In other words, macroevolution is just the accumulation of a large number of successive microevolutions. Over hundreds of millions of years, those differences will accumulate to the difference between a frog and a horse (or, to be precise, the difference from their common ancestor).
I don’t expect you to accept that evolution fully explains the origins of biological diversity, but if you are going to critique it, please make sure that you’re critiquing what real scientists teach about it, and not some kind of garbled and incorrect caricature of it.
I would like to know more about your museum visit. Where you went and when, what species you observed, the questions you asked and and to whom you addressed them.
Then provide a coherent explanation of why every result that comes back is not a transitional fossil.
I did not mean to imply “refute God’s existence”. Refute God as in using God’s own Word against God.
The first chapter of Genesis defies the logic of the what you claim, unchangeable, irrefutable physical evidence. Else all could say this chapter proves the fossil record or the ice core samples. But it would seem that nothing in Genesis 1 can be used to bring the physical evidence in authority to Genesis 1.
The reason is that God set it up so that the Word of God cannot change. However the physical reality is in a constant act of change. Languages change. Physical meanings of words change. Human thinking and interpretation constantly changes. No matter how hard or the amount of work put into the physical, there is no guarantee that it will not change at any given moment. Not that the Laws of the universe change. There is just a lot of trial and error because of the human condition to get to the truth.
I presume by “prose” you meant its opposite, “poetry.”
Revelation is not “parable” and it is full of symbols as well–bowls, trumpets, etc. Or are they literal? Or…it is that too inconvenient?
Define “transitional fossil.” By what criteria do you dismiss a fossil as “not transitional”?
Looks like you are confusing your personal beliefs with God Himself. Using God’s Word refute what someone claims about God is the standard use of the Bible as authoritative for Christianity. The only legitimate basis for objecting to this would be that you stand outside of Christianity yourself.
James was making the case that the scientific principle of reproducibility has roots in the teaching of the Bible, that something should not be accepted as true unless confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses. And thus the objection you made doesn’t even agree with the Bible. But isn’t even that number of samples which assures the irrefutability of the claims of science but the fact that the written procedures can be performed by anyone regardless of their beliefs to get the same results. It is a standard used in the justice system, that the opposing council can have any of the procedures repeated to confirm the results for themselves.
That may be so, but the extent of change that we’d need in order to get the age of the earth down to six thousand years is simply not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. It would be like discovering that we’d been measuring the height of Mount Everest all wrong and it was, in reality, only four inches tall.
If I understand you right then you accept that there can be speciation within the created kind? There was a created dog kind from which wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, etc, are derived. Similarly cats from tabby to tiger are all part of the created cat kind.
“I want to stress that this is the foal of a type of horse that populated Yakutia between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago,” said Grigoryev. “This was called the Lenskaya, or Lena Horse (Equus lenensis), genetically different from those living in Yakutia now.”
So if this foal isn’t a transitional fossil, then what is it?
Does each generation arise from the previous generation, or does God create all new animals (when nobody is looking)?
I think the point was: humans using the Biblical concept of two or three witnesses in the form of peer review (or in this case, thousands of samplings) may or may not be on purpose, but has been used to show that the Bible is wrong when it comes to science.
Has nothing to do with my interpretations or beliefs. I am not the one making the claim that science has been used to point out the Bible is wrong. I have stated that people’s interpretations are at fault, even mine at times. I am not being dogmatic, but skeptical of the supposed incapatabilities as they have been stated. I have pointed out some scenarios just the same as a lot of humans have.
The main reason why Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally is because it goes against humanity’s senses and sensibilities. Any one who does take Genesis as literal is not going against God, but human understanding. Whoever takes it as metaphor can make up any meaning they want it to portray, because there is nothing in Genesis 1 that states part of it is a metaphor and here is the explicit meaning.