Questions for Jesus-Freak

jesus_freak said:
1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering.
Let me try to write my question again because I think it was unclear. This is not an important point, it's just something I've been wondering about.

I know you believe that God created the earth in 7 days according to a literal reading of Genesis.

You say that you don't believe there is scientific evidence for evolution, but from your posts it seems like you don't really understand the arguments for evolution. In fact scientists (including Francis Collins who wrote the book I talked about, who is an evangelical Christian) do think there is good evidence for evolution.

(I'm having a real progblem with writing this clearly.)

So consider the possibility that you are wrong about there not being evidence for evolution.

My suggestion in this question is this - suppose God created the earth in seven days just as described in Genesis, but created it with a form and appearance that made it look old and made animals look as if they had evolved? So the earth was actually created in seven days, but looking like it took billions of years? God would have the power to do it this way, if God wanted to, don't you think? (This is not a new idea by the way.) And maybe God chose to do it that way for reasons that are beyond human understanding. In this case you could say that scientific measurements were came to a reasonable conclusion about the age of the earth, but they were wrong because the earth was created to have the signs of age. (Like stone-washed jeans, that look old and worn even when they are new.) Is there a reason that a Bible-believing Christian would have to reject this possibility?


(As I said before, I don't really like this idea - I'd rather that people chose not to believe Genesis literally. But at least if they considered this idea, they wouldn't have to try to come up with tactics to make scientific measurements and arguments look false.)
 
jesus_freak said:
2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.
Click to expand...

It's already been pointed out that evolution is not about a dog giving birth to a mouse, but a dog and a mouse have common ancestors. And as changes in predogmice happen over time in different areas, they diverge until eventually one group is a predog and the other is a premouse.

My question though is regarding this idea of microevolution and macroevolution.. terms which really don't mean anything but seem to be a convenient separation for you to allow for some evolution (because the science can't be denied). So then my question is this; if microevolution is ok in your view (one form of dog evolving to adapt to an environment), but macroevolution isn't ok (one form of dog evolving to the point that it's a new species, it can't breed with dogs, so it is a nondog), what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? If it doesn't happen, there must be something stopping it? What is it?

Hokulele said:
Completely different question: Do you believe the earth orbits the sun, or vice versa? The standard biblical argument is Joshua, Chapter 10 "The sun stood still" quote, implying the sun is doing the moving.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we talk about the sun rising and setting all the time, and those aren't used to say the person believes the sun revolves around the earth. Some allowances must be made for "artistic license" and/or common usage of words.
 
temporalillusion said:
To be fair, we talk about the sun rising and setting all the time, and those aren't used to say the person believes the sun revolves around the earth. Some allowances must be made for "artistic license" and/or common usage of words.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, however, the reason I brought it up is that historically, this was the text used when defending a geocentric universe using nothing but the bible as the authority.

I am trying to determine if JF is willing to concede that religious acceptance of scientific facts can change over time. If JF does concede this, we have a starting point for an interesting discussion as to what other scientific claims can be accepted. If JF cannot concede this, then there really is no discussion. I would like to understand his point of view rather than just make assumptions.
 
Thanks for answering.
Let me try to write my question again because I think it was unclear. This is not an important point, it's just something I've been wondering about.

I know you believe that God created the earth in 7 days according to a literal reading of Genesis.

You say that you don't believe there is scientific evidence for evolution, but from your posts it seems like you don't really understand the arguments for evolution. In fact scientists (including Francis Collins who wrote the book I talked about, who is an evangelical Christian) do think there is good evidence for evolution.

(I'm having a real progblem with writing this clearly.)

So consider the possibility that you are wrong about there not being evidence for evolution.

My suggestion in this question is this - suppose God created the earth in seven days just as described in Genesis, but created it with a form and appearance that made it look old and made animals look as if they had evolved? So the earth was actually created in seven days, but looking like it took billions of years? God would have the power to do it this way, if God wanted to, don't you think? (This is not a new idea by the way.) And maybe God chose to do it that way for reasons that are beyond human understanding. In this case you could say that scientific measurements were came to a reasonable conclusion about the age of the earth, but they were wrong because the earth was created to have the signs of age. (Like stone-washed jeans, that look old and worn even when they are new.) Is there a reason that a Bible-believing Christian would have to reject this possibility?


(As I said before, I don't really like this idea - I'd rather that people chose not to believe Genesis literally. But at least if they considered this idea, they wouldn't have to try to come up with tactics to make scientific measurements and arguments look false.)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I completly understand but let me try to answer and you let me know if I am even close...Could God's creation been made to look older than it really is? I think so, I think Adam was not born as an infant, but a grown man...I think that stars that are millions of light years away were made so they could be seen instantly...and I also think that since there was one creator that there are going to be a lot of similarities in species(if something like the wrist works in humans, why not use a similar design in cats and dogs?)and I think that is one of the biggest problems, that people see similar aspects in animals and assume evolution over a common creator.I hope this is somewhat what you were looking for...If I was way off let me know.
 
So then my question is this; if microevolution is ok in your view (one form of dog evolving to adapt to an environment), but macroevolution isn't ok (one form of dog evolving to the point that it's a new species, it can't breed with dogs, so it is a nondog), what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? If it doesn't happen, there must be something stopping it? What is it?
Click to expand...
I don't know if I totally agree. Alaskan rabbits can reprduce with Minnesotan rabbits, and Minnesota rabbits can reproduce with Florida rabbits, but Alaskan rabbits can not reproduce with Florida rabbits. They are all rabbits but not all able to reproduce amungst them selves.
 
I am trying to determine if JF is willing to concede that religious acceptance of scientific facts can change over time. If JF does concede this, we have a starting point for an interesting discussion as to what other scientific claims can be accepted.
Click to expand...
Sure I will accept that...I mean the church used to think the earth was the center of the universe for example...and I am pretty sure that the church used to claim that the earth was flat.
The church I agree can be wrong, but the Bible never is. When science said the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, well before science knew of bacteria, or germs, the Bible was stating to wash your hands after touching a dead body. These are just a few examples.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok i will answer these questions to the best of my knowledge, and my best ability...I do not claim to speak for every Christian, and I will adimit that I probably am the least studied on these topics of all the people in here...again I will tell you what I beleive.
1)No. I do not beleive that there is any scientific evidence for evolution...I beleive the Bible the Bible says that God created man in his image so that would be one reason why.
2)micro evolution or the evolving of kinds...ok dogs for example...I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse...Keep in mind that I am not trying to be ignorant, and my examples may not satisfy you, but I do not beleive in evolution.
Click to expand...

I surely hope you don't claim to speak for every Christian!

I'm put in mind of my children when they were very small. An accident would be about to occur, or would just have occurred, and I would say "try not to do X;" child would respond "I'm not trying to do X!" and I would respond "There's a difference beween trying not to and not trying to!"

You may not be trying to be ignorant, and I have no real interest in trying to get you to believe in evolution if you don't want to, but I think you owe it to yourself at least to try a little harder not to be ignorant, so that you don't argue against evolution by attributing to evolutionary theory such egregiously stupid and ignorant notions as you seem to think it supports.

If, as you admit, you're the least studied on these issues as anybody here, You would probably do yourself a favor not to argue specifics at all.
 
jesus_freak said:
I'm not sure if I completely understand but let me try to answer and you let me know if I am even close...Could God's creation been made to look older than it really is? I think so, I think Adam was not born as an infant, but a grown man...I think that stars that are millions of light years away were made so they could be seen instantly...
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that make God intentionally deceptive? To what end? Or if not, why not?

jesus_freak said:
and I also think that since there was one creator that there are going to be a lot of similarities in species(if something like the wrist works in humans, why not use a similar design in cats and dogs?)and I think that is one of the biggest problems, that people see similar aspects in animals and assume evolution over a common creator.I hope this is somewhat what you were looking for...If I was way off let me know.
Click to expand...

That makes some sense.. and that's exactly what we don't see. We see many different things that perform the same function but are very different "design" (the eye for example). Plus we see designs that are clearly not the "right" way of doing things (our backs aren't very well suited for walking upright). And we see things which clearly show relationship but are "broken" (we need Vitamin C to live, and we have the mechanism to make it ourselves, but we have a genetic defect which turns off the mechanism, and we share that exact genetic defect with many other mammals in the exact same way, so either that defect was "designed in", or that defect is from a common ancestor).

I used to be where you are, the problem is that MANY of the arguments against evolution don't even understand evolution.
 
Explain mules.
Click to expand...
Mules, zeedonks and zorses

p33_zonkey.jpg

p32_zorse.jpg

Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.


Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur. Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp
 
jesus_freak said:
Sure I will accept that...I mean the church used to think the earth was the center of the universe for example...and I am pretty sure that the church used to claim that the earth was flat.
The church I agree can be wrong, but the Bible never is. When science said the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, well before science knew of bacteria, or germs, the Bible was stating to wash your hands after touching a dead body. These are just a few examples.
Click to expand...

OK, that's a good starting point. There are several passages in the Bible that imply the earth is in the center of the universe. These include Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10, Psalms 104, and Chronicles 16:30. BTW, these are the standard passages used by the modern geocentrists as can be seen at the site www.geocentricity.com. If these passages can be read as "artistic license" rather than actual fact, meaning the earth really does move, not the sun, would you be willing to concede that parts of Genesis can be seen the same way?
 
jesus_freak said:
I don't know if I totally agree. Alaskan rabbits can reprduce with Minnesotan rabbits, and Minnesota rabbits can reproduce with Florida rabbits, but Alaskan rabbits can not reproduce with Florida rabbits. They are all rabbits but not all able to reproduce amungst them selves.
Click to expand...

a) source?

b) if so, that goes to support that the concepts of macro and micro evolution don't really mean anything, and even the special line of species that creationists seem to think cannot be crossed doesn't mean anything. So tell me then since one group of rabbits cannot cross-breed and share genetic code with another group, what stops them from eventually evolving to the point that they are visibly different?

EDIT: And what's a "kind", how is that defined?
 
OK, that's a good starting point. There are several passages in the Bible that imply the earth is in the center of the universe. These include Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10, Psalms 104, and Chronicles 16:30. BTW, these are the standard passages used by the modern geocentrists as can be seen at the site www.geocentricity.com. If these passages can be read as "artistic license" rather than actual fact, meaning the earth really does move, not the sun, would you be willing to concede that parts of Genesis can be seen the same way?
Click to expand...
I would have to go through and look at each verse or verses individualy. Are you trying to get at Genesis is not to be taken litteraly or what? Im confused.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
uh yeah you do. You said you do. You said you know very little, and still have a strong opinion. Thats ignorance. There is no harm in reading both sides of an issue and THEN deciding instead of just picking whatever you feel is right.
Click to expand...



You forgot to answer why you choose to be ignorant and have an opinion anyway.
 
Ecclesiastes 1:5,
Click to expand...
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

We use sun rise and sun set today, yet we know the earth rotates around the sun.I don't think this is saying the earth is the center of the universe.
Joshua 10
Click to expand...
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
I think this is kind of the same point...I already explained what I thought about it earlier...but no I still don't think this implies the earth as the center of the universe.
Psalms 104
Click to expand...
19 The moon marks off the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
I assume this is the verse you are talking about...I don't know what to tell you other than I still say something like "what time is sun down? " again I know the earth rotates around the sun and yet I say that.
1 Chronicles 16:30
Click to expand...
Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
I guess you will have to explain to me what you are getting at on this one. Is it the fact that the earth rotates and it is saying the earth cannot be moved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom