-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Inconsistency of literalists vs science
- Thread starter Paul of Eugene
- Start date
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Now some have expressed doubt that God would ever give men only the amount of truth they were ready for in His word; and let them in on more truth when they were ready. But I can think of several examples right from the Bible where this is true.
a) The serpent in Genesis 3. It does not literally say it was Satan; men weren't ready yet for a doctrine about our spiritual enemy; so its presented, literally, as a talking animal. Later we understand Satan is meant.
b) Divorce. God said, when you divorce, give your ex-spouse a bill of divorcement. But Jesus said God doesn't WANT to allow divorce; and when pressed further, he said God gave this because of the hardness of our hearts.
c) Slavery. Slavery is never outrightly forbidden even in the New Testament! It is only in the past few centuries we have as a race come to understand that slavery is sinful and abhorrent to the God who placed His image in all men.
So it is not unprecedented or unheard of for God to give a partial revelation to a people who are not yet ready for the whole truth.
a) The serpent in Genesis 3. It does not literally say it was Satan; men weren't ready yet for a doctrine about our spiritual enemy; so its presented, literally, as a talking animal. Later we understand Satan is meant.
b) Divorce. God said, when you divorce, give your ex-spouse a bill of divorcement. But Jesus said God doesn't WANT to allow divorce; and when pressed further, he said God gave this because of the hardness of our hearts.
c) Slavery. Slavery is never outrightly forbidden even in the New Testament! It is only in the past few centuries we have as a race come to understand that slavery is sinful and abhorrent to the God who placed His image in all men.
So it is not unprecedented or unheard of for God to give a partial revelation to a people who are not yet ready for the whole truth.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Do you think God REALLY made the sun stop - and not the Earth - in Joshua? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm. Is this where we get to Einstein's idea of relative motion and frame of reference - or is this the place where "failure to pretend you know as much as God will lose you the argument"?
What is your point?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is one thing to say that God informed mankind about the right foods to eat BUT NOT about the process of open heart surgery -- as you pretend to address above.
But when we combine this with the fact that your "goal" is to excuse creationism instead of evolutionism -- it would be like saying "God takes us and tells us total lies to - make us happy - when He does not feel like telling us the truth, so we have to learn to expect that of Him".
IN other words your claim that HE TELLS us the lie of creation - of HIS work in 6 evenings - and -mornings - as a total falsehood to replace what you claim is "the REAL truth" of "BLOODSHED, CARNAGE, DISEASE, EXTERMINATION, EXTINCTION and SURVIVAL" (you know -- all the ways Evolutionism CREATES - that you claim were UNKNOWN to the people of Bible cultures) -- this is what you call - revealing truth in steps.
But the obvious fact is that EACH of those violent methods of sin WERE known to people of Bible times.
The obvious fact is that your are claiming that God is REPLACING that story of carnage (evolution's TRUTH) - with the peaceful and majestic lie of God creating EACH thing within 6 "evenings and mornings" is hardly "revealing a truth" if in fact bloodshed and extinction was all there was too it. God could EASILY have built up upon their already existing familiarity with bloodshed, carnage, predation, disease and extinction and ADDED to it "billions of years" to kick off His create-by-evolution model. But INSTEAD He goes the opposite direction. Having God SPEAK each day into existence and having it all happen in 6 evenings and mornings.
As Christians have noted - and as Evolutionists have noted - these two stories could not be more opposed to each other. You must place your faith in one or the other. ATheists of course - only have one choice.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You take a lot of liberity claiming what God did not tell them - AS IF you had "the exhaustive account". You do not. In fact as has already been pointed out -- God REVEALED the truth about Christ to Abraham BEFORE the time of Moses. "Abraham SAW My day and was glad" John 8.
Though this is not recorded IN the timeline covered by Genesis - we know it DID happen then - as Christ said. You "assume" God kept Adam and Eve in the dark about Satan. I do not.
In Job 1 SATAN comes and accuses Job before God and the heavenly council. Moses knew about Satan - and so did Adam.
God is a loving Parent that would NOT leave His children exposed to great evil - and blindly ignorant to their peril. Satan only had access to mankind at the tree of knowledge of good and evil and Adam was warned about this.
Free will was operating in the garden of Eden - and God was not "playing tricks" on Adam as you seem to suppose.
True enough. the CIVIL laws of the nation that God gave the NATION were NOT the Christian principles of the heart. Consider having a judge rule that BECAUSE you failed to "turn the other cheek" to an attacker - you must go to jail.
You can not take personnal laws of Christian conduct and enforce them at the civil law leve.
Christs words about devorce were spoken PRE-CROSS and were valid from the days of Adam on. Christ shows THAT FROM the BEGINNING it was NOT this way.. He shows that the CIVIL LAW of DIVORCE is that which was ADDED to that more perfect law of LOVE that dominated in Eden. (As opposed to extinction, carnage, and predation "dominating" in the garden of Eden).
It is in the OT. God's law forbade Israel from making slaves of their kindred AND God set His commands before them "LOVE your neighbor as yourself".
God's Law demanded love - from the beginning.
The question is not "partial revelation" the DIFFERENCE between Creationism and evolutionism IS NOT that Creationism only tells half the story of evolutionism!!
The DIFFERENCE is that they are totally OPPOSING views of origins!! Atheist EVOLUTIONISTS admit this. Bible believing Christians ALSO admit this.
Your revisionism above "NEEDS" to find us arguing that Creationism only tells half the story of evolutionism and that God was "leaving out" added details in that list of literal truths He gave - some OTHER details were left out.
But we find no such point "in real life". Instead what we find is that creationism is diametrically opposed to evolutionism. So much so that evolutionism is the ONLY choice for the atheist.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob, don't attribute things to me that didn't come from me. My actual statements bear no resemblance to your remarks. To my knowledge I have never said that Genesis is creationist, and if I ever did say so I misspoke.
I certainly don't believe a plain reading of Genesis and Exodus 20:11 supports your peculiar brand of creationism (with the stars being formed outside of the six days). Other types of creationism don't fare much better, since many of their details also go far beyond what the text says, such as having insanely rapid micro-evolution happening after the flood, insisting that entropy started with the fall, or claiming that some plant life was created in a specific area on day 6 rather than all plant life being created on day 3. No, Genesis is not creationist. Now, please don't claim that I have said otherwise unless you're able to present a direct quote.
The Galatian
Active Member
Bob has a habit of misrepresenting what other people say. I suspect that it's innocently done. I think he just gets so carried away, he doesn't read carefully, and confabulates what he misses.
I am with Bob. You either believe God, or you believe fallen, sinful, agenda driven, "wise"men.
What God said happened, in Scripture, happended EXACTLY the way He said it did. Like it or not. If God said the sun stood still, then it stood still. As (someone in this thread) says, "science tells us" that the SUN IS IN ORBIT. In other words, the suns travels in an orbit, it is not just sitting out there, its orbit is around who knows what, but it is travelling along in the galaxy, THEREFORE, if God said it stood still, it sttod still. The exact mechanics of how this came about, I could not even pretend to tell you. But God said it stood still. And in so doing, it benefitted Joshua's men in battle. If Jesus can tell a storm to 'shut up' and 'settle down' then God can violate ANY natural law He sets in motion to benefit His children, if He so chooses. THAT is the nature of a true MIRACLE. We use the word far to loosely these days.
Example, some stupid sportscaster says "He caught the ball!!! What a miracle!!!"
No. A miracle is God and only God stepping into the natural realm and suspending some natural law to benfit His children, and ONLY His children. Not pagans, or heathens. God never did miracles FOR unbelievers.
Therefore, yes, where the text does not DEMAND an allegorical, or symbolic interpretation, you take it literally.
Jim
What God said happened, in Scripture, happended EXACTLY the way He said it did. Like it or not. If God said the sun stood still, then it stood still. As (someone in this thread) says, "science tells us" that the SUN IS IN ORBIT. In other words, the suns travels in an orbit, it is not just sitting out there, its orbit is around who knows what, but it is travelling along in the galaxy, THEREFORE, if God said it stood still, it sttod still. The exact mechanics of how this came about, I could not even pretend to tell you. But God said it stood still. And in so doing, it benefitted Joshua's men in battle. If Jesus can tell a storm to 'shut up' and 'settle down' then God can violate ANY natural law He sets in motion to benefit His children, if He so chooses. THAT is the nature of a true MIRACLE. We use the word far to loosely these days.
Example, some stupid sportscaster says "He caught the ball!!! What a miracle!!!"
No. A miracle is God and only God stepping into the natural realm and suspending some natural law to benfit His children, and ONLY His children. Not pagans, or heathens. God never did miracles FOR unbelievers.
Therefore, yes, where the text does not DEMAND an allegorical, or symbolic interpretation, you take it literally.
Jim
But Jim, that is just the point. The sun standing still does not explain the effects that are described based on what we know today. The sun travels in an orbit around the center of the galaxy, so we do know what it orbits. If it were to cease that movement, you would not get the sun standing still in the sky and the day thereby being lengthened. That requires that the earth cease spinning.
But from the perspective of the writer, that is just what happened. The sun ceased its movement through its circuit in the sky. Never mind that it is not a scientifically accurate description of what happened. It was accurate as far as what they knew and understood and what they saw. It does not mean that the passage in question is not true. It means that it is not exactly literal, though. The event did really happen, but by knowing how things actually work, you can seperate out from the way it was conveyed what actually happened. But, to take the hyper-literal view that you and Bob are advocating, then the earth is fixed and the sun travels around it in a circuit. This is not the case. But it is what they believed at the time.
The point ends up being that you can apply what you know to the situation and figure out that God must have miraculously stopped the spinning of the earth. Now they did not know at the time that this is what caused the apparent motion of the sun, so it was described as best could be based on what they knew. But, like many of the squabbles over such thing, the forest is being missed for the trees. The important thing is not whether the sun stopped it travel through its circuit or instead the earth ceased spinning. The important thing is the miracle that God provided in a time of need for the Israelis. This is missed over and over. God's revelation through His Creation tells us that it is billions of years old. The Creation account cannot be meant to be literal. BUt all the handwaving about it and saying that people are calling God a liar and all that distracts from the real truths of the Creation account as given.
The other point is that the hyper-literalists themselves will selectively apply the outside knowledge of science to reinterpret some bit of scripture when the science is well enough established to convince them. But they criticize others for doing the same thing on topics where they disagree. If they were intellectually honest they would be flat earth geocentrists.
But from the perspective of the writer, that is just what happened. The sun ceased its movement through its circuit in the sky. Never mind that it is not a scientifically accurate description of what happened. It was accurate as far as what they knew and understood and what they saw. It does not mean that the passage in question is not true. It means that it is not exactly literal, though. The event did really happen, but by knowing how things actually work, you can seperate out from the way it was conveyed what actually happened. But, to take the hyper-literal view that you and Bob are advocating, then the earth is fixed and the sun travels around it in a circuit. This is not the case. But it is what they believed at the time.
The point ends up being that you can apply what you know to the situation and figure out that God must have miraculously stopped the spinning of the earth. Now they did not know at the time that this is what caused the apparent motion of the sun, so it was described as best could be based on what they knew. But, like many of the squabbles over such thing, the forest is being missed for the trees. The important thing is not whether the sun stopped it travel through its circuit or instead the earth ceased spinning. The important thing is the miracle that God provided in a time of need for the Israelis. This is missed over and over. God's revelation through His Creation tells us that it is billions of years old. The Creation account cannot be meant to be literal. BUt all the handwaving about it and saying that people are calling God a liar and all that distracts from the real truths of the Creation account as given.
The other point is that the hyper-literalists themselves will selectively apply the outside knowledge of science to reinterpret some bit of scripture when the science is well enough established to convince them. But they criticize others for doing the same thing on topics where they disagree. If they were intellectually honest they would be flat earth geocentrists.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
OK in an earlier post I accused Pastor Larry of making up a word, "literalistically". But I've recieved a private email to the effect that the word isn't made up! Because the email was sent only to me, I don't feel free to name the sender, but here's the relevant quote . . . he went to check in his dictionaries and . . .
"Just the FIRST one I took off my shelf, 'Webster's New Collegiate' published in 1977! lists literalistic as an adjective."
So there you have it folks, Pastor Larry didn't just make up that word.
"Just the FIRST one I took off my shelf, 'Webster's New Collegiate' published in 1977! lists literalistic as an adjective."
So there you have it folks, Pastor Larry didn't just make up that word.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Interesting that you don't actuallyl quote anything from me to show your point!
Standard practice for evolutionism - because in evolutionism "the less fact - the better".
Did you say it was NOT evolution?
Did you say that the ONLY reason God gave them CREATIONISM instead of evolutionism is that they were too stupid to be told the truth about evolution? (You know, those advanced ideas like "Extermination, disease, extinction, predation and survival" being far too complex for those stupid Bible people?)
Hmm. Why not actually QUOTE you?
Bob said --
Literal days - not "unknown ages of time" as the ACTUAL text AND wording - understanding meaning of Gen 1-2:3 "because" they were too stupid to get evolutionism - according to you.
And of course your most recent confession --
Stated HERE
Mercury responds:
I have said that the Bible does not teach evolution any more than it teaches electromagnetism. However, I do not believe that every scientific concept needs to be explained in the Bible in order to be true.
</font>[/QUOTE]And "now" -- you will respond to the point?</font>[/QUOTE][/quote]
After confessing above that REAL days are given in the creation account - (the VERY Point I make) and ALSO confessing above that "God was NO MORE teaching them evolutionism than electromagnatism" --
Mercury doubles-back on himself with the following
But lest anyone be misdirected by Mercury's statement above -- he appears to ADD -- Oh! UNLESS you mean creating the WORLD and the Sun and the Moon in SIX Days - well then YES er um Bob then I DO MEAN that is what the text says.
I "see" so REAL 7 days BUT you insist that the TWO GREAT lights made on the 4th day included the stars???!! and THAT is the "difference" in what I said about YOU claiming that Gen 1-2:3 does NOT teach evolutionism but that YOU say it teaches CREATIONISM??!!!!!!
Misdirection, red herring rabbit trails etc. This is the "substantive response" we have gotten from evolutionists every single time so far!
And this little detour of yours is the poster child for that.
The point remains. Evolutionists here HAVE argued that INSTEAD of evolutionism in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 what we have IS CREATIONISM!
AND as this recent set of posts points out - evolutionists ALSO claim "Creationists aren't reading it right"! EVEN though "right" in this case (by your own confession above) is STILL CREATIONISM!!
You have just dug the whole "deeper" for your view in saying that in addition to INSISTING that we have a literal 7 day account given by God we ALSO have all the stars included in those "TWO GREAT LIGHTS" made on the 4th day!
That is far from "This is really evolutionism but you guys are misinterpreting the symbols and getting creationism out of it"!
Another "inconvenient fact" for evolutionists when clinging to their "stories".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Actually - my take on this is #1. God describes motion in space with reference to the frame of the observer just as Einstein explained in his teaching on -- "relative motion".
IF God were describing the event from the reference frame of an observer in another Galaxy - then as our solar system CONTINUED to orbit our galaxy we would have seen the change discribed in "another way" for that day.
But in the end "these are just rabbit trails for evolutionists" because "the point is" that evolutionism makes NO MORE allowance for a REAL double-day for Joshua than it does for God REALLY speaking life into existence for a REAL 7 day week. In evolutionism - what God SAYS "is not REAL"!
Evolutionism ALSO has no place for the virgin birth, the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the raising of Lazarus from the dead etc..
The best it can do is "invent more stories" about ways in which "that is not really true" and certianly "not physically correct".
Once you marry the ONLY BELIEF in origins that atheists have available to themselves - to GOD's WORD -- you get a horribly compromised result. ONe that evolutionists Christians would unwittingly hang their faith upon as if they had done "a good thing".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Another "funny" yet "factless" post from our evolutionist friends here. I just gave the quotes from Mecury and SHOWED the hopelessly compromised and conflicted positions evolutionists HAVE taken here on the subject of Gen 1-2:3 NOT teaching evolutionism AND being given as the "not truth" that God tells to people too stupid to be told about starvation or disease.
As I have said before - the evolutionist position can only thrive in a factless-void tossing out "accusations and assertions" but not actually having facts to back it up.
In Christ,
Bob
"As I have said before - the evolutionist position can only thrive in a factless-void tossing out "accusations and assertions" but not actually having facts to back it up."
Kind of funny coming from you. How long have I been asking you to back up your claims about what the Archaeopteryx conference found? You claimed that they said it was just a bird, not any sort of transitional or related to reptiles in any way. When I showed you that the authors you cited actually were presenting evidence for its transitional status, you never acknowledged the new information, you just quit using the author's names. When I gave you the title of the proceedings (The Beginnings of the Birds) and when I listed for you a large number of the titles of papers presented at the conference, all showing that they actually were discussing the evolution of birds and archy's status as a transitional in that evolution, you failed to address the evidence, you failed to present any counter evidence to support your assertion, and you continued to make the same claim even though it had been demonstrated to be false.
And you accuse others of tossing out assertions without facts.
Kind of funny coming from you. How long have I been asking you to back up your claims about what the Archaeopteryx conference found? You claimed that they said it was just a bird, not any sort of transitional or related to reptiles in any way. When I showed you that the authors you cited actually were presenting evidence for its transitional status, you never acknowledged the new information, you just quit using the author's names. When I gave you the title of the proceedings (The Beginnings of the Birds) and when I listed for you a large number of the titles of papers presented at the conference, all showing that they actually were discussing the evolution of birds and archy's status as a transitional in that evolution, you failed to address the evidence, you failed to present any counter evidence to support your assertion, and you continued to make the same claim even though it had been demonstrated to be false.
And you accuse others of tossing out assertions without facts.
"Evolutionism ALSO has no place for the virgin birth, the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the raising of Lazarus from the dead etc.."
None of these have any bearing on "evolutionism." Science is not even able to comment on whether or not they are possible because they are outside the possibility of scientific study. Science cannot say Yea or Nay to any of this. Miracles are by definition outside the realm of science.
But, in actual scientific areas like biology, geology and astronomy, it can and does say that the earth and universe are ancient and that all life is related through common descent. That is just the way it is. Sorry if that cuases problems for you.
None of these have any bearing on "evolutionism." Science is not even able to comment on whether or not they are possible because they are outside the possibility of scientific study. Science cannot say Yea or Nay to any of this. Miracles are by definition outside the realm of science.
But, in actual scientific areas like biology, geology and astronomy, it can and does say that the earth and universe are ancient and that all life is related through common descent. That is just the way it is. Sorry if that cuases problems for you.
A_Christian
New Member
Creation was a MIRACLE and evolutionists have it wrong. It is as simple as that. Now we have to discover why?
No, I did not. The reason I will continue disagreeing with you on this is that you are incapable of presenting my position in a way that does not distort it. I can easily present your position without distortion: you believe most of the heavens, earth and sea and most of the things within them were created in six days, but you believe that the universe itself along with rocks and stars were created earlier. That's a paraphrase, but I think it's an accurate one (see [here] to read it in your own words).
Your paraphrase of my position, on the other hand, is not accurate. I haven't argued that the Bible hides the truth of evolution while giving us false ideas of creationism: I don't believe Genesis 1 is about either! The full details of God's miracle of creation are indescribable to mere humans like us, so it was described in terms we can understand. Genesis 1 isn't teaching us about science at all. Creationism isn't what is taught in the text, but rather the result of using the text to extrapolate theories it wasn't designed to give. In that regard, Scripture contains creationism only in the same way it contains geocentrism (the idea that the earth is stationary and the planets and stars orbit it). You can get these theories from a too-literal reading of the Bible (and history shows that people did indeed do so), but they are not taught by Scripture.
I am also baffled at why you are offended by the idea that God condescends to us. Over and over again you harp on the fact that I think God thought we were "too stupid" (your phrase, not mine) to hear all the details about creation. Do you really think your intelligence is equal to God's? Really, Bob, I can't understand why you chafe at this. We should be glad that God condescends in revealing himself to us! It allows us to know him! I am not capable of understanding the full details of any of God's miracles, whether the creation of the universe, the incarnation, or something "simple" like turning water into wine. But through the Bible, I get God's revelation in terms that I can understand. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." The dimness of the image in the mirror isn't due to God's inability to communicate clearly, but due to our own limitations. Some day, the image will become clear; for now, I know enough to have faith in the One who knows all.
"Creation was a MIRACLE and evolutionists have it wrong. It is as simple as that. Now we have to discover why? "
I will respectfully disagree.
There are many lines of evidence that point to the things I said that are very difficult to explain in a young earth. It would be off topic for this thread to go too far into depth on any one of them. So I will mention a few in general and if you choose, we can then go into depth on some of them.
Biogeography. This is a fun one. There are a number of aspects here. Some have to do with how the plants and animals of the world are distributed. The most obvious example is Australia and her marsupials. The marsupials of Australia are unique to that slice of the world and are not found in other parts of the world. Let's use this as a springboard to toher considerations. First, it is important to note that Australia's fauna is do to its isolation. The geography, we can trace its isolation for tens of millions of years. We can also trace its unique animals fairly well during this time period. (There are some periods the older you get which are not well represented by fossils.) You see the same thing in other parts of the world. South America had some really interesting creatures until the land bridge connected it to North America. Isolation produces other interesting effects. We have seen these on a large scale with the continents but we also see it on a small scale with islands. Whatever manages to get there evelves to fill various niches. If only a few birds manage to get there then whatever the species, some will evolve to fill various niches ususally filled by other animals. For instance a common one is to lose the ability to fly in order to fill the role of ground predator. Plants do it also. On the island of St. Helena, sunflowers have evolved to fill an unusual niche for flowers. All the various species of tree on the island.
The twin nested heirarchy is very important. Here, if you organize life by physical traits, you end up with the heirarchy with which we are all familiar. We are not just humans but we are also apes, placental mammals, tetropods and animals. A bald eagle, OTOH, while also an animal and tetropod is in contrast an avian and a Falconiformes. You can also draw such a tree using genetic data in various ways. And you get the same basic tree. These genetic trees can be done by which proteins are made. But they can also be done by other means, such as shared mutations or shared inserts of retroviral DNA. That all these various genetic and physical factor come together in the same way is powerfull evidence for common descent. It becomes even more powerful when you combine it with the fossil record. For instance, the latest whale fossils are indicating an origin from the ungulates and modern genetic testing confirms this by comparing the DNA of extant whales to extant ungulates. For instance see Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997). In this, the Hippopotamus, Cow, Sperm Whale, and Humpback Whale are shown to share a couple of specific retroviral DNA inserts that are not found in the Red Kangaroo, Human, Mouse, Cat, Asiatic Elephant, Domestic Horse, Pig, or Bactrian Camel. For another well known example of genetic evidence, see the shared vitamin C production interupting mutation shared by all primates including humans.
Astronomy presents its own issues, not the least of which is light transit time.
Geology has a whole host of issues, also. Maybe we can get into a few of them.
I will respectfully disagree.
There are many lines of evidence that point to the things I said that are very difficult to explain in a young earth. It would be off topic for this thread to go too far into depth on any one of them. So I will mention a few in general and if you choose, we can then go into depth on some of them.
Biogeography. This is a fun one. There are a number of aspects here. Some have to do with how the plants and animals of the world are distributed. The most obvious example is Australia and her marsupials. The marsupials of Australia are unique to that slice of the world and are not found in other parts of the world. Let's use this as a springboard to toher considerations. First, it is important to note that Australia's fauna is do to its isolation. The geography, we can trace its isolation for tens of millions of years. We can also trace its unique animals fairly well during this time period. (There are some periods the older you get which are not well represented by fossils.) You see the same thing in other parts of the world. South America had some really interesting creatures until the land bridge connected it to North America. Isolation produces other interesting effects. We have seen these on a large scale with the continents but we also see it on a small scale with islands. Whatever manages to get there evelves to fill various niches. If only a few birds manage to get there then whatever the species, some will evolve to fill various niches ususally filled by other animals. For instance a common one is to lose the ability to fly in order to fill the role of ground predator. Plants do it also. On the island of St. Helena, sunflowers have evolved to fill an unusual niche for flowers. All the various species of tree on the island.
The twin nested heirarchy is very important. Here, if you organize life by physical traits, you end up with the heirarchy with which we are all familiar. We are not just humans but we are also apes, placental mammals, tetropods and animals. A bald eagle, OTOH, while also an animal and tetropod is in contrast an avian and a Falconiformes. You can also draw such a tree using genetic data in various ways. And you get the same basic tree. These genetic trees can be done by which proteins are made. But they can also be done by other means, such as shared mutations or shared inserts of retroviral DNA. That all these various genetic and physical factor come together in the same way is powerfull evidence for common descent. It becomes even more powerful when you combine it with the fossil record. For instance, the latest whale fossils are indicating an origin from the ungulates and modern genetic testing confirms this by comparing the DNA of extant whales to extant ungulates. For instance see Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997). In this, the Hippopotamus, Cow, Sperm Whale, and Humpback Whale are shown to share a couple of specific retroviral DNA inserts that are not found in the Red Kangaroo, Human, Mouse, Cat, Asiatic Elephant, Domestic Horse, Pig, or Bactrian Camel. For another well known example of genetic evidence, see the shared vitamin C production interupting mutation shared by all primates including humans.
Astronomy presents its own issues, not the least of which is light transit time.
Geology has a whole host of issues, also. Maybe we can get into a few of them.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
In any case - All the atheists today would gladly swallow the myths and fables of evolutionism rather than believe the truth of Genesis 1-2:3 and I think we can all agree on that point (at the very least).
The reason they get it wrong is because they have the "NEED" for a solution that does not have God DOING what He claims to have DONE in Gen 1-2:3.
See?
And the crutch they got to prop up that story on behalf of evolutionism - is "junk science" disproven at every turn.
In Christ,
Bob