Evolution is in the Bible, not Common Descent (church, Revelations, Biblical)

[Eresh]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

You mentioned the Bible saying a bat is a bird and so on, but you do realize it's the King James Bible that says that. Look up the Hebrew words. You mentioned the moon, that the Bible says it is the lesser light to govern the night. Well, is that not what it does? In fact, there's a story about this, concerning conditions pre-flood. The moon was probably brighter pre-flood. Yet all in all, it is the lesser light that governs the night. It's not so much about whether or not the moon has it's own light, but that it does it's job, being the lesser light. (There's something again about the Hebrew wording. Look up lesser and see what that translates as. It could be telling)

You do realize that the moon isn't always out at night, right?

I find it odd that people can talk about how different versions have been translated differently yet still believe everything word for word.

[deliz]

What grade did you graduate from ?

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

The statement of eating dust implies they will go about on their stomach. We know snakes flick their tounges, I'm sure they tasted dirt from the ground from time to time, if not all the time. The tree and aquatic snakes have adapted to their enviroments, I don't see the problem there. We agree with the statement on the atmosphere, except I look at conditions pre-flood. (That goes beyond what scientists think concerning the past)

Originally Posted by rifleman

I refuse to participate!

That's probably sound. But what, Lantern are you trying to argue? That Evolution is not in the Bible but Young - Earth creation? Your suggestions about the snake losing its legs through adaptation rather than punishment and an extinction of all the extinct animals (which somehow survived the flood) through a change of atmosphere, which for some reason didn't kill off all the species which are not extinct, don't seem to work as a coherent hypothesis.

I hardly expect a reasoned response, going by all the confused stuff about the moon, but don't you think your theory runs into a few problems?

[infiri]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

Something is wrong with those translations concerning the bat. In my Bible, the NKJV, it doesn't even have the word bat. And I looked up here..... Leviticus 11:18 Hebrew Texts and Analysis ....and they don't have that word either.


You can use that site to look up the other translations.

That's because is 19 and not 18
Leviticus 11:19 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

All evolution is, is adaptation. Adaptation, is all throughout the book of Genesis concerning everything that happened after the fall. For instance, God originally created us to live forever. Death wasn't apart of the original creation. When death came in, the body automatically tried to fight this foe (because the body was created to live forever), and the best way of doing that is to adapt.



God said to the serpent that it was cursed more than any beast of the field, losing the ability to use it's legs. I imagine with this lost ability of using it's legs, the snake adapted to the point it lost it's legs altogether. That is evolution at it's finest. At one point, humans were living for hundreds of years. We immediately see a drop off after the flood. This tells me there was an atmospheric change of drastic porportion, and so the body wasn't able to keep up it's function that allowed us to live that long. So we adapted to the state we are in today. Animals became extinct due to this new atmosphere post flood, not being able to evolve sufficiently enough to survive in this world. So there is plenty of evolution in the Bible.

)

To a simpler minded person, this may make a lot of sense. Not to imply you are a simple minded person but isn't it just more twistiing and distorting of the known facts, to fit and justify the myth?

[GCSTroop]

What the OP is suggesting is a complete distortion of reality to mold a preconceived idea of his own into something "scientific." I can probably do the same thing with any given scientific topic and any work of literature.

Take Of Mice and Men and genetics. It's quite clear that George and Lenny are two different characters but what makes them different? Their genetics! Lenny is clearly the dumber of the two, probably the victim of some inherently vicious genetic malaise. Therefore, all of Steinbeck's works have a tendency to explain genetic predispositions very well and should be a focal point of any and all genetic engineers in their studies.

That's one hell of a leap to make in my logic and it really is nonsensical. Perhaps genetic engineers could take a moral or ethical lesson from the story of George and Lenny and remind themselves of what can happen if some of their experiments go wrong. However, it's certainly not in any way an authoritative text on the science of genetics at all.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

The statement of eating dust implies they will go about on their stomach. We know snakes flick their tounges, I'm sure they tasted dirt from the ground from time to time, if not all the time. The tree and aquatic snakes have adapted to their enviroments, I don't see the problem there. We agree with the statement on the atmosphere, except I look at conditions pre-flood. (That goes beyond what scientists think concerning the past)

Snakes flick their tongues as that is the way they smell

Originally Posted by The Lantern

You mentioned the Bible saying a bat is a bird and so on, but you do realize it's the King James Bible that says that. Look up the Hebrew words. You mentioned the moon, that the Bible says it is the lesser light to govern the night. Well, is that not what it does? In fact, there's a story about this, concerning conditions pre-flood. The moon was probably brighter pre-flood. Yet all in all, it is the lesser light that governs the night. It's not so much about whether or not the moon has it's own light, but that it does it's job, being the lesser light. (There's something again about the Hebrew wording. Look up lesser and see what that translates as. It could be telling)

Well that is not how the moon works and as has already been stated it is not always full moon now is it. The moon is a reflection of sunlight and were it a simple parabolic or other shaped mirror, there would be no night at full moon.

Pretty obvious, the goatherders had no clue as to astral bodies and even their description of stars suggests they saw them as mere twinkly things and NOT distant planets or suns or galaxies.

You cannot make science fit the bible as the bible is fiction. They got it wrong.

This thread is like that lady that said the sun was mirrors reflecting gods glory

[The Lantern]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That's probably sound. But what, Lantern are you trying to argue? That Evolution is not in the Bible but Young - Earth creation? Your suggestions about the snake losing its legs through adaptation rather than punishment and an extinction of all the extinct animals (which somehow survived the flood) through a change of atmosphere, which for some reason didn't kill off all the species which are not extinct, don't seem to work as a coherent hypothesis.

I hardly expect a reasoned response, going by all the confused stuff about the moon, but don't you think your theory runs into a few problems?

No, the snake was cursed, losing the ability to use it's legs. It adapted to life without the use of it's legs, and through that adaptation, it evolved to where we see them to today. In the same way, when death came in, every creature adapted, to survive. Along the way we lost functions of certain parts of our body, and thus we evolved to the state we are today.




I'm not sure about your questioning concerning extinct animals and surviving the flood. Only that after the flood, there was a change in atmosphere. (an extreme change) Thus we began to evolve at faster rates, and those creature who didn't evolve fast enough, went extinct. Either that, or we killed them off by hunting them.

Originally Posted by infiri

That's because is 19 and not 18
Leviticus 11:19 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

Oh, thanks! (I was so hooked on that verse, I didn't continue to read on to the next)


I suppose the only explanation for why the bat is included, is because that is how the people categorize the bat. What do scientists categorize the bat as? A flying mammal? In fact according to this wiki.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat ...they are the only mammals that are capable of true flight. So I guess that is how Israel categorized the bat, putting it in with the birds.



Someone else asked me about insects with four legs. (Concerning what the Bible said) The Bible says all flying insects that "creeps" on all fours. That mean they walk with with four legs. Think about the cricket. It has six legs, but it only walks or creeps with four. (Using it's two long legs to jump)


Overall, the people were not stupid. Surely they can count the legs on bugs that they see. Why then would they write down a bug only has four legs? Surely they can see that bats are not the same as a bird. So why would we think that is what they are saying? They may not have had the advanced science that we have, but they were not stupid. In fact, they were probably smarter than many people today, knew more math and how to build. (Most kids growing up into adults, are not that handy nor knowledgeable)

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

To a simpler minded person, this may make a lot of sense. Not to imply you are a simple minded person but isn't it just more twistiing and distorting of the known facts, to fit and justify the myth?

No, but at the same time it doesn't prove the Bible outright, which is not necessarily what I'm doing with this topic. With this topic, I only want to straighten out all the traditional talk concerning what the Genesis account says. There is definitely evolution within the Bible, yet not common descent.

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

What the OP is suggesting is a complete distortion of reality to mold a preconceived idea of his own into something "scientific." I can probably do the same thing with any given scientific topic and any work of literature.

Take Of Mice and Men and genetics. It's quite clear that George and Lenny are two different characters but what makes them different? Their genetics! Lenny is clearly the dumber of the two, probably the victim of some inherently vicious genetic malaise. Therefore, all of Steinbeck's works have a tendency to explain genetic predispositions very well and should be a focal point of any and all genetic engineers in their studies.

That's one hell of a leap to make in my logic and it really is nonsensical. Perhaps genetic engineers could take a moral or ethical lesson from the story of George and Lenny and remind themselves of what can happen if some of their experiments go wrong. However, it's certainly not in any way an authoritative text on the science of genetics at all.

Science is incomplete, and will always be incomplete because evidence concerning the past are probably no longer detectable. (Hundreds of billions of years from now, evidence for the Big Bang will no longer be viewable, due to the continued expansion of the universe. So if anyone is doing science in that day, their science will not include the Big Bang. So what are we missing today, that would drastically change our outlook on science?)



Only an account from someone who's seen everything, will complete our science. Since we do science by our observation, someone who's seen everything will know way more, and that kind of science trumps ours. That is omniscience.

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Snakes flick their tongues as that is the way they smell

Surely. Yet, you don't think that as they flick their tongue while sliding across the ground, they may just flick up a dirt particle at least once?

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Well that is not how the moon works and as has already been stated it is not always full moon now is it. The moon is a reflection of sunlight and were it a simple parabolic or other shaped mirror, there would be no night at full moon.

Pretty obvious, the goatherders had no clue as to astral bodies and even their description of stars suggests they saw them as mere twinkly things and NOT distant planets or suns or galaxies.

You cannot make science fit the bible as the bible is fiction. They got it wrong.

This thread is like that lady that said the sun was mirrors reflecting gods glory

With the moon, you don't think the Israelites (even though they be goat herders) would experience nights where the moon wasn't shining? So why would they write it down, that the light of the moon (moon being implied as the lesser light) governs the night?


You see, the verse concerning this was pre-curse and pre-flood. So the conditions of the world was different back then. (What would it take for the moon to continously be seen each night I wonder?) So that is one answer concerning that verse, although I can't prove that answer just yet.



Also, I believe they had some concept of worlds out there. (Maybe not planets in particular, but that they saw the stars as more than just lights in the sky.) Look at Hebrews ch. 11 verse 3 which states....



"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"



So the writer of Hebrews implies there was more than one world, and that they were framed by God's word. (Going back to Genesis) Also, an interesting theory has come about through science. String theory. I'm not versed in this theory by any means (some of you would say I'm not versed with any scientific theory ), but it talks about strings of energy vibrating rapidly, which ultimately created everything we see today. Now anytime I think about vibration, I think about sound. When we speak, we make sound through the vibration of our vocal chords. Did God not say "Let their be light"? No other religion talks about their god creating the universe or earth through spoken words. Yet here is string theory as a possible way science is now looking at for everything we see to have come into existence. This is interesting stuff.





Ultimately, these are the kind of things I want to bring out with this topic.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

I'm not sure about your questioning concerning extinct animals and surviving the flood. Only that after the flood, there was a change in atmosphere.

The only possible change in the "atmosphere", something that has occurred would be due to a volcanic eruption or an earth strike by an interplanetary object.

Think about the cricket. It has six legs, but it only walks or creeps with four.

What were you saying?


Jerusalem Cricket - YouTube

Overall, the people were not stupid.

Well certainly not as stupid as some people are today.

[Eresh]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

No, the snake was cursed, losing the ability to use it's legs. It adapted to life without the use of it's legs, and through that adaptation, it evolved to where we see them to today. In the same way, when death came in, every creature adapted, to survive. Along the way we lost functions of certain parts of our body, and thus we evolved to the state we are today.

Snakes did not think "gee, I don't use my legs, so why bother growing them?" Snakes lost their forelegs due to a difference in their Hox genes expression in their anterior portion during embryonic development. Hind legs were lost later, due to a lack of Shh gene expression (also during embryonic development). They have thrived like that because of positive selective pressure.