Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
I think it will be impossible for either of us to take a stand that the other would accept as “a rational, unprejudiced mind”. However, as to the literal meaning of Genesis and Exodus, I agree with you. To me, the days of Genesis are clearly ordinary 24-hour days, and I find the distortions of those who try to twist its words into a better semblance of history unconvincing and unnecessary. I do not think the late creation of the sun and moon was due to a clearing of the clouds, and I do not think that the animals in the ark were all juveniles in order to fit them all in. I think these stories were written, and for thousands of years mostly read, in the belief that they were word for word literally true in the sense that ordinary readers understood. However, I do think that some scholars, even from early times, had their doubts about whether they were literally true, or meant to be literally true.
Click to expand...
But indeed, the issue is what would ordinary readers understand. That is the question. You may be surprised at how many wrote that each day was a thousand years because elsewhere Scripture states that a day is as a thousand years to God. Now, in what way did they write? Did they believe, as I had always thought since young, that the thousand year day thing was metaphorical to say time isn’t really a thing God needs to worry about, or did they literally mean it took precisely 6,000 years through day 6?
And then if you consider that the early Church considered the Resurrection to be the 8th day in which Creation was made anew, perhaps that can be seen to frustrate the idea of what was clear to the average reader.
 
Techno2000 said:
That’s strange… because in real life, when the habitat goes, so does the animals… there is no golden parachute of DNA mutations to save them.
Click to expand...
There is. But it takes time, and if the habitat/environment goes too quickly, then there is insufficient time for the DNA to take effect. The mass slaughter of rhinos has taken place in the blink of an eye as far as rhinos are concerned.
 
Kei said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
I think it will be impossible for either of us to take a stand that the other would accept as “a rational, unprejudiced mind”. However, as to the literal meaning of Genesis and Exodus, I agree with you. To me, the days of Genesis are clearly ordinary 24-hour days, and I find the distortions of those who try to twist its words into a better semblance of history unconvincing and unnecessary. I do not think the late creation of the sun and moon was due to a clearing of the clouds, and I do not think that the animals in the ark were all juveniles in order to fit them all in. I think these stories were written, and for thousands of years mostly read, in the belief that they were word for word literally true in the sense that ordinary readers understood. However, I do think that some scholars, even from early times, had their doubts about whether they were literally true, or meant to be literally true.
Click to expand...
But indeed, the issue is what would ordinary readers understand. That is the question. You may be surprised at how many wrote that each day was a thousand years because elsewhere Scripture states that a day is as a thousand years to God. Now, in what way did they write? Did they believe, as I had always thought since young, that the thousand year day thing was metaphorical to say time isn’t really a thing God needs to worry about, or did they literally mean it took precisely 6,000 years through day 6?
And then if you consider that the early Church considered the Resurrection to be the 8th day in which Creation was made anew, perhaps that can be seen to frustrate the idea of what was clear to the average reader.
Click to expand...
The Angels play in heaven thinking only an hour has passed… when in reality a thousand years have passed.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
So I agree that it is broadly true that for much of ‘church history’ the literal interpretation of the Genesis was largely unchallenged on empirical grounds.
Click to expand...
It still has not been challenged empirically, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.
 
Kei said:
But indeed, the issue is what would ordinary readers understand. That is the question. You may be surprised at how many wrote that each day was a thousand years because elsewhere Scripture states that a day is as a thousand years to God.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. No doubt there were Church Fathers who, understanding a practical difficulty, tried to rationalise Genesis like that, but I don’t think many found it necessary. I was not able to find any in my researches. Also, of course, ‘ordinary’ people could neither read or write, so left very little idea of what they thought.
Now, in what way did they write? Did they believe, as I had always thought since young, that the thousand year day thing was metaphorical to say time isn’t really a thing God needs to worry about, or did they literally mean it took precisely 6,000 years through day 6?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. The point however is that as there was no scientific understanding of time or life, there was no need to interpret a day as a thousand years or vice versa. That kind of understanding of Genesis only needed to emerge in the light of scientific observation. St Augustine’s own idea was not based on observation, but on his understanding of theology.
And then if you consider that the early Church considered the Resurrection to be the 8th day in which Creation was made anew, perhaps that can be seen to frustrate the idea of what was clear to the average reader.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the eighth day was ever seen as anything other than metaphorical. It is not biblical at all.
 
Techno2000 said:
That’s strange… because in real life, when the habitat goes, so does the animals… there is no golden parachute of DNA mutations to save them.
Click to expand...
As Hugh said, that kind of animal did die out … but some of its relatives that lived elsewhere (perhaps because of a different mix of traits that enabled them to spread into other habitats) didn’t, and their descendants came to look more like the third creature in the picture.

The development of creature 3 (do we have a name for that one, Hugh? Techno2000 loves that picture, but doesn’t actually seem to have any information to go with it) did not only begin when, or because, creature 2 went extinct. You are still assigning (or assuming that evolutionists assign) more purpose and direction to evolution than is warranted.

The organisms that die, die. Sometimes as a result, entire species become no longer viable and go extinct. If some trait of an animal or species is detrimental to its survival, then that trait becomes less common in future generations because the animals that can pass it on are dying earlier and more often than those without it.

The organisms that survive, survive. If being different in some way helped with that survival, then that difference survives too, and becomes more common if it promotes survival and reproduction better than the alternatives.

That’s it. No purpose or plan or need to predict how the environment or the behavior of other creatures might change. Heredity, variation, differential survival and reproduction. That’s all you need. That’s how evolution happens.

Again, if you don’t think that’s enough to get us from microbes to humans, that’s cool. But even those antibiotic-resistant bacteria are real-life examples of evolution in action. (The micro/macro distinction is a creationist thing, as far as I can tell, not an actual distinction made in the science. It’s handy, since it lets creationists dismiss the changes that are small and fast enough to see in everyday life as “not really” evolution, and therefore not evidence.)
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
That’s strange… because in real life, when the habitat goes, so does the animals… there is no golden parachute of DNA mutations to save them.
Click to expand...
There is. But it takes time, and if the habitat/environment goes too quickly, then there is insufficient time for the DNA to take effect. The mass slaughter of rhinos has taken place in the blink of an eye as far as rhinos are concerned.
Click to expand...
Ok, so long as the habitat goes away slowly the DNA mutations are able to keep pace… that’s really far-fetched.
 
Whale diagram, from the top:
Sinonyx, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Megaptera
 
You realize that “this sequence of events happened in the past, just the one time” isn’t actually amenable to observation and repetition of the kind you describe, right? There can be empirical evidence for or against it indirectly, but “I went to the movies at 7:50 yesterday” is investigated by the methods of history and law — looking for witnesses and documentation and records that confirm details of the story — not by putting me in a lab and seeing if I do it again.
 
There is nothing in the bible to link the various eighth day celebrations with any understanding that they were the immediate chronological successors, to the original seven days. There are various mentions of the eighth day, but it is invariably the day after seven specified previous days (of life, of a celebration, etc.).
The Resurrection is not referred to as the eighth day at all. The idea is too metaphorical for it to have been comprehensible. It is invariably referred to as the third day, which makes more literal sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top