Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[benjamin1973]

Wow. Evolution refuted. . . you’ve finally done it! Well done.

 

[edwest211]

Yes, there should be a lot more bones of ‘less fit’ animals that died out quickly. No actual transitionals exist, just speculation. Has science tried to put things in some sort of order? Yes. But if one insists on one observation point only, then that raises problems. Consider a bullet fired from short range and one fired from a longer range. A difference of one degree does not matter much at close range but as distances go past a certain point, one degree means missing the target completely. If one goes back millions of years, a one degree error is far, far too large, and there are obviously an extremely large number of pieces of missing information. Such a large puzzle, with so many missing pieces, could use some alternate interpretations, like guided design, but that is automatically excluded.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks. If I knew it would be that easy I would have done it on the first thread…

Perhaps you missed the point?

 

[Bradskii]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Which line is longer?

We can be fooled by what we observe.

Bradski: Are these lines different lengths?
Buffalo: Hell yes.I don’t need to investigate further. It’s obvious to anyone with eyes in his head.

Bradski: Are these aspects of organisms designed?
Buffalo: Hell yes.I don’t need to investigate further. It’s obvious to anyone with eyes in his head.

Buffalo: Oh, hang on. I see your point…

Now I’ve got ten bucks that says one of our creation buddies will respond using exactly that format but reversing the outcome. They won’t be able to resist. Any takers?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Such a large puzzle, with so many missing pieces, could use some alternate interpretations, like guided design, but that is automatically excluded.

No, it’s not. What an absurd idea. It’s excluded because it has such weak explanatory power for all the thousands of very similar fossils gradually changing over millions of years.

 

[Richca]

My reading of it is this: The first day started when God created light (Genesis 1:3). This light is then followed by an “evening” and a “morning” (v.5), thus completing “one day”. So the first day begins with light and ends with light (“morning”)’ with night in between. I can’t see anything cryptic about this description, as it is perfectly consistent with how we understand one 24-hour day to be.

I think you are right. The diurnal cycle of day and night is a major phenomenon we experience and observe on earth and the sacred writer is telling us that God is the creator and author of the light and darkness or day and night cycle. This account in the creation narrative of Genesis 1 was very important for the ancient Israelites as all the other surrounding nations believed material light or its source the sun and darkness or night to be themselves gods or the gods were created out of these phenomena and such like. Besides what appears to be the natural or obvious sense of Gen. 1: 3-5, I wouldn’t count out that there could be more to it.

Ditto for the description of the other five days mentioned.

I think this is a valid interpretation and possibly in a certain sense what the sacred writer intended. What I mean by ‘in a certain sense what the sacred writer intended’ is this: Moses or the sacred writer condensed God’s work of creation by divine inspiration or revelation within a seven day framework so that for one thing God’s ‘six days’ work of creation and resting on the seventh day could be imitable by humans. Even in this sense, I believe God’s ‘six days’ of work are symbolic of indefinite periods of time but the sacred writer condensed it into ‘six days’ for the sake of simplicity, for getting to the point, and for the ever important seventh or Sabbath Day which is at the heart of the old divinely given law of the Israelites. For example, I think it was irrelevant for Moses or the sacred writer to say precisely in the history of the universe when God created the marine animals except as to his point as to their origin, namely, that God created them. And the same goes for the rest of the major phenomena of the world in the creation narrative that we observe.

The main point for Moses or the sacred writer is that the origin of the whole of creation and all its varied creatures is from God who created it all whether this took six days or 15 billion years. Indeed, apart from divine revelation, Moses could not have known, for example, precisely when in the history of creation God created the marine animals. Moses received a lot of revelations from God and he very well could have been told by God either precisely or in a general way the history of the marine animals or simply that God created them. Whatever the case, through divine inspiration or revelation, God was guiding and confirming the sacred writer’s creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The ‘scientific’ details concerning the exact ‘age’ of the earth or world concerning the appearance of the marine animals are unnecessary details for the sacred writer’s theological intent or creation of them as well as to the immediate audience of the creation narrative and even for us. These sort of details were left for later generations to inquire into such as our own and even we have only an estimate and even these estimates are disputed by some. Truly, the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 is a literary masterpiece in its ‘summary’ or condensed completeness and to the point origin of the whole of creation and its manifold variety of creatures in the heavens, on the earth, and in the seas unparalleled in the history of mankind.

 

[edwest211]

The sacred writer’s purpose was not purely theological. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

John 5:46

New International Version
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

New Living Translation
If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.

English Standard Version
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

47

New International Version
But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

New Living Translation
But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"

English Standard Version
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

From Catholic Answers:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

 

[edwest211]

No. NO. I can’t take it… anymore… Blacking… out…

Ed

 

[Techno2000]

No. NO. I can’t take it… anymore… Blacking… out…

Ed

…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Moses or the sacred writer condensed God’s work of creation by divine inspiration or revelation within a seven day framework so that for one thing God’s ‘six days’ work of creation and resting on the seventh day could be imitable by humans. … […] … it was irrelevant for Moses or the sacred writer to say precisely in the history of the universe when God created the marine animals except as to his point as to their origin, namely, that God created them.

The ‘scientific’ details concerning the exact ‘age’ of the earth or world concerning the appearance of the marine animals are unnecessary details for the sacred writer’s theological intent as well as to the immediate audience of the creation narrative and even for us.

All exactly what I think too. Well done.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

From Glark: Ditto for the description of the other five days mentioned.

From Richca: I think this is a valid interpretation and possibly in a certain sense what the sacred writer intended.

Some more comments concerning the ‘days’ of Genesis 1-2:3. Notice that most of the days are without a definite article. For example, the scripture does not say the second day, the third day, and so on. The seventh day does have the definite article the. From what I’ve read, the sixth day also has the definite article the in the hebrew text of the Old Testament but you may not find this in your english translation Bible. This is significant. What was the sacred writer’s purpose for doing this? Why do the sixth and seventh days have the definite article the and the other days do not? The seventh day is obviously significant because that day denotes God’s completion and rest of all the work he had done in creation. As St Thomas Aquinas points out, the seventh day is also significant in that it denotes that all of creation, all creatures, find their ‘rest,’ their end or final cause, their terminus of existence, in God. This is especially true of human beings in which our end is the beatific vision or eternal rest and happiness in God. The sixth day with the article the, is significant because it concerns the creation of man in the image and likeness of God and which marks the completion of God’s work of creation.

Some have suggested that the significance of days 1-5 without the definite article means that it is possible to interpret syntactically the seven days of Genesis as not necessarily meaning that God created the world and everything in it in six 24 hour days or that it necessarily demands a strict chronological or historical sequence as it is written except for those phenomena that necessarily demands their creation before others such as the seas before the filling of it with the marine animals and such like. For example, suppose I tell someone that one day I went to the store, a second day I went for a walk in the park, a third day I went to the bank. Could this person I tell this too conclusively say that I did all these things in 3 sequential days or 72 hours or in the precise order I told them? Not necessarily. I may have done these things over a span of seven days and not even in the order I told them. This is an interesting phenomenon concerning the syntax the sacred writer of Genesis 1-2:1-3 used. See this interesting article:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/39/39-4/39-4-pp529-536_JETS.pdf

Another comment. The significance of God setting the example for us concerning work and rest is that work takes up a great part of our lives, even our daily lives, that we should sanctify our work and direct it to the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, i.e., the glory and praise of God.

 

[edwest211]

This is just speculation. I’m not arguing for a literal interpretation but check the Catechism. The starting point for correct interpretation of Scripture is the literal. The other types of language usage comes after study.

 

[buffalo]

Moses could not have known, for example, precisely when in the history of creation God created the marine animals.

He couldn’t have? What if God told Him? or He compiled the Pentateuch from written sources He had on hand?

 

[Richca]

Richca:

Moses could not have known, for example, precisely when in the history of creation God created the marine animals.

He couldn’t have? What if God told Him? or He compiled the Pentateuch from written sources He had on hand?

Yes, I said ‘Indeed, apart from divine revelation, Moses could not have known, for example, precisely when in the history of creation God created the marine animals,’ as, for example, whether on the 5th day of the history of the world or the 500 millionth year. Even Adam would have had to be told by God how old the world is since its beginning.

 

[edwest211]

Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just as the prophets were inspired to speak not their words but God’s.

Jeremiah 1:9

New International Version
Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "I have put my words in your mouth.

New Living Translation
Then the LORD reached out and touched my mouth and said, "Look, I have put my words in your mouth!

English Standard Version
Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.

New American Standard Bible
Then the LORD stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me, "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.

Matthew 17:3:

New International Version
Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

New Living Translation
Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared and began talking with Jesus.

English Standard Version
And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.

 

[benjamin1973]

If man’s eyes were designed by God, why are we deceived by illusions? Is it because we’ve sinned, and therefore God doesn’t want us to be able to measure lines accurately? Is God punishing us by making those two lines look different to us?

 

[buffalo]

If man’s eyes were designed by God, why are we deceived by illusions? Is it because we’ve sinned, and therefore God doesn’t want us to be able to measure lines accurately? Is God punishing us by making those two lines look different to us?

It is simply a illustration of looking at the same thing and being able to draw different conclusions.

We look at the same observations yet the evo and creation worldview reason different conclusions.

 

[Glark]

And it’s not an issue of technology-- they’ve had boats capable of crossing the Atlantic for thousands of years.

Exactly. If evolution is true, Europeans would have had sea-going boats for maybe 50,000 years or more - yet they only discovered the Americas 500 years ago. That doesn’t add up.

 

[Glark]

No, that’s not obvious at all. There are at least two more interpretations: 1) it was an allegory; 2) the numbers are numerological rather than historical. We also don’t know the significance of those dates to people of the writer’s culture. Some dates may already have been considered prophetic or significant.

Re 1) (Sigh …) As I have already explained, allegory wouldn’t feature the precise chronological details involved.

Re 2) Where is your evidence that the Israelites/Jews interpreted it according to some form of numerology?