• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
In ancient times, many people thought that the earth was flat. In the fifth century B.C.E., Greek scientists suggested that it was a sphere. But long before that—in the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah referred to “the circle of the earth,” using a word that may also be rendered “sphere.”—Isaiah 40:22
The word means circle and just describes the horizon. The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22
Oh good grief! The pillars are figurative....intended to convey foundations. No scientists back then to explain gravity ya know.
Oh good grief! Everything the Bible gets wrong is meant figuratively of course. Here is an interesting article by Louis Jacobs Lecturer in Talmud, Leo Baeck College, London. "The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc" Jewish Cosmology - Friends of Louis Jacobs
People are free to choose whatever translation they like, but the most widely accepted Bible canon is the one I believe stands up to scrutiny. Apocryphal books do not harmonise with the rest. The Bible is one story, told by many writers over 1610 years. All were Jewish and from diverse backgrounds. Its internal harmony is evidence of its divine inspiration.

Genesis to Revelation is the story of God's dealings with the human race. It tells us a lot about him and his requirements....and how our relationship with our Creator was sabotaged. Revelation tells us how we get back what we lost in Eden. In between we learn about the details as they were gradually revealed. It's a fascinating journey and the destination is well worth the travel sickness.
You wrote and I quote: "Since God is the author of the Bible, he also decided what its contents should be." Please Deeje tell us which of these Bibles God decided the contents of:
The Jewish, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Anglican, the Greek Orthodox or the Ethiopian? Bibles

You are a great asset for atheists Deeje. If it hadn't been for the inspiration you and your posts give me I would never have spent so much time researching the many ways the Bibles are wrong.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
When one side is as dogmatic as you appear to be, we can all see why many just give up. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Since when did being dogmatic win a debate? You have obviously never tested the theory you subscribe to. If you had, you would see what is clearly evident...there is no real evidence....there is only lots of pie in the sky suggestion.

Did you read sapiens "Evolution in Action" post? It is supposed to be evidence from science that evolution has taken place, but really read it. No, let me show you what it really says as opposed to what some may think it says....

Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection can be tested by experiment. Since the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, biologists have devised many ingenious ways to examine the effect of natural selection on living organisms. This article looks at three such studies.

Endler’s Guppies
In the late 1970s, American zoologist John Endler tested Darwin’s theory using a popular species of aquarium fish, the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Male guppies have brightly colored spots to attract females, but these spots also attract predators. It had previously been observed that males living in streams where there were many predatory fish tended to have fewer spots, which lessened their risk of being eaten, whereas those who lived in streams with fewer predators had more spots.


The number of spots on male guppies is related to the number of predators in their environment. Photograph by R. Champagne

To replicate this effect experimentally, Endler placed groups of male and female guppies in three ponds that were identical except that one pond contained no predators, one contained a species of predatory fish that preys specifically on guppies, and one contained a different predatory fish that does not feed on guppies.

After leaving the guppies to breed for 20 months (representing several generations for the fish, which begin reproducing when they are about 3 months old), Endler found that the males in the ponds containing no predators or predators that do not eat guppies had significantly more spots than the males that shared their pond with a guppy predator. As male guppies’ coloration is inherited from their fathers, this experiment provides strong evidence that spot number in guppies has evolved as a “trade-off” between the need to attract mates and the need to avoid being eaten.

What is this saying? Spots on the tails of guppies prove that guppies remain guppies. As if spots on their tails are really "evolution".....are they serious? Adaptive change is not evolution. The guppies will always be guppies.
The "evidence" is as weak as dishwater.

Ecotypic Variation in the Dominican Anole
While Endler’s guppies show how natural selection can lead to a marked change in a character that affects the survival and reproduction of a population, recent research on a lizard, the Dominican anole (Anolis oculatus), illustrates one way in which new species might arise.


The toe length, scale pattern and other features of the Dominican anole vary according to its habitat. Photograph by B. Kimmel

In this experiment, researchers placed similar groups of anoles in secure enclosures located in a variety of island habitats ranging from dry coastal woodland to mountain rainforest. When they later measured characters that had earlier been shown to be at least partly inherited, such as leg and toe length, the width of the head and scale color and shape, they found that these features now varied between the different lizard populations in a pattern that depended on their habitat.

This finding is especially interesting because it hints at how speciation might occur in nature. If the experimental groups of A. oculatus had been kept in isolation for many more generations, the differences between them might have eventually become so great that zoologists would classify them as separate species.


Indeed, splitting of species due to geographical separation – a process known as “allopatric speciation” – appears to have happened already among anole lizards in the Caribbean, where different islands, with different habitats, are each home to different species.

OK...what about this one? Read it. What does the bolded portion say?

Like Darwin's findings on the Galapagos Islands.....habitat differences produce variety within a taxonomic family. This is again "adaptation" not evolution. The lizards were still lizards of the same family.

"When they later measured characters that had earlier been shown to be at least partly inherited, such as leg and toe length, the width of the head and scale color and shape, they found that these features now varied between the different lizard populations in a pattern that depended on their habitat.

This finding is especially interesting because it hints at how speciation might occur in nature. If the experimental groups of A. oculatus had been kept in isolation for many more generations, the differences between them might have eventually become so great that zoologists would classify them as separate species."

Suggestions masquerading as facts.

Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth
Perhaps the most famous example of evolution in action is the case of the peppered moth (Biston betularia), which illustrates the concept of “selection pressure” – the force that drives evolution.

Evolution_in_Action_Fig.3-300x184.jpg

The black form of the peppered moth thrived in polluted industrial areas. Photograph by L.B. Tettenborn

The British peppered moth feeds at night and spends the day resting on tree trunks, where it is at risk of being eaten by birds. Until the mid-1890s, all peppered moths had a pale, speckled coloration that provided camouflage against the pale lichen that covered the bark of their trees. In the latter half of the 19th century, however, a black form of the moth was first observed, and by 1900 almost all peppered moths in urban areas were black, whereas most of those in rural areas remained pale.

This 50-year period coincided with the rise of industrialization in British cities, and it was suggested that the change in moth color in urban areas was due to sulfur dioxide fumes from factories killing the lichen on tree trunks. The dark bark beneath was good camouflage for black peppered moths, but pale moths were now at a disadvantage because they were more easily spotted by predatory birds.

In 1956, the entomologist H. Bernard Kettlewell set about examining this hypothesis by collecting, marking and releasing both black and pale peppered moths in Birmingham (an urban area) and Dorset (a rural area). He then laid more traps to recapture the marked moths, and observed that a smaller proportion of the pale form was recaptured in Birmingham and a smaller proportion of the dark form in Dorset. This finding was consistent with the suggestion that pale moths were more conspicuous – and therefore easier prey for birds – in areas with dark, polluted trees, whereas dark moths were more likely to be eaten in rural areas with pale, lichen-covered trees. It could be concluded that the selection pressure of bird predation had driven the evolution of two different forms of B. betularia.

Kettlewell’s experiment has been repeated, and his conclusion confirmed, several times, most recently in 2003. Since the Clean Air Act of 1956, however, emissions of sulfur dioxide have decreased in the UK, and these later studies have documented the decline of the dark peppered moth in industrial regions. By 1985, it had largely disappeared from the Midlands and was found in high numbers only in the far North East of England.

The peppered moth was found to still be a peppered moth. Adaptation had facilitated a color change to ensure survival. Again this is not evolution but two moths of a different color belonging to the same family. They will never be anything but peppered moths.

Short-lived Species Provide Evidence of Natural Selection
It might be difficult to observe the evolution of long-lived animals such as tortoises, elephants and humans, but, as these three experiments show, fish, insects and other species with short generation times are ideal subjects for the study of natural selection in action.

Natural selection provides the basis for adaptation. Every creature is endowed with this ability but it never produces a species outside of its "kind". Blind Freddy can see how flimsy the "evidence" really is just by reading what they actually say.

If you want to fall for this weak argument, then that is up to you. Are you that easily convinced by nothing but speculation and suggestion?
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Since when did being dogmatic win a debate? You have obviously never tested the theory you subscribe to. If you had, you would see what is clearly evident...there is no real evidence....there is only lots of pie in the sky suggestion.

Yes, I believe science is based on this presumption - pie in the sky - and some seem to be eating it all to the detriment of the rest. :D :D :D
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The word means circle and just describes the horizon. The Circle of the Earth: Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22

I agree with this part..."We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God......Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived."

God is a teacher and yes, humans had a simplistic view of creation before science was ever a subject for study.
The heavens were a testimony to round discs in the sky. The sun and moon were both round and as we have come to realize over time, almost all the heavenly bodies are round. It is hard to understand a round earth having "four corners" though, isn't it? (Revelation 7:1)...unless you cut it in quarters like an apple.

Oh good grief! Everything the Bible gets wrong is meant figuratively of course. Here is an interesting article by Louis Jacobs Lecturer in Talmud, Leo Baeck College, London. "The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc" Jewish Cosmology - Friends of Louis Jacobs

"Jewish preoccupation was with the God of the cosmos not with the cosmos itself. There was, to be sure, a profound interest in natural phenomena but chiefly as pointers to God who initiated them and whose glory was revealed through them."

This is very true. Who has argued with this? David appreciated creation but it was because of its Creator and the wisdom he showed in what David observed. He was no scientist.

You wrote and I quote: "Since God is the author of the Bible, he also decided what its contents should be." Please Deeje tell us which of these Bibles God decided the contents of:
The Jewish, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Anglican, the Greek Orthodox or the Ethiopian? Bibles

The truth can be found in all Bibles. According to the apostle Paul "...the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart"

It is the word of God itself that has the power to reach and to teach a receptive heart. Unreceptive hearts, like Jesus' parable of the soil in which the seed of truth is planted, will never see anything grow. The seed gets choked out of existence. (Matthew 13:3-9) Everyone will fall into one of those categories that Jesus described.


Men might be able to mess with a word here and there, or the punctuation and even by adding books that don't belong....but they will never change the Bible's message. I became a JW studying the KJV....a translation I have come to dislike intensely. Go figure. :shrug:

You are a great asset for atheists Deeje. If it hadn't been for the inspiration you and your posts give me I would never have spent so much time researching the many ways the Bibles are wrong.

That is excellent ArtieE. Then I have done my job, which is to make people think and evaluate things. Those so informed will never be able to use the excuse that they didn't know or that they were never informed...will they?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Yes, I believe science is based on this presumption - pie in the sky - and some seem to be eating it all to the detriment of the rest.

Just one particular branch of science seems to be the problem....and yes, it is like a virus affecting the rest.
A collective state of mind that seems to be spread by contact with large egos and liberal doses of derision. :p
We all know that only unindoctrinated, I mean uneducated morons would refuse a slice of that pie. :D
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
What is this saying? Spots on the tails of guppies prove that guppies remain guppies. As if spots on their tails are really "evolution".....are they serious? Adaptive change is not evolution. The guppies will always be guppies.
Adaptive change is evolution by definition. "Evolution" is the name we give to the process that CAUSES adaptive change within a population, whether it be a few spots on a tail or the development of entirely distinct species, it is still "evolution".

Also "guppies will always be guppies" is not an observation that contradicts common ancestry or evolution. Variation occurs within the taxa, and over time produces variations that result in the diversification of that taxa. Guppies remain guppies, but produce variations of guppies. Mammals remain mammals, but produce variations of mammals. Eukaryotes remain eukaryotes, but produce variations of eukaryotes. Thus, all life shares common ancestry because all living things are eukaryotes.

Why do you not understand these extremely basic facets of evolutionary theory when you've been discussing it for this long, Deeje? Even if you don't agree with it, you should at least be familiar with what evolution theory actually IS and SAYS by now. Why aren't you?
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Why do you not understand these extremely basic facets of evolutionary theory when you've been discussing it for this long, Deeje? Even if you don't agree with it, you should at least be familiar with what evolution theory actually IS and SAYS by now. Why aren't you?

Why can't I swallow the whole scenario? For the simple reason that "evolution" is not just adaptation. Adaptation is given as proof that evolution happens. But adaptive change never takes a creature outside of its taxonomic family. Macro-evolution "suggests" that adaptation necessarily leads to macro-evolution, when there is not a shred of actual evidence that it is even possible outside of their imagination.

The example shared by sapiens should make you all cringe if you believe that this is science. To say that something "might have" happened and then behave as if it did, is not true science in anyone's definition....it is science fiction.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
God is a teacher and yes, humans had a simplistic view of creation before science was ever a subject for study.
I expected you to simply come up with arguments why you think the articles are wrong but you didn't so that is progress from your part.
It is the word of God itself that has the power to reach and to teach a receptive heart. Unreceptive hearts, like Jesus' parable of the soil in which the seed of truth is planted, will never see anything grow. The seed gets choked out of existence. (Matthew 13:3-9) Everyone will fall into one of those categories that Jesus described.

Men might be able to mess with a word here and there, or the punctuation and even by adding books that don't belong....but they will never change the Bible's message. I became a JW studying the KJV....a translation I have come to dislike intensely. Go figure. :shrug:
OK fair enough. May I then ask that you, instead of saying just "The Bible" specify which Bible out of the 6 you use and then the translation? I ask because for example in the KJV Psalm 51:5 says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." while The New International Version says: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The Book of Daniel is particularly confusing.

The Greek text of Daniel is considerably longer than the Hebrew, due to three additional stories: they were accepted by all branches of Christianity until the Protestant movement rejected them in the 16th century on the basis that they were absent from Hebrew Bibles, but remain in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.[22]
Book of Daniel - Wikipedia
That is excellent ArtieE. Then I have done my job, which is to make people think and evaluate things. Those so informed will never be able to use the excuse that they didn't know or that they were never informed...will they?
No and I fully agree. I am also doing my best to inform people. And on that note I would like to quote from an article I just found searching for evolution in connection with the Bibles. "Those who oppose evolution as incompatible with biblical Christianity run the risk of pressing the text beyond what is written and placing an unnecessary barrier before non-Christian investigators. We believe Christians should help people understand that evolution as an explanation for biological life is compatible with scripture."
Evolution and the Bible | Xenos Christian Fellowship
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Natural selection provides the basis for adaptation. Every creature is endowed with this ability but it never produces a species outside of its "kind".
For this to be true, you need to provide a clear, specific definition of "kind" and a an example of how you can test whether or not two or more organisms (or populations of organisms) classify as the same or different "kind".

I have asked this hundreds of times in countless debates about evolution, and I have never once been given such a definition or any such kind of test. Unless you can clearly show what a "kind" is and how you can determine what "kind" something else, you cannot possibly assert that animals remain within certain "kinds". So, please furnish me with a precise definition and a test.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I expected you to simply come up with arguments why you think the articles are wrong but you didn't so that is progress from your part.OK fair enough. May I then ask that you, instead of saying just "The Bible" specify which Bible out of the 6 you use and then the translation? I ask because for example in the KJV Psalm 51:5 says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." while The New International Version says: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The Book of Daniel is particularly confusing.

The Greek text of Daniel is considerably longer than the Hebrew, due to three additional stories: they were accepted by all branches of Christianity until the Protestant movement rejected them in the 16th century on the basis that they were absent from Hebrew Bibles, but remain in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.[22]
Book of Daniel - Wikipedia
No and I fully agree. I am also doing my best to inform people. And on that note I would like to quote from an article I just found searching for evolution in connection with the Bibles. "Those who oppose evolution as incompatible with biblical Christianity run the risk of pressing the text beyond what is written and placing an unnecessary barrier before non-Christian investigators. We believe Christians should help people understand that evolution as an explanation for biological life is compatible with scripture."
Evolution and the Bible | Xenos Christian Fellowship

This will require more effort than time allows at present. I'll be back after a good nights sleep. The tyranny of time zones. zzzzz
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Why can't I swallow the whole scenario?
I'm not asking you to "swallow the whole scenario". I'm asking you to at least acknowledge and understand very basic facts about what evolution actually says. I'm not sure how you got this reading when I made it extremely explicit that my argument was that even if you don't agree with evolutionary theory, you should still be at least familiar with what it says after debating it as extensively as you have. So why aren't you?

For the simple reason that "evolution" is not just adaptation. Adaptation is given as proof that evolution happens.
Again, evolution is the name we give to the process that causes adaptation. Saying "adaptation isn't proof of evolution" is like saying "things with mass being attracted to each other isn't proof of gravity".

But adaptive change never takes a creature outside of its taxonomic family.
As my post clearly explained, that's not what evolution does and evolution has NEVER claimed populations diversify outside of their taxa.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously right now, Deeje. I literally JUST SAID THIS in the very post you're quoting. Here it is again:

"Also "guppies will always be guppies" is not an observation that contradicts common ancestry or evolution. Variation occurs within the taxa, and over time produces variations that result in the diversification of that taxa. Guppies remain guppies, but produce variations of guppies. Mammals remain mammals, but produce variations of mammals. Eukaryotes remain eukaryotes, but produce variations of eukaryotes. Thus, all life shares common ancestry because all living things are eukaryotes."

Macro-evolution "suggests" that adaptation necessarily leads to macro-evolution, when there is not a shred of actual evidence that it is even possible outside of their imagination.
Macro-evolution has been directly observed multiple times.

The example shared by sapiens should make you all cringe if you believe that this is science. To say that something "might have" happened and then behave as if it did, is not true science in anyone's definition....it is science fiction.
So, to you, someone using uncertain language is proof that what they're saying is complete fantasy? In that case, if they had replaced all "might haves" with "definitely did", would you change your mind and consider what they say to be fact?
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Just one particular branch of science seems to be the problem....and yes, it is like a virus affecting the rest.
A collective state of mind that seems to be spread by contact with large egos and liberal doses of derision. :p
We all know that only unindoctrinated, I mean uneducated morons would refuse a slice of that pie. :D

Yeah, that's me and all the rest of the more sensible - uneducated morons - keep believing that Deeje - except I don't have a religious belief dictating what I think, unlike yourself. :p :p

Free yourself from this delusion! :D
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No, your logic is sound except everyone keeps treating ToE like it's real theory, real science. It's not theory nor science. It doesn't stand in the absense of conflicting data or in its presence. It doesn't stand at all without crutches and props.

There is no theory. There is only assumption.

It stands in every test it has been subjected to and has never been falsified.

Yes there is a theory of evolution, hence the appellation "theory" of evolution.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


Please provide evidence in the form of citation ot link to your claimed conflicting data. Lets see if it can be falsified and if it has been peer reviewed. I.e. meet the scientific method
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
For this to be true, you need to provide a clear, specific definition of "kind" and a an example of how you can test whether or not two or more organisms (or populations of organisms) classify as the same or different "kind".

I have asked this hundreds of times in countless debates about evolution, and I have never once been given such a definition or any such kind of test. Unless you can clearly show what a "kind" is and how you can determine what "kind" something else, you cannot possibly assert that animals remain within certain "kinds". So, please furnish me with a precise definition and a test.
There is no precise definition. According to the Bible a kind can be anything from a broad class of animals down to separate species. A stork and a heron are different kinds. Locust, bald locust and grasshopper are different kinds. Biblical Kind
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
There is no precise definition. According to the Bible a kind can be anything from a broad class of animals down to separate species. A stork and a heron are different kinds. Locust, bald locust and grasshopper are different kinds. Biblical Kind
In my experience, this appears to be about the best that can be offered, and not a single time have I ever seen anyone present a test to determine "kind". As far as I'm concerned, evoking "kind" without a clear definition or a test means you're basically saying nothing meaningful and have already conceded the debate.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Who told you that? Evolutionists? :rolleyes: LOL

Just about every physicists, chemists, biologists, earth scientists, astronomers, technologists, engineers, and so on, will tell you that.

The only people who would tell you otherwise, are not scientists, such as the creationists and pseudoscience ID.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
My conclusion: Often you need to assemble two or more pieces of the puzzle before you can clearly see where, once put together, they fit into the whole.

You have two different pieces from two different puzzles and are force fitting them into a very distorted picture.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
It stands in every test it has been subjected to and has never been falsified.

Yes there is a theory of evolution, hence the appellation "theory" of evolution.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


Please provide evidence in the form of citation ot link to your claimed conflicting data. Lets see if it can be falsified and if it has been peer reviewed. I.e. meet the scientific method

I've already said this several times in this very thread but people are ignoring it.

Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it. This doesn't mean we can't kill all the light colored fish and get dark colored fish. But this is not the way new species arise. This is the way dark colored fish arise.

No experiment supports change in species or the fact of missing links. A dog suddenly arises from a wolf and a giraffe suddenly arose from its parents.

The site's working better today, I'll try an example. Perhaps the entire area where proto giraffes lives was overrun by a toxin or event that killed every single individual exposed except some that ate an antidote generally shunned or unavailable to other proto-giraffes. It was the eating of this food, a behavior, which allowed a few oddballs to survive. Genes underlie this behavior so the proto-giraffes bred a new species. This is what we see. This is how major change in species occurs. There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness.
 
Last edited:
Top