How Far-Fetched Is Evolution?

[jasd]

>>"Behold I make all things new" does not indicate a repetitive pattern but rather a one-time restoration from the effects of the experiment of sin.<< [/ed.jasd]

I did not suggest a "repetitive pattern" per se; that said, how does what I've advanced - conflict with Gd making all things new? the once and yet future time? Nevertheless, it is

a reCreation, yes?

[epaminondas]

Sometimes one cannot calculate probabilities mathematically. For those cases one needs a survey - observation. E.g. what are the chances of a 65 year old man surviving a full year. One can say there are only two possible outcomes, and that's true - he survives or he doesn't. However, the probability is not 50% or 0.5. One needs a sizable survey, grouping people into risk factor groups, like smoking, diabetes, etc. Then one will know what the chances are.

However, sometimes one can calculate the probability, like the probability of the about thirteen steps in the clotting cascade coming about by itself. First question, which molecules are available for a reaction. Then, in how many ways can they interact and what are the products. Now we know the probability for step one.

Probability is the biggest obstacle to life originating spontaneously. And it goes beyond life. If certain powers, like the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, etc. were just slightly off their known values the required elements for life would never have formed.

[Dr. Shane]

Given our difficulty even in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2...

Using the Sola Scriptura method of interpretation, I think Genesis 1 and 2 are pretty clear about the beginning of life on this planet.

[jasd]

>>Using the Sola Scriptura method of interpretation,<<

Per the subject of sola scriptura: do you suppose that the following words of Jesus Christ address and legitimize an episcopacy?

Matt 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Matt 23:2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; ...

>>I think Genesis 1 and 2 are pretty clear about the beginning of life on this planet.<<

From whence sprang the earth covered with water? if the first act of creation was light... were the sun and the moon actually the lesser and the greater lights...? the intermittent articles or lack thereof as pertained creation days...? the spoken-into-existence of man and woman on the sixth day...? the formed and life-breathed creation of Adam... when?

Some embrace an earth canopy and others reject the concept... etc.

I don’t deny a Creator; however, I think it foolish should any one of us assert that truth, as exposited from Genesis 1 & 2, lies only with him or her... or his or her .org.

[Dr. Shane]

The beginning of life is clear. Life came from God. That is clear. Sin came before death. That is clear. God's work of creation was six literal days followed by one day of rest. That is clear.

However this thread isn't questioning creation or the Bible's account of it. The focus of the thread is how far fetched evolution is.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: jasd

Given our difficulty even in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2...

Using the Sola Scriptura method of interpretation, I think Genesis 1 and 2 are pretty clear about the beginning of life on this planet.

That is true -- especially when we note God's summary of it -- written in stone "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..."

It is impossible wedge into that "not really six days" -- which means that Gen 1 and 2 are then "locked in".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The far fetched nature of evolutionism begins with

1. Abiogenesis. (The tired old alchemy that living cells pop into existence from non-living systems)

2. Amoeba-to-man genome morphing. (The lead-turns-to-gold alchemy for living systems.)

3. The "massive decrease in entropy" (Isaac Asimov) for "molecule-to-human-mind" evolutionism.

4. The "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science because there is no way of putting them to the test" problem of using the fossil record to make wild claims about "what" is the "ancestor to what". (As Paleontologist Colin Patterson noted).

5. The fact that the entire system of belief is rife with publically confirmed frauds many of which were historically used for decades to prop-up evolutionism as if it were real science.

6. The fact that for Bible believing Christians (particularly Sabbath keeping ones), the Clarity in Genesis 1 and 2 and in Ex 20:8-11 (that Shane pointed to) makes the counter doctrines of evolutionism - impossible from the start. Though I do admit that for Sabbath-rejecting theistic evolutionists (i.e. typical non-SDA arguments) they simple continue their logic against Sabbath that already stated "no Sabbath in Eden", "no Sabbath created for mankind", "sabbath invented at Sinai", "Sabbath for Jews only" -- with a "and no literal days needed in the Gen 1 story" as the last step in their Evolutionism-and-the-Bible argument.

We can all see how that last step would not be a huge leap for the non-SDA theistic evolutionist in that case. I still don't know now SDA theistic evolutionists get there.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

Originally Posted By: jasd

Given our difficulty even in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2...

Using the Sola Scriptura method of interpretation, I think Genesis 1 and 2 are pretty clear about the beginning of life on this planet.

succintly put.

G

[jasd]

>>The beginning of life is clear.<<

Biblically so... but then, we all know of the lack of understanding vis-à-vis much that is Biblical, not to mention the great numbers of contradictions both the OT and the NT contain.

Faith brother, faith

>>Life came from God. That is clear.<<

Biblically so; that said, I may be more Biblical than you, Shane.

>>Sin came before death.<<

Sin originated in heaven. What/which heaven? How correlate or complementary to the heaven of an earlier earth? and how causal was it?

>>God's work of creation was six literal days followed by one day of rest. That is clear.<<

Six literal days do no denote a sequentially contiguous "six literal days". Perhaps, that is why Writ uses the definite article so interspersively - leaving the text open to a higher criticism - that it can be equally read that vast epochs may have separated at least a few of those six literal days.

>>However this thread isn't questioning creation or the Bible's account of it. The focus of the thread is how far fetched evolution is.<<

I noticed that; but how far-fetched may be a very relative thing to the parochialist? You made your point – and, what followed is

endemic to forums.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Given our difficulty even in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2...

Quote:Shane

Using the Sola Scriptura method of interpretation, I think Genesis 1 and 2 are pretty clear about the beginning of life on this planet.

>>That is true -- especially when we note God's summary of it -- written in stone "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..."<<

Words in stone, yes? Okay, but we might want to take a look at how Jesus Christ rendered them synecdochic; that is, He represents that they are but a partial portrayal of the greater read. For instance:

take Jesus Christ vis-à-vis the commandment [in stone] that one should not commit adultery - y’know, “whosoever looketh upon a woman with lust in his heart is guilty of adultery...” [/paraphrased]

Or, similarly, His saying re “Thou shalt not kill”.

Same tablets of stone, yes?

So, given the examples provided by Jesus Christ, in what manner might Six Days also be no more than synecdochic?

>>It is impossible wedge into that "not really six days" -- which means that Gen 1 and 2 are then "locked in".<<

The fact that Gd created the world and all that in it is – in six contiguous days – can only be inferred. It is not linguistically explicit as presented in Holy Writ. The text lends itself (read my preceding post) more to the fact that though those days may have, in fact, been literal evenings and mornings, they were not immediately contiguous.

[jasd]

>>6. The fact that for Bible believing Christians (particularly Sabbath keeping ones), the Clarity in Genesis 1 and 2 and in Ex 20:8-11 (that Shane pointed to) makes the counter doctrines of evolutionism - impossible from the start. Though I do admit that for Sabbath-rejecting theistic evolutionists (i.e. typical non-SDA arguments) they simple continue their logic against Sabbath that already stated "no Sabbath in Eden", "no Sabbath created for mankind", "sabbath invented at Sinai", "Sabbath for Jews only" -- with a "and no literal days needed in the Gen 1 story" as the last step in their Evolutionism-and-the-Bible argument.<<

Hmmm, sounds like quite the parochially-generated indictment of the Body of Jesus Christ, yes?

Well, well and good - should you be correct in your doctrines; however, there is the additional one – whom you seem to have overlooked...

that is, one who holds that Holy Writ is inspired and ought to be taken at face value; that is, Gd kept His Sabbath from being polluted before the heathens – by removing it from those who were covenanted to exemplify it – ‘before the heathen’.

Simple to verify by reading Jeremiah’s ‘Lamentations’ and Hosea’s ‘Hosea’... Both are very explicit.