Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by PawnCurry
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

OK, where in here does it say the Earth isn't flat? As far as I'm aware, circle's are flat. Sphere's are 3 dimensional.

So confirmation in the Bible tha ...[text shortened]... xclusive? Maybe He just lit the cosmic fuse-wire, and stood back to watch His creation evolve?

A circle is round. The earth is round. A ball is also round. A ball is not flat, unless it's flat.😉 If you look at a ball from the top, you will see a circle. If you look at the earth from the top it also looks like a circle. Look at a circle from the side, its definately not flat. Look at the earth from the side, it is a circular sphere. I'd say a circle is more round than flat. Maybe you would like to point out where the Bible says that the earth is flat?

I think you should check out the original Greek for the word translated as "circle" though.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A circle is round. The earth is round. A ball is also round. A ball is not flat, unless it's flat.😉 If you look at a ball from the top, you will see a circle. If you look at the earth from the top it also looks like a circle. Look at a circle from the side, its definately not flat. Look at the earth from the side, it is a circular sphere. I'd say a cir ...[text shortened]... I think you should check out the original Greek for the word translated as "circle" though.

OK I disagree with your logic re roundness, circles and spheres, and if I could draw a Venn diagram on here I'd prove it, but that's not really the issue. I've checked out the following site:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/cosmology.html

And come up with this:-

When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word chuwg to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere!"

Maybe not the most objective source, but I'm willing to agree that English translations may have been mis-translated from Greek/Hebrew.

All of which makes my first post sound a little glib... which wasn't my intention 🙁

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is... I can agree that God created space, time and matter... but all the evidence that I can see points to a Universe greater than 6000 years old. I don't hold with the literal "world built in 6 days" malarkey either. God supposedly transcends time, or exists outside of time, so he wouldn't be in any rush to build earth in 6 days. Makes far more sense to me that the Universe is billions of years old, similarly the Earth. (All the evidence I've seen/heard points to this). He created the conditions in the Universe for stars and planets to form, and thereby life to emerge on Earth... and to evolve into modern-day humans. Whether he chose a specific moment to create the soul, or whether this is a function of the process of evolution, I don't know.

But, as things stand, that's what I believe to be closest to the truth - although of course, beliefs and attitudes can change.

But I seen no reason to use the Bible to prove that evolution is false - I stand by my assertion that a Creator and evolution (macro and micro) are entirely compatible.

And I think the URL I pasted in my last post is more than a sufficient rebuttall of your original URL.

Not that I enjoy debating by pasting links to someone else's ideas, but an eye for an eye and all that... 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

Yep. Why? Is Jesus Christ the Way? Should I be following Christ instead?

Originally posted by David C
Yep. Why? Is Jesus Christ the Way? Should I be following Christ instead?

Not "instead". The two are not competing beliefs.

Originally posted by PawnCurry
OK I disagree with your logic re roundness, circles and spheres, and if I could draw a Venn diagram on here I'd prove it, but that's not really the issue. I've checked out the following site:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/cosmology.html

And come up with this:-

[b]When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word chuwg to describe the shape o ...[text shortened]... joy debating by pasting links to someone else's ideas, but an eye for an eye and all that... 😉

My guess is that Isaiah had to have really good shocks on his chariot:
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth.

How many spheres have you seen with corners?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not "instead". The two are not competing beliefs.

I have a hard time believeing that given the discourse in this forum.

Originally posted by Frogstomp

How many spheres have you seen with corners?

Well I'm far from a Biblical translator/apologist, but apparently this is another mistranslation.

4 corners = 4 quarters, ie North, East, South, West.

Originally posted by David C
I have a hard time believeing that given the discourse in this forum.

That some people make a mess of it and turn it into an either/or does not mean it is intrinsically either/or. You should judge the argument, not the eloquence of the advocate.

Originally posted by PawnCurry
Well I'm far from a Biblical translator/apologist, but apparently this is another mistranslation.

4 corners = 4 quarters, ie North, East, South, West.

" four corner " traces back to the culture Abraham came from and is a holdover from Sumerian mythology. they also had a fifth corner " UP".

Originally posted by PawnCurry
Well I'm far from a Biblical translator/apologist, but apparently this is another mistranslation.

4 corners = 4 quarters, ie North, East, South, West.

also

YISHEYAH
(Book of Isaiah)
Chapter 11

12
And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

YISHEYAH
(Book of Isaiah)
Chapter 40

22
It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;

and my source
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
With the aid of Previous Versions and with
constant consultation of Jewish Authorities
Philadelphia
The Jewish Publication Society of America
Copyright © 1917, By The Jewish Publication Society of America

Originally posted by dj2becker
O.K. Before we get into macroevolution, let me start off at the begining with this question, How do you believe we all got here? Do you believe that Big Bang occured?

Why don't you just answer my question? What do you mean be 'macroevolution'? Do you mean evolution resulting in speciation or evolution resulting in a change in kind?

The Big Bang has nothing to do with any of this, so please desist from polluting this discussion with your typical nonsense.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why don't you just answer my question? What do you mean be 'macroevolution'? Do you mean evolution resulting in speciation or evolution resulting in a change in kind?

The Big Bang has nothing to do with any of this, so please desist from polluting this discussion with your typical nonsense.

I believe the fundies use the term "macroevolution" for the proposition that the chemical process called "life" developed from prior chemical processes i.e. "non-life". That's the best translation of their non-standard language that I can come up with.

Originally posted by jimmyb270
Okay, one last time, pay attention okay, I'm not going to say this again. You ready? Right then

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nothing, zip, squat, nada. Completely unrelated.
Nor does the creation of life have anything to do with the theory of evolution - except for the fact that it is where evolution started. Like the ...[text shortened]... w organisms adapt to their environment. That's it. Nothing else. Do you hear me? NOTHING ELSE!!

Sorry to intrude on the conversation. You are mistaken on rejecting connection between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory. Both are strongly rooted in naturalistic philosophy. In other words, they start with a priori claims that all events within the universe are explicable by natural causes alone (therefore eliminating the consideration of a god). A gross simplification of this position is: since it is impossible for supernatural intervention to occur, the universe and all of life have come into being via natural causes. The Big Bang and evolutionary theory are science's current best explanations of this occurence.
Therefore, if we refute evolution in favor of supernatural intervention, we disprove and discard natural philosophy as the base of modern science. If we do that, the Big Bang goes right down with it. And, the same occurs if we refute the Big Bang.....

Originally posted by yousers
Sorry to intrude on the conversation. You are mistaken on rejecting connection between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory. Both are strongly rooted in naturalistic philosophy. In other words, they start with a priori claims that all events within the universe are explicable by natural causes alone (therefore eliminating the consideration of a god). A g ...[text shortened]... that, the Big Bang goes right down with it. And, the same occurs if we refute the Big Bang.....

ALL science starts with the "claim" that events are explainable by natural causes alone; so unless you want to scrap all science and send messages by big fires rather than by e-mail, telephone, etc. I believe you will have to rethink your anti-science position.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

dj2becker: Thanks for the site. It is loaded with information, but I have found much of it to be grossly oversimplified. I am one who will mercilessly point out the shortfalls of evolutionary theory, and I have done some informal research in the area. However, the claims in this site are far too general and inflammatory to be considered reliable. The author does touch on some of the main anomalies facing evolutionary theory, but do not be fooled that they are so simple and one-sided. Scientists are portrayed as fearful and clinging to their theory which "anyone can see" is false. This is certainly not the case.