And it tried to convey these realities to man thousands of years before humans discovered them to be the truth.
>Big Bang
Genesis 1:3-5 - God literally speaks light and darkness into existence. Loud booming voice. Big bang. The creation of the universe.
>Evolution
Genesis 1:11-12 - The creation of plants, we now know they are some of the oldest forms of eukaryotic life
Genesis 1:20 - The first animal life begins in the water
Genesis 1:29-30 - God gives all the natural produce of the Earth to man, and animals. This illustrates humanity's pre-agricultural hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Genesis 3:14-15 - The serpent's punishment is a retelling of the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, the end of the age of reptiles, and the rise of mammals. Reptiles were stricken by god (with a meteor from space) in an apocalyptic event. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." The rise of mammals, who now rule the earth and crush the once mighty dinosaurs and reptiles, who once oppressed them and forced them to scavenge during the night, with their heels (reptiles are now much smaller.) The snake losing its hind-legs is both a metaphor for the fall of dinosaurs and also a factual statement (snakes at one time did have legs.)
Genesis 3:17-19 - Talks about the technological and societal advancement during the neolithic revolution. No longer does man live his ignorant but blissful life as a hunter gatherer, he has eaten from the "tree of knowledge" and has discovered agriculture. This brings much more suffering into the world, and the bible correctly states that humans stopped eating a diet of fruits and meats and began to eat wheat. How did the Bible know that humans once lived a hunter-gatherer existence that transformed into an agricultural one? There was no archaeology back when the Bible was written, so the answer must be that it was indeed divinely inspired.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Cont.
Genesis 4 - Cain and Abel, one brother is a farmer and the other is a shepherd. Retells the story of how humans split into agriculturalists and pastoralists after the neolithic revolution.
Genesis 6:1-4 The Nephilim. A retelling of humanity's contact with Neanderthals and the scientifically proven fact that they indeed had offspring together.
The Bible is not incompatible with evolution, the big bang, or old Earth. In fact it tried to convey the true history of the universe to humans thousands of years before anyone discovered the aforementioned concepts.
>Why did it have to be in a metaphor? Why couldn't God plainly speak to humans what had actually taken place in the history of the universe?
Humans were not ready to learn the truth. They did not yet have telescopes, microscopes, carbon dating, or any of the scientific instruments we have today. If God had told them the entire truth, they never would have fully understood it. Imagine trying to explain complex scientific topics to African tribals. It was much easier to simply speak in metaphors.
>If evolution is real, what is God's place in it?
He "spoke" at the beginning of the universe, and then things just played out naturally. Similar to how computer code is run by a programmer. The only time he intervened directly was during the extinction of the dinosaurs, the historical events retold in the Bible, and when he inhabited the Earth as flesh and bone in the body of Jesus Christ.
Goddess wrote the Bible
Go with Goddess
The universe is eternal. Genesis speaks of the creation of Earth specifically.
>Earth was created before the star it orbits
Thread's over, everyone move on
The material that would one day form the Earth existed before the sun.
It’s clear earth is formed already with all plants before the sun is formed in genesis. It’s nonsense bro, sorry.
Doug Wilson put it best: theistic evolution is the effort to weld iron and jello together
macro evolution is a lie tho. Men did not come from rocks over billions of years of chance particle interactions. Micro evolution is not the same thing; just shares a word. Species can adapt, but a chicken cannot become a frog, etc.
God is a Rock tbh, Bible says.
Frogs evolved from lungfish not chickens.
Anyway, you accept the small changes, the bigger changes just take more time. There’s nothing different about the process, it’s still just evolution.
>Frogs evolved from lungfish not chickens.
It was an example of drastic change.
Yeah but that change didn’t happen. Why wouldn’t you use an actual example of evolution?
Anyway bigger changes happen over bigger amounts of time, it’s just harder for you to intuitively accept because it simply is harder to conceptualize larger changes instead of smaller ones
>Yeah but that change didn’t happen
I know. I was just giving an example of the extent of a change evolution implies.
…then why wouldn’t you choose a real example? Be honest anon did you think frogs evolved from chickens?
>then why wouldn’t you choose a real example?
Because it's irrelevant. Why do you insist on side tracking an irrelevant point? I could have used an ameba and a deer and it wouldn't change the argument. If you have no real argument, then our discussion is over.
>Because it's irrelevant
if you speak of made up examples instead of real ones it just shows you're a pseud.
I can create an infinite amount of fake examples, meanwhile it would take actual work and research to find the real ones
So you're saying a chicken cannot become a frog, given enough time and environmental needs to change in such a direction?
there is an infinite number of variables at play, we don't yet have the tools to predict how a creature will evolve, we can only predict it will.
We’re saying there are only bad reasons for you to try and debunk evolution by making up an evolutionary change that did not happen as your example.
Frogs did not evolve from chickens, no one is saying they did
>Anyway, you accept the small changes, the bigger changes just take more time.
There isn't any evidence of that tho. It's like saying since I accept some people can tan, then I must submit that people can turn invisible. If animals have been in this constant change toward other species, throughout the fossil record, we would see nothing but different things. We would never uncover the same animal twice. They would be in a state of constant change to other species. But instead, we just see the same things over and over with micro evolutionary changes.
Every piece of evidence that should be there is there. Dramatic change takes millions of years so you do sometimes find the same form more than once, they lasted a long while.
>Dramatic change takes millions of years so you do sometimes find the same form more than onc
All we do is find the same thing over and over tho. There is no constant fluidity in the fossil record that would be required for macro evolution to be correct.
>All we do is find the same thing over and over tho.
No we don’t where do you get your information from? You can track the evolution of species in the fossil record with changing forms over time
That's interesting you think we have just as many "between" states from one dinosaur to a t-rex as we do t-rex fossils. It's a lie. We have a bunch of t-rexes. Not inbetweens.
We have plenty of early tyrannosaurs and theropods. Anon you simply don’t know this subject enough to talk about it, never mind debunk it.
No, no we do not. If the theory of evolution were true, we wouldn't be able to notice any particular state of dinosaur long enough to validate giving one a name. Macro evolution puts all species in a constant state of flux like water running in a river. The fact we have a bunch of remnants of individual idenifiable species and this goes category to category instead of being as fluid as water debunks evolution completely.
>No, no we do not
There are tons of early tyrannosaurs and theropods leading up to Tyrannosaurus rex.
You’re flat out wrong and unable to accept it.
lol man you have zero idea what you're talking about. just stop.
lol, do you get paid to lie or what?
Creationists get their talking points from Christian bloggers and YouTubers.
>I have no argument so am reduced to fallacies in place of one
I see that.