Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 28 by Nickman]

Nickman wrote:

I wasn't speaking about YLT. I am speaking about the wealth of more information we have today compared to what they had back then.

I don't believe you. I think you were speaking out of ignorance. Lets review what you said.

You (Nickman) said:

And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

Sonofason wrote:

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

You must no understand my point. I was asking why you choose one over the other. I showed another translation which is just as valid as any which says something different. I asked for reason why and then you went onto an arrogant rant that you are always right. You said that it was translated by 50 translators and that you trust a KJV translator more than anyone else. So I am asking why. You have yet to give a sufficient reason, which leads me to believe that you are just a TR advocate and you really don't know why.

Yeah, nice try.

Why do you trust the translators of the dead sea scrolls? Why do you trust the translators who wrote the Young's Literal Translation version of the Bible? Do you know their credentials? Do you know any of them?

Quick, do a Google search, so you can pretend to know something about the credentials of the translators of the YLT version of the Bible.

Nice try but trying to avoid a question by asking me a question is not debate. Answer mine and I will tell why or why not I trust any translation. Each have their pros and cons. There are many problems in the KJV due to the language barrier (17th Century English) that other translations make better. The KJV also has its strengths being a good rendition from Greek.

I don't need to show anything. You can chock what ever you like. You can agree with whatever translation you like. It's not like you read them or anything. Do you?

You don't have to answer my questions but when you don't answer a simple question of why you prefer the KJV, then I realize you don't really care. Ill take you as another TR, AV advocate. Like I once was.

Yes I do read the bible daily. If I am going to dismiss something that I served faithfully in for 25 years, I need to have a good reason don't you think?

If you'd like to waste your time, feel free to cite all the petty errors that have been found in the King James Version of the Bible. But I think you will be hard pressed to find anything significant. But by all means, start typing, I mean copying and pasting; because surely you wouldn't be able to find any errors on your own, without help.

I have a thread already dedicated to the KJV. The first error I saw was you quoting it to advocate evolution.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 28 by Nickman]

Nickman wrote:

I wasn't speaking about YLT. I am speaking about the wealth of more information we have today compared to what they had back then.

I don't believe you. I think you were speaking out of ignorance. Lets review what you said.

You (Nickman) said:

And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.

Sonofason wrote:

The King James Version is the version I quoted from. I believe it is a better translation than both that you cited. And that is the version I will use to draw my conclusions.

You must no understand my point. I was asking why you choose one over the other. I showed another translation which is just as valid as any which says something different. I asked for reason why and then you went onto an arrogant rant that you are always right. You said that it was translated by 50 translators and that you trust a KJV translator more than anyone else. So I am asking why. You have yet to give a sufficient reason, which leads me to believe that you are just a TR advocate and you really don't know why.

Yeah, nice try.

Why do you trust the translators of the dead sea scrolls? Why do you trust the translators who wrote the Young's Literal Translation version of the Bible? Do you know their credentials? Do you know any of them?

Quick, do a Google search, so you can pretend to know something about the credentials of the translators of the YLT version of the Bible.

Nice try but trying to avoid a question by asking me a question is not debate. Answer mine and I will tell why or why not I trust any translation. Each have their pros and cons. There are many problems in the KJV due to the language barrier (17th Century English) that other translations make better. The KJV also has its strengths being a good rendition from Greek.

I don't need to show anything. You can chock what ever you like. You can agree with whatever translation you like. It's not like you read them or anything. Do you?

You don't have to answer my questions but when you don't answer a simple question of why you prefer the KJV, then I realize you don't really care. Ill take you as another TR, AV advocate. Like I once was.

Yes I do read the bible daily. If I am going to dismiss something that I served faithfully in for 25 years, I need to have a good reason don't you think?

If you'd like to waste your time, feel free to cite all the petty errors that have been found in the King James Version of the Bible. But I think you will be hard pressed to find anything significant. But by all means, start typing, I mean copying and pasting; because surely you wouldn't be able to find any errors on your own, without help.

I have a thread already dedicated to the KJV. The first error I saw was you quoting it to advocate evolution.

You say, "The first error I saw was you quoting it to advocate evolution."

Show me the error. Explain why it was an error. And prove that the Bible is not compatible with evolution. Then maybe, just maybe I'll address your question why I trust the King James Version. But I'm not about to let you make false statements without requiring some sort of evidence and support.

[Nickman]

You say, "The first error I saw was you quoting it to advocate evolution."

Show me the error. Explain why it was an error. And prove that the Bible is not compatible with evolution. Then maybe, just maybe I'll address your question why I trust the King James Version. But I'm not about to let you make false statements without requiring some sort of evidence and support.

So since you didn't understand the first time. You quote the KJV, Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

You were basically saying: whats the problem, and that it shows fowl coming out of the water as evolution describes. Am I correct?

If so, then I posted another translation. I picked the YLT for its literalness and no added hermeneutics to show that the flow of the 17th Century English was problematic to the translation.

I also asked why you decided to go with the KJV, because it is the only translation that translates Genesis 1:20 in that way.

If you are gonna claim that this verse is synergetic with evolution, you have to first show that it is a proper translation to begin with.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 32 by Nickman]

Nickman wrote:

The first error I saw was you quoting it to advocate evolution.

Sonofason responded:

Show me the error. Explain why it was an error. And prove that the Bible is not compatible with evolution. Then maybe, just maybe I'll address your question why I trust the King James Version. But I'm not about to let you make false statements without requiring some sort of evidence and support.

Nickman wrote:

So since you didn't understand the first time. You quote the KJV, Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

You were basically saying: whats the problem, and that it shows fowl coming out of the water as evolution describes. Am I correct?

You're right. That is pretty much what I was getting at.

Nickman wrote:

If so, then I posted another translation. I picked the YLT for its literalness and no added hermeneutics to show that the flow of the 17th Century English was problematic to the translation.

I also asked why you decided to go with the KJV, because it is the only translation that translates Genesis 1:20 in that way.

If you are gonna claim that this verse is synergetic with evolution, you have to first show that it is a proper translation to begin with.

Yes, you make a valid point. It could be that the King James Version might not portray the author's intentions as well as other translations, including the one you provided. And you're right. The King James Version does say what I'd like it to say.

Nevertheless, even if the YLT translation portrays the authors intent best, it only means that I can't use that particular verse as evidence that the author of the Bible had some sort of evolution in mind when he wrote what he wrote. But that certainly is not an indication that the Bible contradicts evolution. It only means that I have one less verse of scripture that directly seems to support evolution.

And believe me, if it should turn out that the Bible does absolutely contradict evolution, I will not be surprised. After all I sure haven't seen any evidence of evolution. I'd love to see some real evidence of evolution. You got some?

[Nickman]

Yes, you make a valid point. It could be that the King James Version might not portray the author's intentions as well as other translations, including the one you provided. And you're right. The King James Version does say what I'd like it to say.

Nevertheless, even if the YLT translation portrays the authors intent best, it only means that I can't use that particular verse as evidence that the author of the Bible had some sort of evolution in mind when he wrote what he wrote. But that certainly is not an indication that the Bible contradicts evolution. It only means that I have one less verse of scripture that directly seems to support evolution.

And believe me, if it should turn out that the Bible does absolutely contradict evolution, I will not be surprised. After all I sure haven't seen any evidence of evolution. I'd love to see some real evidence of evolution. You got some?

That is why we must go through every verse. We must either confirm or dismiss each verse as being contradictory to evolution.

Secondly for you, you will have to find the evidence that convinces you that evolution is actually legitimate. Otherwise, the whole discussion about which bible verses support evolution is moot.

[keithprosser3]

I'd love to see some real evidence of evolution. You got some?

Yeah, I got penicillin resistant syphilis.

[Sonofason]

Yes, you make a valid point. It could be that the King James Version might not portray the author's intentions as well as other translations, including the one you provided. And you're right. The King James Version does say what I'd like it to say.

Nevertheless, even if the YLT translation portrays the authors intent best, it only means that I can't use that particular verse as evidence that the author of the Bible had some sort of evolution in mind when he wrote what he wrote. But that certainly is not an indication that the Bible contradicts evolution. It only means that I have one less verse of scripture that directly seems to support evolution.

And believe me, if it should turn out that the Bible does absolutely contradict evolution, I will not be surprised. After all I sure haven't seen any evidence of evolution. I'd love to see some real evidence of evolution. You got some?

That is why we must go through every verse. We must either confirm or dismiss each verse as being contradictory to evolution.

Secondly for you, you will have to find the evidence that convinces you that evolution is actually legitimate. Otherwise, the whole discussion about which bible verses support evolution is moot.

Well, we could go through each verse to either confirm or dismiss each one as being contradictory to evolution, or you could provide the verses that you believe contradict evolution, and we could discuss those verses.

I see no reason to search out evidence to convince myself that evolution is actually legitimate. I don't really care if it is legitimate, unless there are actually verses of the Bible that contradict the possibility of evolution being true. At the moment, I have no problem with evolution. It makes logical sense, even though I've never seen any direct evidence that it actually occurs. But if my Bible actually contradicts the possibility of evolution to be true, and someone were to actually prove that evolution is true, I might have cause to dig deeper. But right now, since no one has shown me that the Bible contradicts evolution, and since no one has proven evolution to be true, I don't really care if it is or if it isn't true.

[Nickman]

Well, we could go through each verse to either confirm or dismiss each one as being contradictory to evolution, or you could provide the verses that you believe contradict evolution, and we could discuss those verses.

I've never found one that agrees.

I see no reason to search out evidence to convince myself that evolution is actually legitimate. I don't really care if it is legitimate, unless there are actually verses of the Bible that contradict the possibility of evolution being true.

When I was a Christian, I did care. I attacked this subject with the idea that the Bible would come out clean on the other side. I had a presupposition that evolution would fail my own standards of evidence. It didn't. But to each his own.

At the moment, I have no problem with evolution. It makes logical sense, even though I've never seen any direct evidence that it actually occurs. But if my Bible actually contradicts the possibility of evolution to be true, and someone were to actually prove that evolution is true, I might have cause to dig deeper. But right now, since no one has shown me that the Bible contradicts evolution, and since no one has proven evolution to be true, I don't really care if it is or if it isn't true.

Yes, it makes sense because it is actually evidenced. If evolution were not factual, humans wouldn't have survived poliomyelitis. As Keith said, there wouldn't be penicillin resistant syphillis. That wasn't always so. It used to not be resistant.

[Wissing]

Heya folks! So I thought I'd jump in. Nothing like a good ol' fashioned evolution vs religion debate. Although I'm going to skip over a few of the most recent posts, and respond to a point that piqued my interest on the first page:

Species evolve. So what?

So they don't have to be created. Just one more reason to believe in a god down the drain so to speak. What caused the big bang is the last somewhat reasonable hide out for gods. Science will probably root them out of there too.

Here we have a dichotomy. If species evolve, they don't have to be created. I propose that this is false. It is often the case, in life, that multiple causes are required to produce a single effect. As evidence I will provide examples of other things in life that are created, that ALSO evolve. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking necessarily about God in this particular case, but about creation).

Technology. From the perspective of a consumer, you'll see a new model of Toyota Camry come out every year. Guess what - it's almost never the same as the previous model. Why? Because there were certain traits of that automobile that just didn't sell well. The economy is analogous to natural selection. If it doesn't sell, it doesn't make it into the next generation model. Extrapolating further, there are many car companies that tried many things over the past 100 years - many trials, relatively few successes. Entire companies have died out. I'll bet there's more cars in the world than some animal species, and from a zoomed-out perspective, it looks strikingly evolutionary. HOWEVER, we all know that, behind the scenes, if you zoom way in on your Google map and somehow penetrate the roof of a factory somewhere in Japan, into the catacombs of nerd-dome, you'll find... engineers. (Okay, there's probably also a few sales people, accountants, executives, and IT guys who get some credit, but let's be honest...). Yes, the life of every automobile was very carefully thought out. Care went into every corner of the chassis, every winding in the solenoid. And it took a whole year for those guys (or girls... but let's be honest. There's a reason I'm still single.) to come up with that. Of course, the consumer doesn't think about that. At least, not until the accelerator sticks because they wired it wrong like morons. My point is, creation is at the root of technological evolution. Maybe it's not (directly) some ethereal force like God - but yes, someone decides what to change and what to leave the same, from model to model.

The analogy to biological evolution here would suggest that the mutations happening from parent to child are not in fact random, but that some creativity goes into it. Alternatively, you could just say that the creators of cars are in fact making random decisions, nothing more than synapses firing, reacting to a system of sociological stimuli that tell every little peon in the corporate world how to behave, lest they be fired. I suppose, to me, it really boils down to a matter of perspective.

[Goat]

.

And believe me, if it should turn out that the Bible does absolutely contradict evolution, I will not be surprised. After all I sure haven't seen any evidence of evolution. I'd love to see some real evidence of evolution. You got some?

Just so we are on the same page.. how about if you define biological evolution.. just to show you actually know what you think you know.. or if you are wrong.