TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 2:26 pm
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.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Evolution says no.The great whales were not 'Created' after its'kind, as the evidence is that the original Kind we know of was a land animal and it gradually evolved into the great whales.
If the science is right, it debunks the Bible. There at any rate.
cue 'metaphorically true'. Which would be an improvement on science -denial.
No, not metaphorically; and it doesn't debunk, it disagrees with it. But, let's say for the sake of argument, it does intend to or appear to some to debunk it, the argument, as I see it is this:
[I hate myself for this. Silly and pointless, to put it politiely]
1. First of all, let me tell you why I don't take science seriously. I was in my twenties before science accepted and acknowledged human babies felt pain. Clinicians actually performed surgery on newborns without giving them anaesthetics or pain medications. It was only a little over a hundred years ago that they would wash their hands or clean surgical tools and settings. Had they followed the Bible they would have done thousands of years earlier.
2. I don't take science minded fundamentalist Bible skeptics seriously because they think the Bible writers created some explanation of creation out of superstitious ignorance. A need to explain their world. As if people had to understand the scientific principle involved in boiling water before they had been doing it for centuries. As if to understand the science was the important thing there. Their interpretation of Genesis 1:1 isn't - for all practical purposes: "In the beginning God created the parts of the universe we don't understand."
Okay. Let's dance!
I'm going to make you address each of the points again, if you've regurgitated science dogma at me like a Christian regurgitating Christian doctrine they don't understand, that's too bad. Do it again. If you can't explain the God and the Bible in your own words you don't know or understand your God. If you can't explain this in your own words you don't understand your science and evolution.
First, though, you quote Genesis 1:21. You don't do any examination of the text; you just regurgitate it at me. If you had examined the text you were referencing, like a science minded skeptic should, you would probably have first noted the variation in translation.
Here. Sea monster, sea creature, Dragon, marine creature. In the seventh grade, long before I became a believer, I had an ignorant science teacher smugly inform the class that Jonah couldn't have been swallowed by a whale (unless it was a sperm whale) but the text doesn't say whale, a few older translations do.
The Hebrew word is tan·nî·nim. Which our great scientific minds could see if they looked on the Hebrew link of the same page I linked the verse to.
Here. Actually, it's on the same page as an anchor link, but I don't want to tax the brilliant deductive reasoning of the skeptical before their having yet conquered the quote function in BB Code. Preoccupied, as their inquisitive minds are with the true meaning of life, the universe and everything.
The word is described there as being "A marine, land monster, sea-serpent, jackal." If I were a Bible skeptic half as clever as I thought I was I could make the argument that the sea monster, land monster, jackal was a description of the evolutionary process. But being as clever as that isn't saying much and I'd be wrong. But at least it would be an interesting and possibly original argument. I can't say that for sure because I don't like to do this and try to avoid it like the plague.
Following the Strong's link we see various translations in various verses. Most of them, at a glance, seem to say serpent. Curiously, to save our intrepid audience - men of science - some time we go to the Greek word for lizard.
Here. From which you may recognize bizarre mythological terms like dinosaur and brontosaurus, tyrannosaurus come.
Correct the following where I'm wrong. In your own words.
The science of Darwinian evolution argument, as I understand it, is this: A 100-pound wolf like creature turned into a 360 thousand pound whale; the small tail turned into a giant fluke, the four limbs turned into flippers, they evolved a different respiratory system, blowhole, their teeth into baleen, then intra-abdominal testes, ball vertebra, insulation blubber, ability to drink sea water, give birth in breech position, nurse underwater, a reduction in hindlimbs, loss of the pelvis, reorganization of reproductive organs, hydrodynamic skin, lung surfactants, underwater vision, reorganized skull bones and muscle. modified ear bones, decoupled esophagus and trachea.
The
Mesonychidae are the link between modern whales and certain hoofed mammals. Sheep, camels, pigs, cows, and dear. 6 feet long, they lived "about" 60 million years ago. Wait a minute. Stop the presses. That
changed since my school days.
Maybe the
Pakicetus? It - well, partial fragments of the wolf-like skull - was discovered in the 1980s. Since they didn't have the rest of the body, they imagined it was an intermediate between a land animal and a whale. Later (2001) more bones were discovered and it is now thought just have been a land animal. Of course, we have to indoctrinate the children so textbook drawings of the creature swimming in the ocean still appear, presented as an ancestor of the whale.
Also in the little one's "science" textbook is the
Ambulocetus, or walking whale. They, it says, could both swim in shallow water and walk on land. Such imaginative and fascinating stuff, this evolution! Museum drawings include a blowhole, though the part of the skull that would have a blowhole was never found. Of the two fossils that were found.
The
Rodhocetus appears in museums with a tail fluke. The fossil bones for that tail were never found and they have it as having flippers until fossils were found that have it with front legs.
The leftover legs of the
Basilosaurus (there's that Greek word) turn out to be claspers for mating.
