The Bible and Evolution

[kebotDiNaMute]

---

naa lng ko duda ba... murag naa baya unta cguro na sa Bible ang evolution... murag wala lng gyud na gsuwat ky taas na cguro kaayo, same sa experiment sa science, murag mga conclusions na lng cguro na ang gpanbutang sa bible ky kung whole document sa experiment gyud ang ibutang, aw pwerte ng taasa ug bagaa cguro sa Bible... kung gisuwat pa lng gyud unta tanan ba, murag wala gyud unta moy lalisan karon... sa Genesis cguro ky start from amoeba, then dinosaur, then ape, then man or bisag unsa lng

i think naa gyud mga tawo nakabalo about sa truth about sa creation sa universe unya d lng gyud cguro katoohan maong di nalng pud sila musulti nato... kung nangapil pa na sila diri sa istorya aw cge na lng na cguro sila ug katawa sa atong mga posts... it is either puro ta sakto or puro ta sayop heheh

murag naa baya unta cguro na sa Bible ang evolution...
--- PRODUCING ITS OWN KIND, is natural selection. We see smal/big cats.

Bible is not science book! but it does mention a little science facts.
--- a cookbook is not math book, but it mentions arithmetic and volume. therefore we don't have to ask so much about the book. It does have specific ideas presented, not everything. A cook book will never explain why!

[bluedes]

luck and drift na diay ta ani ron , hmmm .... naa na sa kahago sa mga scientist brad . wala sa pare ng mag cge'g tagay..... ang lawas ni kristo - tagay.

astang lingawa jud ninyo basahon oi.. mao ni pinakafunny ako nabasa for today..

nanu mupatol man mu ana kebot, naa man na xa reading comprehension..

[jamesmusslewhite]

read about Artificial and Natural Selection which are two facts that cannot be disputed. these are denominators in determining our common ancestors. did the Bible discuss something about Artificial Selection?

Darwin first coined the phrases Artificial and Natural Selection. It is a proven fact - it can be seen in all the various beads of species (dogs, cats, birds, humans) on the planet. It explains now bird beaks shrink and expand during times of droughts. But since there are no flying pigs, talking monkey accountants, or even one missing link connecting the transitional changes between the evolutionary changes of each species on this planet.

All fossil records show existence and extinction of species - NO MISSING LINKS - NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND EVER FOR ANY SPECIES!

(Genesis 1)
God made kinds of beasts of the earth, kinds of cattle and all kinds of creeping things and God saw it was good.

(Leviticus 11: 13-30)
These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat. These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. Now these are to you the unclean among the swarming things which swarm on the earth: the mole, and the mouse, and the great lizard in its kinds, and the gecko, and the crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand reptile, and the chameleon.

(Deuteronomy 14: 12-1
But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, and every raven in its kind, and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat.

(Ezekiel 47: 10)
...Their fish will be according to their kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea, very many.

Even if the text in Genesis should be translated "after their kind," there is still the question about how the Hebrew word for kind, min, should be translated. Genesis doesn't clarify the issue, although it suggests that some of the the "kinds" are rather diverse groups of animals and plants. Therefore, the "kinds" seen in Genesis one probably do not represent species. Most Hebrew scholars think min probably refers to what biologists would classify as genera or families, although specific examples elsewhere in the Bible suggest the definition cannot be considered that exact. Some of the other examples of min can be found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

These verses suggest that the kinds could very well include genera, and families of organisms, and maybe even orders. Therefore, even if one were to translate the verses of Genesis one as "after their kinds," these kinds could refer to naturalistic microevolution through at least the genus, if not family level.

How far can micro-evolution go in producing new species? Examples of observable speciation cited by evolutionists are not very striking. The field of Botany is where most of these speciation events are seen in plants subject to some forms of extreme environmental stress. When the "new species" is returned to its original habitat, it rapidly reverts to its former phenotype. Botanist know that plants are readily adaptable to habitat, whether a result of natural selection or artificial selection (domestication). The biblical account for the creation of plants is not very specific, saying, "Let the earth [or land] sprout vegetation" and "And the earth brought forth vegetation" (Genesis 1: 11-12). Genesis seems to be telling us that much of the production of plants is brought forth by "the earth," as opposed to continuous direct intervention by God. Therefore, one would not see a contradiction between the biblical record and observable examples of micro-evolution.
Therefore, contrary to what many Christians teach, the Bible seems to allow for naturalistic speciation of certain kinds of organisms. How much speciation would be allowable according to the biblical account is up to debate. However, the Bible clearly indicates that God directly intervened in the creation of certain groups of organisms (higher mammals, birds and mankind).

If Evolutionist spent more time trying to prove and not disprove the Bible. If Creationist would research the root text and properly understand what was actually meant, and not base their dogma on poorly translated English translations. If the two side met in the middle, they could finally get at the truth. I am not far left of far right, rather I am a centralist. A Christian Scientist. You are still too far Left, your God is a flawed Darwin; and you will never truly understand until you too become a Centralist. Enlightenment is in the middle of the two sides my friend.

[bluedes]

yes, it is indeed comfortable. but no worries, i ain't pulling away the burden of proof from you. in fact, i am pushing the burden of proof ON you. it is your responsibility to prove your GOD exist, and present evidences for your so-called creation myths. where's the evidence? if you talk about Evolution evidence, oh, we have a lot.

wa lage nay evidence bro..
you're ask to not use your thinking brain anymore, just shut up, stop asking questions, and believe..
"are you one of us or not?"

[cromagnon]

^hahaha , dugay2 nman sad mi la nkalis gud bluedes - may gani nka realize ko dayon . hahhaha

ang lawas ni kristo - tagay.

[bluedes]

nganong mabot mn sa Dictatorship , mura tag history 101 ani , lmao



kamo may kusog mang hatag ug leaflet nga balik na sa gino-o . you have the burden of proff para ma kato-ohan sad na , with itsexistence .

mao nay naka faet...

sunod, kanang leaflet, butangan ta na ug statistical data ba, and evidence kung asa gapuyo ang ginoo.. rofl..

maypa mga door-to-door salesman, naa sila efficiency comparison report sa other brands..

[cromagnon]

If Evolutionist spent more time trying to prove and not disprove the Bible. If Creationist would research the root text and properly understand what was meant and not base their dogma on poorly translated English translations. If the two side met in the middle, they could get at the truth. I am not far left of far right, rather I am a centralist. A Christian Scientist. You are far Left, your God is Darwin; and you will never understand until you too become a Centralist. Enlightenment is in the middle of the two sides.

so mura diay kag si budha Mr. creation scientist. but im not trying to convince u ha. jus wna hear from ur POV ,.

how do u think would heaven and hell exist infact , i dun hav any idea about it scientifically.

do u think it exist in a parallel universe . or in the inner core/...

[Gotterdammerung.2]

but speculating on something that you can't observe is pure imagination
--- its the same imagination that makes a creative designer, the same imagination that create science fiction, same imagination that will be realized one-day!

dont close out on imagination.

trying to make a point eh...haha.

we see the desginer, we can see the writer...can we see your God?

you have a very creative imagination.

[bluedes]

^hahaha , dugay2 nman sad mi la nkalis gud bluedes - may gani nka realize ko dayon . hahhaha

lingaw2x ra jud ni dre ako.. ang uban mga religionists dha, serious ra kaau sa ilang pagtuo gud..
usahay, masobrahan na kataw-anan na ang labas..

basa2x lng sa ko dre..

[cromagnon]

sunod, kanang leaflet, butangan ta na ug statistical data ba, and evidence kung asa gapuyo ang ginoo.. rofl..

maypa mga door-to-door salesman, naa sila efficiency comparison report sa other brands..

di nlng ta mo palag kay ilabay nya ta sa fire and brimstone....lake lava