Why Did Old Testament People Live So Long?

[Ahab]

How would you define "a different kind of being?"

Dogs becoming cats, or gorillas becoming people.

Mass hysteria.

And yes I know they say it's not that gorillas become people but that both have a common ancestor, but if I saw one of my uncles becoming a monkey, or the other way around, then and only then would I accept the theory of evolution (of the macro order) as the truth.

[Ahab]

There is no difference between the two.

There is no scientific definition of kind.

Try thinking of the different kinds of beings mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis, with each kind begetting after it own kind according to the kind of seed in each of them.

That's what I'm talking about.

[danielwoods]

Mere quibble.

 

Not sure what that means. 

 

You said it was incorrect, then it was correct. Now it's just quibbling to ask why? 

[MiserereNobis]

Dogs becoming cats, or gorillas becoming people.

Mass hysteria.

And yes I know they say it's not that gorillas become people but that both have a common ancestor, but if I saw one of my uncles becoming a monkey, or the other way around, then and only then would I accept the theory of evolution (of the macro order) as the truth.

 

Straw man.

[thesometimesaint]

Try thinking of the different kinds of beings mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis, with each kind begetting after it own kind according to the kind of seed in each of them.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

There is no scientific definition of kind. The book of Genesis whatever its other great qualities is not a science book. IE; If were talking about plants, many different species of plants produce no seeds. The modern desert banana is reproduced by vegetative cloning it would not exist without evolution controlled by man. Additionally the book of Genesis has plants before the sun. All plants die without sunlight for any extended period of time.

SEE Genesis 1:11-14

¹¹ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. ¹² The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

¹⁴ And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. ¹⁶ God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ¹⁷ God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

[thesometimesaint]

Not sure what that means. 

 

You said it was incorrect, then it was correct. Now it's just quibbling to ask why? 

 

Quibble: To argue or raise objections about a trivial matter.

 

Rob claimed that Darwinian Evolution is false. That is incorrect. There is only one type of biological evolution. It was proposed by Charles Darwin. Evolution is any change at the DNA level. That is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model that explains that fact. For non-evolutionary examples: We know that white dwarf stars exist. We can see them in our telescopes. Since it is unlikely that we will be able to produce a white dwarf star in the lab anytime soon. We build sophisticated models to explain them. Another example: We have no clue as to what gravity really is. We can merely observe it effects. Is it a solid state force or is it a curvature in space/time fabric of the universe? So we build models to explain what we see when we watch an apple drop. That is how science works.

Edited March 25, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[LittleNipper]

But you are working on the assumption that there is/was no light without the sun and stars. Jesus declares himself the light of the world. Many suppose that this statement only refers to truth and knowledge. But how about in Revelations where we are told that there will be not need for the sun. Clearly, Christ could have provided the necessary light until He Himself provided a "natural" source for such light. Scientists are always working from an assumption. If they did not, there would be a lack of wonder. However, that does not mean that scientists are any more correct than children about everything...

[Rob Osborn]

Quibble: To argue or raise objections about a trivial matter.

 

Rob claimed that Darwinian Evolution is false. That is incorrect. There is only one type of biological evolution. It was proposed by Charles Darwin. Evolution is any change at the DNA level. That is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model that explains that fact. For non-evolutionary examples: We know that white dwarf stars exist. We can see them in our telescopes. Since it is unlikely that we will be able to produce a white dwarf star in the lab anytime soon. We build sophisticated models to explain them. Another example: We have no clue as to what gravity really is. We can merely observe it effects. Is it a solid state force or is it a curvature in space/time fabric of the universe? So we build models to explain what we see when we watch an apple drop. That is how science works.

Please dont misunderstand me. I said that the theory of darwinian evolution of all life coming from a common ancestor is not a fact. No more and no less. There is no observation of this nor is it testable. Thus, it is not a fact.

[danielwoods]

Quibble: To argue or raise objections about a trivial matter.

 

Rob claimed that Darwinian Evolution is false. That is incorrect. There is only one type of biological evolution. It was proposed by Charles Darwin. Evolution is any change at the DNA level. That is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model that explains that fact. For non-evolutionary examples: We know that white dwarf stars exist. We can see them in our telescopes. Since it is unlikely that we will be able to produce a white dwarf star in the lab anytime soon. We build sophisticated models to explain them. Another example: We have no clue as to what gravity really is. We can merely observe it effects. Is it a solid state force or is it a curvature in space/time fabric of the universe? So we build models to explain what we see when we watch an apple drop. That is how science works.

Rob said the model was not a fact. Which is why I quoted both him and your response.

[Gray]

Haha...funny.

Its you guys moving your own goal posts. Look, the whole world knows that "theory" does not equate with "fact". In science we have things that are facts such as erosion is a fact. Then we have things such as theories that are ideas based on evidence that explains something which may or may not be fact.

 

Yes, theories aren't facts. Theories describe facts. 

[thesometimesaint]

But you are working on the assumption that there is/was no light without the sun and stars. Jesus declares himself the light of the world. Many suppose that this statement only refers to truth and knowledge. But how about in Revelations where we are told that there will be not need for the sun. Clearly, Christ could have provided the necessary light until He Himself provided a "natural" source for such light. Scientists are always working from an assumption. If they did not, there would be a lack of wonder. However, that does not mean that scientists are any more correct than children about everything...

 

That must be it. God held up his magical flashlight pouring light through holes in the firmament that we see as stars. :lol:

[Ahab]

That must be it. God held up his magical flashlight pouring light through holes in the firmament that we see as stars. :lol:

Your assumptions are making you look silly, again.

The scriptures are clear that there was light, which God called day, before the sun and moon were set in their relation to the Earth.

Maybe you should go play with your science kit some more until you figure out exactly how all of that was done.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Your assumptions are making you look silly, again.

The scriptures are clear that there was light, which was call day, before the sun and moon were set in their relation to the Earth.

Maybe you should go play with your science kit some more until you figure out exactly how all of that was done.

 

It was a  popular belief that stars, our sun is just another star, were holes in the firmament. An extremely literalistic interpretation of the

Bible and non-canonical related texts present a cosmology that is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. The firmament was a great solid dome which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet. It had many windows, some of which opened and closed for the sun and moon to travel through or to let water, which was held above, fall through as rain. On top there were also warehouses of snow and hail. Stars were small objects that were attached tenuously to its surface.

[David T]

It was a  popular belief that stars, our sun is just another star, were holes in the firmament. An extremely literalistic interpretation of the

Bible and non-canonical related texts present a cosmology that is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. The firmament was a great solid dome which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet. It had many windows, some of which opened and closed for the sun and moon to travel through or to let water, which was held above, fall through as rain. On top there were also warehouses of snow and hail. Stars were small objects that were attached tenuously to its surface.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, theories aren't facts. Theories describe facts. 

Theories are put forth to try to explain the how and why to the existence of evidence. In evolution concerning where all life came from, Darwins theory of evolution has been put forth in an attempt to explain this. As of this moment there has not been sufficient facts produced nor observed, nor tests sufficient to prove where or how all life came about. Thus, it still remains a theory as to if all life did indeed have a common ancestor or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Theories are put forth to try to explain the how and why to the existence of evidence. In evolution concerning where all life came from, Darwins theory of evolution has been put forth in an attempt to explain this. As of this moment there has not been sufficient facts produced nor observed, nor tests sufficient to prove where or how all life came about. Thus, it still remains a theory as to if all life did indeed have a common ancestor or not.

 

Evolution does not concern itself with how all life first came to be. That is Abiogenesis.

 

Common Ancestry is a well established fact which supports the theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Gray]

Theories are put forth to try to explain the how and why to the existence of evidence. In evolution concerning where all life came from, Darwins theory of evolution has been put forth in an attempt to explain this. As of this moment there has not been sufficient facts produced nor observed, nor tests sufficient to prove where or how all life came about. Thus, it still remains a theory as to if all life did indeed have a common ancestor or not.

 

Evolution is the fact that we observe. The theory of evolution describes how it works. 

[LittleNipper]

What do you mean by evolution?

[omni]

Based on some of the comments on this and other evolution threads, I don't find it hard to believe we evolved from lower beings.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution does not concern itself with how all life first came to be. That is Abiogenesis.

 

Common Ancestry is a well established fact which supports the theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Common ancestory is not an established fact, it is only a theory. Please stop saying it is a fact when it is not. For it to be a fact- it has to have been observed firsthand and it must be testable. Please give me a reference where both of these principles have been documented and obseved and tested showing how all life came from a common ancestor.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution is the fact that we observe. The theory of evolution describes how it works. 

Just to clarify- microevolution within a species is a fact. Whether these small changes can add up to big changes creating new entire species and thus account for all life evolving from a common ancestor is a theory.

[The Nehor]

Just to clarify- microevolution within a species is a fact. Whether these small changes can add up to big changes creating new entire species and thus account for all life evolving from a common ancestor is a theory.

Then I want you to explain detail every step involved in microevolution. This is a CFR. Produce it or retract your statement.

I see we are back to this stupidity again.

[Rob Osborn]

Then I want you to explain detail every step involved in microevolution. This is a CFR. Produce it or retract your statement.

I see we are back to this stupidity again.

If I could redirect that question to all you evolutionists as they are the ones who must present these supposed "facts" they keep mentioning.

[The Nehor]

If I could redirect that question to all you evolutionists as they are the ones who must present these supposed "facts" they keep mentioning.

No, you just said microevolution within a species is a fact. I am demanding the same standard of evidence from you that you demand of others. Produce it or retract your claim or admit that your standard is unreasonable and selective.

[Ahab]

Based on some of the comments on this and other evolution threads, I don't find it hard to believe we evolved from lower beings.

Yes it seems that way at times but the truth is that we fell from how good we once were, which is why we are now on probation. And while some will muck up their opportunity to be reformed back into how good we once were, which will cause them to need to spend some time in prison, others will accept our Lord's help and turn out as good as Adam and Eve were before they fell.

Thus the glory we seek is the glory our Lord now has, which is a restoration of the glory Adam and Eve had before they fell, which means we are now lower than they were before they fell, which is the opposite of what evolution supposes.