God? [Or Evolution]
For this rebuttal and argument in favor of the theory of evolution, I will present evidence for the following propositions:
1. The Biblical Creation narrative is actually two different stories that contradict and depict ancient cosmology. It is not literal history
2. Human evolution disproves a literal Adam and Eve
3. Lungfish burrows require a geology spanning millions of years.
First, let's get a few things my opponent said straight:
"They claim that... everything happened by chance... Can you imagine that all this world, all this uniqueness of every living thing was "by chance?""
That is not what evolution says. First of all, it's not just a roll of the dice. There is a system, based on biological and physical laws, that determine results. Second, this world is only one of an infinite number of possibilities. That's like saying "I don't believe that you grabbed a handful of sand... the odds of there being exactly 1,287 grains are near impossible!" It's an arbitrary idea that the end result was the goal.
Also, how can life come from no life?
Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. Moving on.
1. The Biblical account depicts contradictions and mythical cosmology
We will look at two things, contradictions and ancient cosmology in these accounts
A) Contradictions between Genesis 1-2
Genesis 1-2 is filled with contradictions. In modern historical criticism of the Old Testament, we have identified some points that indicate the Torah is actually a combination of several different text sources. This can clearly be seen in Genesis 1-2. Genesis 1 uses one source, while Genesis 2 uses another.
Here's a few contradictions and changes between Genesis 1-2
1. Does God create plants before man, or man before plants?
Genesis 1:11, 26
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."
Genesis 2:5-7, 9a
"When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature... And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food."
In Genesis 1, God makes plants before man. In Genesis 2, God makes man before plants.
2. YHWH or Elohim?
In Genesis 1, God is called Elohim, while in Genesis 2, he is YHWH. This shows the two different sources, which had different names for God
B) Ancient Cosmology in Genesis 1
“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” (1:2) Nowhere in Genesis does God create water. This may seem puzzling to a modern reader, but an ancient reader, or listener in a more oral culture, would have easily understood this. Some origin myths contained an eternal chaos and water from which the universe, and all in it, was birthed.
There are other Bible verses that give the exact same idea of an eternal ocean. Perhaps the most overlooked is 2 Peter 3:5 “For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,”
“Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”” (1:6) The next day begins, and God starts the next process of sculpting, the final one that we will look at. Yet again, the eternal waters are presented. This time, however, the waters are being separated. The casual observer does not think too deeply about this passage, and the meaning can be lost.
The word “waters” in Hebrew is of great importance to understanding the original meaning of this text. Is this a literal water used literal or a figurative term, perhaps for the atmosphere? The root word used is מָ֫יִם is used, which connotes both water like would be normally conceived, and the eternal waters. The same word is used in Genesis 6-9 to connote the flood. It is used both as a literal word for water and with the idea of the eternal waters.
The concept of “expanse” is also translated as “firmament” or “vault” in some translations. To support an ocean of literal water to flood the earth chapters later, would not this firmament need to be a solid form, but is that also not a preposterous statement? The word for expanse may have meant a flattened sheet of metal, as the verbal form implies, or ice. Josephus even gives commentary that the latter is the correct interpretation when he says Elohim created a “crystalline” around the earth.
There's some translation issues. On the third day of the Creation Week God made certain types of plants: """grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree" (Genesis 1:11). Each of these terms translates specific Hebrew terms for grass (deshe"), the seed-yielding herbs ("eseb mazria zera), and the fruit trees (ets pariy).Verses 5 and 6 of chapter 2 provide a description of what the world was like prior to the creation of man. Two specific types of plants are translated from specific Hebrew terms: """plant of the field" (siah hassadeh) and """herb of the field" (eseb hassadeh). Hebrew scholar Mark Futato defines these terms as """wild shrubs of the steppe" and """cultivated grain" respectively. The wild shrubs are thorny, and they didn't come until after the first sin
II. God can be called both Eholim and YHWH. He has many different names. If he's mentioned differently, It doesn't mean that there are different sources.
B) https://answersingenesis.org... (hard to explain, I'm not a super awesome and eloquent person XD)
2. Homo naledi"s shoulder joints and curved finger bones are typical of tree-swinging apes. Its flared hips are typical of australopithecine apes. The lower ribcage widens just like the ribcage of australopithecine apes. And while Homo naledi reportedly has a """generally humanlike ankle and foot" in that the shapes of some of the foot bones could be consistent with an arched foot, this is described in the study as a lower arch with a different orientation than typical of the modern human foot. About skulls: Homo naledi"s skulls: With its small size, sloped face, and lack of protruding nasal bones, however, it could easily accommodate an australopithecine ape"s brain. Homo naledi skulls are less than half the size of modern humans" and substantially smaller than typical archaic human skulls.
check it out.... more detailed
Also, I might as well say, Adam and Eve disproves Human Evolution...
3. I'm not a scientist... I don't get what you mean.
1. How Is Mercury so Dense.
This is a problem. Mercury couldn't be so dense from gradual process. Tell me, why and how it got so dense.
2. You still haven't answered: If Evolution is true, then life had to come from rock and other non-living things. How did it come to be? Abiogenesis IS closely related to Evolution. Evolutions starts out from no life.
3. can you clarify your views and your beliefs in Evolution? There are many different forms of it.
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient. can explain then how it worked?
This is a good debate so far, you are a tough debater and I appreciate it.
Let me counter-rebut my opponent before continuing to his arguments
1. The contradiction of when plants were created
There needs to be some good Hebrew explanation here. First, the same word for plant is used in Genesis 1 and 2 for the plant that had not yet. The word 'eseb is used in both passages. To try to make a distinction is difficult. The word 'eseb simply means vegetation. It is not trees or the like, but instead herbs or, yes, lower vegetation. Genesis 1:30 backs up this interpretation when it says that Elohim created ALL the plants for food.
That word kal that you see in the middle, translated "all," "every," etc. affects the translation. So, Genesis 1 doesn't even make distinction between the kinds of plants created. a 'eseb is an 'eseb. I'm guessing grass is green, right? Well, even so, Genesis 2 describes that no grass or any 'eseb of the field had sprung. Yet, Elohim creates ALL green plants in Genesis 1? Still a contradiction.
It's also questionable to me: what plants do not have seeds? Did YHWH only not create ferns? That does not align with the spirit of the passage either, since God did not have plants because there was no man to work them. They were growing and harvesting plants, which God would have already created in Genesis 1.
2. Homo Naledi
I'd like to point my opponent, ironically, to the Institute for Creation Research and its view on Naledi:
" Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo naledi—if this name stands the test of time—was likely just another human variety."
Ironically, even other Young Earth Creationists say AiG is wrong. If you are to say it is an ape, you also have to deal with the hip socket that is shaped and projected for upright walking. The jaw and skull also lack many, many ape-like structures, and they are far closer to human. AiG's solution that it is an australopithecine... it does not have the hand structures of a Lucy-like creature, and its skull and body is far more Homo genus:
This is a australopithecine skull:
Below is Homo Naledi The differences, especially around the brow and the jaw, can clearly be seen. It's also notable we are missing part of the skull that would have the nasal bones, but this is only one of a dozen of skulls. We may learn more in the coming months.
3. Lungfish Burrows Take 2
My point is that fossilized lungfish burrows are found all up and down the geologic column. How were they formed there if not be lungfish over millions of years?
Rebuttals to attacks
1. How is mercury so dense?
I'm not sure I follow on this one. Mercury's density of 5.427 g/cm^3 is less than Earth's density at 5.515 g/cm^3. As in all cases of planetary creation, the matter of a planet is subjected to gravitational compression, resulting in a compression of the materials depending on their own density. Mercury is primarily metallic, so I really do not see the issue.
Evolution has to do with the development of biological organisms, not their origin. Two different issues. I too see issues with a natural abiogenesis, but that is not a question that affects evolution by technical definition.
3. Clarify Beliefs?
I am a progressive Christian who accepts evolution and denies the inerrancy of Scripture. By evolution, I hold to a school of thought more closely tied to punctuated evolution. I used to be fundamentalist and Young Earth.
4. Natural Selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits?
Here is a good example of major changes within a genus. The Italian Wall Lizard ( Podarcis sicula) was introduced from its native island of Pod Kopište to the island of Pod Mrčaru. The main difference in this island was vegetation vs. arthropods as the primary food source. Within 36 years, the Italian Wall Lizards on Pod Mrčaru, which were forced to eat more plants than their ancestors, had experienced changes in their digestive tract, muscle structure in their jaw, head sizes, etc.
Natural selection did that in just 36 years. Think of what it can do in 100,000,000 years?
Ibid from last post
murongw forfeited this round.
murongw forfeited this round.
murongw forfeited this round.