Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers?

Great Debates
701

Yeah, he’s pulled this one before. “Horses evolved from horses.” Yeah, the modern horse evolved from a small critter with different teeth, a different shoulder and hip, and, oh, yeah, distinct toes.

He’s just playing the “No one has ever seen an acorn grow up into a giant oak tree” game. What amazes me is that he (and his kind) now accept that lions and tigers had a common ancestor “Cats evolved from cats” but still balk at humans and gorillas having a common ancestor. If seals can evolve from seals, and horses from horses, why is it such a challenge to them that anthropoids evolved from anthropoids?

702

I don’t even see the vegetables in my garden grow. (Well, the squash comes close to growing fast enough.) I don’t know for sure that God or an angel come down every night and replace smaller ones with bigger ones.

Hey, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (Preventative strike. :slight_smile: )

703

Humans are different from apes, no?

704
705

Since he asked me my opinion of when the ‘light’ in Genesis 1:3 went away (essentially conceding his entire argument), I simply referred to a notable Biblical scholar.

706

This is what I have been asking for, for a few years now. Please cite, thank you.

707

Humans are a type of ape, closely related to them. Any differentiation comes from the fact that we do the differentiating, and we like to think of ourselves as special.

708

I’m not exactly sure what you want a cite for, but here is a National Geographic item on the discovery of fossil seals with legs. Is that transitional enough for you? Not even talkorigins.

709

We did not choose to become infertile with apes. There are genetic boundaries which even our best geneticists cannot cross. If intelligence cannot cause such differentiation, unobserved millions of years is even less of a viable answer.

710

Thank you for the cite.

‘Puijila darwini is an extinct species of seal which lived during the Miocene epoch about 21 to 24 million years ago. Approximately a metre (three feet) in length, the animal possessed only minimal physical adaptations for swimming. Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal.[1]’

Seems more like an otter than a seal.

711

You can pretend whatever you like.

712

Nope.

713

I’d suspect that otter types are good for land animals that spend a lot of time in the water. But did you expect that the remote ancestor of a seal would look like a seal? And this animal evolved into a seal, which was what you were asking for.

Perhaps otters will evolve into seal-like animals. There is no way of predicting that.

714

I don’t even understand this response. Dogs can’t breed with cats - do you think intelligence was the cause?
Speciation can occur for a number of reasons, for instance a species getting split by geology, for instance a land bridge goes under water. Then both sides naturally diverge.
I read of one in a book that gave modern examples of things discussed by Darwin. There was an insect in the midwest who bred in synch of a type of tree getting blossoms. When apple trees were introduced some of these insects slowly diverged to take advantage of the new food source, and, since apple trees blossom at different times, they slowly evolved to breed at that time - and thus could no longer breed with the original set of insects.

There are tons of other great examples, none involving intelligence. Hell, when I take my old guide dog breeder to the field, there are some tiny male dogs who are interested in her. In the wild, there is no way they would succeed, so we’d expect big dogs and small dogs to speciate. It hasn’t happened now because of human breeders, so intelligence is preventing speciation, not the opposite.

715

So finally Reef Shark provides a little more detail to his opinion on what happened in Genesis. Let’s take a look:

As a whole, this indicates that God creates ‘light’ (in a vague sense it seems) in verse 1:3. No truck with this.

Of course, if Reef Shark intends to say that this light could have sustained life on earth, he’s got a problem. In fact, he highlights it for us:

In short, if Reef wants to maintain that God created a sustaining light from creation that could have enabled plants to live and thrive on earth, it would still be here.

So where is this light? After all, it’s eternal, isn’t it? Also, once God creates the Sun, why didn’t all the plant life die from a doubling of heat and radiation?

Also, notice that this commentary says nothing about the Sun or the Moon?

I did - I wonder if Reef Shark did. This passage only muddles Genesis further. So now the Sun is superfluous.

Also notice that Reef Shark does not provide anything that would suggest that the Moon is not a light, but merely reflect light. Reef Shark, if he is to take the Bible literally, has to believe that the Moon creates its own light. Also, does this mean that Reef Shark must now deny the moon landings (as I brought up early and Reef blatantly ignored). I think it does.

It doesn’t matter - it doesn’t help him and it only puts him further in his hole.

His position is absurd and he’s scrambling to try to make it seem less so. Instead, he just digs deeper.

I’ve been asking about a different passage entirely, actually. You keep bringing up 1:3 as though it were relevant, but you haven’t shown it is - neither did that Bible Scholar.

I’m not convinced that you actually understood what he wrote, to be frank.

So, please address the problem directly. Right now you either have plants living and thriving without the Sun AND the Moon (absurdly) creating its own light OR you have a mysterious light (and you’ll have to show us where this is) AND then the Sun and Moon being created (Moon still generating it’s own light) thus effectively doubling the amount of heat on our planet.

Either way you cut it, your position fails as does your attempt to get out of it.

All of this is on the first page of the Bible too.

716

Making up stuff?

What are these boundaries - please be specific or retract this claim.

717

How is this supposed to be an answer? I gave you some failed prophecies, how about you actually respond to them rather than just citing some web site that doesn’t actually seem to have anything to do with what I posted?

718

But that’s the point. It’s just a guess. It’s not supported by evidence, it’s an explanation after the fact that seems to fit. I can dismiss them with the same amount of evidence given for them, none. It’s a non-answer, and comes down to goddidit.

719

I was reading the commentary further, to actually see if the author had any commentary on Genesis 1:16 (you know, the verse we are actually discussing) and this is what is written:

So God molds the scattered and confused light into the Sun, the stars, and the Moon, essentially.

Two things of note:

  1. The light is similar to that of a candle; ie, a candle produces it’s own light. This means that the author believes that the light is generated from the Sun, the Stars, and the Moon.
  2. The author of this commentary CLEARLY does not agree with Reef Shark who is taking the light from 3:1 as being sufficient for the earth (plants growing and what have you).

In short, Reef Shark appears to be dishonestly quote mining the scholar to try to make it look like the scholar would agree with him, when in fact he does not.

I will point out that later the scholar attempts to get himself out of the moon reflection problem by saying this:

The author clearly realizes that the Moon doesn’t produce it’s own light (It’s not clear whether Reef Shark agrees here or not), but the text doesn’t indicate this ‘borrowing’ at all. So if you take the Bible literally it looks as though you have no choice except to believe the Moon generates its own light.

720

Once again, you are comparing a reference to the sun with the light in Gen 1:3. Henry says ‘for no man, when he has lighted a candle, puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick (Lu. 8:16 ), and a stately golden candlestick the firmament of heaven is, from which these candles give light to all that are in the house.’ in reference to verses 14-19. Let us be honest here, thanks.