>> Hmmm I read the Bible in Gen.7 vs 2,3 it syas, for some
>> reason i do not understand to take 7 pairs pf certain animals
I think the idea here is that Noah sacrificed some animals to God out of appreciation for sparing him and his family. Without some "spares", he'd've been wiping out a few "kinds" of animals.
I think the argument that "God can do anything" in explaining the flood is a non-starter. If he can do anything, why put poor Noah and his family through a a multi-decade building project and a year of horrible life with a crate of stinking animals, if he could just snap his fingers and make it all good again? Why bother with the boat, if you're only going to have to miraculously fill it, feed it, and distribute its contents afterward? Either use the boat and no miracles, or do it all with a miracle and be done with it. Of course, "God's thoughts are higher than man's thoughts," so I can't really second-guess. But it doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable.
Hooberus,
This idea has sort of drifted into and out of these discussions lately without ever getting addressed head on. If we are in agreement that micro-evolution takes place (as it seems that you are), what is the difference between 100 levels of micro-evolution and looking at that same 100 steps as one unit of macro-evolution?
SNG, thanks for the bttt! I missed this one until now! Good job!
Dave
Evidence for evolution, Installment 6: The bible requires it
by seattleniceguy 23 Replies latest jw friends
-
AlmostAtheist
-
seattleniceguy
Hi hooberus,
I wasn't making any of the dogmatic assertions that you claim. Change from one species to many clearly falls under the phenomenon called "evolution." If you wish to distinguish between such microevolution and macroevolution, you may. If you further wish to draw the line somewhere and say that microevolution can progress no further than this point, then feel free to do so.
The point of my article was mainly to show that if one accepts the flood account, then one must logically accept evolution - at the very least, speciation or microevolution.
I believe that the acceptance of microevolution will open a person's mind up to clearer, more rational thinking. Where a person goes from there is his or her own choice, but I think such a person will be better equipped to examine the evidence with an open mind.
A few of the logical next steps are, if I accept that evolution can occur within one basic kind:
- What is the definition of "kind"? Could the same precursor species evolve into, say, lions and tigers? How about cats and dogs? How about cats and kangaroos? Why do I define a limit where I do?
- Is it possible that all primates came from the same precursor species? Why or why not?
- If I accept that all primates came from the same precursor species, can I accept that humans came from that same precursor species? Why or why not? If no, how do I deal with genetic evidence showing that (for example) chimps and humans share identical DNA infections, which point very strongly to a common ancestor for the two?
SNG
-
stillajwexelder
Hooberus - sorry to repeat a question earl;ier in the thread - but which one of Noahs sons was assigned the task of going to the artic circle and getting a polar bear - and how long did it take al lthe family to get the 800,00 plus pairs of insects into the ark?
-
AlmostAtheist
Another "how did they..." point about the flood that I never appreciated until Gina got into birds. How did Noah sex the animals? You can't just look at a parrot, for instance, and know you've got a male or a female. You can guess, but I would think this wouldn't be the time to be saying, "Eh, it's probably a girl." The only way to know is a DNA test, which I would bet was not an option for Noah. (Too costly)
I've heard people say that God brought the animals to Noah, but that's not what the text says. Gen 7:2 says "Of every clean beast you must take for yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate." Verse 5 says, "And Noah proceeded to do according to all that Jehovah had commanded him."
Dave