Genesis v. Evolution

[thomas pendrake]

I am not an apologist for the Papists, but the Roman Church has long since denounced the geocentric view, and has some very good astronomers. I also find it astounding that anyone believes that there is any conflict between science and religion. Bad science and bad religion, perhaps. There are multiple creation myths (not a bad word, by the way) in the Bible, read the one in the Gospel of John. The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory. For a mature understanding of the nature of myth, read Hamlet's Mill.

 

Mod note: This post was originally post #89 in http://timetravelinstitute.com/threads/is-the-earth-stationary-or-does-it-revolve-around-the-sun.8752/ - Some felt it warranted its own thread so the original discussion could remain on topic' date=' so here we are [/quote']

[aboleth_lich]

I actually rather enjoy the myths of various cultures, unto themselves as fantastic stories and also as elucidating the traditional values and beliefs of the culture in question. However, they also represent the limited knowledge and antiquated values of our ancestors and certainly shouldn't be taken literally today. For example, like many others, I love reading about Greek and Norse mythology unto itself as epic tales and also as part and parcel of studying the history and values of those cultures--but like most (but admittedly not quite all) people who enjoy those tales today, I don't believe that the likes of Zeus and Odin ever actually existed!

 

There are indeed a great many people today who are able to successfully reconcile religious belief with modern science, but there are also many others for whom this is most definitely not the case and for whom there is indeed clearly a conflict between science and religion. This is evident in the efforts of creationists to vehemently denounce evolution, the true age and origins of the universe, etc and conversely propose convoluted junk science to vainly prove the supposedly literal truth of Genesis and its fantastic tales of humanity springing forth from a man made from breathed upon mud and a woman made from that man's rib, of every species on Earth being reduced to- and subsequently recovering from- but a single pair crammed together with all of the other pairs on a house boat, of the Earth only being a few thousand years old, of man co-existing with dinosaurs, etc. For some of these people, even the likes of embryology and the notion that moonlight is reflected sunlight is astoundingly offensive. Returning to the main theme of this thread, religion has also convinced others to vehemently denounce the heliocentric model of the solar system.

 

When specific religious myths and beliefs are incompatible with and are disproven by modern hard science, as per the above examples: the bad religion label most certainly applies. However, are we to honestly label the science that is denounced by such people as "bad science" merely because it contested by them and buts up against the ancient, antiquated beliefs of our largely ignorant ancestors? That is a frankly bizarre proposition. The conflict, irreconcilable for many, is between bad religion and science--not between bad religion and "bad science."

 

However, there is indeed "science" that can be rightfully labelled as "bad science." Junk "science" that is deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias, be it supposedly verifying creation myths as above, disproving the man-made contribution to climate change, etc, would indeed deserve the "bad science" label.

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

A few years ago I had the privilege of attending a lecture by the late John Archibald Wheeler, one of the most influential Physicists of the 20th century. He represented the Universe as a capital U with an eye looking back on itself, meaning that the universe existed because it evolved a consciousness capable of observing itself (see the "anthropic principle"). It is a basic principle of Physics that existence demands observation. Any science that does not allow for some God is "bad science". The nature of that God is a matter of Faith.

 

You may also want to see Kurt Godel's ontological proof. There is a God, but His (Her's) exact nature can only be known by faith. God knows His name (or Her's).

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

There was a reference above to the supposed 11 year solar cycle. There is an approximate cycle of sunspots which is sometimes 11 years, but the actual length is variable. The cycle is significant because of periods of cold weather associated with abnormal periods of low solar activity. This is significant because we are currently in a period of low solar activity and yet still experiencing global warming. The deniers say that we are not experiencing global warming because the current solar minimum has reduced the effect of the greenhouse effect.

 

 

[Nicolas]

The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution' date=' even the Darwinian theory..

lol, you wish.

 

 

[Einstein]

I don't know of any credible sources for the temperature variations over time. But I do know that it isn't any warmer where I live in California.

 

58 degrees right now for my location. Should I call it global cooling?

 

 

[kimberlyd]

I can't wait to see the film. I honestly did not know about it. Going to go find it now. Thanks for the alert about it. I must have missed that one. LOL

 

 

[Mylo.X.]

Over my lifetime (of 30 or-so-years), there has been a change of weather patterns in the UK. When I was a child, the winters used to be harsh and would begin early November with heavy snowfall and the snow would remain until early mid March. In the past 2 years of "winter" in my hometown, there has been literally 3-5 days of snow. Where has the cold winter temperatures gone?

 

I'm no expert and do not know if weather patterns should be fairly consistent, year after year.

 

I can't wait to see the film. I honestly did not know about it. Going to go find it now. Thanks for the alert about it. I must have missed that one. LOL

You're welcome.

 

 

[Gpa]

I'm no expert and do not know if weather patterns should be fairly consistent, year after year.

Nope. Weather can fluctuate dramatically from one year to the next or, be consistent for a decade or more. That's why "climate change" has to be considered over many decades, even centuries or millennia, to determine climate trends. A GLOBAL climate trend is much more indeterminable, outside of the waxing and waning of ice ages.

Over my short 60+ years, I too have noticed less snow. Partly because as a youth, I lived much closer to Chicago and winter included a lot of Lake Effect snow but, I also remember 1977, the year my third son was born, driving to the hospital through a one lane path cleared through the 10+ foot high snow drift that was blocking the rest of the road. (10 foot on the low side and maybe 20 on the high side)

 

The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory..

lol, you wish.

 

Have you read Genesis? Considering the level (what we believe it to be anyway) of scientific understanding at the time, it follows the evolutionary timeline quite well.

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

Nope. Weather can fluctuate dramatically from one year to the next or, be consistent for a decade or more. That's why "climate change" has to be considered over many decades, even centuries or millennia, to determine climate trends. A GLOBAL climate trend is much more indeterminable, outside of the waxing and waning of ice ages.Over my short 60+ years, I too have noticed less snow. Partly because as a youth, I lived much closer to Chicago and winter included a lot of Lake Effect snow but, I also remember 1977, the year my third son was born, driving to the hospital through a one lane path cleared through the 10+ foot high snow drift that was blocking the rest of the road. (10 foot on the low side and maybe 20 on the high side)

Have you read Genesis? Considering the level (what we believe it to be anyway) of scientific understanding at the time, it follows the evolutionary timeline quite well.

Thank you, obviously you have also read Genesis. There are, of course, many people who have for some reason decided that only one particular way of interpreting "Jewish Myths and Fables" is acceptable, but that is precisely what both St. Peter and Saint Paul warned against.

The real Einstein considered Rationalism to be primary enemy of truth, and the work of Galileo pretty much discredited that approach. The insistence on a Heliocentric model was not really based on the Bible, but rather on Rationalism.

 

It is possible that any number of phenomena could counter-act the effect of greenhouse gases and save us from anthropogenic global warming, such as an eruption of Yellowstone. Another "mini-ice age " resulting from a prolonged, profound solar minimum could also give us a temporary stay of execution, but that would probably lead us to a catastrophic period of global warming because of ignorance. The relationship between global warming and Carbon DiOxide levels is well known from ice pack and lacustrine sediment data, as well as tree-ring data.

 

 

[Nicolas]

Have you read Genesis? Considering the level (what we believe it to be anyway) of scientific understanding at the time, it follows the evolutionary timeline quite well.

I sure did sir!

Here, let me quote it:

 

Genesis 1

 

(...)

 

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days, and years.

 

(...)

 

16. And God made two great lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

(...)

 

19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

(...)

 

21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forthabundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and god saw that it was good.

 

(...)

 

23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

(...)

 

Well, if my understanding of the English language is correct, it's safe to say that according to the book of Genesis, grass and plants came first, then came the sun and stars, then whales and other marine animals, then birds, then finally land animals, in this order.

 

I'm assuming we're not reading all this as the literal word of the all-knowing God but as an interpretation of a myth:

 

a. Plants were made before the sun - How's that consistent with anything? Without the sun to drive their photosynthetic processes, there's no plants... but we all knew that.

 

b. Whales before "land beasts" - Cetaceans evolved from land mammals. Nope, no consistency here.

 

c. Birds before "land beasts" - Birds actually evolved from carnivorous lizards, which fall under the "land beasts" category. Still not following evolutionary timeline quite well.

 

d. Land beasts, including humans, came last - Yay! Here's where Genesis agrees with Evolution. Right?

 

If "d" is what relates the bible to darwinism, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Specially if you read the whole thing from the start.

 

I would look at the Scriptures as what it really is: the writings of bronze age, middle eastern tribesmen and their view of the world based on the technology they had access to. We can't rely on such a thing.

 

 

[Gpa]

I don't know why you excluded the first 10 verses but allow me to add them... for context.

 

The Beginning

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

 

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

 

Looks like "light" came in verse 3.

 

I would look at the Scriptures as what it really is: the writings of bronze age' date=' middle eastern tribesmen and their view of the world based on the technology they had access to. We can't rely on such a thing.[/quote']Well, considering the technology they had access to, which pretty much was "none", how could they even guess the order anything was created in. Some One, or Some Thing, definitely had to influence them.

I would have no problem discussing this further in a new thread if you wish.

[Nicolas]

I don't know why you excluded the first 10 verses but allow me to add them

We started talking about the Bible being consistent with Darwinism. Since the first verses do not talk about any species, I began on verse 11 because that's where the Bible starts talking about the creation of a species (grass).

 

Looks like "light" came in verse 3.

I know, right? How inaccurate can you get when light is created on the first "day" only to have the sun created on the fourth? The Bible is full of controversies like this one... How can we measure a day without the sun and only light? Confusing. And wrong.

 

Well, considering the technology they had access to, which pretty much was "none", how could they even guess the order anything was created in. Some One, or Some Thing, definitely had to influence them.

Exactly, they couldn't! They guessed it all wrong sir: the earth before light, light without stars, days going by without a sun, whales before land mammals, birds before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before animals. What do you mean they were influence by some One?

You said it yourself: they had no technology (compared to what we have now). There's nothing more to it. We can't blame them for getting it wrong though, they wrote what they thought was true, with the technology they had. The most clear example of this, if we can get any clearer than all the mistakes above, is the lack of mention of the appearance of microorganisms. They didn't have the technology to observe them and, well, never knew they existed, thus never mentioned their creation.

 

I have no problem in saying the Bible got this or that right. But this isn't the case. The creation as described in Genesis isn't accurate with reality.

 

 

[Gpa]

You have stated you are an atheist. Trying to convince you God exists and is responsible for the creation of the Universe, and everything in it, the Earth, Moon, Stars would be a good thing, in my mind, but, is not the goal of this discussion. I am simply pointing out the similarities in the Genesis account and evolution.

 

You argue, it doesn't follow Darwinism. I said it follows evolution.

 

First, Darwinism, is not the theory of evolution. Darwin's book; On the Origin of Species, is not the theory of evolution. It is "his" theory on evolution. "I" have a "theory" on evolution. They did play a part in the development of the theory of evolution, as-well-as "my theory". Darwin's conclusions on the development of species has errors. It can not be taken "literally" as an accurate description of the process of evolution. Darwin knew nothing of "Genes". The theory of evolution is "a theory", not a law. (even though there are many that wish it would be declared such)

 

You don't believe in God but, do you... can you... believe in extraterrestrials?

 

Imagine, (as I inferred earlier), after man's great efforts to "explain" the origin of all life on this planet, as he sits with great pride in his accomplishment, an extraterrestrial entity arrives.

 

The highly advanced race says, "We have returned to survey the extent of OUR creation."

 

The incredulous evolutionists counter, "That can't be. We have developed a theory, a theory that "proves" we evolved from single cell organisms."

 

The amused ET's reply, " Well, you are somewhat correct. We did put the DNA code we wrote for you in two single cells that, when combined, form "you". We used the same and a similar process for everything."

 

The despondent evolutionists hang their heads and say, "But how could WE have been wrong?"

 

The knowledgeable ET's say, "Don't be depressed. We terraformed this entire planet with YOU and your comfort and happiness in mind. It is designed to adapt and provide you with everything you could ever need. We spent millions of years designing it."

 

But the evolutionists could not be consoled by the ET's words. They turned and walked away muttering, "We knew we were right. How could we have been wrong? It looked like the best explanation. Not some all powerful entity creating us. We are so smart. How could we be wrong?"

 

The ET's called after them, with a look of disappointment, "We left you an "instruction book"...did you loose it?..."

 

The Genesis account of creation is similar to the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, as-best-as it can be considering when it was recorded. It has undergone many translations and interpretations and while I, as many others, believe it IS the inspired word of God, men can make mistakes. Hebrew words can have several different meanings. You point to Genesis 1:14 (the fourth day) as an inconsistency, with light coming after plants, Genesis 1:11 (the third day). The word "made" in Genesis 1:16 can also be interpreted as "had made" or "set". That is only a partial explanation. The "days" referred to in Genesis "may not" be intended as 24 hour periods but, steps of a process. Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken together as the creation account. I can interpret the first description of creation as the "plan" and the second account as the "action".

 

Here's a little exercise for you, if you wish to try it. You don't actually have to write a reply if you don't want to. Just consider what the explanations might be. I don't know your level of study in biology but;

 

Let's imagine a 6th grade student, (in a school that actually does still teach science) wants to tell you how a caterpillar turns into a butterfly. What would they tell you?

 

Now, imagine you were going to explain it to them. What would you say?

 

Finally, how do you think the 6th grader, or maybe even you, would interpret it, if I explain it, in great detail?

 

Different levels of understanding will give different results.

 

 

[Nicolas]

I am simply pointing out the similarities in the Genesis account and evolution.

Where? What are these similarities you talk about?

 

First, Darwinism, is not the theory of evolution. Darwin's book; On the Origin of Species, is not the theory of evolution. It is "his" theory on evolution. "I" have a "theory" on evolution. They did play a part in the development of the theory of evolution, as-well-as "my theory". Darwin's conclusions on the development of species has errors. It can not be taken "literally" as an accurate description of the process of evolution. Darwin knew nothing of "Genes".

Irrelevant for this discussion. What Darwin knew or didn't, is not what's being discussed. You haven't demonstrated how and where "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)" yet.

A quick recap so we don't steer away from the original inquiry: this discussion started with Mr. Pendrake stating that "Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory", I ironically disagreed, then you came along and said "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)". Since I have read Genesis, and I know these affirmations to be false, the simpler way to demonstrate this was to quote that very book and point out exactly what they got wrong according to what we know of evolution, and that's what I did. I haven't seen you determine what passages match evolution yet.

 

The theory of evolution is "a theory", not a law. (even though there are many that wish it would be declared such)

Alright! How do you feel about learning something new today? Let's see:

There's no hierarchy whatsoever linking "scientific theory" to "scientific law". A scientific theory is not waiting to become a law. There's no one wishing for that either. No theory has ever been promoted to law. Don't worry though, this is a very common misconception.

 

You see, in the English language (as well as in Portuguese, my mother language), the word "theory" outside the scientific context is the opposite of "fact". A theory is the same as a hypothesis, it hasn't been confirmed yet. In science however, the word theory has a whole different meaning. Let's see:

 

A scientific theory, according to the Random House American College Dictionary is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

 

A scientific law, according to the National Center for Science Education, is "a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances".

 

Both of them explain things, but while a law doesn't explain why something happens, a theory does. For example:

 

Boyle’s

 

law

 

describes how the pressure of a gas times its volume is always a constant, disregarding any pressure and volume change.

 

The kinetic

 

theory

 

of gases explains Boyle’s law's mechanisms. It talks about the kinetic energy of the molecules and how it changes with temperature.

 

Ohm's

 

Law

 

states that amperage is equal to the voltage divided by the resistance. Coulomb's

 

law

 

describes the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles.

 

Electromagnetic

 

Theory

 

, describes how electromagnetic fields work, what amperage and resistance are and how they are related, and how to use all that in our favor.

 

You see the difference? A scientific law will describe what nature does under certain conditions, it will predict what will happen if those conditions remain unchanged whilst a theory explains how nature works. No matter how good a theory is, it will never be anything more than "just" a very good theory.

 

Speaking of very good theories:

 

Evolution is a theory as well as a fact. Fact because it has been observed. Predictions have been made and their outcomes observed. Speciation has also been observed. The record of transitional fossils found to this day is overwhelming. The theory part of it describes the mechanisms of natural selection and how through it a gene pool changes over time.

 

You point to Genesis 1:14 (the fourth day) as an inconsistency, with light coming after plants, Genesis 1:11 (the third day)

Light actually came before plants according to Genesis (1:3). The sun is what came after. I know right?

 

The word "made" in Genesis 1:16 can also be interpreted as "had made" or "set". That is only a partial explanation.

Ok, let's change "made" to "had made". Evolution is still not described in Genesis. Whales did not come before land mammals.

 

The "days" referred to in Genesis "may not" be intended as 24 hour periods but, steps of a process.

Yes, I'm using this interpretation also. Still, birds didn't come one step before land lizards. It's Wrong.

 

Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken together as the creation account. I can interpret the first description of creation as the "plan" and the second account as the "action".

I don't see how this makes a case for Genesis being consistent with evolution.

What the writers of Genesis got right about "creation" is the same anyone in their time would get: nothing. There's nothing that indicates that "some One" helped them, since they wrote exactly what we can expect of those tribesman to have written. There's nothing in there that jumps out as being timeless. In the case there is and I missed it, please do quote it here and we can move on to discuss ETs and caterpillars all day long

 

 

[Gpa]

Wow... did I hit a nerve or something? Even though you ended your post with a smiley wink, I sense a little anger in it.

 

It has been some time since college but, I didn't realize I needed a lecture on scientific theory. The main problem in writing vs. speaking is, it is sometimes hard to convey meaning without inflection or maybe body language.

 

This statement;

 

"The theory of evolution is "a theory", not a law. (even though there are many that wish it would be declared such)" is meant sarcastically, Sheldon.

 

There's no one wishing for that either.

Yes, actually there are many. Dawkins is chief among them. If they could somehow develop a "mathematical proof" for it, then of course they would make the claim. There would be a "Law of Evolution" alongside the Theory of Evolution.

I admit I have misstated/misused the term Law before, probably even here but, only when trying to make the point that a Law does come from somewhere. It describes an observation with a mathematical proof. The observation that lead to the proof lead from the question "why" and a reason was hypothesized and tested and the proof developed.

 

First, Darwinism, is not the theory of evolution. Darwin's book; On the Origin of Species, is not the theory of evolution. It is "his" theory on evolution. "I" have a "theory" on evolution. They did play a part in the development of the theory of evolution, as-well-as "my theory". Darwin's conclusions on the development of species has errors. It can not be taken "literally" as an accurate description of the process of evolution. Darwin knew nothing of "Genes".

Irrelevant for this discussion. What Darwin knew or didn't, is not what's being discussed. You haven't demonstrated how and where "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)" yet.

 

It is this part of that statement that I use;

"Darwin's conclusions on the development of species has errors. It can not be taken "literally" as an accurate description of the process of evolution."

 

To point out the absurdity of the argument "the Bible must be literally accurate in it's statements to be true/correct, which IS the position "you" argue from.

 

Evolution is a theory as well as a fact.

It does seem you are arguing that I am against the theory of evolution. I am not. I was only pointing out that there is a reasonable similarity between the timeline of evolution and Genesis, NOT EXACT... SIMILAR, which I still maintain. If you, as an atheist, refuse to believe there could possibly be a God and therefore the Bible can not be correct in anything that connects that God to any process we observe on the planet, then you can not hope to see those similarities. It won't matter how many times and how many ways I try to show you, you will simply refuse to accept there could be. That's just how it is.

So, tell me, how does a caterpillar become a butterfly?

 

 

[Nicolas]

Wow... did I hit a nerve or something? Even though you ended your post with a smiley wink, I sense a little anger in it.

Haha, do you really? I assure you it's because of "the main problem in writing vs. speaking is, it is sometimes hard to convey meaning without inflection or maybe body language." that you mentioned. No anger from Brazil here, I swear. :thumbsup:

 

Yes, actually there are many. Dawkins is chief among them. If they could somehow develop a "mathematical proof" for it, then of course they would make the claim. There would be a "Law of Evolution" alongside the Theory of Evolution.

I'm prety sure Dr. Dawkins understands the difference between theory and law, and since no theories can become laws, as none has ever, I could bet he's not one bit worried about it. Why would he? Like you and I, he knows evolution is a fact and doesn't need it changed, or explained mathematically. Evolution is already beautiful and fully understandable the way it is.

 

To point out the absurdity of the argument "the Bible must be literally accurate in it's statements to be true/correct, which IS the position "you" argue from.

This is confusing. I'm not claiming anything. You were the one who said, and I quote "Considering the level of scientific understanding at the time, it [Genesis] follows the evolutionary timeline quite well." I'm only asking you to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion. For some reason you're still dancing around and not effectively showing where your statement comes from.

 

I was only pointing out that there is a reasonable similarity between the timeline of evolution and Genesis, NOT EXACT... SIMILAR, which I still maintain

You keep saying that, but never actually point it out. What is this reasonable similarity? Really, what is it?

Is it the fact that they divided the creation in seven steps? The fact that they "figured out" everything happened step-by-step and not one single event? Is this the similarity to evolution? I can see this making sense. It does have the faintest connection with evolution, if you really force it. This single phrase could have easily made the case for you before and spared you from that lecture.

 

This is it right? This is actually it! I think just developed a way to debate myself.

 

 

[Gpa]

I really considered whether or not I should have made my first comment. I knew better but, I did it anyway.

 

I do know how atheists love to argue, (argument from incredulity), about creation and evolution. I discussed it a few times while in college with other students. I even gave a speech on it. I remember the evolution class, (even though EVERY biology class covers evolution). The very first day, the professor stated, ( this may be paraphrased but as I remember it, it is exactly right) " I am here to teach the class on evolution, not argue about it. I will not entertain any questions on evolution verses creation. Creation is in another class under theology." It was a very good class, worth 4 hrs credit and I got an A. It isn't necessary to agree with something to still understand it but, it is necessary to understand something before you can "disagree" with it and have any credibility. I understand evolution, thanks to a college education. I understand the Bible, thanks to God's grace and wisdom. An atheist can not understand those last two references, so you will not understand what I am trying to demonstrate. As I have stated, I can see a similarity in the creation story in the Bible and the timeline of evolution. You asked to see how and I tried to show it to you but, you are apparently not capable of understanding it. You're demonstrating your lack of understanding of my evidence by dismissing it and then claiming I have presented none. That's a logical fallacy referred to as "moving the goal posts".

 

We have come to the point of arguing for the sake of argument. I can't show you why I believe something when, you dismiss what I show you because you don't accept or understand it. That's a continuum fallacy. I actually don't "need" to prove to you why I believe something, regardless of when or where I state it. I was trying to be helpful since you asked. I also won't be changing my opinion because you don't agree with it. Your posts have been pugnacious but that is expected from an atheist when it comes to these discussions. They do love to be antipathetic. I can only offer the same thing I said in my previous post.

 

"I was only pointing out that there is a reasonable similarity between the timeline of evolution and Genesis, NOT EXACT... SIMILAR, which I still maintain. If you, as an atheist, refuse to believe there could possibly be a God and therefore the Bible can not be correct in anything that connects that God to any process we observe on the planet, then you can not hope to see those similarities. It won't matter how many times and how many ways I try to show you, you will simply refuse to accept there could be. That's just how it is."

 

It's not a round peg and a same size round hole, it's a more general description, a larger hole. The Bible is not a science book but, it has been ,in most instances, shown to be a historical book. Regardless of whether or not you believe it, it can not be simply dismissed as many wish to do.

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

Wow! I really did not expect there to be people so incapable of understanding plain English on this forum. I am, however, happy to see that there are people capable of logic and understanding plain English here. Nowhere did I state that the primary creation myth was in literal word for word agreement with any modern theory about the principle of evolution. The idea is that there is more agreement than disagreement. Both of the stories (there are four distinct strands in the old testament, different versions that were combined)in the first part of Genesis have a progressive time-line to creation.

 

I suggest any "atheists" should read Godel's ontological proof. The two greatest logical minds of the 20th century, Einstein and Godel, both believed in a God. I had the privilege of discussing the concept with Archibald Wheeler, who saw God as the Consciousness of the Universe, without which existence would be impossible. Atheists have a right to their faith, just understand that it is based on blind faith.

 

 

[Gpa]

Just to be "technically" correct and to avoid being lectured again; Nicolas, "you" are the one that presented "my" proof when you posted Genesis 1:11- 24. There was nothing more to add. I could post those lines over again but I didn't see the need as you had posted them for me and proceeded to dismiss them as wrong because they didn't follow the exact order you required. So, "technically", I didn't show you the proof. As I said, I've had these discussions before and I know how they progress. We could discuss Genesis line by line and argue each little point ad nauseam but, Why? It has already been done by Theologians and Anthropologists and Evolutionists and Biologists. What would you and I add to the discussion?

 

I know there are others here on this forum that agree with me and are either too smart to expose themselves to needless ridicule or don't see a reason to waste their time on an endless debate. There are others here that agree with you and since the atheists are usually the ridiculers, they must fall into a don't give a damn group.

 

Why do I do it? (my discussion with "aj" a while back for example) I gave it some thought last night and I came to this conclusion. Maybe, It's not about you or me, Nicolas, or aj. Maybe it's for someone else just reading this and seeing, perhaps for the first time: "It does kinda fit". "There have been more accounts in Biblical history verified by archaeological discoveries". "What if the whole Book "is" true". Perhaps they find their faith and belief in God and find their salvation in Christ and their lives improve. Wouldn't it be interesting if "you" helped some one find the faith, you so easily disbelieve. Romans 11:33: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (KJV)

 

Note to Cosmo.

 

If you feel it best to move all of these posts between Nicolas and I to an new thread, maybe... Genesis..Right or Not? That might be a good idea and put this thread back on track..Sorry for dragging it astray.

 

 

[Nicolas]

Oops, you beat me to my answer. No lectures though.

 

An atheist can not understand those last two references,

Because atheists could never understand what faith is like, right?

 

Your posts have been pugnacious but that is expected from an atheist

"Expected from an atheist"? Really? Are we going there?

 

[atheists] do love to be antipathetic.

Oh yeah, there's nothing better than a good double shot of antipathy in the morning. You know, for me and the other atheists.

 

atheists are usually the ridiculers, they must fall into a don't give a damn group.

Damn those atheists!

Alrighty! I now belong to your definition of atheists: we are all antipathetic belicose ignorants who don't have a clue of how faith works, even though a lot of us have come from religious backgrounds and experienced the same things religious people did (sometimes even more) but, since we have abandoned our faith for the most different reasons, we're now reduced to a group of people(?) that just can't understand anything. Also, Dawkins. That's a perfect ad hominem right there :thumbsup:.

 

Sir, please, this was never about me. This has nothing to do with your faith or my lack of it. I never once questioned why you believe in whatever it is that you believe. I never placed in a group of my personal definition of "Christians". Lol, you were actually the one that mentioned Dawkins!

 

Maybe this is why we diverge so much. We are looking at this through different angles:

 

The way I see it, we could be two robots. Or a martian discussing with a reptilian. A muslin discussing with a taoist. A hinduist and a wiccan. It doesn't matter! The faiths of the interlocutors are irrelevant to the validity of the argument. It's just two people that read a book and were trying to make a case for what they understood of a certain passage.

 

On the other hand, the way I see you see this is that only the true believers of your faith are able to understand anything that's written in the Bible. If that's the case, well, then you're right: I'll never understand (different than believe) what you're saying.

 

I actually don't "need" to prove to you why I believe something, regardless of when or where I state it

I never asked you to prove me why you believe in anything. I recognize faith as human right and you're entitled to it. Again, this isn't about that. I just never understood how you came to that first conclusion. I guess I never will.

 

If you, as an atheist, refuse to believe there could possibly be a God and therefore the Bible can not be correct in anything that connects that God to any process we observe on the planet, then you can not hope to see those similarities.

This is what I'm talking about. I don't see any reason why a person that doesn't believe in your god, couldn't accept the fact that there are some right or good things in the Bible. I've said it myself a few posts back! This shouldn't be an issue to anyone.

Here, I'll even give you a few examples of good stuff I found in the Bible:

 

Leviticus 19:17 - Don't hate people.

 

John 13:34 - Love one another.

 

Romans 12:3 - Don't think too highly of yourself.

 

2 Timothy 2:24 - Be gentle and patient with all others.

 

See? It's all right sir... I'm not that atheist that once hurt you. I'm the anthropomorphic elephant in a green suit. On the internet.

 

Have a nice weekend!

 

 

[Gpa]

Ah...Now it's semantics. This is fun too.

 

An atheist can not understand those last two references,

Because atheists could never understand what faith is like, right?

 

No, because atheists do not have "what it requires" to understand scripture.

(You may not understand what I refer to, or why I refer to it as I do, and I will not improve on that answer so, you don't need to ask.)

 

Your posts have been pugnacious but that is expected from an atheist

"Expected from an atheist"? Really? Are we going there?

 

Quote the whole sentence; "Your posts have been pugnacious but that is expected from an atheist when it comes to these discussions."

and;

 

Yes, absolutely. I have yet to see an atheist that doesn't argue when a religious context is explored. You are, right now, a perfect example of it.

 

pugnacious

 

adjective

 

1. inclined to quarrel or fight readily; quarrelsome; belligerent; combative.

 

[atheists] do love to be antipathetic.

Oh yeah, there's nothing better than a good double shot of antipathy in the morning. You know, for me and the other atheists.

 

antipathetic

adjective

 

1. opposed, averse, or contrary;

 

The definition fits a lot of people, even me sometimes, but are you saying it "doesn't fit" an atheist when discussing God?

 

atheists are usually the ridiculers, they must fall into a don't give a damn group.

Alrighty! I now belong to your definition of atheists: we are all antipathetic belicose ignorants who don't have a clue of how faith works, ...

 

First, I have never seen a group of Christians vehemently attack and ridicule a group of atheists, but I have witnessed, first hand, a group of atheists do just that to a group of Christians. Have you?

Second, you added "bellicose ignorants" and I didn't say you or any other atheist, "don't have a clue of how faith works," or even question an atheist's faith... just their ability to understand spiritual matters.

 

...even though a lot of us have come from religious backgrounds and experienced the same things religious people did (sometimes even more) but' date=' since we have abandoned our faith for the most different reasons, we're now reduced to a group of people(?) that just can't understand anything. Also, Dawkins.[/quote'] I didn't say "a group of people(?) that just can't understand anything." I have only been discussing scripture.

 

That's a perfect ad hominem right there

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Basically I said;

 

Your posts are pugnacious. I believe they are, but that's not a big deal. Others here can decide on their own.

 

I stated, I expected it. If it has happened before, has a history of occurring, expecting it to happen again and stating so, is not ad hominem.

 

I said atheists love to be antipathetic. Many people love to be antipathetic. Is stating, someone is opposed to, holds an adverse or contrary opinion of, or generally disagrees with something, now ad hominem?

 

I actually don't "need" to prove to you why I believe something, regardless of when or where I state it

I never asked you to prove me why you believe in anything. I recognize faith as human right and you're entitled to it. Again, this isn't about that. I just never understood how you came to that first conclusion. I guess I never will.

 

Where? What are these similarities you talk about?

You haven't demonstrated how and where "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)" yet.

Since I have read Genesis, and I know these affirmations to be false, the simpler way to demonstrate this was to quote that very book and point out exactly what they got wrong according to what we know of evolution, and that's what I did. I haven't seen you determine what passages match evolution yet.

This is confusing. I'm not claiming anything. You were the one who said' date=' and I quote "Considering the level of scientific understanding at the time, it [Genesis'] follows the evolutionary timeline quite well." I'm only asking you to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion.

You keep saying that, but never actually point it out. What is this reasonable similarity? Really, what is it?

No, I suppose, if we exclude these, you didn't.

 

I never once questioned why you believe in whatever it is that you believe.

I did not question why you believe as you do.

 

I never placed in a group of my personal definition of "Christians".

I didn't make a personal definition of atheists. I commented on how I have seen them act.

 

On the other hand, the way I see you see this is that only the true believers of your faith are able to understand anything that's written in the Bible. If that's the case, well, then you're right: I'll never understand (different than believe) what you're saying.

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

 

If you, as an atheist, refuse to believe there could possibly be a God and therefore the Bible can not be correct in anything that connects that God to any process we observe on the planet, then you can not hope to see those similarities.

This is what I'm talking about. I don't see any reason why a person that doesn't believe in your god, couldn't accept the fact that there are some right or good things in the Bible. I've said it myself a few posts back! This shouldn't be an issue to anyone.

 

It's not the issue I brought up. I said, "the Bible can not be correct in anything that connects that God to any process we observe on the planet,...".

As a result, "...then you can not hope to see those similarities. It won't matter how many times and how many ways I try to show you, you will simply refuse to accept there could be. That's just how it is."

 

There is no issue.

 

It's all right sir... I'm not that atheist that once hurt you.

No atheist has ever hurt me... Spiritually or physically. I have no fear of them nor animosity toward them. They're responsible for their own decisions and I am for mine.

I suppose I could add here, I find your posts condescending also. I could also wonder, are you actually in any position to be condescending?

 

I still have enjoyed our discussion. Whether it is pugnacious, or antipathetic, or condescending, is of no consequence.

 

[RainmanTime]

Does anyone actually believe that merely reading a literal interpretation of ONE English translation of the original Hebrew of Genesis is enough to state with certainty there is no correlation between Genesis 1 and modern cosmology and/or evolution?

 

Sorry Nicolas, but if you are going to dispute the claims of Gpa and/or Thomas Pendrake, then you are all going to have to go back to the original Hebrew. And if/when you do, someone might be a bit surprised. I should point out that the original form of Hebrew is an interesting language because each letter corresponds to three different elements: (1) The natural visual form of the letter itself (physical structure), (2) the sound of the letter when expressed by the human vocal apparatus (sound), and most importantly (3) a numerical value (number). Hebrew is the only language still in existence that we know of that has all three of these associations. And the last one permits numerical permutations with the same value but different letters to provide discovery of deeper meanings which lead to potential different interpretations into other languages. The other interesting aspect of Hebrew is that there are only consonants, no vowels.

 

Now, one of the interesting aspects of the ORIGINAL Septuagint (first 5 books of the Old Testament) are that they are traditionally viewed as a SINGLE stream of Hebrew letters without any explicit word breaks. This, in and of itself, lends itself to multiple potential interpretations. Interpretations which could yield interesting results. I shall only point to two examples of such interesting results. I deal with the first such example in this post, and then my follow up post will expound on the second one.

 

The Sefer Yetzirah - This is a book of Qabalistic knowledge which was first referenced formally in the first century of the common era. It is not known exactly how old the text of Sefer Yetzirah (hereafter referred to as SY) is, but given it was referenced this far back it is safe to assume it is at least that old. The very first chapter of SY aligns the first 32 statements of Genesis 1 (known to Jews as Maaseh Bereshit) to the Qabalistic Tree Of Life (and the Tree Of Life is explicitly named in the Genesis 2 story of Adam and Eve). Given that the Qabalistic Tree Of Life can also be shown to be a direct overlay to the architecture of the human body (as shown below), the SY becomes an interesting read into "decoding" a possible technical reading of Genesis with regard to the deeper aspects of Creation. Here is how the Tree Of Life aligns with the human form (i.e. "made in their own image and likeness"):

 

 

Now, one of the more interesting analyses of the first chaper of SY is exactly how those 32 statements of Genesis 1 correlates to the Tree Of Life (above) and therefore also the Creation which is the human being. In essence, when you look at the Tree Of Life, there are 10 spheres and 22 paths that connect the spheres, which equals 32. In the Qabalistic tradition they also call the spheres "paths" so to the Qabalist there are a full 32 paths....and those paths specifically align with the 32 statements of Genesis 1. Here is how

 

a) There are 10 statements in Genesis 1 that, translated into English, are of the form "God said..." Since, as told in Genesis, it was the "sayings" of God that gave rise to the creations of God, then the analyst makes one simplifying assumption, which is that the very first statement of Genesis 1 is assumed to be a "God said..." statement because it is talking about the overall process of God creating that is going to be described. With that one note, here are the 10 "God said" statements, with their associated number being the ORDER in which all the statements of Genesis 1 flow (i.e. if you align all 32 statements in numerical order you will get the order of the story of Genesis 1):

 

{1} In the beginning God created

 

{3} God said, let there be light.

 

{7} God said, let there be a firmament.

 

{10} God said, let the waters be gathered.

 

{13} God said, let the earth be vegitated.

 

{15} God said, let there be luminaries.

 

{19} God said, let the waters swarm.

 

{23} God said, let the earth bring forth animals.

 

{26} God said, let us make man. (Editorial: Please note the PLURAL statement here!)

 

{30} God said, be fruitful and multiply.

 

Now....isn't this interesting? When shown in this structured manner, it would be hard to deny that the order of the above "God said" statements do, indeed, parallel the process of evolution in a general sense. Right? But it gets even more interesting when we discover the alignment of the remaining 22 statements of Genesis 1 with the 22 paths connecting the spheres of the Tree Of Life.

 

b) The 22 paths (and by extension the 22 remaining statements of Genesis) on the Tree Of Life align with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Any Jew, or any Qabalist, will tell you that the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (literally in Hebrew Aleph Bet) come in three different types: There are three MOTHER letters (Aleph, Mem, and Shin). There are seven DOUBLE letters (Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Resh, and Tav). They are called "double letters" because their numerical values can take on one of TWO distinct values depending on how these letters are used in a statement. Finally, there are twelve ELEMENTAL letters (Heh, Vau, Zayin, Chet, Tet, Yud, Lamed, Nun, Samek, Eyin, Tzadi, and Kuf).

 

So here we see that the 22 letters (and thus 22 remaining statements of Genesis 1) are of slightly different forms. The way we see those different forms expounded in the remaining 22 statements of Genesis 1 are as follows:

 

MOTHER letters correspond to statements of Genesis 1 of the form "God made..."

 

DOUBLE letters correspond to the statements of Genesis 1 of the form "God saw.."

 

ELEMENTAL letters correspond to the last 12 statements which all have in common a description of the actions God was taking as creation progressed.

 

So now, in the same manner as I laid out above with the 10 spheres, now let me do the same with the three different types of paths (letters) with respect to the remaining 22 statements of Genesis. It is left to the student to cut and paste all of these statements and put them in their proper order to see that they do, indeed, show the general order of the Genesis story.

 

MOTHER letters:

 

{8} God made the firmament.

 

{16} God made two luminaries.

 

{24} God made the beasts of the field.

 

DOUBLE letters:

 

{4} God saw the light that it was good.

 

{12} God saw that it was good.

 

{14} God saw that it was good.

 

{18} God saw that it was good.

 

{21} God saw that it was good.

 

{25} God saw that it was good.

 

{32} God saw all that He had made.

 

ELEMENTAL letters:

 

{2} The spirit of God hovered.

 

{5} God divided between the light and darkness.

 

{6} God called the light day.

 

{9} God called the firmament heaven.

 

{11} God called the dry land earth.

 

{17} God placed them in the firmament.

 

{20} God created whales.

 

{22} God blessed them, be fruitful and multiply.

 

{27} God created man. (Editorial: Note that 27 is three to the power of three.)

 

{28} In the form of God He created him.

 

{29} God blessed them.

 

{31} God said, behold I have given you...

 

And now, in the above, we have seen ONE EXAMPLE of how the narrative of Genesis 1 can be structurally seen to align with what we consider the modern theory of evolution. Finis - Part 1.

 

RMT

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

I notice that Godel's ontological proof has been avoided in the discussion. I again assert that atheism is a matter of faith, blind faith , in fact, since there is absolutely no other basis for it. The Universe abounds with suggestions of a god, and nothing other than faith suggests otherwise. Yes, it is easy to argue that no evidence for any given God other than revelation exists. That is why so many major "intellectuals" have been or are Deists.

 

 

[kimberlyd]

Over my lifetime (of 30 or-so-years), there has been a change of weather patterns in the UK. When I was a child, the winters used to be harsh and would begin early November with heavy snowfall and the snow would remain until early mid March. In the past 2 years of "winter" in my hometown, there has been literally 3-5 days of snow. Where has the cold winter temperatures gone?I'm no expert and do not know if weather patterns should be fairly consistent, year after year.

You're welcome.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how weather changes could be related to this. Weather changes are constant throughout time. Call it growing pains if you will. The weather can never be the same year after year because there are so many other variables involved.