- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15,254
- Reaction score
- 3,208
- Location
- Beirut
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Oh well, that's good. I believe the comment was made by toothypic...or Nymphetamine...i can't remember which.I have never understood the argument that evolution-- or, indeed, any of the theories of science-- disproved the Bible or vice versa.
To the contrary, it says exactly how. He spoke it into existence. Which is also why it is implied that God created language.While the Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth (a claim I dispute for religious reasons), it makes no mention of how it was done; the only concern is how long it took, which is referred to as six days. In the absence of the heavens, the concept of a "day" is meaningless.
Abiogenesis does not necessarily mean atheogenesis. There is no evidence that life generated spontaneously from unliving matter, and nothing to suggest that it was not caused by external forces, or that the development of life as we know it from these primitive life forms was not guided by unseen hands.
Even the Big Bang theory is silent on the matter of where that initial particle of super-dense matter originated, what caused it to explode, or what may have existed prior to it.
Atheism versus theism is fundamentally a religious argument. Science has nothing to say on the matter.
This idea popped in my head after I read a comment on these very forums. Supposedly, evolution is supposed to disprove the bible because it goes against the literal meaning of God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I think the logic was... Evolution disproves bible, which disproves God, which disproves christianity.
Now normally, I would just ignore it, if it wasn't for the same thought I had when I read the Masoretic texts of genesis, 3 months ago.
This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.
1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)
Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.
The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.
Now, is this biblical approval of evolution? maybe, maybe not. Depends on the point of view. One thing is for certain, it's not disapproved as everyone thinks.
One could say, this is almost an ultra-literal interpretation. But hey, it's the masoretic texts, you can't really beat those.
So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.
This idea popped in my head after I read a comment on these very forums. Supposedly, evolution is supposed to disprove the bible because it goes against the literal meaning of God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I think the logic was... Evolution disproves bible, which disproves God, which disproves christianity.
Now normally, I would just ignore it, if it wasn't for the same thought I had when I read the Masoretic texts of genesis, 3 months ago.
This only works if christianity continues to hold the belief that it holds today. Not that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rather, God created the everything in 6 days. This belief, that christians hold today, come to find out, is not biblical. From Genesis 1:1-2 of the Masoretic Texts, translated literally.
1 In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth had been without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
Tenses mean everything people. There are countless lessons to be learned from these passages but the important one is that when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE, it was just without form and void of all life(and apparently, water was already there, a deep ocean of water.)
Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.
The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.
Now, is this biblical approval of evolution? maybe, maybe not. Depends on the point of view. One thing is for certain, it's not disapproved as everyone thinks.
One could say, this is almost an ultra-literal interpretation. But hey, it's the masoretic texts, you can't really beat those.
So the lesson is, the world as we know it was created in 6 days, doesn't necessarily mean the earth, this rock we stand on in the solar system, was created in 6 days.
You've said this several times, Digsbe, but each time someone challenges you on it you pull up an AIG-esque 'list of reasons' and refuse to discuss it any further...Evolution is goofyIf one believes the premise that God is almighty then why would anything be strange for Him? Truth is, is that the cosmos point to a creator and a young beginning.
I typically leave those threads because 3-4 people quote my same post and make personal attacks or don't address my content. I would be happy to have a 1 on 1 debate with no flaming or other's interrupting.You've said this several times, Digsbe, but each time someone challenges you on it you pull up an AIG-esque 'list of reasons' and refuse to discuss it any further...
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.The cosmos points to an initial 'cause' of some sort, but the nature of that cause is incredibly unknown - whether it be a previous End, some extra-dimensional wierdness or a big dude with a beard. The cosmos most certainly does not point to a 'young beginning'.
I'm quite happy to have a debate on this - and I detest ad hom sidelining, so sounds good to me!I typically leave those threads because 3-4 people quote my same post and make personal attacks or don't address my content. I would be happy to have a 1 on 1 debate with no flaming or other's interrupting.
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
Here's my response from another thread to this link that digsbe gave.Things like moons (and especially our moon), the magnetic fields around planets and comets would point to a younger universe.
"Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? (Available in Russian)
Comets and the Age of the Solar System (Technical)
Kuiper Belt objects and the short-period comets ‘dilemma’ (for evolutionists)
More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’?"
In these they say that there is no evidence for the Oort cloud, and that we haven't found enough objects in the Kuiper belt, and the ones we have found are much larger than normal comets (not surprising, since they are easier to see). Where exactly do they propose comets come from? The "technical" one says "It is obvious that periodic comets must be replenished, or else they would be exhausted in thousands of years."
In "Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon" they say that scientists can't explain Ganymede's magnetic field, and the current mainstream hypotheses don't have much support. It then goes on to say:
No comment.In the model proposed by creationist Dr Russell Humphreys, God created planetary magnetic fields by initially aligning the spin magnetic moments of the protons in water molecules.3 The cores of objects such as Earth and even moons would have been created initially as water, formed with the nuclear spins of the hydrogen atoms aligned. Then, some of the water was miraculously transmuted to other elements. In this way planet cores were formed and converted to being apparently composed of iron and iron sulfide as they are today.
In "Mercury—the tiny planet that causes big problems for evolution" they claim that the hypothesis that a collision early in the planet's history caused the outer layers to not be there today is ad hoc. That hypothesis in not the only one, and it explains why Mercury looks like the Earth with it's outer layers stripped off. The article goes on to say that Mercury shouldn't have a magnetic field because it's so small that it's core should be solid. Yes, scientists didn't expect to find a magnetic field, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility that Mercury is still partially liquid. Another hypothesis is that Mercury is solid, and the planet's rocks were magnetized when the planet had a liquid core, and kept their magnetism after the planet solidified. Mercury's magnetic field is about 1% the strength of Earth's.
Pick one argument please.
Day-Age creationism is almost as goofy as Young Earth creationism : Pharyngula
You don't see the the goofiness in the claims that:
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preeceding other animals.
How much verifiable evidence do you have to disregard to think this story is true? It should be painfully obvious that it is a myth from people making guesswork that has been proven false in modern times.
----
1) Earth was formed before the sun
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
2) An aquatic universe
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
Day 3: 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. 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.
4) An early watery earth
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
Day 3: 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.
Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.
Day 5: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Day 6: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
In short, we really don't know. Even in the Bible there are not 1, but 2 creation stories. We don't know, Genesis does not go into much detail.Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.
Now we see where the ancient, and particularly jewish idea that the earth was created and destroyed, perhaps dozens of times before creation, comes from. That idea is biblical; the idea that there was no earth before God started his creation business, is not. This destroys the atheist's argument. The bible really says nothing at all of evolution/abiogenesis. It just opens it up, probably purposely by God himself, to mere individual interpretation.
The stranger part is, the ancient christians, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Probably already knew of this, as did many of their followers who were very fluent in the old laws and Hebrew, and therefore, failed to spread it because sharing that idea was not needed at the time. One can see how, when the catholic church became popular and installed their perverted interpretations, the meaning would have been lost. Probably the first scribal error in the translation from hebrew to latin to german to english.
There is a lot about what the Bible actually says and what most people think the Bible says that doesn't line up. Try following the time-line of the fall of Lucifer in the Bible and match it up to what most people will tell you, emphatically, happened between God and Lucifer. It doesn't jive. In fact, the modern view of the falling out between God and Satan comes directly from Paradise Lost, not the Bible.
Whenever anyone says that they can disprove something about the Bible, my first question to them is to explain to me, in detail, what they think it is the Bible says that they are attempting to disprove. Ninety percent of the time, they are attempting to disprove something that isn't even in there.
That's not because the the person has it wrong, its because no two christians can or ever will agree on what the Bible says.
:roll::roll::roll:
I'll rephrase with less hyperbole.
Christians have vastly different beliefs when it comes to the correct method to interpret the Bible.
It comes as no surpise that you find counter-arguments to interpretations other than your own, irrelevant to your intepretation.
What is your understanding of Genesis and how do you reconcile it with its apparant contradiction with biology, geology, cosmology, and astronomy?
What isn't a common belief, but should be i think, and definitly a traditional belief among jewish circles since ancient times, is that science is truth, yet so is the bible(well...the old testament), therefore they cannot contradict, in fact, religion and science are converge over time, not diverge. Any contradictions are due to gross misinterpretations in either science or religion.There is a lot about what the Bible actually says and what most people think the Bible says that doesn't line up. Try following the time-line of the fall of Lucifer in the Bible and match it up to what most people will tell you, emphatically, happened between God and Lucifer. It doesn't jive. In fact, the modern view of the falling out between God and Satan comes directly from Paradise Lost, not the Bible.
Whenever anyone says that they can disprove something about the Bible, my first question to them is to explain to me, in detail, what they think it is the Bible says that they are attempting to disprove. Ninety percent of the time, they are attempting to disprove something that isn't even in there.
1) Why should the genesis story be taken allegorically rather than literally?Basically I think the Bible, and Genesis in particular, should be used less as a calendar and more as a moral allegory.
It might surprise you to know that even some Christians reject the notion that "faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths". Catholic doctrine rejects fideism because the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that God's existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason. Faith plays a part but they nonetheless recognize and concede that fideism offers no test to truth, that it offers no way to adjudicate between conflicting fideistic claims, that fideistic truth claims cannot be settled.Anyone who attempts to use a creation myth that rose out of a combination of all Mesopotamian myths as anything more by trying to apply scientific principles is only fooling themselves into diminishing the point of faith by questioning its foundation in the fact that you accept it knowing you cannot prove it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?