06 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you actually know what the phrase "non-sequitur" actually means? Evolution is not mechanism-less as you claim. Differential death is a fine mechanism, or perhaps you are claiming that differential death does not happen, or that some organisms have more off-spring than others?
We agree that natural selection is considered evolution's mechanism. But as natural selection is, itself, a non-sequitur, evolution is left holding the bag, so to speak.
07 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat? You have no clue what a non sequitur is, do you? It's a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises. Your use of the word doesn't make sense.
We agree that natural selection is considered evolution's mechanism. But as natural selection is, itself, a non-sequitur, evolution is left holding the bag, so to speak.
07 Sep 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungApparently my obtuseness is showing. The premise of natural selection (itself a pathetic phrase) is not the problem. We can observe natural selection all around us. The problem--- that which does not follow--- is the idea that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
What? You have no clue what a non sequitur is, do you? It's a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises. Your use of the word doesn't make sense.
07 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioDid you have a particular source in mind?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Various folks. It's all over the internet. Check it out!
That's interesting. The vast majority of what I find on the internet
lends support to the idea of evolution's veracity. And, those few I
find that don't begin with the a priori position that the Genesis
text is literal.
Did you have a part red.[/b]
Well, if it's not dogmatic, then why are you insisting on it?
Nemesio[/b]
It will be that much sweeter when you find it yourself.
Well, based on the normative reading of the fossil index, one which
is independently verified by geology and chemistry.
So when we find anamolies within the geological record, what model are we forced to reconcile them to? And what, again, is a fossil?
A literal reading of these two stories yields contradiction. Indeed, they are in total discord with each other.
Oh boy. And I thought you said you had some exposure to ancient Hebrew. The first account of Creation is found in Genesis 1, and it specifically delineates the breakdown, day by day, of God's work. Genesis 2 does not break the work down, nor is does there exist any breakdown of the order of work and/or days.
The creation narrative in these two chapters is theological, not (obviously) scientific.
Here's the re-creation breakdown, derived from chapter one:
Day One: Light; separation of Light from Darkness
Day Two: Atmosphere; separation of Upper and Lower Waters
Day Three: Seas and Continents; Vegetation
Day Four: Celestial Luminaries: Sun, Moon and Stars
Day Five: Air and Sea Creatures
Day Six: Land Creatures; Mankind
Day Seven: God ceases His Creative work
Neither science or the Bible provides precise data for determining the age of the earth. Methods such as carbon and radiometric dating for measuring geological ages are based on widely divergent and speculative interpretations of data which cannot be verified independently.
As stated earlier, no conflict exists between what the Bible says in the original languages and the correct interpretation of natural phenomena by such (current) sciences as cosmology, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, anatomy and anthropology.
Well, if it's not dogmatic, then why are you insisting on it?
I am insisting that belief in any of the accounts delineated within the bounds of Scripture is not a contigent for saving faith, and further that saving faith is (as always) faith alone in Christ alone. However, I am expressly dogmatic that "all of Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God might be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). " As such, it obviously can be trusted... whole-heartedly.
07 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyFirstly you should ask, what morality? A Western Christian morality?
My question is can we legislate morality? There are two aspects to this question. The first aspect is the question of being able to create a law that is devoid of morality. Is this possible? For example, a speed limit is created by law as a moral judgement as to what is best or good for society. In fact, there are no laws devoid of a moral code of some k ...[text shortened]... egal, however, will America then embrace it as they do abortion today in a few decades or so?
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhile the second chapter doesn't provide the level of detail that the
Genesis 2 does not break the work down, nor is does there exist any breakdown of the order of work and/or days.
first chapter does, it certainly describes a certain order.
Starting at verse 4b: At the time when the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens -- while as yet there was no field shrub on the
earth and no grass of the field had sprouded, for the Lord God sent no
rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream
was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the
ground -- the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a
living being.
In short, before there was grass/shrubs/rain man was created,
which is the opposite of chapter 1's story.
Verse 8 reads 'Then the Lord God planted a garden...' which
indicates that Eden was made after humankind (no problems
there, until...).
Verse 18 observes that Adam is alone and, in verse 19 that he
then calls into being all the various animals and birds and brings them
to him in Eden. This linear progression (Man, Vegetation, Animal life)
is in contradiction with chapter 1's account.
Nemesio
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTry saying that to an MRSA victim.
Apparently my obtuseness is showing. The premise of natural selection (itself a pathetic phrase) is not the problem. We can observe natural selection all around us. The problem--- that which does not follow--- is the idea that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIn short, before there was grass/shrubs/rain man was created,
While the second chapter doesn't provide the level of detail that the
first chapter does, it certainly describes a certain order.
Starting at verse 4b: At the time when the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens -- while as yet there was no field shrub on the
earth and no grass of the field had sprouded, for the Lord God sent no
rain upon the ear on (Man, Vegetation, Animal life)
is in contradiction with chapter 1's account.
Nemesio
which is the opposite of chapter 1's story.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Here is a transliteration of the Hebrew, beginning in verse four of chapter two, with a parsing of the same.
ale thulduth eshmim ueartz bebram
these genealogical-annals-of the-heavens and-the-earth to-be-created-them
biuim oshuth ieue aleim artz ushmin
in-day to-make Yahweh Elohim earth and-heavens
uld shich eshde trm ieie
and-every-of shrub-of the-field ere he-is-becoming
bartz ukl oshb eshde trm itxmch
in-earth and-all-of herbage-of the-field ere he-is-sprouting
ki la emtir ieue aleim ol eartz
that not he-brings-rain Yahweh Elosim on the-earth
uadm ain lobd ath eadme
and-human there-is-no to-serve the-ground
This could be translated thusly:
These are the gererations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
The above is from chapter two, as you stated. Next is chapter one, beginning in verse 11 (bear in mind, man is not created until verse 26 of chapter one, as it is called, day six).
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, 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, herb yielding seed after his kind and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day. So that clears up that confusion.
The fact that God planted a Garden after the fact does not negate His actions in the first part. Eden does not introduce any of the vegetation or animals; it is merely the testing ground where man was placed. After being placed there, God brings the animals forward for Adam to name them and to allow Adam a choice among them for his 'compliment.' Because verse 19 re-iterates the creative action of God does not entail that He is now creating them from the ground; this verse simply harkens back to God's creative work from the sixth day.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWould you kindly provide the seventh and ninth verses of the second
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
chapter? Only providing 4b-5 doesn't give us sufficient material
to compare against the first chapter.
Nemesio
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioCertainly.
Would you kindly provide the seventh and ninth verses of the second
chapter? Only providing 4b-5 doesn't give us sufficient material
to compare against the first chapter.
Nemesio
uiitzr ieue aleim ath eadm ophr mn eadme
and-he-is-planting Yaweh Elohim the-human soil from the ground
uiphch baphiu nshmth
and-he-is-blowing in-nostrils-of-him breath-of
chiim uiei eadm lnphsh chie
living-ones and-he-is-becoming the-human to-soul-of living
uito ieue aleim gn bodn mqdm uishm shm
and-he-is-planting Yaweh Elohim garden in-Eden from-east and-he-is-placing there
ath eadm ashr itzr uitzmch ieue aleim
the-human whom he-forms and-he-is-sprouting Yaweh Elohim
mn eadme kl otz nshmd lmrae utub lmakl
from the-ground every-of tree being-coveted to-sight and-good for-food
uotz echiim bthuk egn uotz edoth tub uro
and-tree-of the-living-ones in-midst-of the-garden and-tree-of the-knowledge-of good and-evil
Translated thusly:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Chapters one and two yield harmony, not contrast. The first chapter states its intent (in chapter two, verse four) to serve as the "genealogical annals" of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Chapter two takes the ingredients already provided in chapter one to set the stage for the next act of history, the proving grounds of the Garden.
Although verses eight and nine of chapter two speak of God forming (sprouting) every tree that is pleasant to the sight, this is not the immediacy of creation, it is simply the act of God providing specifically for the Garden.
08 Sep 06
I should have mentioned my request for verses 18 and 19 (I'm
sorry, I don't have access to a Hebrew Bible at present). At your
convenience, of course.
To summarize so far, verses 4b, 5, 7 and 9a of the second chapter read:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. ...
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul. ... And out of the ground [of Eden] made the LORD God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food...
Are we in agreement so far?
Nemesio
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioWe are in agreement in part. As stated, chapter two is not the delineation of the order as shown in chapter one. Chapter one cannot be taken as anything but order, given its numeration of days.
I should have mentioned my request for verses 18 and 19 (I'm
sorry, I don't have access to a Hebrew Bible at present). At your
convenience, of course.
To summarize so far, verses 4b, 5, 7 and 9a of the second chapter read:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not ...[text shortened]... that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food...
Are we in agreement so far?
Nemesio
Without the Hebrew, here is a reliable translation of the same for 18 and 19:
And the LORD God said it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, you would say that the order of the verses in the second chapter
We are in agreement in part. As stated, chapter two is not the delineation of the order as shown in chapter one. Chapter one cannot be taken as anything but order, given its numeration of days.
is skewed or there is a significant omission, that there was vegetation,
shrubs, and grass when humankind was formed?
Nemesio
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioAgain, for now the third time (not that counting is my forte), the second chapter is not a delineation of the creation, per se, but rather an amalgamation of events which followed the specific "genealogical annals" of the creation in the first chapter.
So, you would say that the order of the verses in the second chapter
is skewed or there is a significant omission, that there was vegetation,
shrubs, and grass when humankind was formed?
Nemesio
Note how the days are segmented in numbered order in chapter one, yet the conspicuous absence of the same in chapter two. The order has already been set forth in the first report. If you insist on superimposing an order on the second chapter where none is intended, you end up with nothing but contradiction. This presupposes an idiocy on the part of the writer which is without merit.