Originally posted by Zahlanzii got fed up with ummm, how can i say this, you're complete lack of well anything really with which to substantiate your scandalously scant and unscientific claims other than personal insults, i thought that if i left, you would quietly fade into your own parade and eat yourself like the chocolate bar that you evidently are, then all would be well. i may find the time to yet address the inadequacies of your claims, but as it is i am going to be fiendishly busy for the next month or so, after which we may yet test your resolve and adherence to this mythology!
i thought you packed your toys and left, unwilling to discuss evolution with heathens like me, hamilton or twhite. did you find others to drive nuts?
[b]if you cannot explain it then shut up
coming from you that is hilarious. when did you ever explained anything? when did you give the impression you have opinions of your own and not some quotes from ...[text shortened]... ree from a cereal box or are outright lying to score some research grants from fundamentalists?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei understand that you are oblivious to your own ignorance, i really do. but if nobody agrees with your opinions, do you find it easier to assume it is a conspiracy rather than, perhaps, you are wrong?
i got fed up with ummm, how can i say this, you're complete lack of well anything really with which to substantiate your scandalously scant and unscientific claims other than personal insults, i thought that if i left, you would quietly fade into your own parade and eat yourself like the chocolate bar that you evidently are, then all would be well. ...[text shortened]... the next month or so, after which we may yet test your resolve and adherence to this mythology!
in the above post i didn't insult you or called you names. i asked some questions. are you man enough to answer them or will you ignore me like you do everyone who disagrees with you?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieimplausibility of a bible explanation?
are you gonna make with the readies or not? i love it when you guys postulate on evolutionary science as if it was an established fact, because as you and i both know, its nothing of the sort, and perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the passages that you make reference to that has led you to the conclusion of the implausibility of a biblica ...[text shortened]... ly in the morning when i posted it, and a reactionary rather than a reflective statement, sorry!
Genesis 1: (comments are in bold )
1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.
5 God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.day and night without the sun? really, tell me more
6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters (what waters? is it a metaphor? then if this is a metaphor, then genesis is not an exact account of creation) under the vault from the waters above the vault.
8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.(still no sun)
9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.
11 God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was.(plants without the sun, really intelligent)
12 The earth produced vegetation: the various kinds of seed-bearing plants and the fruit trees with seed inside, each corresponding to its own species. God saw that it was good.
13 Evening came and morning came: the third day.(no sun)
14 God said, 'Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days and years.
15 Let them be lights in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.' And so it was.
16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night and to divide light from darkness. God saw that it was good.(finally there is a sun. although it was created much later than the earth)
19 Evening came and morning came: the fourth day.
20 God said, 'Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.' And so it was.
21 God created great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species. God saw that it was good.(birds before land animals, awesome)
22 God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the waters of the seas; and let the birds multiply on land.'
23 Evening came and morning came: the fifth day.
24 God said, 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was.
25 God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good.(insects after birds, awesome again)
26 God said, 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.'
27 God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.(it is later said that man was created first, got lonely, got to sleep and eve was made from one of his ribs- god sure likes to trick his audience)
28 God blessed them, saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth.'
29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food.
30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was.(what, no carnivores?)
31 God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziHere is an explanation about why the plants came before the sun from a source that views Genesis as the literal sequence to creation. This is from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schoeder. He says that,
implausibility of a bible explanation?
Genesis 1: (comments are in bold )
1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.
"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. Here, in Genesis 1:10, it is described as the substance that fills the seas. Prior to this time, the term referred to the primordial substances from which all matter of the universe was to be formed. Because it was only on the 4rth day that luminaries appeared in the firmament of heaven, the presence of plant life on the 3rd day might seem out of order. Light is one of the prerequisites for photosynthetic growth of plants. Resolution of this seeming conflict is found in the use of the word "luminaries" rather than "light" in Genesis 1:14. Prior to the appearance of abundant life, the Earth's atmosphere was probably clouded with vapors of the primeval atmosphere. This would be in accord with information relayed from Soviet and US spacecraft investigating the cloudy atmosphere of Venus. There was light on the third day, in the sense that the atmospheric vapors transmitted radiant energy. The atmosphere, however, was translucent, not transparent. Therefore, individual luminaries were not distinguishable. It was diffuse light that provided energy for the initial plant life. Nahmanides states that the firmament, formed on the 2nd day, initially intercepted the light that existed from day one. He was not willing to comment concerning the composition of the firmament, because he considered it as one of the deep mysteries of the Bible."
Just so you know, Nahmanides was a rabbi who lived 1194-1270 C.E.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieperhaps you would be so kind as to point out the passages that you make reference to that has led you to the conclusion of the implausibility of a biblical explanation, so that we may examine the evidence for ourselves
are you gonna make with the readies or not? i love it when you guys postulate on evolutionary science as if it was an established fact, because as you and i both know, its nothing of the sort, and perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the passages that you make reference to that has led you to the conclusion of the implausibility of a biblica ...[text shortened]... ly in the morning when i posted it, and a reactionary rather than a reflective statement, sorry!
Uh, what evidence? Your book just finds different ways to say on the basis of no evidence that God dunnit. As I hinted earlier, I am interested in sources that actually argue in some manner for their position. I would strongly urge you against taking your book's account as anything substantially beyond the metaphoric, and a literal interpretation of it certainly does not constitute any explanatory attempt of the human moral faculty worth taking seriously. Yes, let's see here...God created man out of some dust and set him up in a paradisal garden; then God took a rib and created woman with it; then the man and woman ate some magic fruit at the prompting of a talking serpent; and, but of course, human moral faculty thereby came to be. Yes, all very plausible and explanatorily satisfactory.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellolol, it is to laugh, you have provided no passages to substantiate your scandalously scant claim that you have read 'my book' and made any attempt to understand the basis for conscience being of a divine origin, and secondly you have made no attempt to provide any basis for your assertion that conscience developed from a primordial 'soup', in which the basic building blocks of life developed as the result of materialistic chance and somehow managed to collect themselves into the correct sequences to make proteins and diversify themselves into the staggering brilliance and diversity of life we see today. such reasoning does not even belong to the realms of science fiction, but pure and utter fantasy, so the next time you are lecturing others whether or not to take their references as metaphorical or otherwise, i suggest you look to your own back yard which has been the fomenter of conjecture and dogma for years and which has produced more ignorance than the meanest religion, just ask the average guy in the street what he knows regarding the evolutionary hypothesis, and ultimately it takes a greater leap of faith to believe it based on the scant 'evidence', than it does to believe in a divine intelligent creator. so if you are done mocking i must conclude that either you have not considered any passages and you have not the slightest inkling of how and why conscience has arisen.
[b]perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the passages that you make reference to that has led you to the conclusion of the implausibility of a biblical explanation, so that we may examine the evidence for ourselves
Uh, what evidence? Your book just finds different ways to say on the basis of no evidence that God dunnit. As I hinted earlier man moral faculty thereby came to be. Yes, all very plausible and explanatorily satisfactory.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually i covered this subject comprehensively in another post when a reader had been reading genesis, penguin i think it was. if i can find it i may try to repost it for your 'benefit', however this is not really the subject under discussion at present, so if you can wait i am sure all of your 'objections', can be addressed.
implausibility of a bible explanation?
Genesis 1: (comments are in bold )
1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
4 God saw that light was good, and God divided light from it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.
Originally posted by whodey🙂
Here is an explanation about why the plants came before the sun from a source that views Genesis as the literal sequence to creation. This is from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schoeder. He says that,
"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. ...[text shortened]... ies of the Bible."
Just so you know, Nahmanides was a rabbi who lived 1194-1270 C.E.
can you explain next how santa has a time stopping machine that enables him to get the presents to everyone in the world in one night? not only that but also that he is immune to flu and all the fat from those cookies and milk he has to eat every night.
sure, i asked for an explanation. but a reasonable one to be specific. do you really believe what you are saying? or you just posted to show me that explanations exist? thank you but rather than take that story, i would rather rely on faith alone and accept genesis as is without explanations. it is more reasonable
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno surprise there.
actually i covered this subject comprehensively in another post when a reader had been reading genesis, penguin i think it was. if i can find it i may try to repost it for your 'benefit', however this is not really the subject under discussion at present, so if you can wait i am sure all of your 'objections', can be addressed.
no problem, i will wait. but do please hurry, i am starting to turn blue as i type this because i am holding my breath in anticipation of your brilliant reply.
oh, and don't copy whodey, try and be creative and explain in another matter.
Originally posted by whodeybtw did he explained how it was that there was a day and a night when that translucent watery thingy captured light that was uniform everywhere?
Here is an explanation about why the plants came before the sun from a source that views Genesis as the literal sequence to creation. This is from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schoeder. He says that,
"On the third day of Genesis, plant life appeared. This occurred just after the Hebrew term for water took on its present meaning. ...[text shortened]... ies of the Bible."
Just so you know, Nahmanides was a rabbi who lived 1194-1270 C.E.
or is it reasonable to assume he didn't thought of that because i don't know, he wasn't a freakin scientist and didn't know anything but the bible told him?
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzilook z dude, do you know how conscience is explained in evolutionary terms, because i would like to know. I'm not messing or anything, i would really like an explanation. so far all that i have been able to glean is that there are mutually beneficent species which derive benefits from each other and thats about it, how that translates into the development of human conscience one can only surmise.
no surprise there.
no problem, i will wait. but do please hurry, i am starting to turn blue as i type this because i am holding my breath in anticipation of your brilliant reply.
oh, and don't copy whodey, try and be creative and explain in another matter.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefinally, a point to discuss.
look z dude, do you know how conscience is explained in evolutionary terms, because i would like to know. I'm not messing or anything, i would really like an explanation. so far all that i have been able to glean is that there are mutually beneficent species which derive benefits from each other and thats about it, how that translates into the development of human conscience one can only surmise.
what is consciousness? is it speech? spirituality? the notion of "me" and "you"? society? how does consciousness appear? monkeys have the notion of property, of self. gorillas can be thought to communicate through sign language. compassion, a trait thought to be exclusive to humans is present in dolphins, whales, monkeys. the ability to use tools: crows and monkeys have it too. the desire to form social groups, animals have it too. even the ability to mourn: it has been recorded that a monkey would not leave her dead offspring even weeks after death. so if animals have some of the traits that make us human, made in god's image, don't you think that the bible is wrong and the fact that the animals we share these traits with are simply less evolved than us? that if given enough time chimps or dolphins might develop even civilizations?
i believe god created the universe. i however do not believe god didn't have anything to do other than direct every little aspect of our development. god put a cake in the oven and consciousness appeared. one isn't required to alter every molecule in a cake, to rearrange them so that a muffin is born out of dough. that is exactly the same with evolution. god set in motion a set of conditions, events and evolution caused us to appear.
4 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziGo ahead and make fun of a man that you know nothing about and whose book you have never read. I simply giving you another perspective from a scientist who is a man of faith. Do I think he knows EVERYTHING? No, but it certainly is interesting to hear how science and the literal interpretation of the Bible may not be at odds. In addition, I am 100% certain that no one else knows all the answers as well including yourself.
btw did he explained how it was that there was a day and a night when that translucent watery thingy captured light that was uniform everywhere?
or is it reasonable to assume he didn't thought of that because i don't know, he wasn't a freakin scientist and didn't know anything but the bible told him?
As for the literal 6 days of creation interpretation, how does one get a "day" without the sun existing during the first three days of creation? Obviously, the author of Genesis knew this fact and was not referring to literal days that we call days. He looked at the wording of days/nights in the Hebrew translation and saw that they could be interpreted as "chaos"/"order". In other words, the Bible was not taken literally enough in terms of a proper translation of the original Hebrew.
In his book, he studied the writings of such rabbis as Onkelos (150 CE), Rashi (1040-1105 CE), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahamides (1194-1270). He then used these ancient writings to show that their study of Genesis in Hebrew brought forth a variety of startling revelations that mirror much of what science is telling us today. Such revelations include that the earth was not made in six literal days as well as the fact that mankind may have evolved before God breathed his soul life or "neshamah" into the nostrils of Adam.
So are you saying that what I have presented is impossible? It is not like I am bashing science by saying that it is wrong or a lie as YEC'ers often do, rather, I am using it to show that something could actually work. Perhaps it scares you? 😲
Originally posted by whodeythe first day is several billion years.
Go ahead and make fun of a man that you know nothing about and whose book you have never read. I simply giving you another perspective from a scientist who is a man of faith. Do I think he knows EVERYTHING? No, but it certainly is interesting to hear how science and the literal interpretation of the Bible may not be at odds. In addition, I am 100% certain ...[text shortened]... , I am using it to show that something could actually work. Perhaps it scares you? 😲
then the earth is created. before the stars and the sun. and then time throws the anchor and starts to stop. from the first day meaning several billions to 1 billion, to several millions, to several thousands when man is created.
not to mention the order of things is way off.
i am not calling that scientist stupid. there is always the possibility he is outright lying to get some research money from religious groups because there are enough dawkinses who scored grants in real scientifical domains.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem confused on the course the discussion has taken. You basically claimed before that the human moral faculty can only be understood in terms of biblical descriptions. I repeat that this claim of yours is utterly inane. First, a literal empirical interpretation of biblical genesiac accounts is incredibly silly, and these accounts -- while offering other things in the realm of the metaphoric -- simply doesn't offer any reaonable account on this subject to be taken seriously. Second, development of our moral faculty is understandable within, as I said, an evolutionary framework. Again, educate yourself by, for instance, reading the book I recommended to you. You need to understand natural selection as it relates to helping behaviors and put it in a context of its working on ancestors such as ours. Plus, it would be good for you to read an account on this topic where, you know, one actually tries to argue for and support his main conclusions. We can provide good evolutionary explanation for the aspects of our moral faculty, why we tend to think morally in the particular ways we do and why we tend to have certain relevant dispositional traits, etc.
lol, it is to laugh, you have provided no passages to substantiate your scandalously scant claim that you have read 'my book' and made any attempt to understand the basis for conscience being of a divine origin, and secondly you have made no attempt to provide any basis for your assertion that conscience developed from a primordial 'soup', in which t any passages and you have not the slightest inkling of how and why conscience has arisen.
Now, however, you are blabbering on, in part, about other things related to abiogenesis, which I frankly don't find relevant to your earlier claim.
Sure, abiogenetic events are improbable almost by their nature. But, oh yeah, it's much more likely that the eternal invisible sky man created us out of some dust and a rib.