Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 6:27 AM
343 online now:
NoNukes, PaulK (2 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,344 Year: 23,950/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,468 Week: 8/416 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member
Posts: 13641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 331 of 389 (815298)
07-18-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by NoNukes
07-18-2017 12:02 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
NoNukes writes:

Most of the other folk here believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are simply incompatible stories.


That belief is based more on analysis of the text than on a plain reading of the text. Tom Larkin seems to be talking about a plain reading of the text and so am I.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2017 12:02 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Tom Larkin
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Attleboro MA US
Joined: 07-09-2017


Message 332 of 389 (815651)
07-22-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by ringo
07-18-2017 11:52 AM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Yes, it is possible to tell. All of us today are descended from Adam. That is why it is recorded in Chapter 6 when discussing the Sons of God and the daughters of men that Noah was "perfect in his generations" meaning he is a direct descendent of Adam.

The entire point of my book is that Christians are rejecting aspects of science when there is no need, and that men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need, they are not mutually exclusive studies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by ringo, posted 07-18-2017 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 12:00 PM Tom Larkin has responded
 Message 336 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2017 1:26 PM Tom Larkin has responded
 Message 337 by ringo, posted 07-22-2017 2:16 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5065
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 333 of 389 (815654)
07-22-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Tom writes:

......and that men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need, they are not mutually exclusive studies.

This statement makes no sense to me, what's your point?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 11:19 AM Tom Larkin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 12:14 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tom Larkin
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Attleboro MA US
Joined: 07-09-2017


Message 334 of 389 (815656)
07-22-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Tangle
07-22-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
I have seen many people reject the Christian faith as mythology as they have heard things that a contradictory to science from Christians. I have heard people say "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" when there is no need to choose between the two.

I have a ME in Biochemical Engineering, for years I rejected the Old testament as myth because I thought is was contradictory to science. It was only until I studied it in detail, saw how it is aligned and completely consistent with the new testament and the vast amount of prophecy that has already been fulfilled, that I accepted it as the Word of God. Jesus is an active participant in the Old testament, he is called "the Angel of the Lord" (see Zechariah 3 for one of many examples)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 12:00 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 1:00 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5065
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 335 of 389 (815657)
07-22-2017 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 12:14 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Tom writes:

I have heard people say "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" when there is no need to choose between the two.

Well that's just wrong on several levels. The two things are obviously not mutually exclusive, millions of scientists believe in god and gods. I suspect you're misinterpreting what they say or what they mean.

In any case, belief is not an appropiate word to use when discussing science

It was only until I studied it in detail, saw how it is aligned and completely consistent with the new testament and the vast amount of prophecy that has already been fulfilled, that I accepted it as the Word of God. Jesus is an active participant in the Old testament, he is called "the Angel of the Lord" (see Zechariah 3 for one of many examples)

Prophecy aligns with science? What cobblers, you're simply doing what all belivers do - rationalising and apologetics for an already held belief.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 12:14 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13124
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 336 of 389 (815658)
07-22-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
quote:

The entire point of my book is that Christians are rejecting aspects of science when there is no need, and that men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need, they are not mutually exclusive studies.

If that was your aim you would be better off embracing Genesis as myth and legend and recognising that as the reason for the conflicts between the two creation stories.

If you choose to throw in with the literalists you have huge problems with the Genesis 1 creation story, with the dates, with the Flood. Reiterating pre-Adamite ideas does very little to deal with those problems.

And, of course, there are better reasons to reject Christianity anyway, but that is a different issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 11:19 AM Tom Larkin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 2:41 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 337 of 389 (815660)
07-22-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Tom Larkin writes:

... men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need....


I think you have that wrong. I, for one, accept the Bible. I accept it for what it is, myth. You're the one who's rejecting myth.

Science and myth are mutually exclusive studies. That doesn't make either of them less valuable.

And there is no reason to pretend that there is any scientific truth in the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 11:19 AM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

  
Tom Larkin
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Attleboro MA US
Joined: 07-09-2017


Message 338 of 389 (815661)
07-22-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by PaulK
07-22-2017 1:26 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Congratulations! This is the first reply I have received to a post on this site that didn't actually start as "Wrong!", you actually attempted to engage in somewhat of a discussion by establishing your point your view.

I have made a logical Biblical argument, but if reject the Bible, then a Biblical argument is irrelevant. So I will just wish you well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2017 1:26 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2017 3:06 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded
 Message 340 by jar, posted 07-22-2017 4:10 PM Tom Larkin has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13124
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 339 of 389 (815662)
07-22-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 2:41 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
quote:

I have made a logical Biblical argument, but if reject the Bible, then a Biblical argument is irrelevant

If you have a real interest in reconciling the Bible with science then you need to deal with all the relevant science.

If, on the other hand, you are solely interested in reviving the pre-Adamite theology by falsely claiming that it reconciles the Bible with science, then there is indeed nothing more worth talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 2:41 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 340 of 389 (815665)
07-22-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 2:41 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
TL writes:

I have made a logical Biblical argument, but if reject the Bible, then a Biblical argument is irrelevant. So I will just wish you well.

Acknowledging that the Biblical Creation stories are not factual and that they are also contradictory is not rejecting the Bible. Trying to pretend they are factual and that they are not contradictory IS rejecting the Bible.

Edited by jar, : neither ----> not


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 2:41 PM Tom Larkin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 8:38 PM jar has responded

  
Tom Larkin
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Attleboro MA US
Joined: 07-09-2017


Message 341 of 389 (815667)
07-22-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by jar
07-22-2017 4:10 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Given:is you reject any of these "givens" then let's start another post so we don't stray from the point
G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)
G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"

Evidence:
E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.
E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals.
E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
E4:In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.
E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus.
E6: All mean and women alive today are descended from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)
E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)
E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)
Discussion:
D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah.
D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6
D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.
D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve, and I assume his family was a well.
D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.
D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground"
Conclusions:
C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.
C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).
C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.
Again, if you want to argue with the information in the "given"section, let's start another post as not to detract from the argument made here.
Go at it!

Edited by Tom Larkin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by jar, posted 07-22-2017 4:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by jar, posted 07-22-2017 9:47 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2017 1:32 AM Tom Larkin has responded
 Message 347 by Granny Magda, posted 07-23-2017 10:09 AM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 342 of 389 (815669)
07-22-2017 8:48 PM


Question: Why should science even attempt to reconcile itself with old tribal myths?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 8:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Tom Larkin
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Attleboro MA US
Joined: 07-09-2017


Message 343 of 389 (815670)
07-22-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Coyote
07-22-2017 8:48 PM


My goal is aligned with your goal, let the Bible be the Bible and let science be science. The Bible is not science and science is not faith. The reason I wrote my book (Genesis and Evolution) was that too many Christians were rejecting science, this is evident is many people thinking climate change is a hoax or fake news.

This is the main purpose of book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Coyote, posted 07-22-2017 8:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 07-23-2017 2:16 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded
 Message 350 by GDR, posted 07-24-2017 8:30 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 344 of 389 (815671)
07-22-2017 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 8:38 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
Of course I reject many of your givens based on the actual evidence beginning with the fact that there is no such thing as an universal Christian Canon and in fact Christian Canons vary from the smallest that contains only the first five books of the Old Testament to the largest Canon that contains over 80 books.

Your givens are simply dogma and have nothing to do with reality or honesty.

And your G2 is just plain silly.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin hand ----> and


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 8:38 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13124
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 345 of 389 (815676)
07-23-2017 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 8:38 PM


Re: Alignment Evolution and Genesis
I have some comments on these.

quote:

G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)
G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"

G1 is contrary to the Bible which presents itself as primarily a human creation.
G2 seems like an excuse to distort the text to hide contradictions.

quote:

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.

This is false. The Creation starts with the Primordial Ocean - common to Creation Myths in the Ancient Near East, and the cosmology reflects that. It is at odds with science in many ways, which you have so far refused to discuss even when the issue has been raised.

quote:

E6: All mean and women alive today are descended from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)

I'll just note again that the Y-Chromosomal Adam is certainly not the MRCA (there are more recent ones). Also that your assumptions require that the Y-Chromosomal Adam is Noah who - according to Biblical chronologies - lived much too recently to be a plausible candidate. Further, the human population has never been reduced to an effective population of 5 as a literal reading of the Flood story suggests.

quote:

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)

Which includes some significant contradictions between the texts. If your doctrine refuses to acknowledge this your doctrine opposes the Bible.

quote:

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)

In all cases, the absence of evidence is only significant to the extent that evidence should be present. The absence of evidence for the Biblical Flood is, for instance, decisive.

quote:

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.

The order of creation is not consistent with what we know of evolution, and the account does not acknowledge the differences between ancient and modern forms.

quote:

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.

For this to be consistent with science, Noah must be placed in the distant past, contradicting the Biblical chronology - and even then science gives us absolutely no reason to identify the Y-Chromosomal Adam with Noah whatsoever.

quote:

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.

This conclusion is not adequately supported, since it fails to deal with the differences in the order of creation which you acknowledged in your D6

quote:

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).

This conclusion is clearly false, since most of the conflicts have been completely ignored. Which at this point looks like a deliberate tactic.

quote:

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.

As I have pointed out above this conclusion is also problematic, at best requiring dubious assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 8:38 PM Tom Larkin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-23-2017 9:12 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 351 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2017 8:05 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017