|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution: butterflies show no self in-put in the designs of their wings - its totally involuntary, and what's more the complexity of the universe predates life and evolution. If anything, they attest as a proof only of Creationism. Of course butterflies show no input. Evolution says nothing about a species "deciding" how to evolve - there is no conscious thought in the process whatsoever. Exactly as is observed. Evolution is the result of random mutation and natural selection producing gradual generational changes. And the complexity of the universe is irrelevant - evolution says nothing about anything other than how species arise from other species. You're fond of making strawman arguments, aren't you.
If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant: 'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV. Appeal to authority, and entirely incorrect, as evidenced by the very picture you were responding to! Complexity, as seen in ice crystals, does NOT require conscious input, and CAN result from random chance. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
First of all, I do not believe Genesis 1:1 is preposterous. You sure fooled me on that one.
I think it is highly unlikely and that it defies common sense to believe in something so unlikely. I find it just as highly unlikely that a singularity suddenly appeared, something about the size of a dime. Of which no one knows the origin, how or why it suddenly appeared. Since there was no before where did it come from. But that is not my biggest problem.That is how do you pack everything in the entire universe into that something about the size of a dime that suddenly appeared from ????? Science is by definition based on evidence. What evidence does science have for the hypothesis of the beginning that I do not have for Genesis 1:1?
The logical conclusion is that the theory proposed by science is more likely, simply because any evidence is better than no evidence at all. 404-page | Princeton University PressWhy is nothing (singularity had to come from nothing) did it better than God did it? The universe is full of galaxies and their stars. Probably, hopefully, there is other life out there and background light and maybe some ripples in space. There are bright objects and dark objects. Things we can see and things we can't. Things we know about and things we don't. All of it. This glut of ingredients could carry on in every direction forever. Never ending. Just when you think you've seen the last of them, there's another galaxy and beyond that one another infinite number of galaxies. No infinity has ever been observed in nature. Nor is infinity tolerated in a scientific theory - except we keep assuming the universe itself is infinite. It wouldn't be so bad if Einstein hadn't taught us better. And here the ideas collide so I'll just pour them out unfiltered. Space is not just an abstract notion but a mutable, evolving field. It can begin and end, be born and die. Space is curved, it is a geometry, and our experience of gravity, the pull of the earth and our orbit around the sun, is just a free fall along the curves in space. From this huge insight people realized the universe must be expanding. The space between the galaxies is actually stretching even if the galaxies themselves were otherwise to stay put. The universe is growing, ageing. And if it's expanding today, it must have been smaller once, in the sense that everything was once closer together, so close that everything was on top of each other, essentially in the same place, and before that it must not have been at all. The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. What sways me even more, if an ultimate theory of everything is found, a theory beyond Einstein's, then gravity and matter and energy are all ultimately different expressions of the same thing. We're all intrinsically of the same substance. The fabric of the universe is just a coherent weave from the same threads that make our bodies. How much more absurd it becomes to believe that the universe, space and time could possibly be infinite when all of us are finite. quote: I am not sure about that any evidence thing. I have seen a lot of fabricated evidence in my lifetime about a lot of different things. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4934 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Nimrod It will help you understand my views better (you have gotten a few important ones very very wrong) Equinox OK, I read those posts, and agree that there is a lot of information you have checked into. I also agree that there is plenty of room for translation problems and other transmission corruption to have occurred. I didn’t see anything that changed what I think your position is, but feel free to correct me where I’m wrong. But with all of that, I don’t understand why you try so hard (and contradict modern scholarship) to claim that Babel and a global flood happened. There are tons of reasons to reject both - especially something like the flood. Your view that the ideas in Genesis went through tons of incorrect translations and transmission corruptions means that you’ve already discarded the idea that one can read the Bible and know what is the word of God and what isn’t. So I guess I don’t understand why you care to preserved a divine origin, if that divine origin is so far removed that one may as well read the Enuma elish , which is therefore one step closer to God than the Bible.Nimrod .(reminder; I am just looking at what ancient peoples wrote down, and then stacking it up with comparitive anthropology and THEN looking at what is scientifically possible POSSIBLE) EquinoxWell, yes you are - but then you are going past that to insert modern science into Genesis where it doesn’t match what you want, and adding speculations that aren’t supported so as to come up with this convoluted history that somehow serves your desires. Claiming that there was a global flood and a real tower of Babel goes beyond linguistics and legends - it makes testable claims about the physical world which have been tested and shown to be false. The comparison of the earlier flood and such stories could be a good thread, and there are no doubt others here who are better versed on this than I (Arach?). Anyway, let’s see if there is energy around that next week. I’ll be out until then.Nimrod The issue that people (like you!) demand that Genesis should have seperated every last stage of evolution.Therefore the fact that it mentions the category of water life as coming before all other life (lets the waters bring...)simply isnt enough because people like you think it should be a 2007 science textbook to be credited as a document that could have (maybe) been descended of a revelation from God in the pre/proto historic period in amns past. Equinox No, I only ask people to back up their own claim. What usually happens is someone says that the Bible is inerrant and that the order in Genesis is correct, something that has odds of 1 in ((insert large number)). Then, when the story is looked at, it’s clear that it’s not at all in the correct order, at which point the original claimant starts making excuses, like the ones you have been making, for why it’s not in order. So that makes me wonder why they even bother, if they are going to negate their own claim? Actually, it used to make me wonder - it doesn’t anymore. It’s very smart marketing - if the listener is gullible, then they swallow the “correct order” line. If the listener is not gullible, then all one has to do is make some lame excuses, and quietly exit to go on to repeat the “correct order” line to some new potential convert, thus the gullible are selected to be Bible believers. In your case, you’ve already dispensed with the claim of inerrancy - blaming errors on transmission. So since it’s clearly in the wrong order, it’s convenient to blame any errors on corruption - I could do the same with any creation myth, or indeed any story, saying that it really describes, say, the water cycle, or plate tectonics, or whatever.Nimrod Equinox clearly is one of those kids who failed every teaching in school but self-esteme. Equinox I hope you feel better. If you’ve put forward your views in Christian forums or in churches, I doubt you’ll get as tolerant response as you gotten here. Try it - see if anyone objects to your saying that the story in Genesis is incorrect due to transmission corruption, something that most of us here agree with you on. Have a fun day-
Did you even bother to see the thread I linked you to? Here is a better way for you to find my posts. Click on my name in THIS post and see my post history. Click on the Babylonian Genesis Heidel (titled) post. But dont start there.I have 3 more posts (different screen name) in a row right above it.Plus there was 3-4 posts above that between Arach and me. It will be about 8 posts for you to read. Also,I need to advise you of something: I plan on making a new thread (if allowed) when I get a computer (and can paste better),and I intend to past EVERY last post I have made in this thread into the opening thread(s) of that new thread.Since I think (?) I have pasted every last comment of yours in my posts(here), then that means everybody will see your responces.Make then good beacuse many will see them for years right at the start of a thread.I dont plan on responding anymore on THIS thread so your next responce(s) will be the end of our debate (presently) BUT then I will past and respond to it sometime in the new thread (if the MODs allow me to start it) in the future. I advise you to start researching better before posting or you WILL be made into quite an example. Granted Creationists (at least the ones who post here) have no shame inletting their unresearched crack show 24/7-post after post.Standards are rather low around here to be sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Nimrod, your accounts have been merged under your new name.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What's your problem here? The last major thud faced by scholars was with their bold declaration king david was a myth - they're still recovering from that fall. Every week a major discovery is unearthed in Palestine - that ground talks, and verifies its declared history, math and science. There is no document with more stats and none which contents have been equally vindicated.
quote: Science, history and math have to prove themselves too. There is scientific proof of a 3000 + years egyptian stele which mentions a war with *ISRAEL*; there is mathematical proof the Genesis calendar is the most accurate one in existence; there is historial proof the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by europeans and pre-islamic arabs.
quote: Ok, the world's Institutions follow all the dumb laws of the OT: but you have not come up with one from elsewhere. Take your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ok, then tell me this - anyone can - which came first: Evolution - or Wisdom? There is NO bypassing that Q.
quote: The designs on abutterfly are not random - you act like you just proved they are. Its like finding a car on Mars and declaring it random - just to justify another insane premise. 'TO COVER ONE INSANITY - A 1000 INSANITIES MUST BE COVERED' Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: he did'nt fool me. He never mentioned what in genesis was at odds with science, math or histor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Since when is referring to the actual texts, a *DODGE* of the issue - and by whom - the dodger?
quote: Well, why don't you read the texts and give your appraisal - if this is a battle of textual comprehension I welcome it? My reading of it says genesis separates life forms as vegetation - meaning all plants which do not talk and talk; fish are ocean based; birds are flying things; the last life form is one that TALKS! etc. The distinction made by genesis is correct - and it stands today after 3500 years - why are you confused - you have to explain your display of aghastness.
quote: Obviously, you are not addressing anything in the text, while accusing me of selecting what I want to. Its not about me - its about what the text says, and you have not addressed it. The texts clearly describes what it means by 'kind' - for fish (swarming in the oceans) and for birds (who have flight), and same for vegetation (a myriad of plants and shrubs of every kind). Genesis, IMHO, is correct to its texts. The last life form - before which none others had speech - also is correct and vindicated. Cross-specie has some way to go - even by its own manipulations in dividing humans by skeletal design: as if this is the differentials between animals and humans! - no sir - skeletal design and life are common to all life forms.
quote: Genesis is not out to prove or disprove darwin. Its the other wy around - and Genesis is winning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Vacate
Here is Genesis' reading of what it means by 'kind' - an apt term used for all generations of mankind's understanding: Vegetation - a comprehensive, non-confusion description:
quote: Another descriptive 'KIND' (aka FISH):
quote: Mammals and crawleys:
quote: ETC, ETC, ETC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Ok, then tell me this - anyone can - which came first: Evolution - or Wisdom? There is NO bypassing that Q. This response really doesnt make any sense whatsoever. But there are two different answers. If you are asking whether the mechanism we call evolution existed before wisdom, the answer is an obvious "yes!" The mechanism was at work long before humanity arose and developed the concept or attributes of "wisdom." If you're asking whether the theory that describes the mechanism came before wisdom, then obviously the theory came later. This is entirely irrelevant, however. I dont think you read what I posted. There is no "wisdom" or intelligence or anything else acting on evolution or the formation of ice crystals. Evolution is guided solely by natural selection, selecting from the random mutations to continue those versions that survive to reproduce. Species do not "decide" to grow wings or develop sentience - the concepts of intelligence and wisdom are completely irrelevant. If you disagree, and you believe some form of wisdom guides evolution, then explain why evolution makes such idiotic "decisions" as the human appendix, or the flawed human eye, or the fact that we use a single tube for breathing and food intake, allowing for easy choking.
The designs on abutterfly are not random - you act like you just proved they are. Its like finding a car on Mars and declaring it random - just to justify another insane premise. I didnt say they were random. I said that evolution uses natural selection to select from natural random mutations to cause gradual change over generations. That's entirely different from saying they are random. The point was to show that complexity does NOT require an intelligence to guide it - the patterns on butterfly wings do not require a painter to come and draw them, and neither do ice crystals need to be sculpted by hand. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Here is Genesis' reading of what it means by 'kind' - an apt term used for all generations of mankind's understanding: and yet, evidently, misunderstood by you. when the text says "after its kind" it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing it names is a "kind." it means that those things have subsets that breed amongst themselves and the author doesn't want to list them all. if you're particularly interested, here is a post i made a while back cross-referencing the "kinds" listed in leviticus 11 with their place in linean taxonomy, where i show that the usage of the word is closer to family or genus, and obviously colloquial and not scientific (as it's all over the map).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything. Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system.
quote: The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved; using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise. There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'.
quote: Your premise is random and nothing else. Pushing the buck further does not change it. Its like saying a car does not result by random, but each car part's metal did not require 'an intelligence to guide it': who says that is not random!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Interesting that you debated this factor - it shows deliberation is required with the exacting texts of the OT. While i agree there is no need to list all in a kind or group, I found the OT texts remarkable in positing a premise with the most appropriate and shortest measure of words. This indicates a majestic mastery of words and what it is saying: 'NOT TO OVERLOAD A DONKEY' aplies for all domestic working animals - no need to list them all. Reading your link, there is no question the OT undrstands minute breakdowns and variances of life forms, and this pertains also to the 'hidden' biological structures of life forms. The pig is noted for having a hidden attribute not shared by any animal, and this is vindicated till today: how was this info derivable, considering we could not perform this feat even in today's computer archives and biology prowess with animals - how would the OT know there is no similar animal harbouring that hidden attribute in the amazon, tasmania, africa or iceland? Fluke or guessmatics are out - it goes on to do the same with fish hidden in the oceans, and other animals displaying the reverse of the pig! I find the uninitiated have not regarded impacting, relevent factors and determined selectively. The variations between kinds, eg different sub-groups with animals and birds, does not impact Genesis at all. We will probably find more sub-groups within the sub-groups in the future, and devise new categories. But the mode of genesis' separation is a big picture view, and more importantly, it is fully in keeping with the relevent premise it makes. Genesis separates humans from other life forms in accord with the only unique factor applicable: speech; birds by flying; fish by water submerged; etc. It would have been ubsurd to nominate hidden, internal structural and skelatal factors here - they would be meaningless and superflous. There was never any need to list non-unique factors between humans and other life forms: Genesis, IMHO, is 100% correct and vindicated. Describing humans as 'son of man' (from the seed of man); from and to the dust (particles of matter); as the final life form; the only one able to have dominion of the universe; and unique by speech - are valid and vindicated constants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Since when is referring to the actual texts, a *DODGE* of the issue - and by whom - the dodger? You are attempting to use the Biblical text in an effort to show the Theory of Evolution incorrect. You have simply insisted that the text is adequate, but when I have asked for more information about your definition of "kind" you said it had no impact. I call this a dodge.
why are you confused Several reasons. I will select a few quotes from you to show my confusion.
it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis Kind seems to imply "anything thats not rock" here. If you do not see a problem with this suggestion, I will remind you that Noah took 2 of every kind on the ark. It also leaves scant time for macro evolution to have produced the millions of species we see today.
Neaderthal would have to be pre-adam. Genesis does not negate pre-speech prototypes. Here you have decided that a Kind is at the species level. You also include humans at the species level. The only justification for these two at this level seems to be that Neaderthal didnt speak, and Humans do.
There is a mysterious statute in the OT which says the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form Without including the possibility of evolution how does the pig become seperate from all the other kinds? Was the pig also its own kind? (species level once again)
My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). Equinox pointed out the errors in this classification attempt in message 247 Your simple separation of animals/plants is based only on its obvious attributes (flies, swims, speaks, produces milk, or is plant-like). There are many very obvious problems with this method of classification.
My point here is that your generalized definitions do not help in being clear why you feel the bible successfully rules out evolution. As I have said already - you have classifications range from all of biology to the species level. If each example of species is a kind they cannot all fit on the ark. If all of biology is one kind then there would be no need for an ark (a canoe would suffice) but you have let macroevolution run rampant.
What's your problem here? Now do you see what my problem is, and why I am confused? I see no reason for you to immediatly "vindicate" Genesis when there are so many issues that you fail to address first. Genesis is not vindicated until you are able to deal with the obvious contradictions to your claims.
Genesis is not out to prove or disprove darwin. Its the other wy around - and Genesis is winning. Last that I looked neither Darwin nor the Theory of Evolution set out to disprove the bible. I don't believe that either is at odds personally. Its your literal interpretation that is at odds. Edited by Vacate, : Fixed link to wrong post!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything. There is no intelligence guiding the process. Hence, wisdom is irrelevant.
Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system. When the appendix is removed, absolutely no harm results unless complications occur in the surgery (infection, etc - irrelevant to the appendix itself). The human eye has a blind spot other, more distantly evolved creatures (octopi and birds, for instance) lack. There can be no purpose for a blind spot in an eye. And of course the "jitterbugging particles" are idiots. The only one ascribing any intelligence to any process is you! Not I. The genetic code is not intelligent, nor does anyone claim it to be so. Again, you're attacking strawmen. You clearly have no concept of what evolution DOES say.
The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved; That's not a definition for the word "random." No intelligent source governs the evaporation of water, but we know that it's not random whether water will evaporate or not. It's a direct cause-effect relationship based on ambient temperatures, humidity, and the basic physical properties of water. No intelligence, not random.
using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise. How so? I see no contradiction.
There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'. There most certainly IS such a thing as natural selection, and it's an obvious, direct observation. You don't seem to understand that the process of evolution has actually been directly observed in a laboratory. Some of the very members of this board have been involved in such research. We KNOW that random mutation happens. We KNOW that beneficial and neutral mutations survive to reproduce while detrimental ones fail. Look, Joseph. None of your responses make any sense whatsoever. I'm done here - this discussion is off topic for this thread anyway, and I have no desire to attempt to understand your ramblings about "wisdom" or any other irrelevant topic. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024