But there is nothing in Genesis that suggests the possibility of change.
Can former atheists explain what atheism is?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Except that is not how it happened. Plants came after stars and planets were formed and that did not take a day either.
What could'a been is irrelevant. We know how evolution of the universe and everthing in it unfolded and the biblical description is just flat wrong!
At least modify scripture to agree with what we know is true, not what we speculate might possibly be true.
It isn'teven possibly true. The way it is described in scripture is false. There is no moral justification for maintaining this false tale, in either physical science or moral philosophy. Get real!
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
Ok, so what? We can infer based on what it says and then see what actually happens. We see micro, not macro. Put 2&2 together, there it is.
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
Yes, the sun came later. We must leave room for the supernatural, while at the same time, giving assumptions and man-made ideas lessor weight then they possibly deserve.
I don’t see it as that, many don’t. Even many scientists. We have allot of assumptions truth be told.
Well, that kind of negates the point of inspired scripture. How about we move? What does the bible assert that we now know as wrong, to support your position? I am listening.
Give me an example friend. We are just talking here. I am open as much as I can be.
Last edited:
So what is that we would not expect to see what we do see. What we do see would be a complete surprise to the reader of Genesis.
We could also infer that "kinds" were perfectly immutable. In fact, that is what people did infer from Genesis for centuries.
Exactly. In fact, it's not a science book at _all._ You could learn more (and more accurate) science from a comic book.
Again, no. It not only contradicts history, it contradicts _itself._ If it were a history book, it would be corrected so it was accurate. But it's not. It's like the Odyssey; a seminal work from around 800 BC, one studied by scholars worldwide for what it can teach us. But nobody thinks there is actually a Cyclops.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Convenient that the gods only want the lo-cal smoke, ain't it...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, we must not leave room for false science. Photosynthesis is a naturally evolved response to sunlight as a form of energy.
Manmade ideas and assumptions from 100,000 years ago do not carry the weight of today's scientific knowledge.
No, there are some assumptions being told and disputed among scientists. None of them involve the supernatural.
OTOH, religious people do not question at all. Scripture is TRUTH. End of story, lest you go to hell! My wife used to get "demerits" for asking questions in catholic school.
EVERYTHING. I suggest you REMOVE religion and start from scratch. Oh, we did.
Tried Mormonism yet? Or Scientology?
I could ask, what does the bible assert that we know to be right?
Ok, how old is the earth? When did the first life appear and in what form?
THAT CAME LATER.
At what time did the Prokaryod change to the Eukaryod. Something to do with "making oxygen"?
THAT CAME LATER.
There was a time the earth did not, could not, support oxygen based life.
THAT CAME LATER.
Were "fossils" deposited before or after creation? When did God create the paramecium, before or after he created man?
OR DID MAN COME LATER?
The entire creation story is false. None of it happened as told.
You can make all kinds of claims justifying metaphors and the like, but metaphors and parables do not establish physical history.
All mythology and fables can be assigned some redeeming qualities, but that does not make them scientifically correct. Santa Claus is beloved by all children. They pray to Santa and promise to be "good"!!!
Santa exists for real? Scientifically proven to exist?
Haeckel's Paleontological Tree of Vertebrates (c. 1879). The evolutionary history of species has been described as a "tree" with many branches arising from a single trunk. While Haeckel's tree is somewhat outdated, it illustrates clearly the principles that more complex modern reconstructions can obscure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Last edited:
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
Right! That's why it is NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. Or a history book.
Of what? Ancient literature that isn't literally true? Biblical self-contradictions?
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
Generally speaking, I concur. The ancients view on reality is probably better than ours, as, they were closer to the beginning than us. That has to speak for something. We writedown what we know and see, why wouldn’t they? Just because they were long ago, does not negate some of their findings.
I agree and I don’t. Assumptions are key is getting to root of a question. Fact or assumption? Many many scientists debate the supernatural aspect to this. Dawkins? There are many more.
Great questions. Another thread. Too much to unpack there.
With no scientific method per se and no instruments.
Ergo, not a chance in hell that their view is "better than ours".
Correct. But the fact that they've been shown to be wrong does.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
Has science answered, we know how life began, or to they beleive they think they have the answer?
What about the stuff that is? Do you mean to say no ancient literature gives us an accurate account of events? None?
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Fishapods-58979e7e3df78caebc1e7327.png)
We have fossils.
Yes, yes we do. Amazingly, many feel they fit perfectly into biblical chronology. But that’s whole other topic.
BlueSky
Registered Senior Member
They knew plants really well. And ship building. And tower building. And war
Agree. Depends what we are talking about I suppose.
BlueSky
It’s good that we agree on something, hopefully we can agree on other things.
Jesus said (according to the bible );
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”
This is the ultimate aim. How you get to that point, is where religion comes in. Any religion that directs its members to that end, is the right religion.
God is unique. Period.
Did you forget about the creation of Adam, as told in the Bible?
God created a man out of the earth, then breathed life into his nostril. Then it goes on to say the man became a living soul.
So yes God created man, but they have that component of God, in order to make them “living souls. Any that is living, has the same counterpart that allows animation of the form.
Good.
I already gave the the purpose of all religion, which is to teach any willing participant to Love God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
We can read accounts either in the gospels, or other scriptures, that teach the same thing.
Can you explain what and who is God?
This is from the Bhagavad Gita;
I am the same to all beings, and my love is ever the same; but those who worship me with devotion, they are in me and I am in them.
For if even one who does evil were to worship me with all his soul, he must be considered righteous, because of his righteous will.
He will soon become pure and reach everlasting peace. For be aware, Arjuna, that he who loves me shall not perish.
Jan.
It’s good that we agree on something, hopefully we can agree on other things.
Jesus said (according to the bible );
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”
This is the ultimate aim. How you get to that point, is where religion comes in. Any religion that directs its members to that end, is the right religion.
God is unique. Period.
Did you forget about the creation of Adam, as told in the Bible?
God created a man out of the earth, then breathed life into his nostril. Then it goes on to say the man became a living soul.
So yes God created man, but they have that component of God, in order to make them “living souls. Any that is living, has the same counterpart that allows animation of the form.
Good.
I already gave the the purpose of all religion, which is to teach any willing participant to Love God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
We can read accounts either in the gospels, or other scriptures, that teach the same thing.
Can you explain what and who is God?
This is from the Bhagavad Gita;
I am the same to all beings, and my love is ever the same; but those who worship me with devotion, they are in me and I am in them.
For if even one who does evil were to worship me with all his soul, he must be considered righteous, because of his righteous will.
He will soon become pure and reach everlasting peace. For be aware, Arjuna, that he who loves me shall not perish.
Jan.
Last edited:
We know how we evolved from single cell organisms. We don't yet know how abiogenesis happened, but we have several likely theories.
What about the stuff that is . . . what? Contradictory? Accurate? The contradictory stuff indicates that the Bible is not literally true, which we knew already. The accurate stuff is oral history that was accurately preserved.
Some historical stuff gives us an accurate account of events. Specifically, stuff that records history. Some historical stuff gives us a non accurate account of events. Specifically, religious mythology and fictionalized accounts.
And again, that's not to say that there's no use in studying such things. For example, take the Odyssey. I hope we can agree that there was no such thing as the Cyclops. But it discusses the Trojan War and the Fall of Troy, both of which actually happened. So it's worth studying from both a historical standpoint and an ancient literature standpoint. Like the Bible.