Creation or Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**
Lief_Erikson said:
The chapter suggests that Adam was created in a barren place. It says God put him in the Garden. Perhaps picked him up and put him there, or perhaps led him there.
Click to expand...
I should think he, including Eve, was created there. Later kicked out, because he and his wife gave room to the word of the snake Lucifer (Genesis 3:1ff).

But again:
What good is it at all, to quarrel and loose love over a question, we will see anyhow. Arguing about a question that will never find an end because there’s no other proof than the Old Testament (which is of course a lot more trustable than “science”), doesn’t make much sense and it might even lead to not getting in to Gods kingdom.
You know How you’ll recognise Adam and Eva when you se them in heaven?
They’ll be the only once without a belly button 😃

**
 
Lief_Erikson said:
Except that Genesis 2 does not say they were first created after man had come to the Garden of Eden.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:18-19 reads:Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The words “I will make” and the connective “So” to me make it obvious that these verses are talking about the order in which things happened. That order is different to the order in Genesis 1 for birds. On a reasonably literal interpretation these two chapters contradict each other. Not perhaps surprising since Genesis 1 is from the P source, and this part of chapter 2 is from the J source.
God is eternal. He could have foreseen man’s loneliness from eternity and made the animals (partly) for him from the ground, billions or millions of years before making Adam, and then brought them to Adam when the recently created man was feeling lonely and desirous of company.
Click to expand...
God could have foreseen the Fall of man and sent Jesus the day after the Fall, but He did not. What God could have done covers a much wider range than what He actually did.
Genesis 2:19 doesn’t say when God created the animals out of the ground, chronologically. One might assume that he created them after bringing Adam to Eden if one didn’t have the Genesis 1 account, but given that both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 come from the mouth of God, we don’t have to make that error.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I talked about birds, and Genesis 2:19 clearly says “every bird of the air”. Secondly, you are starting with the assumption that Genesis is without error and interpreting it accordingly. Hence your interpretation is assuming what it sets out to prove. That is not logically correct; you cannot assume what you want to prove.

rossum
 
historyb said:
Can’t and not interested to. I don’t waste my time with that and it was in 1998 it’s comon knowledge that public high schools have no mention of God. duh
Click to expand...
Duh indeed. They are prevented by our country’s constitution from doing so, and if it weren’t for the vigilance of those who diligently monitor the separation of church and state, one can only imagine what sort of tripe public school students would be fed by proselytising teachers and administrators.

Imagine a Catholic child, in an area where a parochial school is not available, at the mercy of a rabid Southern Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness or other religious kook for a teacher.

The first amendment is there not to suppress religion but to ensure freedom of religion for all.

And by the way, shame on the school that allowed yourself and several other losers to be put in a sham biology class. Talk about ‘dumbing down’ students.
 
beeliner said:
Duh indeed. They are prevented by our country’s constitution from doing so, and if it weren’t for the vigilance of those who diligently monitor the separation of church and state, one can only imagine what sort of tripe public school students would be fed by proselytising teachers and administrators.

Imagine a Catholic child, in an area where a parochial school is not available, at the mercy of a rabid Southern Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness or other religious kook for a teacher.

The first amendment is there not to suppress religion but to ensure freedom of religion for all.

And by the way, shame on the school that allowed yourself and several other losers to be put in a sham biology class. Talk about ‘dumbing down’ students.
Click to expand...
I do not often link to articles from WorldNetDaily, but there is one that makes a sensible commentary on this subject: Why I’m against pre-game prayers.

rossum
 
Bruno_Schulz said:
**

I should think he, including Eve, was created there. Later kicked out, because he and his wife gave room to the word of the snake Lucifer (Genesis 3:1ff).**You are wrong on two counts - at least.

Firstly, Genesis does not identify the serpent as the devil or as any sort of supernatural entity whatever, only as ‘the most cunning beast in the garden’. The identification of the serpent with SATAN, not Lucifer, is merely an afterthought, the concept of Satan being Exilic in origin.

Secondly, the name ‘Lucifer’ refers not to the devil but to the planet Venus, the morning star, as personified by the king of Babylon, who may have been a devilish individual, but a mere human nonetheless.
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
I do not often link to articles from WorldNetDaily, but there is one that makes a sensible commentary on this subject: Why I’m against pre-game prayers.

rossum
Click to expand...
The writer has the right idea, though I’m not sure that the Buddhist prayer was any more harmful to him or his children than a Christian prayer would have been to the Buddhists in attendance.

The point is, such things have no purpose whatever except to proselytise to a captive audience. That is clearly an affront to freedom of religion.
 
buffalo said:
Nope - the pagan myths are distortions of Revelation.
Click to expand...
Since the pagan myths in this case are many centuries older than Genesis, that would be quite a trick.
Since science is taught in school and in public school God is excluded it suggests to the student that science is more important than God.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it suggests to intelligent students that science is immutable but human concepts of God vary enormously, and in a free society, freedom of religion must be protected.

Do you know of any public school that discourages its students from attending the house of worship of their choice and otherwise following their faith? I didn’t think so.
 
historyb said:
Can’t and not interested to. I don’t waste my time with that and it was in 1998 it’s comon knowledge that public high schools have no mention of God. duh
Click to expand...
Thank you for making the point for us. You can’t not because you don’t want to waste your time, you can’t because there are no biology textbooks (at least none that have been presented to support the accusation) that explicitly deny God’s role in creation.

Not mentioning God is not the same as atheistic.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
I think you are missing the point here. Since science is taught in school and in public school God is excluded it suggests to the student that science is more important than God. It also makes perfect sense because the student can feel and touch and prove true emperical science. They are not given the tools to properly understand the limits of this.
Click to expand...
Sorry buffalo, but I think that in this case you are the one who is missing the point. Excluding God does not equal atheism nor does it suggest that science is more important than God. If it did, you would have an argument that world geography as taught in public school was atheistic geography. Or that physical education (or what passes for it any more) that is taught in public school is atheistic P.E. I don’t think even Ed would make that claim.

Peace

Tim
 
edwest2 said:
Some years ago, a group of scientists mutated fruit flies. They ended up with fruit flies. Really messed up fruit flies but fruit flies. No evolution, just some genetic rearrangement here and there. None of the fruit flies turned turned into bats, or cats or dogs.

Funny thing about breeding dogs, you always end up with a dog. No evolution.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Did you learn about that from an atheistic biology textbook Ed?

I’m still waiting for you to save a little face here and show us that you were not just making up arguments for your position. I’m sure you understand that if you actually have to make up strawmen to support your position, your position isn’t valid, right?

Peace

Tim
 
Lief_Erikson said:
  1. The chapter suggests that Adam was created in a barren place.
  2. It says God put him in the Garden. Perhaps picked him up and put him there, or perhaps led him there. It doesn’t say that man was created before the Garden itself.
  3. And yes, while it says that man was initially alone, Genesis 1’s statement, “he created them,” does not contradict this.
  4. Vatican II created some confusion of this kind, when it said that the Bible was inerrant in “faith and morals,” and didn’t mention science or history. Prior to that council, which was pastoral and non-infallible, the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout its history was that the Bible was entirely accurate, in faith, morals, history, science, “in every part.”
  5. I do not agree with you that “there are many errors of fact.” It may be that a few errors slipped into the texts due to the mistakes of copyists or translators, but I don’t buy that there are many, and I can get you quotes from scholars to confirm that.
Click to expand...
  1. No, it doesn’t.
  2. I can’t let you get away with that, Liefster, you are just like all the other fundamentalists, you cry Bible, Bible, Bible and then distort every page to fit your own agenda.
Of course it says that man was created before the Garden!

Here are three translations (with MY emphasis), take your pick:
KJV: 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.
Click to expand...
NAV: 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. THEN the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and the placed there the man whom he HAD formed.
Click to expand...
GNB: Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. THEN the Lord planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he HAD formed.
Click to expand...
  1. By itself, that is correct, but you are ignoring the fact that Genesis 1 says clearly that they were created male and female on the SIXTH day, and Genesis 2 has man (male) created BEFORE the plants and trees which Genesis 1 assures us were created on the THIRD day.
  2. Nonsense! I will take your word, while doubtful, that that was ‘on the books’ until Vatican II. The concept of literal truth in matters unrelated to religion was abandoned about the time of Kant or earlier. The Catholic Church certainly did not deny the heliocentric nature of the solar system until Vatican II!
  3. Factual errors in scripture are beyond the scope of this thread, but claiming that there are none apart from copyists’ errors is the very opposite of scholarship. Name one or two ‘scholars’ who make such a claim. Any error can be explained away if no limit is put on how ridiculous the explanation can be.
The Bible is a book of faith, not of fact. That some parts of it may also be factual is not in dispute.
 
edwest2 said:
Funny thing about breeding dogs, you always end up with a dog. No evolution.
Click to expand...
As a point of fact, I believe that the common dog, Canis canis is indeed capable of breeding with some other species.

But I am not a dog expert - perhaps another poster can confirm or deny this.

In any case, it has nothing to do specifically with evolution but rather with genetics, as did the experiments with fruit flies.
 
**I do not often link to articles from WorldNetDaily, but there is one that makes a sensible commentary on this subject: Why I’m against pre-game prayers.
**

I am shocked but delighted that World Net Daily would permit such a sensible and Christlike letter to be published on their site.
 
beeliner said:
Since the pagan myths in this case are many centuries older than Genesis, that would be quite a trick.On the contrary, it suggests to intelligent students that science is immutable but human concepts of God vary enormously, and in a free society, freedom of religion must be protected.

Do you know of any public school that discourages its students from attending the house of worship of their choice and otherwise following their faith? I didn’t think so.
Click to expand...
One doesn’t have to forbid something to devalue it. I cannot believe you cannot understand that there are other ways to change behavior and beliefs.

I need some sources that show pagan myths are older than the source materials for Genesis.
 
Orogeny said:
Sorry buffalo, but I think that in this case you are the one who is missing the point. Excluding God does not equal atheism nor does it suggest that science is more important than God. If it did, you would have an argument that world geography as taught in public school was atheistic geography. Or that physical education (or what passes for it any more) that is taught in public school is atheistic P.E. I don’t think even Ed would make that claim.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Still missing the point. I make no claim that it is atheistic. I make the point about the outcome purposeful or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top