Bible-Creation-Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Is that the same wiki article that says:

In academic circles the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a creation or cosmogonic myth. The word myth comes from the Greek root for "story" or "legend", and describes a culturally significant or sacred account explaining the origins of existence by using metaphorical language and symbolism to express ideas. In academic use, the term myth generally does not pass judgment on the truth or falsity of the story.[42] The text has also been variously described as historical narrative[43][44] (i.e., a literal account); as mythic history (i.e., a symbolic representation of historical time); as ancient science (in that, for the original authors, the narrative represented the current state of knowledge about the cosmos and its origin and purpose); and as theology (as it describes the origin of the earth and humanity in terms of God).[45]​

Probably -- anything can come from academic circles.

Are those the same circles that prompt us to hang witches, march off on crusades and bring people before a board of inquisition?

 

[Tiberius]

Repost them here please

Alright...

The Bible says...

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

It also says:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God didn't create the plants, or the animals of the sea, or the animals of the land. He told the sea and the land to bring them forth, which fits in with evolutionary theory.

And don't discount it simply because I'm not a Christian. This guy is a Christian, and he thinks exactly the same way. he even published on Answers in Genesis!

The first few of which Big Bang? which beginning? The Big Bang theory has many theories, one of which suggests Multiple Bangs.

The first few seconds of the expansion of the universe. And what do you mean, "which Big Bang"? Until you can show that there is sufficient evidence to support that idea over the standard model of the Big Bang, don't start acting like the several beginnings idea is the correct one.

That's the thing about science. We wait until we have evidence before we start saying something is true.

Why dont we have the first few seconds?

Because our understanding of the universe breaks down. The universe immediately after the Big Bang was a singularity, and it operated by different laws to the ones we see today. However, string theory may give us a way to figure that stuff out, but for the moment, string theory is still a "work in progress".

I believe what the Bible tells me. I believe by Faith.

How do you come to conclusions of eternal things?

So you make exceptions to things when they are about your relgion? That's a bit of a double standard, isn't it?

secondly, i have yet to see anything that I have a reason to think is eternal. if you;d care to show me such a thing, I'd be happy to let you know.

Please repost it or give me the post number. Thanks.

You can find my post here

 

[Lillen]

One intressting note, is that weddingsceremonys has no what soever support in the bible. The bible doesn't give blueprints on how to perform a wedding, yet the only holy book speaking of the unitation of two people into one body is the bible, something that is inherited from the bible to all religions...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

One intressting note, is that weddingsceremonys has no what soever support in the bible. The bible doesn't give blueprints on how to perform a wedding, yet the only holy book speaking of the unitation of two people into one body is the bible, something that is inherited from the bible to all religions...

Err... religious marriages have been performed long before the Bible was written, and the Bible certainly isn't the only religious text that talks of marriage as a union between two people.

 

[1611AV]

Err... religious marriages have been performed long before the Bible was written, and the Bible certainly isn't the only religious text that talks of marriage as a union between two people.

 

[Lillen]

We cannot observe that... i thought you needed reliable observations that supported the facts before believing in them... there are no what so ever record of a marrige before the bible was written, and as i said other religious texts adopted the union between man and woman from judeo-christendom...

 

[SithDoughnut]

We cannot observe that... i thought you needed reliable observations that supported the facts before believing in them... there are no what so ever record of a marrige before the bible was written, and as i said other religious texts adopted the union between man and woman from judeo-christendom...

Tell that to the Chinese. They had marriage centuries before Christianity. I've got a book that talks about it a bit, but this Wikipedia page (yes, I know) covers the basics.

Chinese marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The books Chinese marriage come from, AFAIK, are The Book of Rites, The Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial, and the Baihu Tong. They outline the three Covenants and six Rites of marriage. Obviously, there were many variations on how marriage was expected to work, but the basics are the same.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We cannot observe that... i thought you needed reliable observations that supported the facts before believing in them...

Indeed. So, where are your reliable observations that support your assertions?

there are no what so ever record of a marrige before the bible was written, and as i said other religious texts adopted the union between man and woman from judeo-christendom...

Again, where are you supporting facts?

The Ancient Egyptians had marriages and wedding ceremonies, and were the first people to record them in law (qv.). This predates the Bible (compiled c. 100CE) by a good few thousand years.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did morality evolve? I've been having a long discussion with Chesterton over at EC about that very topic (among others). My stance is yes, morality did evolve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did morality evolve?

No -- Adam wasn't one day old yet existentially when he got married.

Later, Jesus used Adam's marriage to Eve to make a point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No -- Adam wasn't one day old yet existentially when he got married.

Allegedly

Later, Jesus used Adam's marriage to Eve to make a point.

Allegedly.

 

[Lillen]

May i ask, do donovan sing "i'm so mad about fourteens" here?

YouTube - Donovan - Mellow Yellow

 

[Belk]

May i ask, do donovan sing "i'm so mad about fourteens" here?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

 

[1611AV]

Alright...

Thanks for the reposts. I didnt forget about you, Ive been out all day, I will answer these tonight. BTW they are good examples of the main question I asked.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

May i ask, do donovan sing "i'm so mad about fourteens" here?

He do. His daughter also did date Anthony from the Chili Peppers.

 

[paul becke]

Interesting site:

Science Quotes

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Interesting site:

I didn't find it too interesting.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Interesting site:

Science Quotes

Meh, quotes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Interesting site:

Science Quotes

A series of quotes from scientists attesting to Creationism (or, at least, the improbability of life, the Earth, the universe, etc, arising without a (divine) intelligence). I like this one, if only because I like Prigogine:

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28

​

Despite Prigogine's contributions to statistics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc, his objection to evolution is fundamentally flawed - it stems from Prigogine's own flawed theories of emergent complexity.

​

In any case, a billion quotes by a billion men won't change the facts. One of these facts is simply that virtually the entire scientific community accepts the theory of common descent. Quote all the dead scientists you want, I have a million more living ones .

 

[sandwiches]

Interesting site:

Science Quotes

I thought you said they were science quotes... =\