Bible first Darwin second.

[duordi]

Most evolutionist think that Darwin came up with the idea of "variation of the species" first, which is untrue.

In the Bible which predates Darwin "Variation Of The Species" was a curse placed on mankind because we chose evil rather than good.

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Notice three things.
1. Variation of the species a curse not a blessing.
2. Nature will change into something that will hurt us.
3. It will eventually cause our death.

What God is suggesting here is that the plants and indeed all of nature will have organisms which are more "fit to survive" than mankind.

I am curious from an evolutionist perspective would you disagree with this?
Would you make the case that mankind is more fit to survive than bacteria and disease or all other types of life?

Would you consider the extinction of mankind a good thing? or a bad thing?

What kind of odds would you give nature being able to cause human extinction as Genesis suggests assuming God does not intervene?

Duordi

 

[[serious]]

Epic of Gilgamesh first, bible second, darwin third.

Most people think that the bible or evolution discusses the origin of civilization, but it really all comes from the epic of gilgamesh. Enkidu, after being seduced by a temple prostitute, seeks to become civilized.

 

[duordi]

Does "Epic of Gilgamesh" discuss "variation of the species"?
I though it was more of a "soap opera" and not so much a "nature" thing but I would be very interested in text quote.

According to the Bible Moses was taking dictation from God verbally.

Exodus 33:7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. 8 And it came about, whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. 9 Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So unless you have a better source than God I will stick to what I am using.

That's the problem with the Bible, if you have faith it is extremely useful but if you do not have faith then it is useless to you.

If you can not believe the bible it on a simple thing how can you believe it to save your soul?

Duordi

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does "Epic of Gilgamesh" discuss "variation of the species"?
I though it was more of a "soap opera" and not so much a "nature" thing but I would be very interested in text quote.

According to the Bible Moses was taking dictation from God verbally.

Exodus 33:7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. 8 And it came about, whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. 9 Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So unless you have a better source than God I will stick to what I am using.

That's the problem with the Bible, if you have faith it is extremely useful but if you do not have faith then it is useless to you.

If you can not believe the bible it on a simple thing how can you believe it to save your soul?

Duordi

The Bible is not "God". A mistake that many creationist make. Both Genesis and Exodus seem to be books of myth. There was no Exodus. There is no record and archaeologists say that even without Egyptian records if it had happened they would have found evidence of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Bible is not "God". A mistake that many creationist make. Both Genesis and Exodus seem to be books of myth. There was no Exodus. There is no record and archaeologists say that even without Egyptian records if it had happened they would have found evidence of it.

Exodus events were actually impossible. That number of slaves as per claimed in the bible that left by themselves is too many for the area to have ever provided food for, and that doesn't even include the non slave population or the slaves who weren't of the "chosen people".

 

[[serious]]

Does "Epic of Gilgamesh" discuss "variation of the species"?
I though it was more of a "soap opera" and not so much a "nature" thing but I would be very interested in text quote.

According to the Bible Moses was taking dictation from God verbally.

Exodus 33:7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. 8 And it came about, whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. 9 Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So unless you have a better source than God I will stick to what I am using.

That's the problem with the Bible, if you have faith it is extremely useful but if you do not have faith then it is useless to you.

If you can not believe the bible it on a simple thing how can you believe it to save your soul?

Duordi

Yes! a hairy, wild man evolved into a noble civilized man. And the authorship of Genesis is extrabiblical as is the idea that God directly told the author what to write.

The verse you quote only says that God spoke directly to Moses, not that anyone was taking dictation or the nature of the discussions.

 

[Split Rock]

Most evolutionist think that Darwin came up with the idea of "variation of the species" first, which is untrue.

In the Bible which predates Darwin "Variation Of The Species" was a curse placed on mankind because we chose evil rather than good.

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Notice three things.
1. Variation of the species a curse not a blessing.
2. Nature will change into something that will hurt us.
3. It will eventually cause our death.

What God is suggesting here is that the plants and indeed all of nature will have organisms which are more "fit to survive" than mankind.

I am curious from an evolutionist perspective would you disagree with this?
...

Duordi

1. This seems to indicate that God won't keep a nice garden going for Adam where he can eat without doing much work any longer. Adam was thrown out of the garden of Eden, and into the wild where he had to work for his food. There is no indication that any new variation had something to do with it. Remember, he was kicked out of the garden (never to return)... the garden itself did not change.

2. Again, Adam was kicked out of the garden into the wild. No change in nature was required.

3. The death part is interesting, since the scripture says God wanted to kick Adam out of the garden to keep him from eating of the Tree of Life and thus gain immortality. The implication seems to be that as long as Adam was in the garden, he would not die. If he ate of the Tree of Life, perhaps that would have been made permanent.

 

[Naturalism]

Most evolutionist think that Darwin came up with the idea of "variation of the species" first, which is untrue.

Ah yes a very typical religious tact.

Try to take credit for modern knowledge derived by science. Sure, the bible was as correct in stating variation in biology occurs as it was in many of its other claims, like in how it states showing striped patterns to a pregnant mother results in a striped offspring. So silly.

Would you make the case that mankind is more fit to survive than bacteria and disease or all other types of life?

Considering how long bacteria has been on earth compared with modern humans (H. Sapiens), I would say more simple life like bacteria have some major advantages in overall survival and avoiding extinctions.

Would you consider the extinction of mankind a good thing? or a bad thing?

Well, I am human (humankind not mankind) so naturally I would think it would be a bad thing.

What kind of odds would you give nature being able to cause human extinction as Genesis suggests assuming God does not intervene?

Regrettably, humans have invented the technology in nuclear weapons to seed their own destruction & extinction. No need to wait for nature for that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am curious from an evolutionist perspective would you disagree with this?

Yes.

Would you make the case that mankind is more fit to survive than bacteria and disease or all other types of life?

No. All of us (=species) are fit to survive in the niche we inhabit. Some of us are more presistent and immune to cataclysms then others though. bacteria are one of them. Cockroaches are another.

Would you consider the extinction of mankind a good thing? or a bad thing?

As a human myself, I'ld do my best to prevent it from happening.

What kind of odds would you give nature being able to cause human extinction

1 in 1.

as Genesis suggests

Disagree.

assuming God does not intervene?

Obviously, I don't consider that a possibility.

 

[Strathos]

Well, this is original, I'll give you that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Epic of Gilgamesh first, bible second, darwin third.

Most people think that the bible or evolution discusses the origin of civilization, but it really all comes from the epic of gilgamesh. Enkidu, after being seduced by a temple prostitute, seeks to become civilized.

Or it came later.

How would you know?

 

[SkyWriting]

Ah yes a very typical religious tact.

Try to take credit for modern knowledge derived by science. Sure, the bible was as correct in stating variation in biology occurs as it was in many of its other claims, like in how it states showing striped patterns to a pregnant mother results in a striped offspring. So silly.

It doesn't actually say that, silly.
Sheep do flock to like patterns.
So having patterns to flock to will
result in like patterned offspring.

Shepherds know this, city folks don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't actually say that, silly.
Sheep do flock to like patterns.
So having patterns to flock to will
result in like patterned offspring.

Shepherds know this, city folks don't.

No. Just no.

Let's see if you can support that wild claim from a legitimate source.

 

[[serious]]

Or it came later.

How would you know?

a book says so.

 

[[serious]]

It doesn't actually say that, silly.
Sheep do flock to like patterns.
So having patterns to flock to will
result in like patterned offspring.

Shepherds know this, city folks don't.

Doesn't say that?

That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

37Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals. 41Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

if all the streaked or spotted were already removed, how did the no-longer present sheep flock to the branches

 

[Naturalism]

Exodus events were actually impossible. That number of slaves as per claimed in the bible that left by themselves is too many for the area to have ever provided food for, and that doesn't even include the non slave population or the slaves who weren't of the "chosen people".

Some years back I was interested in the same Exodus story, why there are no other societies in the area and time writing about it as it would have likely been a big event with so many people moving for such a long period of ~ 40 years.

I wondered, how many people were in the Exodus and came to reading parts in the bible in where it would have been around ~ 2,000,000 including all men, women and young. An interesting part of getting this number was also that it didn't work too well with YEC's timelines for the number of people that would have been around at that time.

 

[serge546]

Would you make the case that mankind is more fit to survive than bacteria and disease or all other types of life?

Duordi

Behold! I present to you Deinococcus radiodurans:

Bacteria are not only one thing and have adapted to survive in almost every environment on earth. Compared to this little guy, which can survive exposure to gamma radiation levels 1,000x higher than those required to kill a human, extreme dehydration, and vacuum, our survival strategies are rather weak.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some years back I was interested in the same Exodus story, why there are no other societies in the area and time writing about it as it would have likely been a big event with so many people moving for such a long period of ~ 40 years.

I wondered, how many people were in the Exodus and came to reading parts in the bible in where it would have been around ~ 2,000,000 including all men, women and young. An interesting part of getting this number was also that it didn't work too well with YEC's timelines for the number of people that would have been around at that time.

It doesn't work no matter what, 2 million people just in slaves of a particular religion? There is no way they wouldn't leave behind some sort of evidence.

 

[keith99]

Most evolutionist think that Darwin came up with the idea of "variation of the species" first, which is untrue.

In the Bible which predates Darwin "Variation Of The Species" was a curse placed on mankind because we chose evil rather than good.

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Notice three things.
1. Variation of the species a curse not a blessing.
2. Nature will change into something that will hurt us.
3. It will eventually cause our death.

What God is suggesting here is that the plants and indeed all of nature will have organisms which are more "fit to survive" than mankind.

I am curious from an evolutionist perspective would you disagree with this?
Would you make the case that mankind is more fit to survive than bacteria and disease or all other types of life?

Would you consider the extinction of mankind a good thing? or a bad thing?

What kind of odds would you give nature being able to cause human extinction as Genesis suggests assuming God does not intervene?

Duordi

Guys,

Did you bother to actually read Duordi's post?

What he cites says nothing about variation of species. That there are thorns and thistles says nothing about how they came into being. If anything it implies a special creative act by God.

Some Christians are very prone to this illogic, they take some vague verse that does not rule out some modren knowledge and then claim the Bible documented the modern knowledge first.

And they do such a poor job of it. Kaballic Judiasim does a much better job of it.