Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Speedwell]

Faith comes from the hearing of the word of God... I believe no other religion can make that claim, including Hindu. It's not just words on a page like a science book is words on a page or the Vedas are just words on a page, every word of the Bible is breathed out by God and we are made are of its truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that is a significant distinction.

I believe the Muslims do, but since they take the OT and the Synoptics a scripture along with the Quran, there is really not much difference.

In any case, what does any of that have to do with the genre determination of the Genesis stories?

 

[NobleMouse]

Nah, evolution as a process could still exist even if the world was only 6 thousand years old, it just wouldn't explain how the variety of species we see to day came to be in a complete way. That is, even if one doesn't consider evolution to be the process by which, say, wolves and deer came to be, there is no reason to think that the process could not result in populations of wolves and deer changing and differentiating into different species, genera, etc. with sufficient time. Just because you think the world is relatively young doesn't mean that it is even close to how old it will get.

Don't tell evolutionists that. According to the account, we're left at the end of each day with a life existing as God made, as He intended, as it is described. So, the evolutionary window isn't 6,000 years, it's a day.

I'll go on record as a creationist saying that what life looks like today very well may not have been exactly how it looked when God first created. Many life forms have gone extinct, creation is corrupt, and life forms can have a certain degree of variability to adapt to the environment.

Pretty sure even creationists like you don't believe the flood killed off all sea creatures, otherwise that ark would have been even more crowded. Also, geology isn't the only scientific field that disagrees with the belief of a global flood. Physics and genetics come to mind. For example, the amount of water currently on Earth is not even close to enough to flood all land masses, even if all underground water sources were raised and the ocean raised such that the bottom was not covered in water and all moisture in the atmosphere rained down. The animals listed as clean and birds (7 of each "kind" on the ark") are not more genetically diverse than the unclean ones (2 of each on the ark).

Also, the dimensions of the ark are detailed well enough in the bible that we know the exact size of it, and it turns out to be insufficient for holding all the necessary animals even if Noah had pokeballs to put all of the animals larger than pokeballs into.

Right, and the text doesn't say God had any intent to kill off life in the sea - it explicitly states the face of the earth (wording will vary depending on the version you are using). Also, only two of every KIND only, not two of every single variation of every single species. Again, these are scientific arguments being made against the text, I understand the line of reasoning and it's not illogical or stupid, but it DOES make inferences, assumptions, and analogies in forming a story about the past... or we can take God for His word on the matter.

 

[Speedwell]

You must be basing this on either very limited research, or only reading viewpoints that agree with this position... be assured there are volumes of research, articles, resources, etc... that do not support Genesis 1 & 2 being contradictory creation accounts. I'm not going to do the legwork myself, but will cite one online article to get you started:

Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?

All of them produced by fundamentalist Evangelical scholars, no doubt.

 

[pitabread]

Lie 1: That God did not create life on days 3, 5, & 6 of creation... or that these days were not days. This lie is to help propagate evolutionary beliefs.

Lie 2: That God did not blot out all living flesh on the face of the earth at the time of Noah. This lie is to help propagate old ages conventionally believed within geology.

What about the science that supports biological evolution and the age of the Earth though? Do you believe those are lies?

 

[NobleMouse]

Gotta sign off for the evening brothers (and maybe sisters, not sure), but have a good weekend - all.

God bless -

 

[pitabread]

I challenge you to provide one real world application derived from evolutionary theory that could not have, as readily if not moreso, been derived from design theory.

I challenge you to first provide a cohesive, scientific "design theory" from which applications can be derived.

Regardless, anything to do with applied phylogenetics wouldn't have a "design" equivalent since phylogenetics are by definition the study of evolutionary relationships between organisms. And yes, phylogenetics has various real world applications.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Faith comes from the hearing of the word of God... I believe no other religion can make that claim, including Hindu.

If you know of a single religion in which the believers were not exposed to the religion in any way before becoming believers, I'd say abandon Christianity, because that religion is clearly the miraculous one.

It's not just words on a page like a science book is words on a page or the Vedas are just words on a page, every word of the Bible is breathed out by God and we are made are of its truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that is a significant distinction.

-_- you kinda say this as if I haven't read it, but I have. Trust me, the text makes a better impression if you DON'T assume it was written by a deity, because it has a lot of poor writing choices. I should hope the creator of humanity could do better. I mean, Judges 3:31 comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere.

Some of the decent stories, like the stories about David, are completely ruined by the fact that when people came together to collect these texts into the OT, different groups each wanted their version of their favorite stories in it. The compromise they made was to mash them all together, which was a terrible choice. It made the text extremely repetitive and the stories not as cohesive as they could have been.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't tell evolutionists that.

You mean like me? Hahahahaha.

According to the account, we're left at the end of each day with a life existing as God made, as He intended, as it is described. So, the evolutionary window isn't 6,000 years, it's a day.

-_- not sure what you mean by that. 6 day creation, which occurred 6,000 years ago. Unless you think creation only stopped yesterday, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Also, aside from naming humans specifically, Genesis doesn't go into all that great of detail about the animals created "after their kinds", with "kinds" itself being so ambiguous I've heard people claim it is as specific as subspecies or as broad as family.

I'll go on record as a creationist saying that what life looks like today very well may not have been exactly how it looked when God first created. Many life forms have gone extinct, creation is corrupt, and life forms can have a certain degree of variability to adapt to the environment.

My population of Triops longicaudatus certainly isn't like how the species normally is.

Right, and the text doesn't say God had any intent to kill off life in the sea - it explicitly states the face of the earth (wording will vary depending on the version you are using). Also, only two of every KIND only, not two of every single variation of every single species.

Like I said before, "kind" is extremely ambiguous. No one seems to agree exactly what it means, but the most common claim I have heard is that it is analogous to genus. But unless you think it refers to phylum or class, that ark is going to have a significant shortage of space. But if you think it was such a high level of classification, then it poses a problem in terms of the diversity we see today in the extreme. Evolution would have to go at a pace so rapid we'd observe stuff akin to a pig giving birth to a rabbit.

Again, these are scientific arguments being made against the text, I understand the line of reasoning and it's not illogical or stupid, but it DOES make inferences, assumptions, and analogies in forming a story about the past... or we can take God for His word on the matter.

That's the thing, I don't view the bible as being the words of a deity any more than the following is:

I declare every Tuesday to be Taco Tuesday- God.

See how easy it is to claim that a deity said something? Have you ever noticed that when the OT mentions people speaking with god that it is usually a very small number of people, not an entire crowd? Have you ever wondered why?

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- they have to be, because the creation order is different in each. Also, it would be extremely weird to just get through the creation story, and then immediately go through the same one again. If they match, shouldn't one of them be removed because of redundancy?

Genesis 1 and 2 comprise what is known as a frame story:

"A frame story (also known as a frame tale or frame narrative) is a literary technique that sometimes serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, whereby an introductory or main narrative is presented, at least in part, for the purpose of setting the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories. The frame story leads readers from a first story into another, smaller one (or several ones) within it. The frame story may also be used to allow readers to understand a part of the story, then jump to another part that can now be understood."

SOURCE

 

[PsychoSarah]

Genesis 1 and 2 comprise what is known as a frame story:

"A frame story (also known as a frame tale or frame narrative) is a literary technique that sometimes serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, whereby an introductory or main narrative is presented, at least in part, for the purpose of setting the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories. The frame story leads readers from a first story into another, smaller one (or several ones) within it. The frame story may also be used to allow readers to understand a part of the story, then jump to another part that can now be understood."

SOURCE

That doesn't explain why the order of creation isn't the same in both of them.

 

[Speedwell]

Genesis 1 and 2 comprise what is known as a frame story:

"A frame story (also known as a frame tale or frame narrative) is a literary technique that sometimes serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, whereby an introductory or main narrative is presented, at least in part, for the purpose of setting the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories. The frame story leads readers from a first story into another, smaller one (or several ones) within it. The frame story may also be used to allow readers to understand a part of the story, then jump to another part that can now be understood."

SOURCE

Or, they are two different stories. It doesn't make any difference; the authority of Scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not on any particular genre determination.

 

[Brightmoon]

Iirc there are 3 creation stories in the Bible and none of them agree . I can’t remember where the 3rd one is though

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't explain why the order of creation isn't the same in both of them.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Question: In your opinion, how many times did God put Adam into the Garden?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Question: In your opinion, how many times did God put Adam into the Garden?

This is not comparable to the two creations, because they demonstrably differ in the events they describe. They contradict each other, whereas these two don't. It's pointlessly repetitive in both cases, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not comparable to the two creations, because they demonstrably differ in the events they describe. They contradict each other, whereas these two don't. It's pointlessly repetitive in both cases, though.

Here are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in chronological order:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 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.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ 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.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ 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.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 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.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Ophiolite]

So your literal interpretation of the Bible does not require you to follow the literal order of the words in the Bible. It's an interesting approach. It literally brings a whole new meaning to the word literal.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your literal interpretation of the Bible does not require you to follow the literal order of the words in the Bible. It's an interesting approach. It literally brings a whole new meaning to the word literal.

 

[pitabread]

Okay, tell us, how is evolution useful in engineering or science?

Evolutionary algorithms are used in engineering and computer science for various purposes.

For example, NASA used such an approach when creating the antenna for the ST5 spacecraft:

Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed. Here we present automated antenna design and optimization methods based on evolutionary algorithms. We have evolved efficient antennas for a variety of aerospace applications and here we describe one proof-of-concept study and one project that produced fight antennas that flew on NASA’s Space Technology 5 (ST5) mission.​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

The closing paragraph really emphasizes the power of evolutionary approaches to design:

In addition to being the first evolved hardware in space, our evolved antennas demonstrate several advantages over the conventionally designed antennas and manual design in general. The evolutionary algorithms we used were not limited to variations of previously developed antenna shapes but generated and tested thousands of completely new types of designs, many of which have unusual structures that expert antenna designers would not be likely to produce.​

----------------------------------

For biology, I always point to the field of phylogenetics (study of evolutionary relationships of organisms) as a prime example of the use of evolutionary theory within biology.

Here is a paper which mentions various applications of phylogenetics:

Phylogenetic trees have already witnessed applications in numerous practical domains, such as in conservation biology (3) (illegal whale hunting), epidemiology (5) (predictive evolution), forensics (27) (dental practice HIV transmission), gene function prediction (7) and drug development (14). Other applications of phylogenies include multiple sequence alignment (11, 25), protein structure prediction (31), gene and protein function prediction (12, 22) and drug design (30). A paper by Bader et al. (2) addresses important industrial applications of phylogenetic trees, e.g. in the area of commercial drug discovery.​

https://sco.h-its.org/exelixis/pubs/CGP2005.pdf

And of course there were a couple patents I'd previously linked to which are examples of applied phylogenetics:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6280953B1/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2009029502A1/en

 

[Ophiolite]

Presenting large pictures of an interpretation that involves reaaranging the content of the original document is not a meaningful response.

You assert that your interpretation of a manipulated version of a translation of the original document says something, but that fails to settle anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

You assert that your interpretation of a manipulated version of a translation of the original document says something, but that fails to settle anything.

If you're so adamant in believing the Bible is wrong that you have to stoop to ignoring framework narratives and drumming up something about the Bible's chronological layout, then I submit you have a hardened heart.