Life Origins & Science

[-57]

I do not understand this sentence.

In Genesis's story? Yes.

Paul teaches man was formed first. If evolution agree's with the bible man evolved first then women.

1 Cor 15:45 also tells us man was alive before women..."Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit"

 

[trophy33]

Paul teaches man was formed first. If evolution agree's with the bible man evolved first then women.

1 Cor 15:45 also tells us man was alive before women..."Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit"

Paul is talking about Genesis, not about a science textbook.

 

[-57]

Paul is talking about Genesis, not about a science textbook.

No one ever said it was a science text book. What they have said is that Genesis...and the rest of the bible..contradicts your science text book. There are many groups of scientist who look at science and are marveled by the way it complements young earth world wide flood.

 

[trophy33]

No one ever said it was a science text book. What they have said is that Genesis...and the rest of the bible..contradicts your science text book. There are many groups of scientist who look at science and are marveled by the way it complements young earth world wide flood.

To say that Genesis contradicts evolution is like saying that a Shakespeare play contradicts nuclear physics.

 

[-57]

To say that Genesis contradicts evolution is like saying that a Shakespeare play contradicts nuclear physics.

You can't be serious. That boat won't float.

 

[trophy33]

You can't be serious. That boat won't float.

I am. Genesis is not about "how it all happened scientifically", its a story of ancient Mesopotamian tribe. You are using it wrongly. To look for contradictions between their writing and todays science is silly.

 

[-57]

I am. Genesis is not about "how it all happened scientifically", its a story of ancient Mesopotamian tribe. You are using it wrongly. To look for contradictions between their writing and todays science is silly.

There was no Mesopotamian until after the flood.

 

[trophy33]

There was no Mesopotamian until after the flood.

Not sure what you mean. The Bible was written post-flood.

 

[-57]

Not sure what you mean. The Bible was written post-flood.

You forget the pre-flood world was destroyed. Then the Mesopotamian was formed.

 

[trophy33]

You forget the pre-flood world was destroyed. Then the Mesopotamian was formed.

I am still not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[-57]

I am still not sure what you are trying to say.

Your claim is there was no world wide flood.

 

[trophy33]

Your claim is there was no world wide flood.

There was no global, planetary flood. So? What does it have to do with Mesopotamian and biblical stories?

 

[-57]

There was no global, planetary flood. So? What does it have to do with Mesopotamian and biblical stories?

I'm kinda done with your anti-biblical view. Sheeze, a few post back you called Genesis a pagan myth.
I saw Christian by you name but you don't want to believe what the bible says.

 

[trophy33]

I'm kinda done with your anti-biblical view.

Lol, sure.

Sheeze,

Is this supposed to sound like Jesus, but without blaspheming?

a few post back you called Genesis a pagan myth.

"You shall not spread a false report."
Ex 23:1

I saw Christian by you name but you don't want to believe what the bible says.

I do not believe what the YEC or undeducated people believe that the Bible says.

And I do not believe people who think that every word in the Bible was dictated and reject that it had also human authors.

 

[-57]

-57.....a few post back you called Genesis a pagan myth.

"You shall not spread a false report."
Ex 23:1

Genesis is not a prophecy. Its an amalgamation of Mesopotamian worldview, a polemic with pagan creation myths and a bit of ancient semitic history.

The point/message is inspired, there is really just one true God, the creator of everything, who called Abraham to be his servant.

link

 

[Newtheran]

It seems like often you have to choose between science and religion. Why can't we utilize evolution/big bang as intelligent design by God?

I can't even fathom a literal six day creationist mindset. Time is relative based on gravitational pulls. You can put atomic clocks at varying attitudes, and they will all have a different "time". The calendar was just recently invented, most historical societies never had a seven day week. It amazes me that if someone says an structure is 5,000 years old, it is believed without argument. If you say 7,000 years, it's automatically laughed at as impossible, since Earth wasn't around that long.

It makes more sense to think of time as relative. A second may be a billion years, a billion years a second. Even with our limited knowledge, we can theorize that the universe and time is not so black/white, but multidimensional.

If everything was made at the same time, we're talking about dinosaurs and people co-existing. Fossil fuels just magically created, despite us knowing how they're made. All the evolutionary research on life discarded.

I really struggle with the omnipresence aspect and knowing all dimensions, past and future. Therefore, God would have known we would have "bitten the Apple", so to speak. Then to do the entire Old Testament, only to toss away all the laws for redemption in the New Testament. Is it fair that someone gets entire Hell because they lived in the Old Testament, versus Post-Jesus? That hardly seems fair based on the timeline.

Lets set aside the metaphysics for a moment and go billions of years back in history to your hypothetical primordial soup and the spontaneous generation of DNA and prokaryotic cells from that soup. How did eukaryotic cells arise given the complete lack of transitional forms between the two?

 

[trophy33]

-57.....a few post back you called Genesis a pagan myth.



link

If you have a problem distinguishing between:

a) "Genesis is a polemic with pagan myths"
and
b) "Genesis is a pagan myth"

Then your credibility in other logical operations regarding understanding of a scientific text or of the text of the Bible is in danger.

 

[-57]

If you have a problem distinguishing between:

a) "Genesis is a polemic with pagan myths"
and
b) "Genesis is a pagan myth"

Then your credibility in other logical operations regarding understanding of a scientific text or of the text of the Bible is in danger.

People call that backpedaling.

You've associated Genesis with pagan.

NEXT

 

[trophy33]

People call that backpedaling.

You've associated Genesis with pagan.

NEXT

If you have such problems understanding this simple thing, I wonder how can you understand more complex ones.
You basically made a prosecutor, who is convincing a murderer, to be a murderer.

a) You should work on your logic skills.

b) You should also work on your ability to apologize for your mistakes instead of the "NEXT" commands.

 

[KWCrazy]

I do not believe what the YEC or undeducated people believe that the Bible says.

Nice flame.
Being told false information repeatedly leaves you indoctrinated, not educated.
You list your religion as Christian but you claim the flood never happened and Jesus taught that it did, so how are you following Jesus?
Would you not agree that Jesus was a creationist; that He quoted from the Scriptures repeatedly INCLUDING from Genesis; that He spoke as of the first man and woman in the beginning; that all of His teachings are consistent with the Scriptures, including the parts you reject?
When your OPINION differs from the Scripture then your OPINION is wrong.
You pretend your arguments are based in science but you have no understanding of what science is and what it is not. Science, by definition, is the study of the PHYSICAL world around us. It has no certain mechanism to study the supernatural and as such can neither validate or invalidate any supernatural miracle. It can show how in the physical world something may have happened, but it can't prove it happened in such a fashion.

Your claim that Genesis was a re-hash of an ancient pagan myth is either a flagrant misunderstanding or a bald faced lie. The story of man's recreation was recorded by Moses but it is as old as mankind. Adam knew it. Noah knew it. The Israelite were familiar with it and did not reject it when Moses transcribed it into written form. Versions of the great flood reach all cultures. It is recorded in stone drawings as well as ancient text. Quite simply, it's among the most validated event in human history. A localized flood? A six-year old with a topographical map of the Middle East would laugh in your face. Anyone who looks at the elevations in the region can see the foolishness of that claim.

So what of the resurrection of Christ? Science tells us that is not possible. Do you believe in it or not? If so, why, when every doctor knows there is no return to life after three days of decomposition.

And I do not believe people who think that every word in the Bible was dictated and reject that it had also human authors.

So the Bible is full of errors?
Christ, who you claim to serve, believed it was truthful. By what standard do you claim to have cause to believe otherwise and to teach contrary to God's word?