Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

Since we've found abiotic protein sequences in the interior of meterorites and we have evidence of abiotic synthesis of nucleotides, that's been debunked by existing matter.

Sure. Life has randomly formed in a laboratory. It's all figured out. Gotcha.

Would you like to learn some of the details of those "machines" and how they evolved from very simple antecidents?

I might, if I believed evolutionary conclusions to be wholly unbiased. Ultimately evolution is one interpretation of the data.

In freshman high school biology, in the early 60s, we knew better. How old are you?

Older than I care to admit, and I was never interested in my biology textbook back then - or read any science book since. I sense a likelihood of impending ad hominem but, again, abiogenesis and macro-evolution are beliefs/interpretations.

 

[JAL]

If you don't accept words as they are used by others, you'll always be misunderstood. Take them as they are.



You think that if God uses figurative language, we can ignore Him? Seriously?



Why would it bother you, if He wasn't referring to a literal biological birth?

I don't understand these statements. They seem to have the ring of deflection.

 

[JAL]

I read somewhere that "little boys" come from "snakes and snails and puppy dog tails" while "little girls" are made of "sugar and spice and everything nice". Since I do not intend to try to create any "homonids" from scratch, that definition works good enough to allow me to function in society and get through the week. My wife and I create new "people" through a process euphemistically referred to as "the birds and the bees" that actually has nothing to do with either birds or bees (If you never heard of it, ask your parents to "have the talk" with you about where babies come from.)

Thanks. As for asking my Dad about the talk, I'd better put a rush on it, as he's pretty old.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes. If you have to redefine morning and evening to fit your new doctrines then it's clear that there's a problem with them.

Morning and evening are the transitions between day and night. Are they not? I’m not redefining anything.

 

[JAL]

Turns out, it's not random. God set the rules, remember? He's a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

That sounds hypocritical. When you see any glimpse/hint of non-literalism, you throw out the whole chapter as figurative. NOW you are suggesting that God engineered the abiogenesis. By that same token, then, I would be justified in throwing out evolution in favor of Creation or ID.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[The Barbarian]

I read somewhere that "little boys" come from "snakes and snails and puppy dog tails" while "little girls" are made of "sugar and spice and everything nice". Since I do not intend to try to create any "homonids" from scratch, that definition works good enough to allow me to function in society and get through the week. My wife and I create new "people" through a process euphemistically referred to as "the birds and the bees" that actually has nothing to do with either birds or bees (If you never heard of it, ask your parents to "have the talk" with you about where babies come from.)

Today's winner.
Cloning is possible, but it's very unreliable compared to the traditional method, and not nearly as much fun.

Edit. My friend's kid asked him how babies are made. He decided that "old enough to ask, old enough to know", and told him the basics.

Kid's response: "You and Mom must really love kids, to do that three times."

 

[The Barbarian]

Morning and evening are the transitions between day and night. Are they not?

In Hebrew, morning is when the Sun appears in the East, and Evening is when it goes down in the West.

I’m not redefining anything.

You're redefining "morning" and "evening."

 

[JAL]

In Hebrew, morning is when the Sun appears in the East, and Evening is when it goes down in the West.
You're redefining "morning" and "evening."

No, it's flexible language. A couple more examples.

...(1) The term day is used to refer to six days. But later it is used to summarize the whole creation period:
"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" (Gen 2:4)

...(2) Consider the Fire that fell from heaven and consumed the OT sacrifices and even killed people, or the Fire occupying the burning bush, or the Fire on Pentecost. Are we to entertain seriously the notion that divine Fire is EXACTLY the same as natural fire? Flexibility of language. Get used to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it's flexible language. A couple more examples.

Not flexible enough to twist it into a literal history.

(1) The term day is used to refer to six days. But later it is used to summarize the whole creation period:
"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" (Gen 2:4)

But the literalist claim is that He took six days. Again, we see that the language itself produces logical absurdities if the "yom" of Genesis 1 and 2 are taken as a literal time periods. One place, it's one day, another, it's six days. This tells us convincingly that it was a figurative description.

 

[The Barbarian]

Turns out, it's not random. God set the rules, remember? He's a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

That sounds hypocritical.

I trust Him. You should too. When you trust God, you don't have to worry about being a hypocrite.

When you see any glimpse/hint of non-literalism, you throw out the whole chapter as figurative.

And you're back to making up weird ideas for me. You do realize that it's possible to have allegories, parables, etc about real people and real events, right? I don't think you've given this very much thought.

NOW you are suggesting that God engineered the abiogenesis.

God has no need to figure things out. He merely created the universe with the necessary properties to bring forth life on Earth as He intended. And yes, He keeps completely involved with every aspect of our natural world. He just doesn't have to tinker with it to make it work as He wants.

By that same token, then, I would be justified in throwing out evolution in favor of Creation or ID.

Only if you think God is an inferior being and not omnipotent.

Maybe you should reconsider tossing those stones...

 

[JAL]

Not flexible enough to twist it into a literal history.

(1) The term day is used to refer to six days. But later it is used to summarize the whole creation period:
"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" (Gen 2:4)

But the literalist claim is that He took six days. Again, we see that the language itself produces logical absurdities if the "yom" of Genesis 1 and 2 are taken as a literal time periods. One place, it's one day, another, it's six days. This tells us convincingly that it was a figurative description.

So if a book, allegedly a historical account, states, "Back in the day when native Indians ruled America...", we should immediately throw away that book as basically figurative poetry?

I don't see why you cannot wrap your head around flexible language.

 

[JAL]

And you're back to making up weird ideas for me. You do realize that it's possible to have allegories, parables, etc about real people and real events, right? I don't think you've given this very much thought.

I'm not the one being adamant here. I avowed empathy to both sides of the debate. Yes it's POSSIBLE to have allegories. What you can't seem to realize is that it's also POSSIBLE for Genesis to be a highly literal text, similar to the other history books such as the gospels.

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,

Part of the disconnect here is your tacit assumption, "A literal text must be a straightforward reading."

I'm EXTREMELY opposed to that assumption. In my epistemology, God never intended us to reliably interpret Scripture without the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). If a fallible person misreads a single nuance, he can draw significantly flawed conclusions.

This problem is exacerbated when the text is 3,000 years old.

My point: admittedly the text isn't always straightforward - but that doesn't make it poetry.

 

[The Barbarian]

Part of the disconnect here is your tacit assumption, "A literal text must be a straightforward reading."

Hmmm... so you think a literal text is not a straightforward reading?

Literal language by definition does not use figures of speech. Instead, literal language uses the actual meanings of words or phrases in their exact sense. Literal language is very straightforward and to the point. Literal language is precise and often tells the reader exactly the point. The reader or listener does not have to extract meaning.
Difference Between Literal and Figurative Language

In my epistemology, God never intended us to reliably interpret Scripture without the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). If a fallible person misreads a single nuance, he can draw significantly flawed conclusions.

Well, that might explain some things...

My point: admittedly the text isn't always straightforward - but that doesn't make it poetry.

Actually, poetry can be straightforward. And figurative language doesn't have to be poetry.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you see any glimpse/hint of non-literalism, you throw out the whole chapter as figurative.

And you're back to making up weird ideas for me. You do realize that it's possible to have allegories, parables, etc about real people and real events, right? I don't think you've given this very much thought.

I'm not the one being adamant here. I avowed empathy to both sides of the debate. Yes it's POSSIBLE to have allegories. What you can't seem to realize is that it's also POSSIBLE for Genesis to be a highly literal text, similar to the other history books such as the gospels.

You seem adamant that Genesis 1 and 2 can't be figurative. It's always possible for people to be wrong; it's just that they evidence shows that it is figurative. Like the earth being created in one day vs. six days. Or mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

 

[JAL]

Hmmm... so you think a literal text is not a straightforward reading?

Literal language by definition does not use figures of speech. Instead, literal language uses the actual meanings of words or phrases in their exact sense. Literal language is very straightforward and to the point. Literal language is precise and often tells the reader exactly the point. The reader or listener does not have to extract meaning.
Difference Between Literal and Figurative Language

Funny how you conveniently ignored my discussion of divine Fire a couple of posts ago. How does that square with your "straightforward reading"?

 

[JAL]

You seem adamant that Genesis 1 and 2 can't be figurative.

Is this sheer intellectual dishonesty? For the millionth time, I AM EMPATHETIC TO BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Hebrew, morning is when the Sun appears in the East, and Evening is when it goes down in the West.



You're redefining "morning" and "evening."

Where’d you get that definition from?

Morning
bôqer
H1242

1. morning, break of day
a. morning
1. of end of night
2. of coming of daylight
3. of coming of sunrise
4. of beginning of day
5. of bright joy after night of distress (figuratively)
b. morrow, next day, next morning

You know I’m right your just too stubborn to admit it. Obviously since the sun hadn’t been created yet in the case of Genesis 1:1-5 morning and evening couldn’t possibly have anything to do with sunlight or the position of the sun. So they are obviously referring to the transition from day to night and vice versa.

 

[The Barbarian]

Where’d you get that definition from?

You just showed it to me:

of coming of sunrise

Yeah, that's it.

You know I’m right your just too stubborn to admit it.

How do you have the coming of sunrise with no sun to have it? You know I’m right; you're just too stubborn to admit it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this sheer intellectual dishonesty?

I just think you're prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.

For the millionth time, I AM EMPATHETIC TO BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE.

Yeah, like that.

Funny how you conveniently ignored my discussion of divine Fire a couple of posts ago. How does that square with your "straightforward reading"?

Since you failed to show that fire that God uses directly is essentially different than the fire He uses for other things, I figured you'd be finishing the argument for us. So that's it? You just believe it's different?

I don't seem to be very good for you. Perhaps we'll just have to say we disagree and avoid each other for a while.