God Created Evolution: Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate
67God Created Evolution
Perspective and Context
Because most of the Genesis creation account describes events that happened before humans existed, God would be the only being described to have knowledge of these events. The three chapters that follow the creation account depict God physically interacting with Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. In the last verse of Genesis 4 it says that after the birth of Enosh, two generations after Adam, "Then began men to call on the name of the LORD".
So, within the context of Genesis, the story of creation would presumably have been told to Adam (and perhaps his family) by God, and then retold throughout the generations until it was finally written down. If this is how the story was conveyed, it would need to be described in a context relevant to human understanding.
Genesis 1 describes only the creation of elements a human would be familiar with: The heavens (night sky – sun/moon/stars), the atmosphere (blue sky), the land, the plants, the animals, etc.
For many centuries this depiction of the earth's creation was the only source available. Because the context of the story is unclear, interpretations of this description depended solely on humanity's best estimations as to what's being described. Many of these centuries-old interpretations are stilled believed today. However, over the past century or so, and especially in recent decades, science for the first time in human history has really begun to reveal the geological formation of the earth and the biological formation of life, giving us a glimpse of how it all came together.
With the understanding that it's told on a human level, while keeping in mind the point of view established in the second verse as being 'from the surface', re-reading the Genesis creation story against the context of our modern scientific understanding reveals incredible insight.
Day 1 - Heavens, Earth, Oceans, Light
Genesis 1: 1-5
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Verse 1 sums up everything that happened prior to the more detailed account to follow by simply saying God created the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’. The big bang that kicked off the formation of the ‘heavens’ is estimated to have happened roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and the earth first began to form about 4.567 billion years ago. So, beyond the first verse, the creation account begins at least 9 billion years along in the process with both the heavens and the earth already in existence.
Genesis 1:2 - 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.
While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate, the second verse provides just enough detail to locate a starting point in Earth’s history.
Verse 2 establishes both the setting (the state of the earth at that time) as well as the point-of-view from which creation is described. The setting is the earth, formless and void, with oceans already in existence, shrouded in darkness. This describes the earth’s state around 4 billion years ago during the latter part of the Hadean Eon (4.57 to 3.8 mya). Scientifically, it’s certain the oceans existed by the end of the Hadean. Some believe they may have existed as early as 4.2 bya. They formed when the earth’s first atmosphere of mainly nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor blocked out the sun enough to allow the earth’s surface to cool and harden. The cooler temperatures then allowed the water vapor to condense, which formed the oceans. So for a time, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed and filled the oceans, the earth matched the description given in verse 2.
Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on.
Genesis 1: 5 - And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Literally, the evening and morning were the first day. From this point forward the earth entered a new age of day and night.
Day 2 - Oxygenated Atmosphere
Genesis 1: 6-8
Genesis 1: 6-8 - And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The mention of light in verse 5 proves relevant because it's a crucial ingredient for every event to follow. Not only is it required to establish the earth's water cycle, it's a necessary ingredient for photosynthesis.
About 300 million years into the Archaen Eon (3.8 to 2.5 bya), single-celled organisms first began to appear in the oceans, or ‘midst of the waters’. Among these organisms were oxygen-producing bacteria known as Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These were aquatic photosynthetic organisms, meaning they required both the oceans and sunlight to produce oxygen.
Over the course of a billion years these organisms had become so prolific in the oceans, and had flooded the seas with so much oxygen, that they managed to suffocate all non-oxygen breathing organisms in the sea. This event is referred to as The Great Oxidation Event, or Oxygen Catastrophe (about 2.4bya). Oxygen had also been escaping the seas and working its way into the air. This was the beginning of the Earth’s second atmosphere. The same oxygenated atmosphere we know and breathe today. In other words, this was the creation of the atmosphere relevant to humans.
And the evening and the morning were the second day. The age of an Earth with an oxygenated atmosphere and a water cycle.
Day 3 - Land
Genesis 1: 9-10
Genesis 1:9-10 - 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. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
The continents as we know them today began to form around the same time as the Great Oxidation Event, around 2.5 billion years ago at the beginning of the Proterozoic eon (2500 to 542 mya). There was continental crust that formed prior to this, roughly 4 billion years ago, but all that’s left of these are 'Cratons', which make up the core that today’s continents, the continents relevant to humans, formed around.
The majority of total continental land mass in existence today had formed by 1.1 billion years ago. The land masses were bunched together, which formed a supercontinent known as Rodinia. During this time the continents were positioned around the equator between the Earth's poles much like they are today. About 825 million years later, or 275 million years ago, the continents again were bunched together around the equator between the poles, forming the supercontinent Pangea.
However, in the time between Rodinia and Pangea, all of the Earth's continental land mass drifted all the way down to the south pole and back. While still positioned underneath the planet, about 650 million years ago, 70% of all single-celled life in the seas died, most likely due to much colder temperatures as they lived on the continental shelves of the drifting land masses. As the continents began to work their way back up north, something remarkable happened...
The Phanerozoic Eon and the Cambrian Explosion
The Cambrian Explosion
The most extraordinary event to happen during the formation of life on this planet happened somewhere around 542 million years ago as the continents began their trek back north. It is commonly referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, which marks the beginning of the Phanerozoic eon (542 mya to Present). Somewhere in this timeframe, where every form of life that came before was always a single-celled organism, life made a significant evolutionary leap forward as the first multi-celled organisms began to appear. These more complex organisms ultimately proved to be the beginnings of most major plant and animal groups to come.
Day 3 - Plantlife
Genesis 1: 11-13
Genesis 1:11-13 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, 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. And the earth brought forth vegetation, 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. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Following the Cambrian Explosion, the first life form to make its way onto land was plant life. They first began to leave the sea and grow on land at some point during the Ordovician Period (488.3 to 443.7 mya), the period immediately following Cambrian, which is where the Cambrian Explosion gets its name. By the end of the Devonian Period (416 to 359.2 mya) the first forests were forming, which included gymnosperms, or seed-bearing plants.
And the evening and the morning were the third day, or third age. The age of land with plant life.
Day 4 - Sun, Moon, and Stars Set in Firmament
Genesis 1: 14-19
Genesis 1: 14-19 - 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; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so. 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 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. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Here the 'from the surface' point of view established in verse 2 is important. As stated above, while the Cambrian Explosion was happening in the seas, the continents were just beginning to creep back up north out of the deep southern hemisphere. While the land was underneath the planet the days would have been roughly six months long, followed by six months of night, the moon would be visible about half of each month, and the stars in the night sky would just pivot around the south pole.
Over the next 300 million years, as plant life made its way onto land and thrived, the continents continued to drift back up to the side of the planet as they are today. From the perspective of someone standing on land, this moving of the continents would literally position the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky so they could be used for the purposes Genesis stated. They provide light for the day and the night, and they can be used for signs and seasons, and to track days and years. Once the continents moved back up to the equator they've remained there ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TectonicReconstructionGlobal2.gif
*Animated gif illustrating movement of continents from 542 mya to present
Verse 16 tends to confuse matters for many. It states directly that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. Because this is stated during the day 4 portion of creation it's read by many to mean the sun, moon, and stars didn't exist until day 4, one day after plant life on land and three days after God defined light as day and dark as night. Some will even go so far as to say God's definition of day and night on day 1 was God establishing the concept of day and night well before anything that even produced light was in existence.
A closer look reveals this isn't the case. During day 1, after God said, "Let there be light", it immediately says that God saw the light, meaning it existed. During 'day 4', the description of God's actions has everything to do with these heavenly bodies being positioned to serve a particular purpose. Before, in verse 1, when it says God created the 'heavens', it did so by simply saying this was all done 'in the beginning'. There was no need to specifically say what the 'heavens' consisted of. But during day 4, these three specific creations were being positioned, so it simply states a fact; He created them. Because the entirety of creation is told 'past-tense', it can be confusing when only focusing on that one verse outside of the context of the rest of the chapter.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day, or age. An age of 24 hour days of both sun light and darkness for land inhabitants.
Day 5 - Life From the Sea Through Birds
Genesis 1: 20-23
Genesis 1: 20-23 - 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 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. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Keeping in mind God's spirit was on the surface, and that the point of view is from the land as evidenced by the sun, moon, and stars being positioned on day 4, it becomes obvious that God's declaration to, "Let the waters bring forth..." means He called life to come up onto the land from the sea.
Vertebrates first made their debut on land during the Carboniferous Period (359.2 to 299 mya). By this period there were already forests of plant life on land, including large primitive trees, and the continents were already well across the equator.
Beyond the point of view already established, the real clue here is God's call for birds in the same verses as life from the sea. The assumption has always been that these verses are specifically talking about sea life. Here God calls for 'moving creatures that hath life' and birds. We know birds didn't remain in the sea, so why would we assume everything else did? Only now do we really know better. Birds, along with everything else, did actually originate in the sea.
We're all but certain birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. In fact, all amniote creatures are categorized this way; sauropsids, which are reptiles and birds, and synapsids, which are mammals and all mammal-like reptiles. There is a direct line of evolution that can be seen from the first land vertebrates, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day, or age. The age of life on land and birds in the air.
Dinsaurs in the Bible?
Great Whales and Giant Sea Monsters
As a side note, when the events of 'day 5' are read this way something really interesting can be seen in verse 21. In the above translation it says, "God created great whales and every living creature that moveth...". In other translations, instead of stating God created 'great whales', it sometimes says 'great sea animals' (CEB), or 'giant sea monsters' (CEV).
The actual Hebrew words used here that are translated so many different ways are 'e-thninm', which means 'the monsters', and 'e-gdlim', which means 'the great ones'. We now know that between the debut of vertebrates on land and the appearance of birds there were numerous creatures that much more aptly fit these descriptions than 'great whales' .... dinosaurs. However, because dinosaurs would not be known to humans, I'm not certain that this is what this statement is referring to.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day, or age. The age of life on land and birds in the air.
Day 6 - Living Creatures from the Land
Day 6
Genesis 1: 24-25 - 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. 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.
Here that dividing line mentioned above between sauropsids and synapsids begins to take on a whole new context. In verse 24 God calls for the 'earth' to bring forth specific kinds of creatures. Knowing that life had already made its way onto land during 'day 4', there would be plenty of living material to use.
The first mammals appeared way back during the end of the Triassic Period (251 to 199.6 mya). All throughout the Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 mya) mammals continued to etch out an existence in terrain dominated by dinosaurs, but grew no larger than a small rodent. But once the dinosaurs were out of the way by the end of the Cretaceous Period (145.5 to 65.5 mya) mammals really began to thrive as placental mammals, and then modern mammals, developed all throughout the Paleogene Period (65.5 to 23.03 mya).
Day 6 - Humans
Genesis 1: 26-28
Genesis 1: 26-28 - 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." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 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."
While it is clear that humans are mammals, the lineage between chimpanzees and early humans of the Homo genus are relatively unknown. The first mammals to begin to take on the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans were bipedal hominins who walked on two legs. These beings first showed up about six million years ago. It is not known at this time if these hominins are direct anscestors of modern humans or not.
God gave humans very specific instructions according to Genesis. Each subsequent species of early humans progressively exhibited physical traits that more resembled the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans and behaviors that realized the instructions given; fill the earth, subdue the earth, establish dominion over all the living creatures of the earth. This is exactly what early humans did, throughout the course of many generations and many different species.
Homo Habilis first appeared during the early portion of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 mya to 11,400 years ago), marking the beginning of the Stone Age as they were the first species to use stone tools. Pleistocene is most well known for being the Epoch where megafauna existed; mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, dire wolves.... When the dinosaurs were taken out by the seemingly selective K-T mass extinction (65.5 mya), mammals enjoyed dominance in the animal kingdom and eventually grew to exceptional sizes. While Homo Habilis exhibited increased mental capabilities in forging and using tools, they proved to be no match for the dominant megafauna, as fecal evidence shows they were a fairly regular diet for large cats known as dinofelis.
About 300,000 years into the Stone Age, a new species called Homo Erectus showed up in the same region where most species of the Homo genus appear to have originated, the Great Rift Valley in East Africa. Homo Erectus were very similar to modern humans in their skeletal build, the trait which earned them their name. They also proved to exhibit a natural 'will' to migrate over long distances mirroring God's command to 'fill' and 'subdue' the earth as this went a long way towards establishing humanity's existence in the natural world. Many also believe this to be the species where early humans lost a majority of their body hair and developed the ability to sweat. Traits that would definitely prove beneficial for long trips on foot.
According to DNA evidence, both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appear to have evolved from a species known as Homo Heidelbergensis, who also migrated great distances. Neanderthals first showed up in Europe about 400,000 years ago. This is where early humans really began to establish their dominance in the animal world as Neanderthals only appear to have really done one thing, and they did it really well, they hunted megafauna. Homo Sapiens, who appeared around 200,000 years ago in East Africa, were also skilled hunters who preyed on megafauna, and who ultimately proved to be too much for Neanderthals as they literally pushed them out of existence within about 30,000 years.
From the moment Homo Sapiens first appeared they migrated, they hunted, and they filled the earth, adapted to the various climates, and established dominance in the animal kingdom throughout Africa, Europe, Asia, and even Australia. They lived lives much like, and probably very much resembled, indigenous tribal cultures that still exist today. Namely the Aborigines of Australia and tribal cultures of central Africa.
In fact, every human alive today shares a common ancestor, a Homo Sapien woman, that lived roughly 160,000 years ago in East Africa. She is known as Mitochondrial Eve, a name inspired by Eve from Genesis. Her descendants continued to fill and subdue and dominate the terrain, spreading to North and South America when the sea level was low enough to expose the Bering Land Bridge that linked Eastern Asia to the other side of the world.
The First Farmers
Genesis 1: 29-31 - 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 which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 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. 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.
By 10,000 BC, all species of megafauna were extinct, and the planet was 'filled' by Homo Sapiens, the only remaining species of the Homo genus. About 2,000 years later, early humans first began to farm. Farming first appears to have begun in Mesopotamia, and then spread from there.
Verse 29 and 30 both depict God showing humans the 'green herbs' and 'fruit trees' He provided for both the animals and humans to eat, but for the humans only He specifically spoke of the herbs and fruit that bore seeds. Seeds that only humans would begin to use.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day, the age of mammals and humans.
Conclusion
Using a more complete picture of earth's history provided by modern science, it can now be seen that the creation account in the Book of Genesis is much more accurate than many have given it credit for. Many of the things detailed throughout this article have only been determined in the past few decades.
It is unknown just how old the Books of Moses really are. Scholars estimate it's original inception, based on a study of the text as it was around 200 BC when the oldest surviving copies were made, was probably during the kingdoms of Judah and Israel no earlier than 950 BC. Others say they were written by Moses around 3500 BC. Tablets containing stories very similar thematically to stories in Genesis were written by the Sumarians of Mesopotamia as early as the end of the 3rd millenium BC.
In any case, the creation account in Genesis was written back when humans thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Without divine intervention in some form, it's hard to believe the scribes that wrote the creation account could have correctly listed 13 details and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct chronological order....
Details in order: The heavens, earth, oceans, darkness, light, atmosphere/water cycle, land, plant life, position of sun/moon/stars, life from the sea, birds, mammals, and humans.
Major eras or 'days':
The 6 'Days' of Genesis
Day 1: Verses 1 through 5
| Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere became translucent
|
|---|---|
Day 2: Verses 6 through 8
| Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established
|
Day 3: Verses 9 through 13
| Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land
|
Day 4: Verses 14 through 19
| Paleozoic Era - Age when continents moved from beneath planet to between poles
|
Day 5: Verses 20 through 23
| Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds
|
Day 6: Verses 24 through 31
| Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed
|
Observations
Free will is something that humans alone possess. When exactly humans gained their own individual will, their consciousness, their self-awareness, their bashfulness unlike any other living creature that compelled them to wear clothing to cover themselves, is unknown scientifically. Just as the 'cause' of the big bang, or the 'cause' behind the will exhibited in all living things to survive and procreate, or the 'cause' that spurred the evolution of mammals or humans.
Life would not have been able to accomplish all it did if each being had free will. Humans would not have realized God's commands if they had free will from the start. Cells in an organism must act in accordance to DNA. Free will in each individual cell would prove dangerous as any one could choose to not behave according to the DNA code, potentially becoming cancerous and endangering the organism as a whole. The same would hold true if individual organisms, individual humans, had their own will independent of God's. They would not have been able to adhere to God's commands to realize the world as we know it now.
This is where chapter 2 picks up. After creation, after His day of rest, God introduced free will into the world in Adam. Once everything was in place, once all of creation had fulfilled the will of God so that existence as we know it could be, individual free will could then be introduced.
Just as it says at the beginning of Genesis 6, 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful, married them, and had children by them, which resulted in the 'wicked' element that came about in humanity that warranted a flood. A local flood of the Mesopotamian valley, which is all that would be required, as only the free will introduced into humanity through Adam's descendants could spawn wickedness.
From the sons of Noah came modern humans as we are today. Humans who cannot be content with simply living within the balance of nature, but rather invent methods to allow them to exist outside of nature's whim and often in opposition to it. Humans who were then dispersed from the Tower of Babel into an already populated world, each carrying their knowledge of farming, building, and civilization, their own language, and a compelling flood story. The introduction of free will into the world can be seen in the formation of the first civilizations that spread throughout the centuries into the rest of the world.
Other 'God Created Evolution' Hubs
- God Created Evolution: Adam was not the first human, for the bible tells us so
Genesis makes it clear that Adam was not the first human in existence and that the flood was not global. Correcting these misconceptions takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and grounds it in known history - God Created Evolution: Cain, His City, and His Descendants
'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science. This article focuses on Genesis 4 following Cain's banishment.
CommentsLoading...
It was my pleasure. Thank you for reading and for your comment.
This is just YOUR personal interpretation of a very vague text to begin with. This is far from proof of anything. How can you even suggest that this garbage is compatible with science?? You are clearly making a mockery of a very noble field, science. Scientists are not vague, they are very precise, yet you want to convince me that when god said, "let there be light," it only meant that the fog lifted and the light of the sun which he already made with the heavens shone through? That is clearly just one of many interpretations. What makes yours right? You would have to back this up with solid evidence, which you don't offer. This hub is purely subjective and you should be forthright in stating that. It is your opinion. You are no expert. And you certainly are not qualified to claim that you know the mind of god.
Everything I refer to is verifiable. Every event can be looked up and confirmed. I'll add hyperlinks if that makes you happy, though I generally do not because I want to encourage people to look into it for themselves and not simply follow my same footsteps.
I have another, much more detailed, write-up covering this topic over on my blog here ...
http://promptprocrastination.com/PPBlog/10/13/2011
There you will find plenty of links to references and all the detail you could ever want to completely obliterate my theory if it's not true.
I respect science. Science is the study of the natural world. God's creation. It's an unflinching look in great detail at this incredible place He created. I'm not about to make a mockery of it.
I understand you're not going to just simply read this and accept it. That would be a pretty jarring shock to the system for you. If you ever really dug into what I'm saying, and didn't simply dismiss it like you somehow know for certain better than I or anyone else, you'd see everything here is very much grounded in science.
Verifiable how? By reading the bible? You have a serious misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. In science you never approach a discovery with the intention of trying to justify what you think you already know. That kind of defeats the purpose of scientific inquiry. And, yes, I am very eager to see what your sources are. I'm sure they are just as deluded and uneducated as you. And how dare you assume I have not already dug into this nonsense? I was a Christian for nearly 30 years. Reading the bible was what made me question god's existence. I took it upon myself to get educated by going to the experts. I don't rely on quacks on the internet. Why don't you run your little theory by the National Academy of Sciences and see what they say? They are the experts, or are you suggesting that you know more than them? How arrogant of you to think you do and claim, "oh, look, I've made this discovery that everyone before me missed!" and base it on absolutely nothing but your interpretation of a text that is riddled with errors to begin with. No, it wasn't missed. It was proven to be a dud a long time ago.
The only thing is, the scientific understanding that actually verifies it's correct is still very new. And yes it would be very easy to miss because Christians are arrogant and think they already have it figured out to the point that they can completely dismiss science categorically, and people on the other side of the fence miss it simply because they have the same view as you, that there's basically nothing to see here.
All I'm showing is that the events listed in Genesis are in the right chronological order. That they accurately describe events that could not possibly have been known to the authors. Every scientific event I refer to can be verified with an approximate date. The only thing in Genesis itself that needs verifying is the text itself. Nothing else.
I've been a Christian for a long time too, and probably hit some of the same road blocks you did that led you to where you are. The only difference is I took a different route and ended up here.
You haven't offered any evidence! Are you completely insane? And do not talk to me like I am the one that hit a roadblock. You hit a roadblock but just ignored it and invented your own little solution--interpreting vague text to fit your selfish purposes. You are quite laughable, sir. The audacity to sit there and tell me that everything is verifiable, yet you offer nothing that I can verify it with, is unbelievable! I'll say you took a different route--the one that leads into fairy tale land.
Great hub emmaspeaks.
John
Emma - I'm not sure where exactly the disconnect is here. My claim is that the events listed in Genesis did in fact happen in that order according to science....
The heavens - the earth - the oceans - light hitting the surface - the atmosphere - land - plant life - life from the sea - birds - life from the land (mammals) - humans.
The link on my blog I referred you to actually does link to references that back up what I'm talking about. I illustrate in great detail where these things happened in the course of the earth's geological formation and the evolution of life.
What I find odd is the only particular thing you addressed is the light breaking through the cloud cover on day 1. Did you actually read the whole thing? Or did you just skim the first few paragraphs with an already made up mind?
And what's with all the name-calling and personal attacks? What did I do to warrant that?
Headly, they did not in fact happen in chronological order. You are just claiming that they did, and not offering any proof of it other than, the bible itself. This is your interpretation, and it is not a very honest one at that. I am making a hub right now that will show you just how ridiculous your little theory is.
Okay, I look forward to reading it.
I'm curious what other source I'm supposed to provide as proof regarding what Genesis says other than what I have. It's one of the oldest written texts in existence. What else exactly am I supposed to provide that would appease you?
And I assure you that while I do not deny I could be totally delusional, I am not being dishonest.
With all of your comments about me disrespecting science and its methods, I expect your rebuttal hub to contain scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts what I'm claiming. If it's just a hub about delusional believers trying to justify their beliefs with 'dishonest' interpretations in general then I'll be highly disappointed.
Please understand I respect you and your views and am hoping for a fully engaging argument here from an intelligent woman. So far much of what I've gotten has been emotionally charged and seemingly coming from some other place that's not logical or reasonable. I expect much more than that.
Haha! This is great comedy. Thanks for the laugh!
You're welcome, JBoston. I'm glad you got something out of it. Obviously you have a wealth of knowledge well beyond me that makes this all seem laughable to you. Maybe you could contain your laughter long enough to help a brother out? Enlighten me? Don't just leave me down here, lying in the dirt, getting laughed at.
Headly, why would you make yourself into such a farce with a hub as silly as this? Are you some kind of joker?
Why don't you first compare the BS in the bible with a real scientific text before you open your mouth to say you have any idea about science?
Here is a good one to get you started if you are ready to open your mind a bit:
"Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Donald Goldsmith
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Origins.html?id
Emma even has a very good video where Neil talks about why religion is a dead-end idea powered by BS ... :)
Franto in Toronto
f_hruz,
"Why don't you first compare the BS in the bible with a real scientific text before you open your mouth to say you have any idea about science?"
Obviously you find my scientific knowledge base sub-par. Does that mean you see an error/s? If there's something I have wrong here, please, help me understand. Point it out to me.
Ok, when we talk about science and a scientific way of thinking, not every thing you have heard or watched on TV can be used to support facts.
You sound like you have an open mind and you want to learn, so start by reading solid science texts and put them into your foot notes so we can see you did some home work, ok?
Anything from the bible or other religious texts - such books are ONLY story books! They can't be used to show any facts at all - it's all mythology.
Nature has to be studied for us to learn how she does things. You are a product of nature - and since nature has no gods and requires no gods to function, nor do you.
That's reality based on facts ...
Now you can say: "I don't understand cosmic evolution!" ... that's ok - I gave you a link to a book you should read first before continuing to sound so uneducated.
You can also say: "I like the idea of me having been made in the image of some god" ... but these kinds of silly things are religious BS and have no foundation in objective reality ... that's why they are irrational!
There are human activities, like the arts where anything can be made into a book, play, film, etc. - some will be informative, some can be documentary, other things are pure fiction or just entertainment.
The arts are totally different from natural science!
Reality is based on what nature does and how she does it. For that to understand, you have to train your mind first before you even learn how to follow a scientific argument and know where the border between rational reality and irrational absurdity. No gods, or any super-natural creations of the human mind exist in the real world - that's why the bible is nothing more than a story book which explains nothing about the real world and can't be used for any real scientific research!
Just asking questions without training your mind first to understand your own thoughts more clearly, what they are all about, where they are taking you, etc., is not going to get you ahead very far ... no matter what others may tell you!
Start reading "Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Donald Goldsmith
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Origins.html?id
Post some questions from that book after you have finished reading it!
Good luck!
Franto in Toronto
I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me, f_hruz. I really do. I am familiar with Neil Tyson's work. He's a brilliant man and I enjoy hearing him talk about what he loves. He's passionate. And I don't disagree with him from a scientific standpoint.
You seem to think I draw my understanding from the movies or television. I assure you everything I refer to here in the realm of earth's geological formation or the evolution of life is well documented and fairly well known. I'm not drawing on some vague, unheard of, out there theories or anything in pop culture.
There are plenty of names of events and dates and specifications of timeline according to the geologic timescale referenced in my hub to verify what I'm talking about if you feel so inclined to investigate further.
I chose to keep this as uncluttered as possible by not including a bunch of links, but I may decide to flesh it out a bit to clarify for those that may not be familiar. However, if it's references you want you're welcome to check out my much more detailed write-up here ... http://promptprocrastination.com/PPBlog/10/13/2011
Again, if there's something in particular you see here that I have wrong that's giving you this sense that my scientific understanding is somehow flawed or deluded, please point it out to me. I am doing this to learn, not to teach.
Your starting point is irrational!
God created evolution? Gods are mythological things and only exist in story books ... geee man?
It's as absurd as thinking that some gods created nature and the universe ... these super-natural claims of what gods did, makes all the other stuff into a joke!
You try to avoid facing the fact all gods are simply irrational creations of the human mind ... anyone who wants to hold a rational view and show some understanding of natural science can't come along with the bible and start talking religious BS!
f_hruz,
I understand that's how you see it. I see it as irrational to dismiss any possibility of a higher power based merely on science, which is the study of the natural/physical world.
There's more to life than just the physical. The human conscious mind obviously exists, yet cannot be detected scientifically. If there is anything in existence that is not strictly physical, then it stands to reason that it's not the only thing that exists that's not strictly physical.
The only reason we know about consciousness is because we experience life through it. Just think for a minute how you would describe your conscious experience to someone/thing that didn't have one. Could you show them?Could you possibly make them really understand it? So how can you possibly know there's nothing else in the universe that exists, that's just as undetectable physically?
Most humans since the beginning of recorded history believed in a higher power of some sort. The earliest writings, the oldest civilizations, all believed there was a higher power.
Scientifically we know just enough to know there's still a whole lot we don't know. We're doing pretty good if we've managed to figure out even 1% of everything there is to know about the universe and everything in it. For anyone to take our still very young scientific understanding and determine with utter certainty that there is definitely no God is irrational to me.
Science has ruled out the traditional interpretation of Genesis, but not Genesis itself. The way I see it, it has managed to clarify it and tell a much bigger, much more fascinating story that depicts a powerful God designing an earth, populating it with life, and then introducing free will into it, which spread throughout the world right along with civilization.
Your main problem is lack of rational thinking skills in itself! You clearly don't even know what it is, where it begins and what all the parameters are ...
"I see it as irrational to dismiss any possibility of a higher power based merely on science, which is the study of the natural/physical world."
Can you see any clear reasoning power at all in this? What the hell else is there as the worlds finest minds?
Don't say it's mythology, or religion? Subjects which are in part also covered by a branch of science ... but not the exact natural sciences!
Well, mythology may also be part of literature, and as such part of the arts and not as much of science!
That's where you become a BIG joke!
You show no understanding of scientific thought, logic, reason or any grasp of what nature really is and how she can function so well WITHOUT any evidence of any gods nowhere EVER to be found - forget that silly bible of yours - it's a story book for the mindless!
Do you even know the difference between Rationalism & Empiricism?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empi
Do some reading, get an education ... use your time a bit more productively than being stuck in gods rectum ...
Why do you expose your untrained mind in public to the point where it's painfully clear you must have shits for brains if you can't direct your mind on your own in a more open ended direction of discovery than to re-hush religious BS?
Let's talk again after you have discovered why god is the only export product sold by the Vatican around the world at higher prices than real bull shit with only a fraction of the value of real manure ... ok?
Good luck!
Franto in Toronto
Why thank you, f_hruz, that was ... colorful.
"You show no understanding of scientific thought, logic, reason or any grasp of what nature really is and how she can function so well WITHOUT any evidence of any gods nowhere EVER to be found"
I'm just curious what you think evidence of God would look like exactly. Would you expect a giant thumb print on the moon? Are you certain there's no God because no one has ever peered through a telescope and saw his signature on anything?
Let me try this again. The natural world is God's creation. It's the result. Just like your colorful comment above. That was the result of your conscious mind.
Now, can you show me your conscious mind formulating that comment? Can I actually see it? Or hear it? I could see your physical body type it out, but not the thoughts that strung all of those wonderful metaphors together. Not the internal process that picked and chose from memories and associations you used to then fashion this jewel of a comment into a physical form so I could then enjoy it too. I can only see the result. Not the cause.
"Don't say it's mythology, or religion? Subjects which are in part also covered by a branch of science ... but not the exact natural sciences!
Well, mythology may also be part of literature, and as such part of the arts and not as much of science!"
Yes, exactly. There are all kinds of things in existence that you yourself know about, that many people all over the world study, that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. They exist. They're part of existence. They only exist because someone's conscious mind created them; art, literature, mythology, psychiatry, psychology, etc.
So why would you think science, which only covers what is physical, should be the tool used to determine whether or not God is there? Science can only see the cause if the cause is physical. You yourself confirmed there are things in existence born of something that is not physical. So, why would you think our conscious mind is the only thing that exists anywhere in the universe that's capable of creating things, yet is not physical?
"Why do you expose your untrained mind in public"
Your comment is in public too. Just FYI.
You obviously can't even think clearly - forget about trying to formulate scientific thoughts we could build anything on, in that untrained mind of yours!
The brain is a complex biological device which processes all kinds of impulses from internal and peripheral sources - there is NOT ONE thing in nature that's without a cause OR a reason - that's why we have a law of causality so it's quite clear by now that all gods are simply major BS for the mindless!
Let me give it to you again!
Natural science is NOT the study of all things physical - that's called Physics and is only a small part of it!
Natural Science the SCIENTIFIC study of all things NATURAL - from Nuclear Physics to Micro Biology and every thing in between - which you are simply not able or willing to see ... and since you have no grasp of neither all natural forces, natural forms of energy, etc. and obviously don't want to train your stupid mind to study anything seriously, you just cling to the dark hole of this god of yours and keep wasting valuable time which you could much better apply to conducting serious mind space research IF you only had the qualifications to formulate advanced thoughts not based on religious BS but real scientific concepts!
You keep slipping up at a very basic level - try some Math, like in Probability and Statistics ... you may just discover that nature requires a god with the same probability as my ass is calling out for sand paper - :)
f_hruz,
Right, there are the natural sciences and then there are the social sciences. As in, all the other fields outside of the natural sciences.
Existence is bigger than natural science. It doesn't all fit in that box. You have to count the other stuff too. A majority of that branch is made up of fields dedicated to understanding human consciousness, ultimately.
There are physical studies as well, like neuroscience, that attempt to understand the conscious mind, along with everything else 'brain' related, phsycially. But they're not there yet. We're beginning to understand the brain well as a mechanism, but haven't even begun to grasp the 'mind'.
Your certainty that there is no God is the same as my certainty that there is. Neither can be proven so both are taken on faith. You seem certain, though it may be decades or even centuries after you and I are gone, that science will ultimately prove the conscious mind to be just as natural as everything else. So you take it on faith that it will ultimately be true.
Existence is made up of more than what the natural sciences alone can cover.
It ALL is part of NATURE or it's man made - can you grasp at least that much?
ALL gods and ALL religions are man made ideas by silly people to keep uneducated minds like yours busy ... :)
The probabilities are not 50/50 ... they are 99.99% against any man made deity having anything to do with nature ... and nature herself has absolutely NO use for any gods!
Where do you see nature calling out for some help from any gods created my some retarded humans?
You say: "The natural world is God's creation" when you clearly have NO idea what NATURE even is - that's where you are out of luck ... BIG time - each and every time, with any of your infantile arguments!
You don't even know how you'd have to define the word "god" so it could fit the bill of having come close to running your own bowl for a day so you wouldn't have the shits for 24 hours non stop, man! :)
That's how much you know about your own digestive system you think in your stupidity, some god made for you?
No gods exist for rational people who have brains to think clearly enough to know what scientific thought requires, and why religion is just mindless speculation of no use for REAL discoveries ... got it?
I can't stop you to keep on speculating in your mindless fashion, wasting your time ... but where do you think such silliness will ever get you?
f_hruz,
You're so close! You're almost there. You might say you're 'circling the bowl'. Your answer is right there in the middle.
The key is here .... "It ALL is part of NATURE or it's man made"
Get it? We ourselves don't fit in the natural sciences. We're apart from it. At least, what we create. Whatever is a product of our 'mind'. That in itself says there's more to existence than what natural science can detect.
Now, we're natural, right? I assume you agree with that. We're made of the same stuff as the world and universe around us. We formed naturally, just as everything else did. We evolved. We're all part of the same thing.
So, how does this human ability to create things (ie. man-made) come about if it exists nowhere else?
Here's another question... If we're a part of nature just like everything else, then why are we the only beings that live in opposition to nature? Why do we create waste and harmful materials like we do? Why do we destroy?
Destruction in the natural world simply breaks something down to be used again. Nature recycles! Our physical bodies even recycle, but we don't. We, through our conscious minds, actually manipulate things, elements, chemicals, to serve a purpose of convenience usually, that do not break down. That only cause natural problems because they're not 'of' nature. They're 'of' human consciousness.
How is that if we're no different than the rest of nature around us? How/Why would something, anything, of nature evolve into something that destroys itself and everything around it?
Nature has her use for all forms of life ... maybe our main function is to sound smart and act stupid by not even caring why other, smarter life forms than us - dolphins and whales - live in total harmony with nature with out gods, while we created gods to tell religious lunatics it's ok to rape nature for all its worth?
Are we really so stupid and blinded by religion not to even care to drop this crazy idea of " .... having been given domain over every thing natural by god" and related religious BS?
I'm not sure blaming 'religious lunatics' as being responsible for humanity's tendency to be destructive really sums it up. And if you're right about dolphins and whales being smarter, or even as smart, then it's not necessarily related to intelligence either.
The first known civilization, the Sumerians, who built the first cities to ever exist, actually built their cities around temples where their stories say the gods they served lived. So from the very beginning of man's departure from natural harmony humans believed in, and actually structured their very lives around, a religious belief.
So, if you were to equate 'free-will' as the difference between living in or out of harmony with nature, then it seems that one of the very first choices humans made of their own free will was to instead follow the will of a deity of some sort.
Of course, being a 'religious lunatic' myself, I've got my own loony theory about that, but I'll leave that be for now.
You put way too much value into irrationality and religiosity where there is no place for it, and you do it at the expense of wanting to grasp the fundamental reality of nature - that's what's so unscientific about your views.
Our total support system is based on nature and not on gods or what man invented ... nothing would work if it weren't for the laws of nature - so give these silly gods a brake and get a new and open ended perspective on reality based on an objective, critical view of the world using scientific thinking skills, if you can get some!
So what, we have tools, toys and instruments now. Every thing existed in nature before we discovered a use for it. Only once we started to ask the right questions did nature show us how we can take advantage of things, from gravity to the whole electro-magnetic spectrum.
There is nothing new about humans having been misguided by various religions, cults and myths since the day they thought the sun or fire was a god.
Where is your desire to be a rational being and help advance our insights into nature, reality and a knowledge based culture instead of dragging gods and all that religious BS with you?
How much longer do you want to stay so retarded?
There are plenty of experts out there doing all of the scientific thinking. That's not my place and that's why you won't catch me here arguing whether or not what they say is true or accurate. I concede to their expertise and will gladly read the dumbed-down version they provide for yokels like me.
But just how far do the experts have to drill down into the natural world before you realize there's more to it than that? Every direction we go, from the most microscopic of layers, to the most distant reaches of the universe, to the deepest recesses of the human mind, we only ultimately find more questions than answers.
As experts all over the world continue to dig in every direction to fill in the blanks, the gaps that consistently remain only further confirm what I'm trying to get across. There's more to it.
We don't know what caused the big bang. We don't know what causes the laws of nature you speak of. We don't know where the very consciousness we experience life through came from. When it developed. How it developed. Why it developed.
We can see the effects of the laws of nature on matter. We can reconstruct how just injecting matter into a space where these laws are already in place can form an entire universe. But we can't determine the origin of the laws that define existence, that first had to be in place, for all of that to happen.
Whether you agree or not, whether you want to accept it or not, the study of the natural/physical world alone cannot answer all questions about existence. Everything that exists, past/present/future, is relevant. That includes human consciousness and everything born of it. Gods, real or imaginary, are relevant. Religion is relevant. Art and mythology are relevant. Literature. Depression. Wars. You and me. It's all relevant.
Any hope to understand the entirety of existence must consider everything that exists within it. Everything.
Again, you have no focus. Your chatter is not reducing the confusion you keep creating for yourself by asking more silly questions and calling them relevant.
Relevant to what? Your flat earth ideas of reality are no longer relevant in the forefront of science - your landscape of reality most likely looks like a maze ... and you are lost in it because you have never learned how to structure your thoughts based on LOGIC, etc. ...
You babble, you use smart sounding words but you have no clue why some ideas are way more relevant than others in building a progressive knowledge base around, which can be shared internationally with other creative thinkers around the world who REALLY want to advance human understanding and have taken the time to learn how to apply scientific principles correctly ...
You obviously don't know the least about it and don't care to do the work on that silly mind of yours to start grasping such highly vital facts, such as NATURE being ALL there is - because SHE IS the foundation to objective reality, even though we have created a lot of artificial things our selves as a species, non of it could function if it were not based on natures laws and work in conformity to it - NOTHING super natural exists in the real world.
Pigs can't fly no matter how long you tell them about your silly god and all the myths you have heard about him ... so train your brain to become more useful in conducting your own discoveries and before too long, you may very clearly see ... not all things have the same relevance in all the schemes of things, and most definitely not all at once or at the same time ... so structure your outlook on reality and maybe you will learn how to fix your own crazy mistakes ... :)
I realize you feel my perspective is dated and archaic. You feel we've now enlightened ourselves in just a few short decades to a higher level of understanding than has ever been known in all of human history, and that anyone who hasn't bought into this 'superior' worldview is simply holding up progress and deluding themselves.
I don't deny we've made enormous strides in our understanding of the physical world. A big reason for this growth-spurt initially is because not that long ago it was considered 'forward-thinking' to not let previously established concepts limit your thinking. To think outside the proverbial box. And it has worked. It's brought us a long way.
So why would you then decide we've come far enough, that we've now more clearly defined 'the box', and discourage anyone from looking outside of it any further? As we've covered in great length, you have no proof that says there's no reason to continue to look outside the box. So why would I?
I've given you my reasoning. You continuing to insist I'm just 'untrained' intellectually is not going to convince me of anything. My landscape is more clear now than ever before. The traditional interpretations of God I was taught left gaps that didn't make sense to me. Our scientific understanding leaves gaps too. It's only when these two are combined that things become clear and gaps disappear.
The key to moving forward in understanding is to first admit to yourself you don't "know" everything. There are still many unanswered questions. As long as there are, taking any element out of the equation on the assumption that you know better is premature.
It's not just me, Emma and many more have already told you, you are a BIG Dummkopf!
We don't require any gods to discover that we derive our intellect through natural sources like all other forms of life. We know matter contains information and knows how to interact with each other or we woulnd't have discovered how to build a battery or a nuclear reactor.
Any rational thinking, educated person can tell you right off the bat, you are full of crap and pissing into the wind when you say: "God Created Evolution"
You don't have to know EVERYTHING ever! You just have to know the most relevant things at the right time, and know them well to be able to ask the most appropriate questions correctly and know when you are given a good enough answer to shape your thoughts and ideas in the right direction ... but you have no clue of any of it!
Don't you know by now what you are doing in your head?
You are looking up gods rear end and are thinking it's soo original being outside the box when you are building sand castles in the shape of gods ass.
WOW - how original! Now that's real scientific thought based on a lot of education and a creative mind, eh? Why don't you instead try to get a basic education in how to learn how to think!
Not a thing you have said in all your hubs goes one step outside your religious shit box ... you know that by now, right?
Nature is not a BOX ... you have boxed yourself into a maze inside your god delusion box!
So why do you think your god delusional diarrhea is going to miraculously produce golden eggs suddenly? Do explain that to me ... I like to know and learn - ahahaha!
If you only tried to drop that stupid idea of a man made god and this mindless bible as being more than an infantile idea for a few months ... and tried to look at NATURE as the source of our ultimate, objective reality, your way of thinking may show some progress towards eventually seeing a clearer picture of what NATURE and REALITY is!
It's not premature for you to finally grasp you can't think one step past your silly god who put you into the box you want to be in, because you let him screw your mind so badly!
f_hruz,
You're right, I've been called many things over the past couple of weeks by you and Emma and others. So far, that's all you've got. You don't agree with me and until I get with the 'program' I'm not worth listening to, seems to be the basic jist of the arguments thus far. Nothing of substance whatsoever to dispute my claim.
You can't tell me what exactly I have wrong that makes you say I'm such an idiot. You just think my logic is flawed. I think yours is flawed. We're at an impass.
"You don't have to know EVERYTHING ever! You just have to know the most relevant things at the right time, and know them well to be able to ask the most appropriate questions correctly and know when you are given a good enough answer to shape your thoughts and ideas in the right direction ..."
I agree with that. We can't know everything. So why in the world would you go ahead and cut anything out of the equation? How could you possibly deem anything in existence as irrelivant when we don't know everything? How could you possibly know for certain there is nothing to the bible and nothing to this idea of a God that remained consistent through 66 books, written by 40 different men, over the course of many centuries?
In this hub I illustrate how the creation account correctly lines up with the history of the earth as we now understand it. I spent some time over the weekend adding links and pictures to more clearly convey the fact.
Please, tell me where I'm wrong. Please show me how this can't possibly be true. If you can't then how can you possibly continue to dismiss it? Just as I've said throughout, there's more to the story than what natural science alone can explain.
Why does irrational thought have to be dismissed as irrelevant? Well, for one, study this scholarly video here first ...
http://www.youtube.com/v/sNDZb0KtJDk&hl
Next, since I had previously posted it to one of my hubs, you may wish to read the rest of them with a bit more care!
You should start to see a clear answer to your question in due course ...
f_hruz,
I watched the video. As usual, you seem to be assuming I haven't pondered these things. That you're somehow introducing profound new ways of thinking to an intellectual child who's simply not as enlightened as you are.
In other words, you're bringing stock arguments fit for a stock debate to a conversation that's not even standing in that arena. All based on your assumption of who I am and what I believe.
What you don't seem to get, or keep ignoring entirely, is that I'm making a direct claim here. I've been through the motions of these philosophical debates. I went through more here with you. I see that it ultimately gets nowhere.
So I'm introducing a claim that I can prove Genesis as a legitimate and relevant source of information beyond just mythical tales of morality. I'm illustrating how texts written thousands of years ago, somewhere around the same time and place that civilization first sprung up in the human race, accurately describe the creations of the earth and all life on it, and how the subsequent chapters describe the same supreme being who created everything introducing free will into His creation.
Between my first two hubs I'm introducing a much bigger idea that I've only just begun to get into. I've taken everything we know about the natural world, everything we know about our history as a species, everything man-made, every idea or belief or myth, every civilization, every religion, into consideration in my search for the one truth.
Because there is only one. One truth. One answer. No single traditional religion or belief explains everything.
Science doesn't explain everything. History doesn't explain everything. I've looked. Nobody, and certainly know individual school of thought, on this planet right now has all the answers. If they did we'd all know about it. It's only when you take a step back and look at everything that you can ever hope to find any real meaning.
Dismissing anything in existence as irrational or irrelevant is nothing short of arrogance and short-sightedness. Dismissing the beliefs of the majority of humans throughout history, the very humans who's shoulders you stand perched on top of claiming with absolute certainty that you've got the intellectual authority to edit out whatever you deem fit, is the equivalent of a teenager who thinks they know it all.
The video you provided trying to justify atheism as some sort of forward thinking trait of the enlightened is nothing more than intellectual laziness. In essence, what the guy with the accent is suggesting is that naturally evolved humans developed some sort of unfortunate destructive trait along the way that now has to be eradicated by the logical, rational mind that naturally evolved right along with it.
Basically, it's arrogantly suggesting that we as a species have finally reached the point that we can take over and decide for ourselves how to steer natural progression from this point on. We barely understand it. We're only just now really beginning to get a glimpse. But somehow we now know enough to know some turns along the way were absolute mistakes and that it's okay to grab the wheel and right the wrongs done over the course of thousands of years.
Think about it.
I have ... that's why I now see a clear picture of nature and reality, what's part of it and what's an absurd fabrication or plain religious BS not fit to be part of a healthy, thinking persons mind with some grasp of nature and reality.
You can hang on to your god delusion as long as you like and keep on pondering till you are blue in the face or learn how to think a bit more critically ... good luck!
I was gonna rip this but it appears it's been ripped already. Interesting connections you make however absurd. I myself tried at one time (when I was a Christian) that the days in Genesis were not exactly a day to us but just to God or that a day was just a moment in time where he decided to make certain things happen, but that was idea was quickly eradicated with the rest of Genesis and the parts about Giants and how long people lived and who begat who and so on... as I learned more science I found that none of the Bible follows any of the sciences discoveries about the nature of the world, the universe or man that have been found and verified to be true.
Good luck with your quest for truth and acceptance, you need to move beyond your own belief and look at the world, perhaps come to understand why we disagree with you, what science is about. Take a few basic science courses, especially in Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Anthropology, History Pre-History and Paleontology... they have basic courses for all those areas. Maybe even pick up a book of each of those sciences instead. But the labs that show you things working the way science says they will is very important to at least observe.
artblack01,
I appreciate you taking the time to check this out. However, I can't do much with what you gave me. You call the connections I make absurd, but don't say what makes them absurd. Then you suggest I take some classes. I assume this means you see some glaring errors in my perception of our current scientific understanding, yet you give me no specifics.
I feel I have a pretty firm grasp on basic science, but do not claim to be a scientist by any means. I'm simply using a timeline put together through the collective effort of teams of scientists and researchers over many decades and compare that to what's written. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the geologic timescale.
If you see something I have wrong in my understanding of the earth's history, please point it out to me. If you have specific things elsewhere in Genesis that you feel doesn't work in knowable history, please point it out.
It doesn't do me any good if people see holes in my theory or in my logic, yet refuse to say specifically what they are. Though it may be more trouble, I would appreciate specifics so I can better educate myself if I am wrong.
I don't see anything wrong with your understanding in the Earth's history just your absurd connection to the Bible, it's hard to point out anything in particular that hasn't already been pointed out here mostly because this is your wishful interpretation of it in your desire to connect science's view on Earth's history with your views on Biblical history. The hole is in the whole. There is no actual connection. The Bible was written not out of complete stupidity but desires for explanation of observations outside of reality.
I'm sorry, artblack01, but you have to see how you deeming it 'absurd' with no specific reasoning to explain is simply inadequate from my perspective.
Calling this my 'wishful interpretation' just doesn't fly when the text is so specific. There are 13 details directly mentioned that line up chronologically with earth's history. The text states directly that this is an account of earth's formation, so there's no mistaking.
You yourself say you see nothing wrong with my understanding of earth's history according to modern science. So trying to dismiss this by claiming I'm twisting things around to make the interpretation work is simply inadequate.
Because genesis is so vague when it comes to each thing being "created". And considering that the concepts are not new I am not surprised by their vagueness. But let's take this into perspective. The science is not vague, you can take a vague idea and connect it to anything you want, it doesn't make the vague idea accurate to the whole. And the vague nature of story or the author giving God credit for the story shouldn't add credence to the story. I can't get any more specific than that, you can connect any story of fantasy to any science and make it seem likely to have happened... Take any fantasy story you like... Is the Quran accurate, they've pretty much given the exact same arguments as you, but theirs "appears" more detailed than the Bible's. Vague interpretations can make anything connect.... Also consider that the Bible is not translated to 100% accuracy, especially the old testament. Example is tht the word for god in the original text is plural. Catch my meaning?
artblack01,
"And the vague nature of story or the author giving God credit for the story shouldn't add credence to the story."
That statement might apply in regards to other parts of the bible, but not this. Creation depicts events that happened well before humans existed. That alone gives it credence as that alone leaves only possibilities beyond our understanding as an explanation. The only other possibility is sheer coincidence.
I've studied this through multiple translations, including the original Hebrew they were taken from. Arguments of translation can't dismiss this either.
"Because genesis is so vague when it comes to each thing being "created"."
Accurately listing 13 specific details, and 6 major eras, is not vague.
If you're looking for it to specifically tell you step by step how God did each thing to be satisfied, then you're demanding more of it than can be expected from any ancient writing. They're never written for the purpose of proving themselves legitimate.
You have to glean information from them by trying to understand everything about them. Their context. Who wrote it and when. From what perspective. The text. The grammar. All of it.
If we were to take your 'vague' argument and apply it across the board, then we'd have dismiss practically everything we think we know as certain that was learned from some ancient document.
You do understand the Qur'an is also based on the books of Moses don't you? If others have truly given the exact same arguments as me, based on another text that in many aspects is very similar, then that only adds credibility.
So, just a few short years into the age that humanity has finally gained enough information about the earth's history to put together what appears to be a consistent explainable chain of events, numerous people independently begin to draw very similar conclusions from very similar texts that a creation account written thousands of years ago may in fact be accurately explaining these events? Though they happened millions and billions of years before human existence? Catch my meaning?
The "events" may have taken place before man, but so did many creation stories written by men. That does not give them credence. Again their vague nature destroys that.
As far as ancient documents go everything that we learn about them is only one actual thing, they tell us what the ancient culture believed and how they lived and nothing else. Ancient cultures don't have any great "knowledge" to teach us about the work except in what they saw and believed at the time.
Plagiarism doesn't add credibility, as far as the quran goes.
Like I said. All vague.
Believe what you like but you are neither a historian nor a scientist.
To be a bit more specific about my argument, any child could take you along how they think something progresses without previous knowledge. Genesis does this same thing. Why it's a failure as such a ducument is why your connections don't actually work. Their "significant connections don't say anything about what was significant about the Earth's actual significant history. The major cataclysms that took place before man existed, the two major extinctions of nearly all life on Earth, how the moon was once part of Earth. We are only 400,000 years in the Earth's billion year history, how insignificant we are compared to that and you wanna call the vagueness of genesis "scientifically" accurate? That insults everyone's intelligence. I could go on but I am not at a computer right now, I am on an iPhone. Hard to type fast.
I'm not sure how exactly you figure the events described in Genesis are not significant. True, we are only about 400,000 years worth of the 4+ billion year history of earth, which would make sense considering humans didn't show up until the very end. Out of 31 verses, humans show up in verse 26.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Yes, humans were the intended audience, so the events described relate to what humans are familiar with. The heavens, the earth, the air, the seas, the plants, the animals, us. All of which is very much significant.
Why would it be necessary to describe a mass extinction that wiped out all these animals that lived and died millions of years before humans existed? Those mass extinctions were just some of the numerous events that led to the eventual animal life that that exists during our time.
This is what I mean about you expecting more from this text than what's reasonable. This shows an obvious bias against the material as you don't treat it as you would anything else. You're dismissing it without first giving it due consideration.
The events it does list are monumentally important. And in many cases one 'creation' proves to be a necessary ingredient for the next 'creation' to follow.
Like light coming just before the establishment of the firmament, which is what people then called the dome of the sky. This required sunlight both in the establishment of the earth's water cycle (separating water above from below) and in the creation of oxygen through photosynthesis. This is also the same order it actually happened.
Then came plant life right after land. Plant life required light as well, and oxygen, and a water cycle. This is also still the right order.
Then came the sun/moon/stars which could only be seen from land once the combination of plant life on land and a water cycle and sunlight changed the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.
Then came the animals which required light, water, oxygen, land, and plant life, not to mention the 24 hour days that didn't exist before the continents moved back up to the side of the planet. All still in order as how it actually happened.
These are all monumentally significant events. And each prove to need the things that came before.
Also, just FYI, I don't think anyone believes the moon was once part of the earth. Look up the 'giant impact' hypothesis. This is the most commonly accepted theory as to the moon's formation to my knowledge.
I understand you're not just going to read this and drop your whole world view. I understand this just isn't reasonable or possible to you. But trying to claim a text that specifically says it's an account of the formation of the earth and manages to list 13 specific details and 6 major eras in the correct order in just 31 verses as vague is ludicrous. And claiming that the creations described aren't significant doesn't fly either.
And yes, a kid could certainly take you along how they think something progresses without previous knowledge. But for a kid to say the heavens came first, then the earth, then oceans, then light, then air, then land, then plants, then visible stars, then animals, then humans, would be a bit much. To actually mention 'light' right before the things that would need light, which is everything else on the list, would be lucky at best considering people during those times knew nothing about photosynthesis.
Or explaining that the sun/moon/stars were 'positioned' in the sky to serve a purpose during the same time frame between plant life on land and vertebrates on land when the continents actually moved thousands of miles to be positioned so that land inhabitants can actually use the sun/moon/stars for what's stated at the very least is a gigantic coincidence. Or the fact that the continents never again moved away from being positioned between the earth's poles.
I'm sorry to tell you that I was once a christian and at one time I took the bible as seriously as you do. But it is a work of mythology and you can defend it till you are blue in the face and justify it any way you like, but that fact will still remain. It's a myth created for the bronze age. It doesn't apply to us nor does it apply to reality.
When I believed the bible was true I used to defend it myself. But when you truly try and match it's information with scientifically gathered data and it doesn't match but the science rings true... I abandoned the Bible and your God years ago. The reason why are even bother arguing against it is because Christians keep insisting that we nonbelievers, scientists or different believers should convert or believe on Jesus or whatever, over and over again trying to impose your Christian rules on us nonchristians... You can totally believe that there is some sort of connection if you like.
I hope you know though you just used my argument to defend the vagueness of the bible which totally contradicts your argument for matching Earth's prehistory with Genesis. It's too vague to connect so to say it coincides you would have to connect more than just vague moments which were observed and theorized well before the bible was written.
The reason you're left clinging to this vagueness argument is because Genesis got it so right that's all that's left. If it hadn't, you'd be picking it apart by pointing out the obvious inconsistencies.
Instead you're left giving credit to people thousands of years ago for correctly listing the order in which everything they knew was created by observing and theorizing. These same people that thought the world was flat and that the heavens revolved around it, correctly theorized the oceans came before the land? They correctly theorized creatures and birds came from the sea? Through theorizing they correctly separated animals by sauropsids and synapsids?
I'm not here trying to convert people to Christianity. I'm trying to point out something that I would think would be of great interest to humans in general. I'm trying to point out how this ancient text, who's exact origin is unknown beyond it being from the same time/place as the birth of civilization, not only correctly describes the formation of the earth and all life on it, but tells a very specific story in its first 10 chapters that could very well explain just how the human race became what it is today.
It explains who the 'gods' were that the Sumerians claim taught them civilization. It explains the sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology in both Egypt and the Indus Valley, two civilizations that began to thrive about the same time, independently of each other, each with their own language and who independently developed their own systems of writing. It explains the difference between those tribal humans who still exist to this day and who are content with living in harmony with nature and the humans that came from the civilizations around the Mediterranean who conquered and spread throughout the world through the centuries.
I've discussed this with many very knowledgeable people, both believers and atheists, and while I find that plenty from both sides of the fence disagree with me, nobody can seem to tell me specifically where I'm wrong. Everything checks out. So instead I'm told I'm justifying it, or that I'm twisting around vague text to make it work. I've been accused of heresy and I've been called all kinds of colorful things. I've heard it all. What I've yet to hear is a better explanation.
Usually, the conversation ends with some way of categorically denying the whole thing. Yours is 'vague text'. Above in this string of comments you'll also see one who uses the 'materialism' argument that categorically denies anything that's not physical, or the 'literal vs. metaphorical' argument that categorically dismisses everything because 'who could tell the difference?'.
You really don't know your history, the Greeks never thought the world was flat for one....
You know I could go on and on with all the things you are getting wrong here. You make a lot of assumptions not just about the Bible but history in general and it's laughable the not just vague connections as I mentioned, but the desperate attempts you make at defending all your baseless connections to the Bible you contradict yourself several times in order to do so. So desperate are you to defend your idea that no matter how wrong you are you will argue it to death. Do you feel it would be worth while for me to continue making a point with someone so closed minded as you to not accept my criticism of it?
Actually, the Greeks did believe the earth was flat until their classical period starting sometime during the 5th century BC. Just look at Homer's description of Achilles shield, which depicted a flat earth cosmography, for the most obvious and easily verifiable confirmation. Though I wasn't even talking about the Greeks. I was talking about the authors of the bible.
The creation account is estimated as being written around 450 BC by scholars, but the Jewish culture orally passed on stories for many generations before they were ever written down. So yes, the predominant belief during the time the books of Moses were written, and well before, was that the earth was flat.
I've discussed this with numerous people who know history and science and the bible better than I do that didn't see all the laughable-ness you seem to see at a glance, but refuse to state specifically. In fact, out of everything I've claimed, for my mention of these people believing the earth was flat to be the only thing you keyed in on strongly suggests you're probably overstating yourself just a bit.
But, I could be mistaken. You say you could go on and on with all the things I'm getting wrong here. If that's the case, then by all means, please do. As I said before, I'm not doing this to convert people to Christianity. I'm pointing something out that I've verified to great extent for myself, and have since continued to test by discussing with people who are very knowledgeable in history/theology/science, and who strongly disagree with me, to verify my work.
I am totally open to criticism. I can't be right about everything. There has to be flaws here. Way too much ground is covered here for me to be right about everything. Previous conversations have turned up things I had wrong at one time. The funny thing is the corrections often work better with my idea than what I had previously.
"Do you feel it would be worth while for me to continue making a point with someone so closed minded as you to not accept my criticism of it?"
You've yet to make a point. Calling the creation account 'vague' isn't a point. My pointing out that it specifically lists 13 details and 6 major eras in the correct order in only 31 verses is verifiable and flies right in the face of your 'point'.
The only one in this conversation who's proven to be close-minded is you. You've completely dismissed everything without the least bit of consideration based solely on your opinion that the text is 'vague', you've been elusive when asked for specifics, and the one time you did provide something specific you were wrong. All the while you've called my knowledge of history into question and have described me as desperate, defensive, and contradictory.
You spending more time talking about me than the actual topic is a tell-tale sign that you don't actually have anything of substance to dispute my claim. Now's your chance to prove my assessment of you thus far wrong. You know what to do, you apparently already have a whole list of things you just haven't bothered to share yet, so let's hear them.
You are asking for specifics on a vague connection and calling me closed minded for not arguing that point with you because I think you would be too closed minded to consider the points.... All I can tell you is that I have read through your reactions to everyone else's comments. At no point do you even consider that you might be overly reaching a fictional connection to actual history. 13 connections? Laughable. But like I said, you believe what you want besides what everyone else says and defend it no matter what. Why I would want to argue with you? You gave me no reason to think any of the points I would make even exist... Or that you would consider any evidence to the contrary of your vague idea. Call me closed minded for not wanting to argue with a closed minded person, believe what you like.... Bye
You yourself said earlier that you used to defend the bible and specifically the creation account, noting that it was the other bits of Genesis that threw you off. Not creation. You obviously saw something there.
The other things in Genesis you mentioned specifically as off-putting were "Giants and how long people lived and who begat who and so on...". What I'm attempting to show covers that as well. Like you, many dismiss Genesis, Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian mythology, and Greek/Roman mythology as nothing more than imaginative fiction. And while most acknowledge civilizations like the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and the Indus Valley culture did make significant leaps forward in craftsmanship and technological capability in a very short amount of time, there's simply nothing as far as an explanation. There's no natural progression turned up through archeological evidence to show how these new ways of doing things came about. They came about rather abruptly. Nobody knows how.
What I'm trying to point out is that Genesis actually explains it. It explains that there were other humans around when Adam was created. It explains that these other humans were mortal and that they only lived 120 years, versus the lifespans of Adam and his descendants that spanned centuries. Just read the first 3 verses of Genesis 6, it's all right there....
Gen 6: 1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This is still before the flood and comes just one chapter after showing how long Adam and his descendents lived. This specifically addresses a difference, calling humans who only live to 120 years 'mortal', meaning that Adam and his people were something more. This bit is where Genesis is explaining the reasons for the flood. It explains that wickedness came about when the 'sons of God' (Adam's immortal descendents) had children with the 'daughters of humans' (mortals).
Sumerian mythology describes in astonishing detail that they were taught civilization by immortal, human-like gods who physically walked on the earth and physically lived in the temples that we know actually existed at the center of their first cities. Cities that they claim existed before the great flood. Cities that to our knowledge were the first human cities to ever exist.
Every civilization in this region of the world have ancient stories that talk about multiple immortal gods who were human in form, male and female. They all speak of these gods and mortal humans having children together. The Sumerians more specifically tell stories of a great flood that one man survived by building a boat and tell a story about the once universal language being confused into many.
Think about it this way... if a small group of humans that lived for centuries actually existed at one time in this region somewhere around 6000 BC, what would you expect to see if any physical remains were wiped out in a flood? Wouldn't you expect to see them reflected in the mythology of the surrounding people? Wouldn't you expect to see abrupt, unexplained advances in cultures in that region if these beings were truly wise? Because that's exactly what we do see.
Sumerian carvings depict their gods, the Annunaki, as roughly 1/3 larger than the average Sumerian. The book of Numbers tells the story of large men, who were described as descendents of the Nephilim, that existed long after the flood in Canaan. The only other mention of the Nephilim is right after the above 3 verses ....
Gen 6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Sumerian mythology also includes a king's list that was very well known in that region during that time as there have been numerous copies of it found. This list depicts pre-flood kings of those first cities living for extremely long lifetimes. Theirs says 1000's of years, but this is most likely a difference in how the Cuneiform it was written in was translated. They're 1000's of years if using a base of 60, but much more in line with the lifespans given in Genesis if using a base of 10.
Those large men in Canaan were immediately recognized by the people of Israel as descendents of a people that existed long before them and before the flood because they were very large in stature.
I'm telling you, this all lines up. Understanding where Genesis fits in actual history clears up a lot of things that we don't understand and as of yet have no explanation for. There's way more to this than just creation, which you yourself admitted to once seeing as accurate.
You can believe what you like, what I am telling you is that archeology has already researched this and come up with a different conclusion. There is no connection with Earth's prehistory and genesis of the Bible. The bible is the account of the beliefs of the people for when it was written and nothing more.
You can talk in detail about what you think connects the bible to prehistory or history before it was written but it is a regional account.
This is how the bible now reads to us in the scientific community and to all atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s&feature
Why did I post this video? So I would have to waste anymore of my time with the same argument by someone like you that I have heard and disputed way too many times. If you were more of an open minded person it would be worth while, even if you still held your long ago dismissed myth.
Why is it that nearly every video like this is done with a sarcastic narration with a british accent? I guess that's how you try to make something seem 'smarter'.
You keep confusing me as someone close-minded simply because I wouldn't accept the arguments you refused to actually provide any detail for to back it up. I'm just supposed to accept it as a valid argument, though you've provided no substance whatsoever. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?
What you and that video and many others seem to be missing is that the only thing science has dis-proven in regards to creation or the book of Genesis in general are the interpretations of what it says that were formed literally centuries ago by people who had a much more narrow understanding of the natural world. That is all. As I am trying to point out, it has not dis-proven Genesis itself.
Simply reading it for what it actually says, and not what you've always been told it says, it's pretty clear. It more lines up with our modern scientific understanding than it ever did with traditional interpretation.
The 'points' made in the video regarding the differences between chapter 1 and 2 are a perfect example. What in the actual book of Genesis makes you think they're both talking about the same event? Nothing. That's a traditional interpretation that you and many others can't seem to look past and understand for what it is.
Genesis 1 and 2 are two different events. Clearly. Genesis 1 is talking about the entire planet and all life on it. Genesis 2 is talking about one particular location, complete with names of rivers and such so you can be even more certain. It's a much more regional account.
The video also referenced Genesis 6, as did I. It pointed out the remark that God 'regretted' creating humans. Because, the verses right before talk about how the 'sons of God' started having children with mortal humans. Obviously, this was not how things should have gone if these new free-willed beings behaved as they were supposed to, but they didn't.
Just look at the difference between the humans in Genesis 1 and Adam. The humans in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that they followed to the letter. Be fruitful, multiply, populate and subdue the earth, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what early humans did. You know in Genesis that it was accomplished because the last line in chapter 1 says that God saw ALL that He made and that it was GOOD. It was done exactly as He intended.
Obviously, everything the humans in Genesis 1 were told to do was a much more challenging task than simply not eating from that one tree. Adam and Eve couldn't do that one simple thing. So how exactly do you think humans could have accomplished everything else asked of them, that took much more effort and required full-on obedience, yet couldn't follow that one simple rule?
Simply dismissing me as close-minded and not worth listening to is just one way of many to refuse to see what's in plain site right in front of your face.
In fact, just you providing that video along with this statement ...
"So I would have to waste anymore of my time with the same argument by someone like you that I have heard and disputed way too many times."
... is the essence of close-mindedness because it's obvious nothing I've said has gotten through. You obviously haven't heard these same arguments before.
And then you provide a link to a video that in no way addresses these arguments. You're still arguing with the traditional interpretations. Not me. Your mind is closed and you can't see the difference. See what I mean?
Hello Art,
thanks so much for posting the link to a most fitting video as a perfectly suited reply to a hub full of BS!
I have tried to discover if he had any idea of what basic logic or rational thought has to consist of, but his mind is wide open to any BS of any kind, mystical, religious or plain irrational.
He has no interest in science at all. His only focus is just BS story telling!
I also noticed soon enough that his mental capacity is wasted on this brain dead religionoid who takes outdated myths so seriously, he must have lost his grip on reality totally by now!
Franto in Toronto
Hey f_hruz, it's good to hear from you again ... sort of.
I'm glad to see you're still following along and sorry to see that reading comprehension is still a problem.
"He has no interest in science at all."
I've talked more about, and referred more often to, science than anyone else just in these comments alone. Not to mention the numerous references to scientific facts and theories and events and timelines that the hub you actually made that comment in is attached to.
"thanks so much for posting the link to a most fitting video as a perfectly suited reply to a hub full of BS!"
Fitting would mean it actually addressed any part of my claim. It doesn't.
I would really appreciate it if you or Art or whoever would take the time to actually understand my claim so we can have a real conversation about it. I'm open to anything that addresses my claim specifically.
I cover a lot of ground here. The entirety of human existence and the entirety of earth's history. You can't tell me you can't find something to pick apart with something relevant out of all of that if there's absolutely no truth to what I'm suggesting.
"I cover a lot of ground here. The entirety of human existence and the entirety of earth's history. You can't tell me you can't find something to pick apart with something relevant out of all of that if there's absolutely no truth to what I'm suggesting."
To do so would be a waste of our time if you are not going to consider the differences between evidence and myth/hearsay.
From what I have read if the other comments and responses you din't and your mind accepts all silly notions, I am sure you probably even believe the Mayan 2012 idea to be a possible true prediction to the end times... And other such silliness.
"To do so would be a waste of our time if you are not going to consider the differences between evidence and myth/hearsay."
I'm sorry you feel that way, but don't confuse the reason why you're retreating from your initial mission ("I was gonna rip this but ...") by trying to make it my fault. I've provided ample evidence to back up my claim where evidence is available.
Unfortunately I can't provide any eye-witness testimony or video footage or sworn statements from the original authors. Where Genesis and anything else from ancient history is concerned, you kind of have to work with what you've got.
You keep trying to paint me as some sort of irrational zealot that can't be reasoned with. While I have absolute faith in God, I do not have absolute faith in my 'theory'. Though I do, admittedly, grow more confident with every detractor that fails to poke holes in it. I'm open to being wrong. I welcome it. That's why I'm here and that's why I have these conversations.
I do this to learn. If you can show me I've got something wrong, then you've helped me learn something I didn't know before.
You said you could "go on and on with all the things [I'm] getting wrong here". Can you not see how I view that as a potential goldmine of stuff I didn't know before?
I've called your bluff several times. Not to be presumptuous, but it's okay to simply say you don't know. Not being able to find anything doesn't mean you have to 'accept' what I'm saying.
"I am sure you probably even believe the Mayan 2012 idea to be a possible true prediction to the end times... "
For the record I'm more of the opinion that the Mayan calendar stops at Dec 2012 simply because they ran out of rock surface. That calendar would serve its purpose for many centuries to come. Plenty of time to carve a new one. Admittedly, a little simplistic.
Yes, you keep demonstrating here time and again, that your thinking processes are way more than a little simplistic by first of all starting a hub which claims without ANY good reason that some " ... God Created Evolution".
Then you keep admitting on top of it all that you don't know a thing about science, have no clue how to even formulate basic scientific ideas or how to use your brain in an objective or critical fashion by saying ... "I have absolute faith in God".
What god? The same guy who's convoluted ideas of reality you have problems coping with?
There is virtually no sense or reason to take anything you say seriously after that much BS!
You can keep promoting your hub till you turn blue ...
I'm sure you will not learn a thing about reality from what you have been told already with a strange mind like yours, but hey, there is no law against irrationality!
"Yes, you keep demonstrating here time and again, that your thinking processes are way more than a little simplistic by first of all starting a hub which claims without ANY good reason that some " ... God Created Evolution"."
Without any good reason? This hub is my 'good reason'. The claim you refuse to address by instead calling my way of thinking into question.
I am attempting to show that the same scientific evidence you use to decide with such certainty that there is no god also supports what I say. The same evidence supports both views.
Only from my perspective, both the natural world AND Genesis support my view, as well as each other, where you only have one of the two to support yours. Everything else is conjecture and speculation on both sides of the fence. It all comes down to the difference between what you and I deem 'allowable'.
"Then you keep admitting on top of it all that you don't know a thing about science, have no clue how to even formulate basic scientific ideas or how to use your brain in an objective or critical fashion by saying ... "I have absolute faith in God"."
Have you ever heard of Ken Miller? Emma wrote a favorable article about him. He's a cell biologist, a Brown University Professor, and he often testifies as an expert in favor of evolution being taught in schools. He clearly knows something about science, yet he also has 'absolute faith in God' AND believes 'God created evolution', though he states it much more eloquently than I do ...
“By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
- Ken Miller, "Finding Darwin's God"
Clearly he's out of his mind by your standards, yet there are many in the scientific community and elsewhere, like Emma for instance, who respect him as a scientist. Somehow he's up to Brown University's standards, but not yours.
You don't have to believe in God to discuss the relevant facts to my claim. You just have to respect my view enough to understand it, as I do yours. I can see how and why you believe what you believe, whether I agree or not. I can understand your perspective.
Through your perspective, there are still many unanswered questions. Our scientific perspective has proven itself to be very useful, but it still leaves gaps that can't yet be explained.
Kind of like Ptolemy's tracking of planetary paths across the night sky. Humans were able to use his work and build on it to find better understanding, but the planetary paths by his view were still erratic and complicated and not totally accurate because he still thought the earth was at the center of our planetary system. Just one key fact that threw off everything.
My claim is that Genesis is actually describing the creation of the earth up to about 8000 BC or so, then tells the story of a new species of man being created who had free will.
Kind of like how the planetary paths became much simpler when Copernicus simply considered first moving the sun to the center of our planetary system. Making this slight change in how Genesis is read lines up things we don't yet understand incredibly well, especially where the formation of civilization is concerned. It offers an explanation for those as of yet inexplicable leaps forward that humanity made in a short amount of time.
And also like Copernicus, I don't have the resources to prove it. It's just an idea that appears to make a lot of sense based on what can be observed.
So please, if you could, focus on proving my 'planetary paths' don't line up. There's plenty of evidence out there. Plenty of research being done. Unless I'm actually onto something, there's bound to be hard evidence of some kind out there that disproves what I'm claiming. I haven't found anything yet, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Ken Miller is a duality. He knows what science is and can apply scientific thought ... that's no reason to value his religious outlook anywhere near to the same degree!
You, how ever, don't know what science consists of or how scientific thought differs from BS story telling, so you muddle everything up and never even see the difference with enough clarity to be able to apply structured thought, logic and critical analysis to get you out of your religious stink hole, or you wouldn't try to make such stupid claims ...
"My claim is that Genesis is actually describing the creation of the earth up to about 8000 BC or so, then tells the story of a new species of man being created who had free will."
You can claim what you like ... it only shows you are nuts!
If you produced an interesting discussion for and against an argument like free will without any stupid bible quotes ... and invited comments for and against both sides, you'd be able to make some progress out of your silly dead-end mythology mind trap ... maybe!
A duality, huh? You're missing the point. Ken Miller is one of many examples of members of the scientific community that as you say 'know what science is and can apply scientific thought', yet buy into the same 'mythology' I do. In other words, they've proven capable of thinking the way you keep insisting I'm unable, yet have not reached the same conclusion you insist I will if I just got my head straight.
I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be a scientist. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of structured thought, logic, and critical analysis simply because you don't agree with my conclusion. If you'd ever get over your assumption that I'm a moron long enough to talk the actual facts of the case with me you'd find that my claim is the result of heavy research and obsessive analyzing and structured thought. It's the result of my logical mind trying to make sense out of what didn't make sense to me, including what I was taught as a christian.
I have and will discuss free will again. It's a vital piece of the puzzle. However, this particular hub is about Genesis. More specifically, it's about the creation account in Genesis as part of my claim. This part is to establish Genesis as a legitimate source of information.
Remove everything you think you know about it and all the crazy religious mumbo jumbo you associate with it, and just look at the first 11 chapters by themselves.
Two different ancient documents, what scholars refer to as the Yahwist and Priestly source, were combined thousands of years ago to create these first 11 chapters of Genesis. Nobody knows who wrote them or how old they are. The creation account and the genealogies in chapters 5 and 10 come from the Priestly source, along with some of the flood. The story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood, and the Tower of Babel come from the Yahwist source.
As I show here, the creation account accurately lists every element of existence relevant to humanity in the correct chronological order. When placed in the correct context, Genesis 2 through 11 tell a very specific story that matches up with how we know civilization began.
The people we credit as being the inventors of civilization say they were taught and wrote about stories very similar to those told in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. These stories originate in the same place and time that civilization first began.
You're welcome to criticize my way of thinking as soon as you find that I have something wrong. Find where exactly my flawed brain has led me to a bad conclusion. Credible scientists and thinkers all around the world agree with me that the God of the bible exists, so simply saying my claim can be denied entirely based on my belief in God is not sufficient.
Either show me where I have something wrong, or give me a more credible explanation for the rapid advancement in humanity at the dawn of civilization.
Okay, you asked for it and I decided to give it to you....
First your title, the first part says God Created Evolution, which is totally unsupported by your argument, any facts or any Bible verses, so it's just wishful thinking on your part based on your desire to reconcile science and religion. And isn't even touched on really in any of your arguments. (bad writing on your part so the title in itself is misleading since it has nothing to do with your argument)
There is also nothing scientifically accurate about the Biblical creation story, scientific accuracy isn't based on interpretation of vague paragraphs describing the creation in the Bible and none of your arguments support this without making assumptions (leaps of faith which in itself is unscientific and for which you base your beliefs, in other words faith and science are contradictions to each other).
"So, within the context of Genesis, the story of creation would presumably have been told to Adam (and perhaps his family) by God, and then retold throughout the generations until it was finally written down."
This is an assumption, especially if God told Adam the creation story then he might have described events that are not in Genesis, such as geological and biological events and considering the whole tree story this contradicts your entire argument.
"Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Verse 1 sums up everything that happened prior to the more detailed account to follow by simply saying God created the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’. The big bang that kicked off the formation of the ‘heavens’ is estimated to have happened roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and the earth first began to form about 4.567 billion years ago. So, beyond the first verse, the creation account begins at least 9 billion years along in the process with both the heavens and the earth already in existence."
This is so vague that you would need to have faith to even make such a leap, this is an attempt to rationalize a ridiculous notion without evidence to validate this argument.
" Genesis 1:2 - 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.
While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate, the second verse provides just enough detail to locate a starting point in Earth’s history."
This contradicts your argument since if one were to imagine the creation of anything it would be without form because when one creates figures from clay the clay is formless so the idea of creation is vague... then it goes on to god moving over the surface of the waters but that would be false since at the time the earth was formless it was also extremely hot and had no surface water.... if you knew science and geology you'd know this.
(you really need a science background to make the argument you are trying to make without looking... to put it as nice as possible... foolish)
" Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on."
This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events by you personally and since you would have to prove the existence of the observer or "creator" of these events you cannot make a claim that it even happened to be observed (faith contradicts science)... Night and Day are also human concepts of time, God never named them man did. Also night and day are defined differently depending on origins of culture, some cultures in ancient times considered a day to be from sunrise to next sunrise (24 hours) and the Jewish one was sunrise to sunset which explains the definition of a day being defined by light in the sky. Night is part of the day or a divider depending on your culture.
"While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate" I could go on but this statement is one I want to get you with the most because it is an admission that your entire argument is nothing but wishful thinking in an attempt to reconcile religion and science which in every argument you make is not done without making assumptions or leaps of faith.
So I ask you this, and I don't need to hear a long explanation from you because the longer you have to explain something the more you invalidate your argument since you should have covered all your defenses of it within the argument itself... Do you actually want us of the scientific community or the believers of science who do and do not have a belief in God to take your argument seriously considering the few points I have made? Do you want to convince us or are you trying to convince yourself that Genesis is Scientific in any way, shape, or form? So far you have failed to make a VALID connection between the Bible and any science. Like I said vague and filled with unscientific faith, and assumption not backed by any sort of scientific facts or evidence.... This gives me an idea for a blog and if you desire more you will be pleased to know that Part 2 of "My Atheism" will be partly based on everything that has gone on in your Hub, from the Hub itself to all your statements defending your Hub. If this displeases you then let me know I will base it on something else rather than it being a response type Hub to your Hub, I have other ideas that I figure I should touch on... also inspired by your failed attempt at reconciling Genesis (or any part or all of the Bible) with science.
Thanks and Have a great day!
Great reply, Art!
I just wish he had gained enough insight in his silly ways of arguing to take down the first part of the title or try to substantiate the possibility of the existence of 'a god who created evolution'
Franto in Toronto
artblack01,
I appreciate you taking a closer look. I'm going to try to keep this as uncluttered as possible and still cover everything. First, the name. Maybe it's a bit misleading, but 'God created Evolution' is the main title of a series of articles I'm doing on the topic.
It's to marry what are viewed by many as two opposing sides: science and God. I have two so far, both begin with that title, then a subtitle. It's going to take a few articles to get the whole idea across.
"There is also nothing scientifically accurate about the Biblical creation story, scientific accuracy isn't based on interpretation of vague paragraphs describing the creation in the Bible "
As I've said countless times, Genesis specifically describes the creation of the things a human would know about in the correct order: the heavens, the earth, the oceans, light, blue sky, land, plantlife on land, life on land through birds, mammals on land, humans.
This is verifiable by comparing to our modern scientific understanding. Oceans came before what we now understand to be land. And they came before the oxygenated atmosphere. Plantlife of course came after land, but before vertebrates. Not only are each of these things important, and relevant to humans, but each is needed for what's to come next.
The events described, when you understand it's described from a surface perspective, are actually described in order as they actually happened. It's accurate compared to our modern scientific understanding.
"This is an assumption, especially if God told Adam the creation story then he might have described events that are not in Genesis, such as geological and biological events and considering the whole tree story this contradicts your entire argument."
That's why I started off with the word 'presumably'. This was an attempt to give perspective, but in no way changes my claim. And why would God cover anything else? This is everything relevant to humanity. The intent of creation according to the bible was for humans to exist and do their thing. There was no need for those kinds of details. Like I said, it wasn't written for the sole intention of proving itself only to those humans would figure out way down the line how things came together.
How wasn't important. Everything other than what was described was part of the 'how'. All those geological and biological events not mentioned played a role in the things that were specificallly mentioned being there.
"This is so vague that you would need to have faith to even make such a leap, this is an attempt to rationalize a ridiculous notion without evidence to validate this argument." (your response to Gen 1:1)
Have you ever read a book that establishes a setting. That's exactly what Genesis is doing. The description starts in verse 2 by stating where God was (point of view) and the state of the earth during that time (the setting). Before that it simply says, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That bit is simply not the focus.
"This contradicts your argument since if one were to imagine the creation of anything it would be without form because when one creates figures from clay the clay is formless so the idea of creation is vague... then it goes on to god moving over the surface of the waters but that would be false since at the time the earth was formless it was also extremely hot and had no surface water.... if you knew science and geology you'd know this.
(you really need a science background to make the argument you are trying to make without looking... to put it as nice as possible... foolish)"
Do you have a science book? I didn't just make that up. This is well known. Late Hadean eon. I provided links. Did you check out any of the links? Especially before you started commenting on my knowledge of science and geology? That's why I provided links, because way fewer people actually know this stuff than I originally anticipated.
The oceans formed just after the surface hardened. The rain aided the surface cooling and hardening. The cooler surface aided the condensation of water. This is the single most agreed-upon scenario to explain the earth during that time. The oceans formed first from the first atmosphere. Oceans had to be there before the water cycle and before the oxygenated atmosphere. The oceans formed before the sun could even reach the surface.
"This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events"
Again, I'm not just making this up and I provided links. You're partially right here. The earth would not have retained an atmosphere until it reached roughly 40% it's current size. So up until that point, yes, the sun shined on the proto-earth.
Remember, as I said, verse 2 specifically gives us both the state of the earth as the setting as well as God's point of view. The oceans were there. The atmosphere blocking out the sun actually attributed to the cooling surface temperatures. The outgassing caused by a billion years of matter compacting and heating, trapped in the atmosphere, was significant. Enough water vapor alone to fill the entire planet with oceans was in the atmosphere before the surface cooled enough for it to condense. And that was just the water vapor.
Again, I'm not making this up. For a long period of time the atmosphere was way too dense, and the sun's output was only 80 to 90% what it is today, sunlight did not get through.
And yes this is based on observation. Not direct observation, of course, but observation. It's the understanding of knowing what elements were part of the proto-earth and the kinds of gasses that would create based on heat, pressure, etc. It's understanding gravity versus mass to undersand the atmosphere. It's knowing the core of the earth is molten and made of dense materials like iron, while the outer surfaces are lighter, rocky type materials. This is how we know the entire earth was molten very early on, because that best explains how the denser materials ended up at the core.
Technically, it's still guessing, but a very educated guess. And not my guess. Science people guesses. Just look at the links I provided, or look into late Hadean / early Archean eons yourself. It's all there.
""While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate" I could go on but this statement is one I want to get you with the most because it is an admission that your entire argument is nothing but wishful thinking..."
No, I'm stating a fact here based on the material. This same statement could apply to nearly any ancient text.
Again, I'm trying to convey perspective. Too many people just think of the whole bible as one big book written specifically for them. All bound and broken down into chapters and verses. Sometimes it helps to first put things into perspective. It's important to understand what you're reading to the best of your ability. One thing to understand is that while I'm using Genesis 1 to illustrate that it's scientifically accurate, it wasn't originally written to be proof. In other words, the author didn't write it down specifically to address your issues with it thousands of years later.
"Do you actually want us of the scientific community or the believers of science who do and do not have a belief in God to take your argument seriously considering the few points I have made?"
Yes, I do want you to take it seriously. You haven't made a good, valid point yet because you don't respect the material enough to give it your full attention.
First, you have to get passed this idea that you're better than me. Your condescending remarks, coupled with your obvious ignorance of earth's history f
f_hrez,
"Great reply, Art!"
This is a perfect example illustrating how this is not a 'logical' discussion for you. You have criticized my 'claim' (though not with any specific detail), you've criticized my way of thinking, yet Art gets an 'attaboy'. Did you not catch the glaring errors in his comments on earth's history, or did you not know either?
Please don't tell me that after 16 posts over a 5 week time span you still don't even understand my claim to that level. How can you possibly criticize it when you don't? Please take the time to understand my claim, and the science it's based on, then let me have it.
artblack01,
Just realized I cut off the end of my last statement. It should say....
"Your condescending remarks, coupled with your obvious ignorance of earth's history from a scientific standpoint makes it clear that you're not exactly bringing your 'A' game. Because if you were you first would have informed yourself and verified your statements before making them."
Why don't you even try to explain where that thing you call god came from and how it went about creating evolution - I'd like to know!
What ever has been written in ANY books, can only have a human source ... no matter where the inspirations to these stories came from - they obviously can't be based on anything scientific since modern science only developed very recently.
How much longer are you going to dance around with these jokes pretending it's more than plain BS?
f_hruz,
That's the whole point. Yes, modern science only developed recently, but it shows us what has always been. We're only just now able to see how right whoever wrote Genesis was. Nobody could have seen it before the late 20th century. We simply didn't know enough.
And you're right that it was written by a human. That's the trick. Either it's a huge coincidence that creation is written in such a way that it matches up with actual events in history, or there's something we don't yet understand in play because it was written 3000 years before anyone human could have known, and that's just not possible.
How much longer are you going to dance around addressing my claim directly? Have you read it? Have you read my other hub?
I do explain how God went about creating evolution, by my reckoning. Short answer, it's the antithesis of free will.
Think of the entirety of life, every individual organism, unwittingly carrying out a will outside of themselves. Like a colony of ants, or an organism made up of a colony of cells. Each individual ant/cell is totally unaware of it's place in the grand scheme of things.
Life, as a collective whole, driven by a meta-will that is outside of the individual. God's will. All of life doing whatever it takes, growing legs and lungs, teeth and claws, skin and fur, eyes and ears, to adhere to God's command. To come from the sea. To become birds. To become us.
Then he introduced free will through Adam, and we've been aware of and afraid of death ever since. We've aimed our powerful wills towards things we want for personal gain ever since. We've built civilizations and cars and tanks and bombs to ultimately get what we want. The will is a powerful thing. It creates and it destroys. And it finds ways to adapt to get what it wants.
Life adapts to be what God wants. That's evolution. That's the explanation behind the fossil record. Evolution is life adhering to God's will.
You seem to think that my science is wrong somehow, or my understanding of Earth's history is wrong? I have been studying Earth and Science for much longer than you and you are telling me I am wrong somehow???? Wow, that's like a preschooler telling his dad "Santa does too exist!"
Sorry, but you have demonstrated everything I have said based on your rationalizing everything I argued and then telling me I got it wrong??? WOW! The Audacity of it all! Bold Assumptions of human understanding, bold statements of "observations" that were never made, a complete disregard for the facts and reality.
Thanks. You've prove me correct about my assertions of your character.
Science is tested and confirmed, your idea is dismissed, not just by us but by the entire scientific community, whether religious or not. Even many of the scientists that ARE religious do not take the Bible as a literal history or even scientifically accurate history of the world. If anything you have said had any scientific basis it would be in a scientific, historical, archeological, anthropological text book and would be well known to myself. It is not.
"You seem to think that my science is wrong somehow, or my understanding of Earth's history is wrong? I have been studying Earth and Science for much longer than you and you are telling me I am wrong somehow???? Wow, that's like a preschooler telling his dad "Santa does too exist!""
Have I somehow given you the impression I'm a child? Or are you some 50+ year old who's been obsessed with studying the earth and science since adolescence?
From what I've seen so far, the impression I have of what you know is based in part on comments like these ....
You - "The major cataclysms that took place before man existed, the two major extinctions of nearly all life on Earth, how the moon was once part of Earth."
You - "You really don't know your history, the Greeks never thought the world was flat for one...."
You're statement about the 'two major extinctions' may just be how you quantify 'major' as there were 5 mass extinctions considered by many to be in the major category, but I don't know of anyone who thinks the moon was once part of the earth. As for the other statement, the word 'never', as is often the case, makes that statement wrong.
Now this is not to say I don't think you're knowledgeable. That's exactly why I'm attempting to engage you in this discussion. You obviously know enough to see what I'm talking about. I've gotten that much.
Now, regarding this in particular ...
Me - "Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on."
You - "This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events by you personally and since you would have to prove the existence of the observer or "creator" of these events you cannot make a claim that it even happened to be observed (faith contradicts science)..."
Here you said my statement contradicts science completely. That is wrong. My inclusion of 'since there was a surface to shine on' means that does not include proto-earth or anything that came before there was an actual surface. If you remember, it starts with 'in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth', so it's not going to pick up midway through the earth still forming.
I understand that sunlight was ever-present. The sun is part of the 'heavens', and therefore already created 'in the beginning'. But from the surface sunlight was not always present.
And this is just as confirmed scientifically as the whole theory regarding how the earth formed, how the solar system formed, the collecting dust, the retention of the first atmosphere, all of it. They're all still theories and they're all just as widely accepted. To dismiss this as 'assumption based on lack of observation', yet include things like 'dust collecting into a sphere' just doesn't make sense as none of it was 'observed'.
The dense atmosphere and the water vapor played a key role in the hardening of the surface layers. There wasn't a time that there was a surface that there wasn't water either hovering just above or on the surface. It all happened together. Throughout this process, for hundreds of millions of years, there would have been no sunlight.
If you're as well informed and studied as you claim you should know that. And again, I provided links to back up this and everything else I refer to. I am not disregarding the facts or reality.
The disconnect here is that you're disregarding my whole position. You've got pre-conceived ideas that are standing in the way of simply seeing what's there. I'm not making crazy bold claims. I'm simply reading what's there. I'm removing pre-conceived ideas I had and reading it for what it is and what it says.
"Science is tested and confirmed, your idea is dismissed, not just by us but by the entire scientific community, whether religious or not. Even many of the scientists that ARE religious do not take the Bible as a literal history or even scientifically accurate history of the world. If anything you have said had any scientific basis it would be in a scientific, historical, archeological, anthropological text book and would be well known to myself. It is not."
My claim is grounded in what's known scientifically. I'm not contradicting what's known. Most don't take early Genesis as literal history because most think Genesis says Adam was the first human. That's what you and I and everyone else have always been told. It doesn't. In fact, it makes much more sense if he's not the first human. It's much less cryptic and fits nicely in human history.
I actually first posted this depiction of creation, though much more detailed, on my blog site in November of last year. This February I got a small 15 page publication titled 'Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective' published back in 1979 from my grandmother when I saw her for my birthday. She knows I'm all into this, disagrees with most of my claim, and admitted to not understanding a word of this publication she's had for years. She gave it to me because she thought I might find it interesting. I did. At that time I had just published this hub literally days before.
It was published by a man named Hugh Ross who has a PhD in Astronomy. I've since looked him up and have seen that he is still known today as a 'creationist' who talks about grounding the bible in actual science. However, I don't know anything about him beyond that and this publication of his from 33 years ago.
In it, he basically details Genesis exactly as I do, with a couple of key differences. The first being the formation of the continents because it's obvious that we did not know nearly as much about tectonic plates as we do now back in 1979, the other being that he considers early humans (homo habilis, erectus, sapien, etc.) as mammals during the first portion of day 6, and Adam as the 'modern human'.
So, another guy with a PhD in astronomy made nearly identical observations as I did totally independently of me, in some cases word for word like in it's description of the point of view being 'from the surface'. We match up on the oceans, on light breaching the atmosphere and through oxygenation becoming translucent, on the water cycle (which I have since borrowed from), on plant life, the transition from a translucent to transparent atmosphere (he didn't cover the continents moving because, again, that wasn't known at the time), vertebrates on land, evolution through birds, and mammals.
I've only known about this for a few weeks now, but I wouldn't be surprised if my view of creation isn't shared by way more people than you think. If you have a clear understanding of the eras of earth's history, and you allow yourself to read Genesis for what it actually says, it's plain as day.
Whatever you say. You know everything.
And if you didn't get it that was sarcasm.
Oh, and a phd in astronomy is qualified to talk about evolution, his credentials at this point I find erroneous... But I am done. You believe what you want, I would rather believe what is fully backed by evidence and not statements of faith by someone with a questionable hearsay education in science.
http://artblack01.hubpages.com/hub/My-Atheism-PT2?
Step by step you can add to this if you like with comments, and we can continue this discussion.
All facts can be looked up by all here so to tell me I don't know science and to give a list of statements I have made that you view as inaccurate or wrong can also be looked up. You have yourself confirmed them in your Hub as true and then turn around and tell me they aren't true.
Also you need to question the sources, even the ones claiming to be PhD and just because someone has a college education does not make them an expert, but you can give them credit of they can confirm what they say... etc. check out
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?ob=4&featur
and
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks?ob=4
This man sites his sources to death and tells you how to find the truth from the BS....
Enjoyed debating with you, hope we can keep it friendly.
Right on, Art. I read your hub. There's some good discussion worthy stuff there that I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear I have something to say about.
I'm finally nearing completion on a hub I hope to have published in the next day or two. I'd like to keep my focus there until it's done. I tend to not get nearly as much writing done when I get wrapped up in conversations via comments and forum discussions. Plus, I want to give your hub the attention it deserves.
I do want to make one thing clear. Hugh Ross, the PhD I referred to, is not my source. And I'm not hanging my hat on his credentials. It more has to do with available information in 1979 versus now. He, being a part of the scientific community was more aware than the average person at the time about the state of scientific knowledge. Nowadays information is much more accessible.
The key here is that someone came up with nearly identical conclusions as I did 33 years ago totally independently of me. If there's no truth to what I'm saying then that's a gigantic coincidence to say the least considering how 'vague' it all is.
Also, believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with Potholer54's work. In fact I use a screenshot from one of his videos on my blog where it's illustrating migration paths. Though we disagree on some things, obviously, his videos often have some good information.
I usually follow, guys like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nie, Edward O. Wilson, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, and Michio Kaku, none of whom have used the Bible as reference to anything nor whom have come to any conclusions other than the same that I have... it's a document of the beliefs of a particular group of people from a region during the bronze age. The people of that time would have been aware or had access of the known conclusions of the Greeks whom were in the same region. So take the knowledge of the Greeks who came up with many sciences still used today, now take some people who don't fully understand the meaning of it and subscribe a God to the unknown of that era. It's the same today, you can give credit to a God for giving us the scientific conclusions we have, write it down and then 2000 years from now people will say that's evidence that God did it and he came up with it first because perhaps after wars and erasures of texts we will not have much else to say it wasn't God. The fact is the Bible and God are man made things. We can come up with some words and then say that God said them... and create a religion around that. That doesn't prove the Bible is accurate or correct, it also doesn't prove that God exists or is responsible for it.
"I usually follow, guys like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nie, Edward O. Wilson, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, and Michio Kaku, ... "
Yeah, me too, in matters regarding physics, astrophysics, biology, astronomy, and general science. Though I prefer Beakman over Bill Nye personally. As I've said before, I don't disagree with them and my claim does not in any way contradict what they say.
"none of whom have used the Bible as reference to anything nor whom have come to any conclusions other than the same that I have... it's a document of the beliefs of a particular group of people from a region during the bronze age."
You're right, it's not their field of expertise.
"The people of that time would have been aware or had access of the known conclusions of the Greeks whom were in the same region. So take the knowledge of the Greeks who came up with many sciences still used today, now take some people who don't fully understand the meaning of it and subscribe a God to the unknown of that era."
What I'm pointing out to you is that the creation story matches earth's geological/biological/climatological history according to what we've only figured out in the past 100 years in many cases, with much of it only learned in the past decade or so. In other words, the Greeks had no idea either.
And yes, the Greeks and the Israelites did both live close to one another and did interact. In fact, the Greeks were fascinated by the books of Moses, which is why some of the oldest surviving copies, like the Septuagint, are written in Greek.
"The fact is the Bible and God are man made things."
I shouldn't have to say, but God being man-made is by no means a 'fact'.
"We can come up with some words and then say that God said them... and create a religion around that. That doesn't prove the Bible is accurate or correct, it also doesn't prove that God exists or is responsible for it."
True, but good luck coming up with something that has such a strong impact on every western civilization it's ever come in contact with. Good luck writing something that continues to mean something to people from every walk of life on a very personal level. And good luck writing something, even with all the borrowed knowledge that you can get your hands on, that correctly describes something not yet known for another 3000 years or so.
"What I'm pointing out to you is that the creation story matches earth's geological/biological/climatological history according to what we've only figured out in the past 100 years in many cases, with much of it only learned in the past decade or so. In other words, the Greeks had no idea either."
I see nothing that could bring you to that conclusion, especially when you consider that your bible is a modern interpretation of a translation of an interpretated translation.
"I shouldn't have to say, but God being man-made is by no means a 'fact'."
It's not an accepted fact, especially by the religious, but it is a fact.
"Good luck writing something that continues to mean something to people from every walk of life on a very personal level. And good luck writing something, even with all the borrowed knowledge that you can get your hands on, that correctly describes something not yet known for another 3000 years or so."
It doesn't describe anything not yet know for 3000 years, as I pointed out the knowledge stated on the bible is incorrect and cannot be compared to science and is so vague you could say it describes anything, as far as it's influence and seeming popularity over western society, if you know your history it wouldn't be something to be proud of considering force and attempted genocide were involved in it's spreading over most of society. The only reason some native Americans are Christian is because they were forced to christianize, many have returned to their cultures religion. Many African Americans never knew what religion their people were a part of because of the slave trade, they were taught nothing else but the Christian god. Some who still had knowledge revolted and a bastardized version of their religion combined with Catholicism aka voodoo was created.... The spread of Christianity is not a pleasant nor honorable achievement. And unlike most other religions, Christians and Muslims look down upon and persecute all people not of their religion... Many do but not to the extent that these two go.
Remember that if you want to use the bible for reasons of prophesy or accuracy you might want to use the original Hebrew version which is not the same as the one you are using... You must also consider that your argument has not convincing points, other Christians may agree wuth your points but not because they are true but because of faith, not evidence.
I read your article and I have read the bible, many versions of it as well, and see nothing of knowledge not known at the time it was written nor of anything " scientifically" accurate. You make many assumption and make many excuses and connections for things that are not there. I couldn't make the connections you've made to be scientific nor accurate. Hence why we all appear to be ridiculing you over it. Many people give credit to Darwin for evolution, did you know someone in ancient Greece came up with the idea first? The idea of atheism is also from ancient Greece. Who invented human flight? It wasn't the wright brothers it was Leonardo divinci. His air plane design was tested recently and it flew farther and better than the wright brothers plane.... History is a wonderful thing.
You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth. Poison cool aide.
There are over 20 religions in popularity all over the world. All claim their god is real...
"I see nothing that could bring you to that conclusion"
A direct comparison between actual history and what Genesis 1 says. Nothing more. Each creation specifically named in the same order it actually happened, and each necessary to what came after. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
"It's not an accepted fact, especially by the religious, but it is a fact."
I think you and I both know the definition of 'fact' and I think you know without me having to say how your statement is wrong, but I understand what you're implying.
"It doesn't describe anything not yet know for 3000 years, as I pointed out the knowledge stated on the bible is incorrect and cannot be compared to science"
I'll get more into this when I address your hub, but most of what you pointed out is resolved by simply acknowledging the point of view established in verse 2. This 'from the surface' perspective is not an assumption I made or something I imagined and inserted to make it work. This was stated specifically.
"and is so vague you could say it describes anything"
Again, this doesn't fly. It specifically says what it's describing. There's only one time the oceans formed. They formed before everything else mentioned. For ages sunlight didn't reach the surface. At one point as the oceans were forming it broke through. There's only one time the firmament (blue sky) as we know it today formed, and it happened after the oceans and after light reached the surface. Trying to say this is vague simply doesn't work.
"as far as it's influence and seeming popularity over western society, if you know your history it wouldn't be something to be proud of considering force and attempted genocide were involved in it's spreading over most of society."
If you know your history then you'll know that force and genocide are not solely associated with Christians or Muslims. That's a human thing. Humans have used all kinds of things to justify doing what they want to do and taking what they want to take, including the bible. However, many of the things we nowadays take for granted as a civilized society are a direct result of efforts made in the name of Christianity.
Whatever the case, there's no denying the bible has had a profound influence on humanity.
"Remember that if you want to use the bible for reasons of prophesy or accuracy you might want to use the original Hebrew version which is not the same as the one you are using"
I don't use it when writing or talking to people because most people don't read Hebrew. But that doesn't mean I don't refer to it heavily. I do.
An assumption you seem to be operating under, and that you mentioned in your hub, is that I’m doing this to try to convert the science-minded to Christianity. That is not my purpose. I started this for my own personal understanding.
I have studied everything from astronomy and geology and biology and genetics and physics to history and pre-history to archaeology and paleontology to mythology (Sumarian/Akkadian/Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc.) to multiple translations of the bible, including the original Hebrew, including literary breakdowns of what each piece of the bible is and where it comes from.
This has been a lifelong fascination for me. Not just some arbitrary attempt to 'witness' to non-believers by trying to tie in modern science.
"You must also consider that your argument has not convincing points"
Again, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I've had this conversation many times over. Though you refuse to see or acknowledge it, Genesis lists 13 specific details in order and 6 major eras in order.
The only part that you don't agree with is that because you don't believe in a 'supernatural' element, it's impossible from your view for anyone from 3000 years ago to actually get creation right. To you it must be coincidence, or me arbitrarily tying known events to vague text, or anything other than what I'm claiming.
I get it. I get that you're not just going to read this and totally change your whole world view so you can accept what I'm saying is right. You won't accept it, but you also won't provide anything that rules it out for certain. So this will ultimately just end with you dismissing it as vague text that a crazy believer claims describes creation.
"Many people give credit to Darwin for evolution, did you know someone in ancient Greece came up with the idea first?"
Did you know the Sumerians believed life came from the sea long before the Greeks even existed as a civilization?
"You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth."
I do. Anyone who spends more than a few days of Hub Pages will need to know that. I always take the human element into consideration. Always.
""You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth."
I do. Anyone who spends more than a few days of Hub Pages will need to know that. I always take the human element into consideration. Always."
Self deception is also involved in this discussion.
The only thing you have shown is an incredible amount of wishful thinking and a really big stretch in your interpretation but nothing solid.
This was fun, I look forward to your response to my hub.
"Self deception is also involved in this discussion."
I actually agree with that. Calling the creation account 'vague' is self deception, for example. Just as the whole idea of determining there is no God based simply on the fact that we've determined all of the physical world has detectable natural causes is self deception in that it requires also justifying to oneself that the conscious human mind, the human spirit, laughing/humor, crying, pride, and vengeance all also have natural causal explanations without proof of it. Just the assumption that this all must have developed over many generations of interaction and nothing more. That's self deception.
"The only thing you have shown is an incredible amount of wishful thinking and a really big stretch in your interpretation but nothing solid."
Is it a big stretch to say that when it says 'God's spirit was on the surface of the waters' (v2), then right after He says, 'Let there be light' (v3), that He's saying this from a surface perspective?
Is it a big stretch to say a 'firmament' is the atmosphere, though verse 20 confirms this when it says "fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"?
Is it a stretch to say land means land? Or that vegetation and trees means plant life? Or that the creation of the animals mirrors how we scientifically categorize all land animals (sauropsids/synapsids) and is listed in the right order, and right between plant life and humans?
It's a really big stretch to even suggest my ability to associate 13 key events in earth's history with each creation, specifically named, in order, and for each to be dependent on the one before, as nothing but wishful thinking.
"This was fun, I look forward to your response to my hub."
I've enjoyed this too. I hope to have my hub completed tonight so I can start addressing your hub tomorrow.
You simply have no idea what you are dealing with or how to substantiate your claims with any reasonable facts!
The absurdities you express to try and justify a non-existing, super natural entity you call god, as part of your irrational religious belief system you link to a book full of myths, not only stretches reasonable imagination to it's extreme, it clearly illustrates your inability to understand causality and any form of critical, logical thought as the basis of science!
Look at your BS here ... "Just as the whole idea of determining there is no God based simply on the fact that we've determined all of the physical world has detectable natural causes is self deception ..."
How can the obvious evidence that only misguided human minds clinging to god delusion, but ALL of NATURE - not just what your small brain calls the PHYSICAL world, but the entire OBJECTIVE REALITY of NATURE - never, ever demonstrated any requirement for such a man made god in anything nature has ever been or done, be self deception?
That's why you have no leg to stand on when it comes to making sense ... and don't try your constant BS joke ... "Just because we can't see it, you can't conclude it's not there!"
If you want to be taken seriously, provide clear evidence that nature can NOT exist or function as well as she does without any help from your god ... or shut up and move on!
Franto in Toronto
PS: Post your reply to Art's blog, if you have one that makes sense ...
Art and f_hruz,
I didn't finish my hub tonight like I had hoped. I promise, once I get it published I will address your hub, Art.
I would also like to get your thoughts on this hub I'm working on now, if I ever get it done. That should give you a much clearer understanding of how I can be so certain. This goes well beyond creation.
f_hruz, I'd like to get your take as well. It gets into the onset of civilization in Mesopotamia, complete with all kinds of evidence that ties that "book full of myths" as you call it to actual human history.
There is no self deception when it comes to the evidence science has provided, but you tell me is faith not by definition self deception. You can have faith in just about everything true or false, that does not make the thing you have faith in "the truth". Everything I believe in is backed by evidence and I only believe in things that have evidence for their truth and is therefore incapable of deceiving me. Creationism has no evidence what so ever for it being anything but fantasy.
As far as your other questions, it's all about how you imagine them to be so whatever or however you'd like to see them, then that's fine, but that doesn't make them any less silly or ridiculous.
I look forward to your hub.
Self deception also includes telling yourself that absolutely everything you believe to be fact is backed up by scientific evidence. If you really thought about it you'd know that simply isn't the case. There's way more you take on faith than you're acknowledging.
For example, this hub illustrates how you can take the same evidence used to formulate the current scientific view of earth's formation and the evolution of life and use it to support creation according to Genesis. Evolution, for instance, is an unproven theory proposed to explain the evidence found in the fossil record. It's by no means proven, but offers a convincing explanation. Using that same evidence I'm offering an alternate theory, just as unproven, based on the same evidence.
Both are an attempt to explain the fossil record, it's just that mine suggests God imbued all life with a will to live and procreate and populate the earth and an ultimate result to strive for, the other also suggests the drive to survive and procreate as a motivator, but doesn't offer an explanation as to where that comes from. Only that it's a natural drive that propelled numerous variations, of which the most successful lived to pass on their more beneficial traits.
Science has not provided the blanket of provable evidence that you're suggesting.. So there's no way everything you believe is backed by evidence confirming it to be fact. You may believe other theories over mine, but they're still theories.
Until every question is answered and every minute detail known, everyone will have to take something on faith. Faith is not just faith in God. And self deception is not solely the domain of the religious.
If you only had some grasp of how greatly scientific thoughts, theories, and facts differ in value, substance and importance to understand nature and reality in contrast to your chatty BS story telling and blind faith in totally unscientific religious myth, you could start to see how full you are of crazy irrationality ... but you simply don't have anything of the sort, even close to being able to cope with questions of objectivity or a concrete understanding of reality ....
Sure, there are more crazy people drawn to religion than to science who do not want to know the difference between fact and fiction ... you are the perfect example of one!
There are many forms of story telling, many are for children, but irrationality has also many forms ... your's is clearly based on an inflated belief of the value of religious myth versus concrete scientific facts and a grasp of the power and value of reality in general and the evidence in existence globally today.
Your god delusion has you clinging to nothing of substance, and your views are simply absurd to see evolution as nothing more than a theory ... it's also a FACT by now, just like the fact, that man made god of yours - who you say created evolution - exists only in your head!
Oh! I finally got it! It took you repeating yourself for 20 posts now, but I finally get it! You think I'm an idiot. I'm glad you were so diligent to drill that into my thick head. Now I'll have a whole book of f_hruz comments to read through when I'm feeling down to pick me back up and make me feel better about myself. Thanks.
"... your's is clearly based on an inflated belief of the value of religious myth versus concrete scientific facts and a grasp of the power and value of reality in general and the evidence in existence globally today."
Versus concrete scientific facts? I hope you've actually read my hub by now. I note numerous facts that support my claim. I don't ignore or dismiss or argue against scientific facts, I use them.
"Your god delusion has you clinging to nothing of substance, and your views are simply absurd to see evolution as nothing more than a theory ... it's also a FACT by now, just like the fact, that man made god of yours - who you say created evolution - exists only in your head!"
This could maybe explain some of our disconnect. You clearly don't have a grasp on what a 'fact' is. That explains a lot. So, based on this, it's obvious that your 'understanding of reality' is based on an irrational fantasy you've constructed for yourself where your particular materialism worldview has been proven.
If you were to check with one of those people you're always talking about who are capable of scientific thought and logic and reason, you'd find out they agree with me. Evolution is still a theory. The big bang is still a theory. They're theories based on facts that support them, but are not facts themselves.
Clearly you are in total denial, headyvonnoggin.
Clear to everyone but me I guess.
I finally finished my latest hub. It's here ... http://headlyvonnoggin.hubpages.com/hub/God-Creati
I apologize. That took longer than I thought. But now that it's done I intend to finally address your hub, probably in sections. I'll get the first one to you as soon as it's possible.
I look forward to this and hope to learn something from it. And be sure to let me know your thoughts on my latest. It starts to get more into the details about the dawn of civilization through to the beginning of the bronze age. That seems to be an area you're familiar with and I would be interested to hear what you think.
LawrenceS Level 1 Commenter 3 months ago
Food for thought, I have found this very interesting and very informative. Thank you for posting.