"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Audie]

A sure way to avoid doing any science is to start
out with a "perspective" if it means deciding ahead
of time on an answer you want to support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem, as I see it, is that people try to interpret what they read in the Bible when the Bible isn't specific on it.

For an example, it says that He created fish in the sea but doesn't reference how He created it. Thus purpose driven evolution is a possibility. We have evidence of change and people look at the evidence in two different perspectives... 1) chance -- of which I don't subscribe to 2) purpose driven or Intelligent Design-- of which I subscribe to.

Thus, in Gen 1:1 is says... "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". No time frame. Billions of years fits in just fine.

Gap theory is that in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 something catastrophic happened. Again, time is not mentioned. Thus, if there were dinasaurs or whatever, it still fits in the narative between science and what I believe to be God's word.

Still misusing a term that you do not understand..

There never was a biblical catastrophe on the Earth. Yes, there were major events, but none of them correlate to the myths of the Bible.

Now you are trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit into reality.

Can you tell me, which version of the Noah's Ark myth do you believe in?

By the way, calling natural processes "chance" indicates that you do not understand what you are trying to argue against.

 

[Audie]

The problem, as I see it, is that people try to interpret what they read in the Bible when the Bible isn't specific on it.

For an example, it says that He created fish in the sea but doesn't reference how He created it. Thus purpose driven evolution is a possibility. We have evidence of change and people look at the evidence in two different perspectives... 1) chance -- of which I don't subscribe to 2) purpose driven or Intelligent Design-- of which I subscribe to.

Thus, in Gen 1:1 is says... "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". No time frame. Billions of years fits in just fine.

Gap theory is that in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 something catastrophic happened. Again, time is not mentioned. Thus, if there were dinasaurs or whatever, it still fits in the narative between science and what I believe to be God's word.

First mistake is thinking it is somehow the "word of god".

Even if it is the word of god-

As for interpreting, there is not a word in the book that is not
open to interpretation.

I think much of the popularity of the book is that it will
say whatever one wants to find in it.

Black slavery is good, black slavery is bad.
Both sides could quote chapter and verse on that.

Another mistake here is thinking that the employment
of a "perspective" in research is anything but intellectual
dishonesty, self deception. Objectivity, totally out the window.

Dinosaurs are not an "if". They are / were real as rain.
If you want to fit them into the bible, that is fine.
I dont know what it accomplishes, but I guess there is
no harm in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A sure way to avoid doing any science is to start
out with a "perspective" if it means deciding ahead
of time on an answer you want to support.

That comes from dealing with creationist sites where those that work there have to promise not to use the scientific method. In the sciences one cannot swear that no matter what the evidence says that a predetermined answer is the right one. That is exactly what one is required to do to work at Answers in Genesis, Creation.com or any other major creationist site.

 

[Estro Felino]

We have evidence of change and people look at the evidence in two different perspectives... 1) chance -- of which I don't subscribe to 2) purpose driven or Intelligent Design-- of which I subscribe to.

A intelligent designer would have not created carnivorous animals...
I mean...when I see zebras being devoured by lions in documentaries, I think it's a hideous image...
Only a diabolic God would have projected something like that.

There are thousands of other examples which prove how cells or plants or animals have so many defects and structural problems that one must exclude an intelligent designer a priori.

 

[Kenny]

First mistake is thinking it is somehow the "word of god".

Ok.. Then again, it may be your first mistake.

Even if it is the word of god-

As for interpreting, there is not a word in the book that is not
open to interpretation.

I think much of the popularity of the book is that it will
say whatever one wants to find in it.

I don't think so, if one approaches it with honesty. To find "whatever one wants to find in it", it requires that you ignore other portions.

I use to say that until I started reading it and understanding it for myself. Most people use that as a simple "escape hatch" because they really don't know what it says.

Not that there isn't protions that can be interpreted differently, but most things are black and white.

Black slavery is good, black slavery is bad.
Both sides could quote chapter and verse on that.

Great example on how one can take a position "slavery is good" at the expense of what contradicts it... "love your neigbor as yourself"

Another mistake here is thinking that the employment
of a "perspective" in research is anything but intellectual
dishonesty, self deception. Objectivity, totally out the window.

True... but it happens all the time. Many a grant has been tainted. "I have a grant of $1,000,000.00 to study how cow manure is bad for the environment" will draw quite a few research intellectuals with a very biased slant.

Dinosaurs are not an "if". They are / were real as rain.

Are you really putting an issue here?

 

[Audie]

Ok.. Then again, it may be your first mistake.


I don't think so, if one approaches it with honesty. To find "whatever one wants to find in it", it requires that you ignore other portions.

I use to say that until I started reading it and understanding it for myself. Most people use that as a simple "escape hatch" because they really don't know what it says.

Not that there isn't protions that can be interpreted differently, but most things are black and white.


Great example on how one can take a position "slavery is good" at the expense of what contradicts it... "love your neigbor as yourself"


True... but it happens all the time. Many a grant has been tainted. "I have a grant of $1,000,000.00 to study how cow manure is bad for the environment" will draw quite a few research intellectuals with a very biased slant.


Are you really putting an issue here?

To find "whatever one wants to find in it", it requires that you ignore other portions.

Fair enough, I suppose. It is what our creationists and gappers do with
geology, biology etc. Do you?

I use to say that until I started reading it and understanding it for myself.

Or, with faith in yourself, believing you got it right.

Great example on how one can take a position "slavery is good" at the expense of what contradicts it... "love your neigbor as yourself"

Or, just turn that around.

True... but it happens all the time. Many a grant has been tainted. "I have a grant of $1,000,000.00 to study how cow manure is bad for the environment" will draw quite a few research intellectuals with a very biased slant.

Absolutely. No end of bad research goes on, deliberately or otherwise.

But it always happens when you put the conclusion first.

Setting aside the hacks who do not care, as I suppose there
are such in religion, science and elsewhere-

A highest value in religion is faith. Like your faith that the bible
is gods word. You cannot show that it is, you just have faith.
Religion is a culture of faith.

Science is a culture of doubt. A highest value is the strictest
possible objectivity.

So science and religion are kind of opposite.

If you want to fit them into the bible, that is fine.
I dont know what it accomplishes, but I guess there is
no harm in it (Dinjosaurs)

Are you really putting an issue here?

You were trying to fit them into the bible, if you see no
significance to the effort, fine.

 

[Audie]

A intelligent designer would have not created carnivorous animals...
I mean...when I see zebras being devoured by lions in documentaries, I think it's a hideous image...
Only a diabolic God would have projected something like that.

There are thousands of other examples which prove how cells or plants or animals have so many defects and structural problems that one must exclude an intelligent designer a priori.

Honestly?

Think about it. IF there were no predators, there would be no zebras.
Do you know why?

Excluding anything a priori does not strike me as intellectually honest.

 

[metis]

To me, trying to use the Bible as a supposed explanation as to the specifics as to how our universe started is pretty much like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It's not that the Bible is wrong but more like trying to pound a nail into a board with a screwdriver.

IOW, say "I believe God started all" and move on using the Bible as a source of morals and values.

Just my humble opinion-- which of course is absolutely correct-- just ask my wif-- er, um, .

 

[exchemist]

To me, trying to use the Bible as a supposed explanation as to the specifics as to how our universe started is pretty much like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It's not that the Bible is wrong but more like trying to pound a nail into a board with a screwdriver.

IOW, say "I believe God started all" and move on using the Bible as a source of morals and values.

Just my humble opinion-- which of course is absolutely correct-- just ask my wif-- er, um, .

Absolutely right. The bible is not a science textbook and should not be used to provide an alternative account of the physical world. Biblical literalism is a dead end, not least because of the obvious internal inconsistencies in the bible itself! Mainstream Christianity has from the days of the earliest church fathers realised the need to interpret the bible and this has been the task of theologians and scholars for centuries.

To throw all that scholarship in the bin and try to take it all literally is something only a fool would do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great example on how one can take a position "slavery is good" at the expense of what contradicts it... "love your neigbor as yourself"

This is an example of what Audie was talking about, and of course it did not slip past her.

You not only misrepresented what the Bible says, you failed by picking out one part of the Bible that you value over others.

It shows that you can't answer the hard questions of how the God of the Bible could make laws on fashion sense (Deuteronomy 22:11 is an example of that) but can't say it is bad to own other people. Instead the Bible tells you who you can buy slaves for life from (Leviticus 25 44-46) or even how to trick your fellow Hebrews into being slaves for life (Exodus 21 1-7).

When two scientists disagree with each other we don't try to say "They are both right, you are just looking at them wrong". We know that at least one of them and perhaps both are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

Let me lower my standards here a little:

To find "whatever one wants to find in it", it requires that you ignore other portions.

Fair enough, I suppose. It is what our creationists and gappers do with
geology, biology etc. Do you?

I thought that is what you were doing

I use to say that until I started reading it and understanding it for myself.

Or, with faith in yourself, believing you got it right.

Hardly. On our side we use logic. Do you use it every now and then?

Great example on how one can take a position "slavery is good" at the expense of what contradicts it... "love your neigbor as yourself"

Or, just turn that around.

What for? It was your error, not mine.

True... but it happens all the time. Many a grant has been tainted. "I have a grant of $1,000,000.00 to study how cow manure is bad for the environment" will draw quite a few research intellectuals with a very biased slant.

Absolutely. No end of bad research goes on, deliberately or otherwise.

But it always happens when you put the conclusion first.

Ignorance is bliss. Please enjoy it.

Setting aside the hacks who do not care, as I suppose there
are such in religion, science and elsewhere-

A highest value in religion is faith. Like your faith that the bible
is gods word. You cannot show that it is, you just have faith.
Religion is a culture of faith.

Talking about putting conclussions first.

Science is a culture of doubt. A highest value is the strictest
possible objectivity.

So science and religion are kind of opposite.

IYHO

If you want to fit them into the bible, that is fine.
I dont know what it accomplishes, but I guess there is
no harm in it (Dinjosaurs)

Are you really putting an issue here?

You were trying to fit them into the bible, if you see no
significance to the effort, fine.

Beam me up, Scotty. No intelligent life down here.

But, hey, it takes all kinds of people to make a forum. Enjoyed the fun you provided.

 

[Kenny]

This is an example of what Audie was talking about, and of course it did not slip past her.

You not only misrepresented what the Bible says, you failed by picking out one part of the Bible that you value over others.

It shows that you can't answer the hard questions of how the God of the Bible could make laws on fashion sense (Deuteronomy 22:11 is an example of that) but can't say it is bad to own other people. Instead the Bible tells you who you can buy slaves for life from (Leviticus 25 44-46) or even how to trick your fellow Hebrews into being slaves for life (Exodus 21 1-7).

When two scientists disagree with each other we don't try to say "They are both right, you are just looking at them wrong". We know that at least one of them and perhaps both are wrong.

WOW!!

I guess birds of the same feather fly together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

WOW!!

I guess birds of the same feather fly together.

Your errors are rather obvious. And please, what you use is not "logic". I don't know what process you use, but logic is not a tool used by Bible literalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ken, watch the inappropriate use of ratings. There is a rule against that.

 

[Audie]

Ken, watch the inappropriate use of ratings. There is a rule against that.

Dont make yourself a target for mean spirited snark.
Said poster will self destruct and eliminate nis/ herself
soon enough

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dont make yourself a target for mean spirited snark.
Said poster will self destruct and eliminate nis/ herself
soon enough

I may be overly optimistic, but I hope that he can learn instead.

 

[David T]

"According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.

Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.

But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
source​

So, is there a real change a-brewing here or not?

.

bible abuse is pandemic!!!

Oh look they have randomized the bible!! Since random is fundamental to scientific reality, Maybe it is literally true and genesis is literally a verbatim story'".

But the real question is who wrote it? Cnn msnbc, washington post, Fox, national.enquire, scientific American? Some unknown bogus pac group? Is it the work of deep state? But which.deep.state? Blue or red?

My gosh is a story right there.

 

[ecco]

.

KenS,

This is one of the best posts you have ever made. Clear, concise and well thought out. My congratulations.

ecco

 

[ecco]

Gap theory is that in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 something catastrophic happened. Again, time is not mentioned. Thus, if there were dinasaurs or whatever, it still fits in the narative between science and what I believe to be God's word.

KJV
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

ESV
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

What is the Gap Theory? Did anything happen between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?
The gap theory is the view that God created a fully functional earth with all animals, including the dinosaurs and other creatures we know only from the fossil record. Then, the theory goes, something happened to destroy the earth completely—most likely the fall of Satan to earth—so that the planet became without form and void. At this point, God started all over again, recreating the earth in its paradise form as further described in Genesis.
​

We all knew god screwed up because he had to flood the whole earth and kill all but seven men, women, children and the unborn because he was unhappy about the way his creation turned out.

Now, it seems he was an even bigger screwup. Before even getting to the second verse either...

• he wiped out all he had created because something went wrong.
• something he created wiped out everything he created.

The people who believe this also believe that their god is omniscient and omnipotent.

It truly boggles the mind.