Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

wrong.

genesis 2:5 clearly stated there were “no plants” and “no vegetation“ at all, when god created Adam:



Just like I said, creationists all have selective blindness, they see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe.

They read what‘s right from of them, and cannot comprehend the contradictions as if the flaws & contradictions don’t exist.

Not only many creationists cannot understand even basic science, they are also incompetent when it come to reading the Bible.

this is why I don’t take creationists seriously, even when they are interpreting biblical passages, because as far as they are concerned, the Bible is infallible & inerrant, simply because they believed the Bible was written by God, not by humans.

creationists are like this:

It says nothing of the sort as you are misinterpreting Genesis 2:5.

 

[gnostic]

It says nothing of the sort as you are misinterpreting Genesis 2:5.

I am reading Genesis 2:5 along with Genesis 2:7 as they are.

you are the whole dishonestly misinterpreting them, because you are connecting Genesis 2 myth with Genesis 1 myth.

Genesis 1 & 2 have different ideas when plants were created. The two chapters are contradictions of each other…they cannot be both correct.

As I said, creationists are selectively blind, when they are reading Genesis creation.

 

[Brian2]

wrong.

genesis 2:5 clearly stated there were “no plants” and “no vegetation“ at all, when god created Adam:



Just like I said, creationists all have selective blindness, they see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe.

They read what‘s right from of them, and cannot comprehend the contradictions as if the flaws & contradictions don’t exist.

Not only many creationists cannot understand even basic science, they are also incompetent when it come to reading the Bible.

this is why I don’t take creationists seriously, even when they are interpreting biblical passages, because as far as they are concerned, the Bible is infallible & inerrant, simply because they believed the Bible was written by God, not by humans.

creationists are like this:

Creationists do read the creation accounts with faith that they are in some way the truth of what happened. Some see them in a fairly literal way, with a day meaning a 24 hour day etc. Some read them differently, with a day meaning a period of time etc. Some creationists read the whole account as not history at except in the broadest possible symbolic way.
Like atheists and skeptics, we are varied.

Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There are various ways I could read the above passage. With evolution in mind and seeing the day of Gen 2 as relating to the days of Gen 1, I usually read it as speaking about day 3 of Gen 1 when there were no plants and we are told, no rain had fallen.
It seems that it was then that God started forming humans from the ground, through evolution, and also created plants to evolve on the earth.

 

[Brian2]

And you are telling me, you are never biased?

I gave exactly the orders of two creation stories. But instead of seeing the contradictions right in front of your face, you are making excuses, as I would expect all creationists would do.

There are no doubt at all, that sequences of events in these 2 chapters, are inconsistent and contradictory, but you and @YoursTrue will never admit it.

Sequences of events in the 2 accounts are inconsistent and contradictory if they are 2 creation accounts.

Do you really comprehend Genesis 2:5, that there were no plants and no vegetation, when God created Adam (2:7)? Do you not see how that these 2 verses contradict the order in Genesis 1 (plants, first; humans, last)?

if you cannot, then you are hopeless & incompetent in understanding the Genesis creation, are actually 2 different myths. Both orders cannot be right, unless you’re selective blind.

Both orders can be right if they are not 2 creation accounts.
Even for a young earth creationist, it is not necessary to see Gen 1 and Gen 2 as 2 creation accounts imo.
Maybe you should ask @YoursTrue how he reads Gen 2:5.
You seem to think that only your way of reading Genesis 1 and 2 can possibly be right.
That's OK, plenty of creationists have the same problem and insist that only their interpretation can possibly be correct. I think that some of them even suggest that those who believe the accounts in different ways may not be truly Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sequences of events in the 2 accounts are inconsistent and contradictory if they are 2 creation accounts.



Both orders can be right if they are not 2 creation accounts.
Even for a young earth creationist, it is not necessary to see Gen 1 and Gen 2 as 2 creation accounts imo.
Maybe you should ask @YoursTrue how he reads Gen 2:5.
You seem to think that only your way of reading Genesis 1 and 2 can possibly be right.
That's OK, plenty of creationists have the same problem and insist that only their interpretation can possibly be correct. I think that some of them even suggest that those who believe the accounts in different ways may not be truly Christian.

1. Sequences are not different.
2. It doesn't say Adam and Eve were created before plants .

 

[YoursTrue]

Sequences of events in the 2 accounts are inconsistent and contradictory if they are 2 creation accounts.



Both orders can be right if they are not 2 creation accounts.
Even for a young earth creationist, it is not necessary to see Gen 1 and Gen 2 as 2 creation accounts imo.
Maybe you should ask @YoursTrue how he reads Gen 2:5.
You seem to think that only your way of reading Genesis 1 and 2 can possibly be right.
That's OK, plenty of creationists have the same problem and insist that only their interpretation can possibly be correct. I think that some of them even suggest that those who believe the accounts in different ways may not be truly Christian.

They are not two creation accounts as if they are different. Simply recounting. It's easy once you understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not two creation accounts as if they are different. Simply recounting. It's easy once you understand.

Actually it is the other way around. The differences are clear. One has to keep oneself ignorant not to see that. Just as the nativity myths in Matthew and Luke are ten years apart.

 

[Brian2]

1. Sequences are not different.
2. It doesn't say Adam and Eve were created before plants .

Well I suppose it says that plants had not yet grown even if they may have been in the ground.
I don't think anything like that can be said for animals but in Gen 2 they were created just for Adam's sake and not as a first creation of animals.

 

[Brian2]

Actually it is the other way around. The differences are clear. One has to keep oneself ignorant not to see that. Just as the nativity myths in Matthew and Luke are ten years apart.

If you insist that they are 2 creation accounts then that is where your error would be imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you insist that they are 2 creation accounts then that is where your error would be imo.

No, it can be shown that the order is different. You won't let yourself see it because you believe those myths. Do you want me to be specific? And no apologetics allowed. Excuses are not refutations.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your so-called "God Theory" (the Higher Intelligence Theory) is the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe and life in it. Abiogenesis doesn't cut it. Even atheists (like Paul Dirac) admit that, as the following excerpt shows:

'One of the strong evidences pointing to intelligent creation of the material universe is that a knowledge of higher mathematics is necessary to achieve an understanding of it. Chance action by blind forces is not the creator of mathematical order and laws.​

​

Remarking on the role of mathematics in nature, P. A. M. Dirac states in Scientific American of May 1963: “It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it.​

​

You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.” '- Cosmos: Mathematics in the Universe​

There are elements in that article, which are similar to how Einstein reasoned, that there must be an “illimitable superior spirit”….

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the **illimitable superior spirit** who reveals **Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)
So although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God, he did believe in a superior reasoning power.


Life, even with self-awareness and instinct, is more than the sum of itself; it is combined with all the forces, cycles, and systems established that help it to flourish. Before he died, Antony Flew (who had once been a staunch atheist) referred to this as "integrated complexity."

 

[blü 2]

So although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God, he did believe in a superior reasoning power.

I don't see how such a claim is helpful. The universe is possible because things are as they are. One day we may find that underneath it all there's one basic proposition from which all else evolves; or that the order we see is a transitory local phenomenon; or something else altogether.

The trouble with postulating a god is that you simply start an infinite regression ─

from How come there's a universe?
to God / a superior reasoning power / something else did it,
to How come there's a God / a superior reasoning power / a something else, to
whatever's next, to
whatever's next, to
...

 

[shunyadragon]

There are elements in that article, which are similar to how Einstein reasoned, that there must be an “illimitable superior spirit”….

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the **illimitable superior spirit** who reveals **Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)
So although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God, he did believe in a superior reasoning power.


Life, even with self-awareness and instinct, is more than the sum of itself; it is combined with all the forces, cycles, and systems established that help it to flourish. Before he died, Antony Flew (who had once been a staunch atheist) referred to this as "integrated complexity."

This reference to Einstein is misleading and beyond his knowledge of science and math Einstain cannot be referenced as an authority concerning what are subjective claims beyond the nature of our physical existence. It is also misleading as to what Einstein's was. He was considered agnostic.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Albert Einstein himself stated "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist... I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings".[2] Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no". He conceded that "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds".[10]

Einstein never questioned the Natural evolution of life nor a natural physical existence billions of year old, which is more relevant to the subject of the thread,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Life, even with self-awareness and instinct, is more than the sum of itself; it is combined with all the forces, cycles, and systems established that help it to flourish.

It is actually very hard to think of something, anything, which is NOT more then the sum of its parts.
It's not exactly special nor does it require any extra-special explanation imo

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are no doubt at all, that sequences of events in these 2 chapters, are inconsistent and contradictory…

Your interpretation is the problem.

Tell me, why didn’t Isaac Newton, who ‘studied the Bible daily’, discern this contradiction? Or innumerable other learned men? They didn’t.

The conclusion is that your interpretation is “no doubt” the fallacious one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your interpretation is the problem.

Tell me, why didn’t Isaac Newton, who ‘studied the Bible daily’, discern this contradiction? Or innumerable other learned men? They didn’t.

The conclusion is that your interpretation is “no doubt” the fallacious one.

Ow look, an appeal to authority.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This reference to Einstein is misleading…

No it isn’t!
I stated:
“So although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God, he did believe in a superior reasoning power.”

beyond his knowledge of science and math Einstain cannot be referenced as an authority concerning what are subjective claims beyond the nature of our physical existence.

Maybe… I don’t accept his personal views, anyways.

But he can be referenced as a thinker.
So why did he believe that “superior reasoning” must be behind the order we observe?

It is also misleading as to what Einstein's [personal view of god] was.

Take it up with the author.
I’m just the reporter.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ow look, an appeal to authority.

And why not? You don’t think there are any?

You’ve quoted experts, too. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[gnostic]

Your interpretation is the problem.

Tell me, why didn’t Isaac Newton, who ‘studied the Bible daily’, discern this contradiction? Or innumerable other learned men? They didn’t.

The conclusion is that your interpretation is “no doubt” the fallacious one.

It is not interpretations, Hockeycowboy.

It is all there.

Genesis 1 clearly stated that vegetation were created (day 3):

• BEFORE fishes and birds (day 5),
• BEFORE land animals, including humans (day 6).

Genesis 2 clearly stated there were no vegetation (2:5):

Genesis 2:5 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground

Then 2:7 says that Adam was created:

Genesis 2:7 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground[c] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

2:8-9 then say plants were created at the Garden:

Genesis 2:8-9 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Animals were created before Eve:

Genesis 2:19-20 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man[d] there was not found a helper as his partner.

This order in Genesis 2 is completely different from order in Genesis 1, hence the contradictions.

If you cannot see that, then either your reading comprehension is poor, or you'll need to have your eyes tested for a pair of new reading glasses.

 

[shunyadragon]

No it isn’t!
I stated:
“So although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God, he did believe in a superior reasoning power.”


Maybe… I don’t accept his personal views, anyways.

But he can be referenced as a thinker.
So why did he believe that “superior reasoning” must be behind the order we observe?


Take it up with the author.
I’m just the reporter.

No, you're presenting a very biased selective view of Einstein not relevant to the topic of the thread.

As per the topic of the thread Einstein believed in the natural existence and evolution of life billions of years old.

The following is also a citation from Einstein: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic god, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[14] In a 1947 letter he stated that "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[15] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."