Why isn't evolution in the Bible?

[Gjallarhorn]

In which way does it?

Proof is objective. I thought you believed everything was subjective.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Proof is objective. I thought you believed everything was subjective.

Well, I said there are objective things, but subjective covers it up.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If the Bible's story Genesis was about how God created mankind, why isn't Evolution in the Bible?

You might as well ask why they don't mention Relativity, Quantum Physics or Neurology.
Religious texts unsurprisingly reflect the level of scientific understanding that was available to people living at that time, no matter what some people will try to convince you of.
There is not a single example of a religious text providing scientific insight before science itself arrives at that conclusion and all claims that they do are always after the fact and based on loose allegories that can mean anything at all.

 

[waitasec]

You might as well ask why they don't mention Relativity, Quantum Physics or Neurology.

yes exactly. if moses was face to face with god, we would have avoided many many ailments and needless painful deaths...
but i guess god doesn't really concern himself with such trivial pursuits

 

[jarofthoughts]

yes exactly. if moses was face to face with god, we would have avoided many many ailments and needless painful deaths...
but i guess god doesn't really concern himself with such trivial pursuits

Of course not.
It was MUCH more important to explain to them how to properly sacrifice an ox or to express his dislike for shrimp.

But really... He could have given us SOMETHING to work with here...
For instance; a heads up on cancer would have been very useful. :sarcastic

 

[waitasec]

Of course not.
It was MUCH more important to explain to them how to properly sacrifice an ox or to express his dislike for shrimp.

But really... He could have given us SOMETHING to work with here...
For instance; a heads up on cancer would have been very useful. :sarcastic

those dang scribes... :149:

 

[idea]

The point is to refine our character, and refine our minds. It's about love, trust, faith, charity, becoming selfless - gaining a knowledge of good and evil.

You might as well ask why they don't mention Relativity, Quantum Physics or Neurology. ...

yes, there is the realm of the physical, and then there is the realm of the spiritual. Scriptures generally deal with the realm of the spiritual.

 

[Alceste]

Regarding this "remarkably correct" sequence, I would like to hear exactly what part of this seems scientifically "correct" to you, Jayhawker:

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.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: 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.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: 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.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, 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.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, 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.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: 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:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: 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.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: 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.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20: 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.
21: 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.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: 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.
25: 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.
26: 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.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: 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.
29: 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 the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30: 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.
31: 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.

In this sequence, God makes the earth before he makes the stars. He makes a mysterious thing called the "firmament" which does not even exist. He makes plants before he makes the sun. He makes whales before he makes sexual reproduction. He makes cattle before me makes people. He doesn't bother to make bacteria at all, despite the fact that bacteria were the only form of life on earth for 3 billion years and still constitute more biomass than all other life on earth combined.

Genesis is total gobblety-gook, as far as accurate chronology is concerned. I can't even imagine the cognitive contortions one must go to in order to perceive "remarkable" chronological insight in it.

 

[idea]

a few translational corrections are perhaps needed...
1: In the beginning God created (bara - not ex-Nihlo created, but "transformed") the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth (had become - hayah -) 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.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness....

it's beautifully poetic for those who understand the spiritual side for it all...

((Old Testament | Genesis 2:4)
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were transformed...

the "generations of the heavens" and the "generations of the earth... there are spiritual transformations, and physical ones - the generations of the heavens is discussing spiritual transformations -

(Old Testament | Genesis 2:5)
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

our physical birth here upon this earth is not our beginning... He is our "Heavenly" Father - who transforms within the spiritual worlds, the Father of our spirits...
many scientists do not understand much of the spiritual side of it... they assume everything to be materialistic, and so miss the entire point...

 

[waitasec]

yes, there is the realm of the physical, and then there is the realm of the spiritual. Scriptures generally deal with the realm of the spiritual.

not the 1st few chapters of genesis...

 

[Quagmire]

You might as well ask why they don't mention Relativity, Quantum Physics or Neurology.
Religious texts unsurprisingly reflect the level of scientific understanding that was available to people living at that time, no matter what some people will try to convince you of.
There is not a single example of a religious text providing scientific insight before science itself arrives at that conclusion and all claims that they do are always after the fact and based on loose allegories that can mean anything at all.

And you've read and understood every religious text on the planet I suppose?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The point is to refine our character, and refine our minds. It's about love, trust, faith, charity, becoming selfless - gaining a knowledge of good and evil.

I don't see why we need scripture for that.

yes, there is the realm of the physical, and then there is the realm of the spiritual. Scriptures generally deal with the realm of the spiritual.

And when someone provides evidence of a realm other than the physical, we can have that conversation.
Until then we might as well have a discussion about faeries.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He makes whales before he makes sexual reproduction. He makes cattle before me makes people.

Which strikes as a curiosity considering whales, bovine and hippos share a common ancestor.....

He doesn't bother to make bacteria at all, despite the fact that bacteria were the only form of life on earth for 3 billion years and still constitute more biomass than all other life on earth combined.

That part must have been part of "God's" addendum...but it was never canonized so it did make it into the bible.

Genesis is total gobblety-gook, as far as accurate chronology is concerned. I can't even imagine the cognitive contortions one must go to in order to perceive "remarkable" chronological insight in it.

Agreed....

 

[jarofthoughts]

And you've read and understood every religious text on the planet I suppose?

Not EVERY religious text, no, but a fair number of them ranging from the Bible, the Quran and the Torah to Tao Te Ching, a substantial number of Buddhist texts as well as several central Hindu texts.

If you somehow claim that I have to read ALL of them (something that would likely take longer than the natural span of my life) I might as well claim that the answer to all your questions can be found under a rock.
And when you claim that you've looked under rocks and found nothing resembling answers I'd just respond "But have you looked under EVERY rock?"

But hey, I'm open to changing my mind as soon as the first scientific breakthrough coming directly and clearly from a religious text manifests itself.

So far, they have been curiously absent.

 

[Quagmire]

Not EVERY religious text, no, but a fair number of them ranging from the Bible, the Quran and the Torah to Tao Te Ching, a substantial number of Buddhist texts as well as several central Hindu texts.

If you somehow claim that I have to read ALL of them (something that would likely take longer than the natural span of my life) I might as well claim that the answer to all your questions can be found under a rock.

If you're going to make definite, all inclusive statements like this...:

You might as well ask why they don't mention Relativity, Quantum Physics or Neurology.
Religious texts unsurprisingly reflect the level of scientific understanding that was available to people living at that time, no matter what some people will try to convince you of.
There is not a single example of a religious text providing scientific insight before science itself arrives at that conclusion and all claims that they do are always after the fact and based on loose allegories that can mean anything at all.

...it would follow that if you expect anyone to take it seriously you would have had to read and understood every religious text there is.

And when you claim that you've looked under rocks and found nothing resembling answers I'd just respond "But have you looked under EVERY rock?"

LOL! Talk about loose analogies.

So you're saying that every religious text is, for all intents and purposes, the same as every other religious text in the same way that every rock is basically the same as any other rock?

I have a feeling you took a quick glance under one rock, shrugged, and said to yourself "well I guess that's settled".

But hey, I'm open to changing my mind as soon as the first scientific breakthrough coming directly and clearly from a religious text manifests itself.

So far, they have been curiously absent.

If anything I would say your lack of any sincere curiosity is the problem here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you're going to make definite, all inclusive statements like this...:
...it would follow that if you expect anyone to take it seriously you would have had to read and understood every religious text there is.

Well, then it would appear no-one else has understood them either, seeing as no scientific breakthroughs have come from the study of religious texts.
If you have any examples to refute this then by all means, bring them on.

LOL! Talk about loose analogies.
So you're saying that every religious text is, for all intents and purposes, the same as every other religious text in the same way that every rock is basically the same as any other rock?
I have a feeling you took a quick glance under one rock, shrugged, and said to yourself "well I guess that's settled".

I think you underestimate the diversity of rocks.
But yes, all religions fail on that one essential premise which ultimately make all of them, if not the same, then at least equal: they provide no evidence for their central claim.

If anything I would say your lack of any sincere curiosity is the problem here.

I consider myself to be a very curious person indeed and I spend much of my time reading and doing research on a number of topics that I find interesting, many of which relate to science.
And as I pointed out earlier; it's not as if I haven't looked at religious texts.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, then it would appear no-one else has understood them either, seeing as no scientific breakthroughs have come from the study of religious texts.

If you're just going to keep rewording your original gross generalization (rather than responding to my point), I'll just keep rewording my response: what makes you think you're qualified to pass judgment on texts which you've admitted you haven't even read?

If you have any examples to refute this then by all means, bring them on.

Trying to find a decent online version of the Vedas as we speak. May take a while (and I'll have to create a separate thread for it when I do).

I think you underestimate the diversity of rocks.

I think you underestimate the diversity of religious texts, as well as the value of sincere, open-minded investigation.

But yes, all religions fail on that one essential premise which ultimately make all of them, if not the same, then at least equal: they provide no evidence for their central claim.

There's that word "all" again, from someone who just a cpl posts back admitted he'd only bothered to look into a few.

Pray tell: what are the central claims of "all" the worlds religions. Or tell you what: lets make this easier. Pick 10.

I consider myself to be a very curious person

I was just thinking that.

indeed and I spend much of my time reading and doing research on a number of topics that I find interesting, many of which relate to science.
And as I pointed out earlier; it's not as if I haven't looked at religious texts.

Have you ever opened any of them?

 

[idav]

But yes, all religions fail on that one essential premise which ultimately make all of them, if not the same, then at least equal: they provide no evidence for their central claim.

Oh really. So like the Buddhas central claim that life is suffering has no evidence. How about the claim of Jesus that people need saving from themselves. Would there be no evidence to support these central themes? Now how they go about solving the issue may be different but I don't really need any more evidence to suggest that people can be retarded and ultimately hurt each other.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh really. So like the Buddhas central claim that life is suffering has no evidence. How about the claim of Jesus that people need saving from themselves. Would there be no evidence to support these central themes? Now how they go about solving the issue may be different but I don't really need any more evidence to suggest that people can be retarded and ultimately hurt each other.

Neither of those qualify as the central claim of what we refer to as religion.
The central claim is the existence of something supernatural, usually in the form of a god or gods, often in the form of some kind of afterlife, and generally used to motivate/bully people into living a certain way.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you're just going to keep rewording your original gross generalization (rather than responding to my point), I'll just keep rewording my response: what makes you think you're qualified to pass judgment on texts which you've admitted you haven't even read?

What makes you think you are qualified to pass judgement on anything?
Let's say you don't like eating fish (I don't know if this is the case or not, but that is also irrelevant).
How can you claim this without having tried every dish involving fish that exists in the world?
Well, if you have tried a reasonable sample and based on that sample concluded that you didn't like the taste of the fish involved, then it is not an unreasonable assumption to make that you probably won't like other dishes involving fish either.
As for my above claim, I pretty sure I would have heard of it if some religious text actually spurred some scientific breakthrough.
That's world class international news, after all.

Trying to find a decent online version of the Vedas as we speak. May take a while (and I'll have to create a separate thread for it when I do).

Sure.

I think you underestimate the diversity of religious texts, as well as the value of sincere, open-minded investigation.

Haven't seen much in the way of sceptical investigation when it comes to religion's central claim, at least not by those who subscribe to it.

There's that word "all" again, from someone who just a cpl posts back admitted he'd only bothered to look into a few.

The "few" involving at least all the five largest religions in the world as well as a few that are not on that list.

Pray tell: what are the central claims of "all" the worlds religions. Or tell you what: lets make this easier. Pick 10.

Sure.
The central claim is the existence of something supernatural, usually in the form of a god or gods, often in the form of some kind of afterlife, and generally used to motivate/bully people into living a certain way.
If you remove the supernatural aspect 'all' you are left with is a philosophy that, while sometimes useful, has little reason to claim absolute truth, which is a very common feature when it comes to religion.

Have you ever opened any of them?

I'm going to assume that was a joke.