Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Unfortunately for proponents of the Genesis narrative, current evidences succinctly supports Evolution and the fact that the human primate and non human primates share a common ancestor.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why isn't evolution in the Bible?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Unfortunately for proponents of the Genesis narrative, current evidences succinctly supports Evolution and the fact that the human primate and non human primates share a common ancestor.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
No, I didn't.
From what you've shown in this tread, I'm pretty sure I can do without your so called "insight"... :sarcastic
That wasn't your claim, this was:
(keep on moving those goal posts. I'll just keep moving them back.)
I haven't moved anything.
Look if you have to lie in order to try to appear clever, that is your business, but don't drag me into it.
I said :"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 I also said: "Let me know when you have refuted my claim with a new scientific breakthrough based on scripture."
So, tell me, if you're not going to produce a new scientific breakthrough based on a religious text, how do you intend to avoid the "after the fact" part?
No, I didn't.
From what you've shown in this tread, I'm pretty sure I can do without your so called "insight"... :sarcastic
Yes, I've seen what you can do without it.
I haven't moved anything.
Look if you have to lie in order to try to appear clever, that is your business, but don't drag me into it.
LOL! That's the nice thing about the internet. Anybody who's interested can just go back in the thread and see who's lying.
Yes, and then you went on to try and pass off that second statement as your first statement. Like I said: keep moving those goal posts.
Like I said: I'm going to create a thread addressing this:
This...you said:
you said:
...Is just an attempt to weasel out of having to take responsibility for your first statement. I'm not going to let you do that.
Now I already asked you: would it be OK to use this...
...in the OP of the thread I'm making? After all, this assertion was the launching point for this discussion and, in spite of your attempts to throw in a few ridiculous provisions after the fact, it's what we've been talking about all this time.still you said:
If it's not OK to use it just say so. I can work around it.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
^
This.
We have three choices
1. Genesis is completely wrong
2. All science that points to the evolution of man from an earlier ancestor is wrong, despite overwhelming evidence contrary*
3. Genesis is not a literal or historic account
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
LOL! That's the nice thing about the internet. Anybody who's interested can just go back in the thread and see who's lying.
Yes, and then you went on to try and pass off that second statement as your first statement. Like I said: keep moving those goal posts.
Like I said: I'm going to create a thread addressing this:
This...
...Is just an attempt to weasel out of having to take responsibility for your first statement. I'm not going to let you do that.
Now I already asked you: would it be OK to use this... ...in the OP of the thread I'm making? After all, this assertion was the launching point for this discussion and, in spite of your attempts to throw in a few ridiculous provisions after the fact, it's what we've been talking about all this time.
If it's not OK to use it just say so. I can work around it.
Dude, those two sentences mean the same thing.
If you feel otherwise then please, by all means, explain why you think so.
I've not tried to "weasel" out of anything and I even quoted both sentences in my previous post explaining why they state the same thing.
I have no problem standing by either of those statements and I am, in fact, offended that you not only thought, but even claimed that I've tried to move any goalposts.
So if you want us to continue this conversation I expect an apology.
Yes, I am serious.
Dude, those two sentences mean the same thing.
If you feel otherwise then please, by all means, explain why you think so.
I've not tried to "weasel" out of anything and I even quoted both sentences in my previous post explaining why they state the same thing.
I have no problem standing by either of those statements and I am, in fact, offended that you not only thought, but even claimed that I've tried to move any goalposts.
So if you want us to continue this conversation I expect an apology.
Yes, I am serious.
I'm not going to apologize for trying to get you to be consistent or for holding you accountable for your own thoughts.
Now, 3rd time: can I use your quote in the thread I'm making or not?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
If you're not going to apologize for accusing me of something I didn't, and never intended to do, then we're done here.
So in other words, you actually do have a problem " standing by either of those statements".
Fine. I'm going to create the thread anyway.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Nope. Again you are misrepresenting my statements.
In fact, I said clearly earlier that I stand by both.
So, are you going to apologize or not?
Of course not.
Here's the thread btw: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ghts-ancient-religious-texts.html#post2548429
If you actually are willing to stand by your statement, here's your chance.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Sounds pretty Satanic to me. Something like the translation of abrahadabra or, "I will create as I speak".
@ The Sum of Awe
Evolution is in the bible, its on the surface right before your eyes, the label itself and the power it brings has led to an enormous division among Christians and all followers. I guess you can describe that as evolution.
Literally it speaks of evolution and its existence for near over 2,000 years old. People often look within something without realizing its external influences, which is mainly within us. This essentially describes those who lack metaphorical thought, which isn't really capable of describing the two sides for Man's thirst for labels and symbols.
Its extremely complex and abstract, and harsh to say simply, that communication efficiency is based off of the consistency levels of man and his development. Over years meanings and translations are lost and completely designed to become misleading, and influential. Some seek the more "open minded" path of distinguishing differences and similarities without bias, which essentially develops a strong metaphorical personality. Others are a bit more "conservative" with this association of labels and words, and tend to take things a bit more literally which can lead to things being very misleading, though of course both sides are capable of doing so.
If you research some of Carl Jung's personality types, I am sure you can connect the dots.
Really, the main point is that you can allow what influences you in what way, which requires some emotional dissolution, but not in a complete manifestation.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Sorry, I don't care for debating people who misrepresent and even lie about me.
I prefer people to be honest when partaking in a discussion.
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
I think Bible is so vague in many respects just about anything could theoretically be read into it - even evolution.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Agreed....
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
For the simple reason that religion evolves over time (just as does the rest of creation); and at the time the Bible was written, humanity wasn't yet ready to learn that--just like you don't teach algebra to a second-grader!
Simple as that.
Peace,
Bruce
For the simple reason that religion evolves over time (just as does the rest of creation); and at the time the Bible was written, humanity wasn't yet ready to learn that--just like you don't teach algebra to a second-grader!
Simple as that.
Peace,
Bruce
This does not mean you lie to your creation and say "Oh yeah we came from two people." In the same way you don't lie to the second grader and say that adding is the simplest you can get.
"Since evolution became fashionable, the glorification of Man has taken a new form. We are told that evolution has been guided by one great Purpose: through the millions of years when there were only slime, or trilobites, throughout the ages of dinosaurs and giant ferns, of bees and wild flowers, God was preparing the Great Climax. At last, in the fullness of time, He produced Man, including such specimens as Nero and Caligula, Hitler and Mussolini, whose transcendant glory justified the long painful process. For my part, I find even eternal damnation less incredible, and certainly less ridiculous, than this lame and impotent conclusion which we are asked to admire as the supreme effort of Omnipotence." - Bertrand Russel.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That quote points to an amazing degree of ignorance of the Theory of Evolution.
Last edited:
:sarcastic
I think you missed something here. Bertrand Russel was an atheist, and in this quote he is basically saying that intelligent design is ridiculous. How does it show an ignorance of the theory of evolution?