Report comment to moderator

That’s not true at all! Discussion of the non-literal nature of biblical language goes back at least to Spinoza’s day (and to Spinoza himself) 150-200 years before Darwin. Newton also did not take Genesis literally.

Report comment to moderator

That’s not true at all! Discussion of the non-scientific nature of biblical language predates Darwin by at least 150-200 years.

Report comment to moderator

It wasnt until post Darwin that “theologians” attempted to say that Genesis wasnt literal. Some how, despite our pride, i highly doubt we are far wiser than any theologian to come along previously.

Perhaps, but our scientists know more than scientists of bygone years. And advancing knowledge has required theologians to reconsider the interpretation of things.

Look, you could just as easily drop back 500 years and have this same debate over the idea that the Earth isn’t the center of universe. Theologians, and pretty much everyone else, assumed it was because from our point of view, that’s how it appears. Once our ancestors figured out that appearances were deceiving, they had to adjust … an adjustment that many inflexible theologians resisted because they feared it would displace Earth, and mankind, as the centerpiece of God’s creation.

Five centuries later, Christianity appears to have survived the change.

So the best test is to check Genesis against the rest of scripture, and considering that Christ along with the rest of hte bible, act and discuss the events of Genesis as actual real events, you either have to disregard/retool the entire bible as symbolic and thus Christ isnt real/necessary, or you try to have your cake and eat it too, which wont fly either.

So you argue that one should continue believing what is proven false because otherwise you’d have to modify your beliefs about other things?

Report comment to moderator

SteveG, you have apparently ignored all the faux “missing links” created by altering primate skulls, introducing different bones, etc.

I have not. You have greatly overestimated their importance. There have been a small number of cases of fraud, a few cases of error, and many, many authentic examples.

The “alleged discrepancy” you note about Gen. 1 & 2 is one that I don’t remember seeing before, but isn’t difficult to refute.
Gen. chapter 2, when talking about the creation of man, is sort of a flashback to day six of creation. Day seven has already arrived, when God rested, but man was created on the sixth day.

That would be a good explanation if that was what the text says, but it isn’t. The second chapter of Genesis has God creating the land animals after having created Man.

It also has God not knowing that man needs a woman for a helpmeet until first trying out a lot of other animals. Whether God is clueless about his own creation or actually trying to encourage bestiality, I don’t know.

There are many “seeming contradictions” in the Bible, but they all can be reconciled one way or another, usually by looking at the context of the passage. Great errors are made when people take verses out of context.

That’s a cherished belief of inerrancy apologists, but sadly, one that doesn’t hold up to examination. There are some real internal contradictions — this is one of them — along with logical absurdities, immoral behavior with Yahweh’s approval (and sometimes command or even participation) and external contradictions, enough so to make it impossible to take as literal and inerrant without denying the truth of things most of us know to be true.

Like, snakes can’t talk, and couldn’t form words even if they had the intelligence to think of them.

However, do you think calling people ignorant and names like “chucklehead” is a prime example of civilized, polite discussion? While I disagree with you, I do not resort to calling you “ignorant” or even arrogant.

Consider it an affectionate jibe. Outkast has a penchant for saying really silly things with such an air of smug superiority that he’s often very hard to take seriously. This was such a case.

Report comment to moderator

The “alleged discrepancy” you note about Gen. 1 & 2 is one that I don’t remember seeing before, but isn’t difficult to refute.
Gen. chapter 2, when talking about the creation of man, is sort of a flashback to day six of creation. Day seven has already arrived, when God rested, but man was created on the sixth day.
There are many “seeming contradictions” in the Bible, but they all can be reconciled one way or another, usually by looking at the context of the passage. Great errors are made when people take verses out of context.

Hm, real science. Real science that is not science…but I don’t have the time to go into that at the moment.
However, do you think calling people ignorant and names like “chucklehead” is a prime example of civilized, polite discussion? While I disagree with you, I do not resort to calling you “ignorant” or even arrogant.

Everyone:
Talking with people who are arrogant is difficult and annoying, as is a discussion with someone who is ignorant.
But the worst is having a conversation with someone who is both.
So, this problem can be partly remedied if everyone treats each other as having a right to their point of view, and not saying they’re morons because they think as they do.
We all shouldn’t be arrogant, because if I’m wrong, you’re wrong, and everyone else is too, then we have nothing to be arrogant about. (not that we should be, anyway)
Back to what I said before:
Since you can’t trust your senses, what’s to say we aren’t in a simulation like the Matrix ?
Although that way of thinking could lead to problems and can be confusing, thinking that way would prevent people from being smug, as what they think is real might not be after all.
It might just be easier to assume that what we see, hear, feel, etc. is reality, though.

Report comment to moderator

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Serpents cannot talk. They never could talk. Even if they had the brains to talk they don’t have the jaws, lips and tongues of the right sort to form words.

The story is a myth. It may be a myth that carries a great deal of meaning, as many myths are, but it is not literal history.

Biblical literalists have the most impressive ability to deny things as obvious as “snow is cold” if their Bibles say otherwise.

Report comment to moderator

Pssst … chucklehead … that has nothing to do with the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1: God creates all the animals and then, finally, man and woman.

Genesis 2:God creates man. God sees that man is lonely. God, apparently not yet knowing anything about what men want, creates a succession of animals to see if the man considers any of them a suitable help-meet. Then finally God gets a clue and makes Adam an Eve.

So not only is the order of creation different, God’s alleged omniscience is on a serious retreat in Gen. 2.

Report comment to moderator

I don’t even know where to start with such profound ignorance.

Where did you do this looking up? In the Bible? In Creationist literature? Did you carefully seek out only sources you could assume would confirm what you wanted to believe?

Try reading some real science.

Report comment to moderator

We do, actually. Creationists lie to you about that.

One thing you have to understand is that ALL organisms are “transitional” in a sense. Evolution doesn’t have endpoints. We tend to decide what is transitional based on the defined taxonomies of today. That is, we have birds and we know of dinosaurs, so we see archaeopteryx as a transitional form between them. (The reasons this is so are considerably more subtle and complex than just feathers and teeth … read the article I linked to in #74 if you can consider it with a more open mind than Rio demonstrates.)

But if we were having this dicussion 100,000 years from now, we might just as well say that 21st century birds were a transitional form between archaeopteryx and whatever they evolve into in 100,000 years.

But even if you insist on seeing transitional forms between our more commonly assumed endpoints, there are many. Here are a number of examples.

Report comment to moderator