The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[PoliticalChic]

4. Beyond that, your understanding of the idea, the meaning of "God" suffers from shortsightedness.
The concept entails the ability to do anything....including separating 'the sun' and 'light.'

Please don't hurt yourself doing the contortions needed to read Genesis literally.

My idea of "God" is based on the same knowledge as yours. You just accept as fact the fantastic power attributed to "God" whereas I demand some kind of evidence. Maybe God is lying or just ignorant? Maybe there are other, even more powerful gods that our God is unaware of or doesn't believe in? Maybe our God is evil but tells us he is the definition of good. Plenty of evil things have been done in his name.

"You just accept as fact the fantastic power attributed to "God" whereas I demand some kind of evidence."

That's because you're a dunce.

You've just documented that you don't understand "God."

 

[PoliticalChic]

So glad you'd slithered in for the education you so sorely require.....and not a minute too soon!

Let's go over the events:

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?

I've got the new symbol for your party right here:

There is no Biblical recounting of evolution. the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders. they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round. Give me a break.

Wrong, you dunce.


1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 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. 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.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: 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.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

1. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was. No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".

In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.

In your case it is both specific, and eternal.

 

[alang1216]

You've just documented that you don't understand "God."

I beg to differ, I think I understand God just fine, I just don't agree with your concept of God. Doesn't make me a dunce or make you right. It means I prefer rationality to faith.

 

[JimBowie1958]

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Did God create heaven and earth before the light (big bang)?

That does seem problematic, but it fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event.

I'm not sure how this fits a theory of recovery from the Toba Extinction event?

Because the sun and moon and stars would exist prior to the thick cloud cover that cause a ten year volcanic winter and left a 15 inch layer of ash across the globe. The humans would have witnessed the return of light, it condensing into day and night periods, the resurgence of sea life, the growth of plants and then the return of animals up the food chain.

This is fairly close to the first chapter account in Genesis.

The second chapter is more metaphorical and has no time sequence to it.

The main point is that the Bible narrative is not scientific text. The events of that verse are not necessarily even meant to be interpreted as sequential.

On this we can agree. It is a collection of theology meant to impart the values of the Jewish people. Same with the NT so taking either literally does each a disservice.

they should be taken literally for moral teachings and events local to the time. I also think the miracles were literal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Some of the ancients may have known the world was round but almost all believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is obvious in Genesis.

The Bible is a book of moral instruction whose target audience is humanity. And so the perspective given is Earth-centric.

Since we know that all motion is relative, saying that the Earth is the center of the universe is no more wrong than any other statement of relative motion.

Its just that the mathematics are much simpler with a sun centric solar system model.

And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.

The fetus is human without a doubt. It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/

 

[alang1216]

This is fairly close to the first chapter account in Genesis.

Interesting theory but I'm not sure the story would survive 70,000+ years of retelling.

they should be taken literally for moral teachings and events local to the time. I also think the miracles were literal.

I'm not sure the OT moral teachings should be emulated but I have no doubt they reflect the morality of the period.

I'd guess the local events in both the OT and NT have some basis in history but they have been put through the wringer of theology so a bit of caution is warranted.

As to miracles, I have my doubts if they were literal. I think they are meant to show that God is on the side of the doer and to impress pagans with God's power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your own quote continues showing day and night without the sun, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?

I've got the new symbol for your party right here:

There is no Biblical recounting of evolution. the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders. they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round. Give me a break.

Wrong, you dunce.


1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 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. 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.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: 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.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

1. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was. No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".

In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.

In your case it is both specific, and eternal.

You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.

 

[alang1216]

And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.

The fetus is human without a doubt. It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/

Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry. Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system. Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you continue to ignore the astounding similarity between the modern version of evolution and the Biblical recounting of same?

I've got the new symbol for your party right here:

There is no Biblical recounting of evolution. the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders. they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round. Give me a break.

Wrong, you dunce.


1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 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. 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.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: 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.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

1. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was. No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".

In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.

In your case it is both specific, and eternal.

You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.

Many consider your belief that carbon atoms post on USMB to be a magical belief.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.
The fetus is human without a doubt. It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/

Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry.

Sure it does, but you are obfuscating a philosophical question that involves the value of human life with the biological.

It is simply biological fact that a separate new life begins at conception. Whether that equates to 'ensoulment' or not is not a scientific question, but it is the one you are addressing and science cannot address that.

Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system.

Dont, they are different, but both are still human.

Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.

True science cannot tell us that, but it can tell us that it is human life.

I think all independent human life is endowed with rights no matter how intelligent or wealthy they may be.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And your analogy on abortion and when a human being is conceived is simply bad biology.

The fetus is human without a doubt. It does not lose its humanity just because a clinical term is used/

Biology/science is not able to say when a human life begins anymore than it can say when a human is too young to marry. Many take the easy route and say conception is the beginning but I have trouble equating a fertilized egg with a living breathing baby with a brain and a nervous system. Like setting a marriage age, science can't tell me when that egg becomes a human being worthy of rights equal to every other human being.

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.

So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.

I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.

But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.

But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.

I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.

But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.

But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.

Pretty sick society when you go to prison for murder if you kill a wanted fetus but if mom’s mood swings and she wants it dead she’s a hero for murdering it.

 

[alang1216]

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.

I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.

But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.

But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.

If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end? A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors. Is removing his life support murder?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
So every reasonable person would assume worst case and error on the side of life.

I think the predominate view in Christian society was that ensoulment ocured when the babies motion could be felt, the so-called 'quickening', no reference to Highlander.

But the church taught that we should err on the side of caution and not take the life at all and condemned abortions regardless.

But we modern Westerners are too sophisticated for that and kill our children in the womb so we can b e sure to buy that new car or fit in that bikini in time for summer.

If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end? A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors. Is removing his life support murder?

I’m for that standard.
Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.

 

[alang1216]

Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.

Welcome to the pro-choice side. We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the question of when does life begin is so easy then when does life end? A car crash victim is declared brain dead by his doctors. Is removing his life support murder?

People have come back from 'brain dead' status to live normal lives. They pull the plug for financial reasons mostly. Health care is an industry and the notion that they regard human life as sacred is minority at best and ridiculous at worst.

IMO if there is no discernable breathing, heart pumping, or brain activity then they are dead after about a thirty second flat line status.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.

Welcome to the pro-choice side. We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.

I would say 12 weeks, but the point is you can get an abortion in this country up to the moment of delivery and that is abysmal.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.

Welcome to the pro-choice side. We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.

Thanks for validating my point. Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Any abortion after 6 weeks is murder.

Welcome to the pro-choice side. We may or may not agree on the specific timing but I'm glad you see that from the moment of conception until some arbitrary time, abortion is not murder.

Thanks for validating my point. Even though you know you are stopping a beating heart and normal brain waves are present you want to murder children.

What complicates the abortion question is the difference between personal morality one lives by personally vrs the morality that one wants to impose through civil law.

I want to go to church and I think everyone should, but I oppose any laws via the government that make it compulsory.

I think that ensoulment occurs at conception, but I dont think I can justify with secular reasoning (that does not depend on revelation) any restrictions prior to the first trimester.

Others see no point to splitting such hairs and are 100% on one side or the other.

But a compromise policy is doable.