What came first, The chicken or The egg? Science vs Religion

[Asclepias]

I feel like this conversation got heavily derailed at some point : S

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

 

[Asclepias]

Nimrod - Wikipedia

The first biblical mention of Nimrod is in the Table of Nations.[3] He is described as the son of Cush, grandson of Ham, and great-grandson of Noah; and as "a mighty one in the earth" and "a mighty hunter before the Lord". This is repeated in the First Book of Chronicles 1:10, and the "Land of Nimrod" used as a synonym for Assyria or Mesopotamia, is mentioned in the Book of Micah 5:6:

And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Genesis says that the "beginning of his kingdom" (reshit mamlakto) were the towns of "Babel, Erech, Akkad and Calneh in the land of Shinar" (Mesopotamia) (Gen 10:10)—understood variously to imply that he either founded these cities, ruled over them, or both. Owing to an ambiguity in the original Hebrew text, it is unclear whether it is he or Ashur who additionally built Nineveh, Resen, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah (both interpretations are reflected in various English versions). Sir Walter Raleigh devoted several pages in his History of the World (c. 1616) to reciting past scholarship regarding the question of whether it had been Nimrod or Ashur who built the cities in Assyria.[4]

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites.[12] These lands lie north of Elam, immediately to the east of ancient Babylon, which, unlike Ethiopia, does lie within the region being described.[13] In Antiquities of the Jews, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Pishon as what "the Greeks called Ganges" and the Geon (Gehon) as the Nile.[14]

 

[ThatDude30]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Please show me where the creation account contradicts science.
Use the verse(s) and no ad hominems.

Genesis says God made Adam from the soil. Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism

Of course you know to the molecule how much soil God had to use.
Speaking of which, how do we define a single cell organism?
Cell are by no means simple as even the Greeks, Romans and Jews knew well over 2,000 years ago, if not more.
The word A-dahm, in Hebrew, does not mean "soil", that's just another in a long series of muck ups in the KJV.
A-dahm mean earth.
Of course Adam was most probably created as an adult because otherwise you would criticize the fact that God had to diaper a baby.

Let's take this from a different point of view, getting more to the crux of the matter...
Do you believe in any way whatsoever that an infinite being could have possibly created something from nothing?
If not, you have the conclusion to your question before there's even a discussion.

I, for one, do not believe matter existed forever.

Did I not say I believe the bible over science when it comes to the creation of life. If I believe in god why would I not believe that an infinite being could create something from nothing. Genesis states that god made adam from soil from the earth and eve from his rib. All I'm saying is that its easier for me to believe that, even how impossible that may sound, then the science version. I just cant believe or picture a bunch of humans being created from a singe cell organism out in the wild. How could the first humans care for themselves? How could they protect themselves? Like seriously just picture a single cell organism evolving into a human. Picture what it would look like at the different stages of the process. What guidance did they have?
There had to be something there that would of made sure the survival of this process. If there was nothing over looking the process, we could of easily been wiped out before we even existed. We would of been food for something higher up in the food chain. Seriously think outside the box, open your mind, and do some creative thinking.
You are trying way to hard for a discussion soley based on my creative thinking. If I cant believe we evolved from a singe cell organism and bel

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

You just proved you're a colossal idiot.
First of all, your Copy/Paste has no year...what a shock
No Link as you pulled it out of your ass and obviously nobody took this guy seriously enough to put this in book form.
I know, I know, Google books that's probably putting our conversion somewhere right now.
There's a ton of Judaic literature going back over 2,000 years, prior to this fool, that fully recognizes the swath of travel between India and Egypt and the varieties of people along the way as Jews were traveling that route for over 2,000 years.
Like, try reading your Talmud.

Indeependent

Science does not say there is no God. The most it says is that there is no quantifiable evidence of God.

It is you that demands that one choose. I am not a Christian, but I do not say that there is absolutely no God. Why could God not have guided evolution? Why? Maybe because you want YOUR book to be perfectly factual?

And I never said that science said there is no god. I'm saying it contradicts the bibles version on how we were created

And given the sources, demanding that they are mutually exclusive is odd.

The Bible is not a history or science textbook. And there are things in the Bible that are scientifically impossible.

I know that. What does the rest of the bible have to do with my issue on the creation of human life? Then again god creating adam from the soil is scientifically impossible. But since science cant figure it out does not mean its impossible. Are some stories in the bible a little extreme?, Yes, but if there is a god anything is possible. You cant just believe or not believe solely based on science, there are things that science will never be able to prove, either by lacking technology or understanding, that actually exists and happens. Science can not prove why some creatures can live without oxygen, but their are.
You are trying way to hard my friend, this thread is based on my creative thinking and I was thinking outside the box. I am a thinker and I always analyze. I was just reading a thread posted About evolution being useless, and my mind started going. This is what was going through my head and if you cant understand I'm sorry that you don't have an open mind and cant think in other perspectives and only go by the book. There is no reason for you to act intelligent and demean my opinion, trying to shut down my creative thinking. If you don't agree with it that's cool. It was meant to be talked about with other people that think outside the box.

Prove that God create Adam from existing matter is impossible.
You're playing word games with a language you don't know and your credibility is sinking quickly.

Ok first off, God creating adam out of soil does sound impossible, if you believe in god which I do then a being as himself could create adam from soil. That sounds no more crazier then evolving from a single cell organism. Also you say proving God created Adam from existing matter is impossible. Well how about you prove that we evolved from a single cell organism. Its just a theory not a fact but a theory. Science never was able to prove it. The can prove there is evolution but never proved that we evolved from a single cell organism. That single cell organism supposedly doesnt exist no more, so how can it be proved?
My creditability means nothing with you, I'm not trying to prove you anything.
Have you ever heard of creative thinking? what about, Thinking outside the box? Or what about having an open mind?
You are being to literal on a discussion based on creative thinking, You can not prove the way we actually came about. If you believe the theory of evolution, on being the way we were created, how can you judge what I think. No one knows the actual way human life was created. I believe in God, so therefore I will believe the bible on the creation of life before a theory that sounds ridiculous.

 

[fncceo]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Where in scripture does it specify the chicken?

 

[ThatDude30]

Ok I feel as though this discussion swerved away from the topic. I am not saying that science contradicts everything in the bible. Only on the creation of human life. The bible says first human was made from soil, science says we evolved from a single cell organism. Both sound impossible but Human life being created by a God sounds no more crazier the a single cell organism. What made sure the single cell, that evolving eventually into one day us, survived long enough to create us? I would think something higher in the food chain would of wiped us away? For those who wants me to prove that God could make a man from soil, well how about prove that evolution created human life. Its a theory hence, THE THEORY of evolution. Science hasn't proven we evolved from a single cell organism.

People are being to literal on a discussion that was started on creative thinking. I'm comparing two versions of how human life was created. Which neither can be scientifically be proven. So its just opinions and theories. Not one person can say one way is wrong and one way is right. How about instead of trying to prove me wrong, which you cant due to the fact that neither way has been proven by science, either leave the discussions or share your positive thoughts.

The content in my thread is pure curiosity, I was asking what do people think or if anyone can give me an answer with valid information. I not once said that this or that happened or is the way human life was created for FACT, not once. I came across a thread titled Theory of evolution is useless, or something like that, and I simply began to think. I am a thinker and I can think outside the box, I analyze information and I can understand more then 1 way of reasoning.

I don't just not believe something because it doesn't make sense or if I don't understand. If someone says this is how it is, does not mean that's what I think, if it isn't logical.

People act like I'm trying to sell my creative thinking on how human life came about, and that what I think is right and everyone should think that. I don't care what you think or believe. Someone said its because I want everything in my book(the bible) to be factual and how does science contradict the bible. First I never said it contradicts whole bible, on version of creation of human life, second I don't believe every story in the bible.

Quit trying to sound and look like the most intelligent person on this site. Its funny a lot of peoples responses sound like the did a rough draft and tweaked it before they sent it. Its not that serious,.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

I just cant believe or picture a bunch of humans being created from a singe cell organism out in the wild. How could the first humans care for themselves? How could they protect themselves?

How do monkeys, some of our closest ancestors, survive in the wild?

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Ok I feel as though this discussion swerved away from the topic. I am not saying that science contradicts everything in the bible. Only on the creation of human life. The bible says first human was made from soil, science says we evolved from a single cell organism. Both sound impossible but Human life being created by a God sounds no more crazier the a single cell organism. What made sure the single cell, that evolving eventually into one day us, survived long enough to create us? I would think something higher in the food chain would of wiped us away? For those who wants me to prove that God could make a man from soil, well how about prove that evolution created human life. Its a theory hence, THE THEORY of evolution. Science hasn't proven we evolved from a single cell organism.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you're able to talk about this. Though I will say, when it comes to religion and science, I would always expect some sort of hostile conversation to evolve from it. Still a very touchy subject, and we all have freedom of speech after all.

As for the single cell evolving, i'd refer you to the question I posed in the post above. Natural instinct and brain function evolved along with the cell...not to mention that as the cell evolved, the ecosystem evolved and became more complex along with it. There was not always some apex predator ready to eat every instance of, say, the first bacterial cell that formed out of the primordial ooze. Even if there was said predator, which there was I'd think immediately after such things evolved, rates of reproduction often outperform the rates of predation anyway.

As for humans themselves, you underestimate the power of human ingenuity. We may have been weaker than most predators, but we had the advantage of tools, rudimentary shelter engineering, a social structure, the beginnings of language to plan a defense, etc. We weren't just helpless idiots running around the prehistoric landscape.

 

[ThatDude30]

I just cant believe or picture a bunch of humans being created from a singe cell organism out in the wild. How could the first humans care for themselves? How could they protect themselves?

How do monkeys, some of our closest ancestors, survive in the wild?

They have their parents to guide them and protect them.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

I just cant believe or picture a bunch of humans being created from a singe cell organism out in the wild. How could the first humans care for themselves? How could they protect themselves?

How do monkeys, some of our closest ancestors, survive in the wild?

They have their parents to guide them and protect them.

Absolutely. And thus, technically, babies did not need the protection of god.

Also, at other earlier points on our evolutionary path, babies were made relatively self-sufficient to begin with. Eggs, often well-hidden from predators, provided the protection that parents did not in those times.

 

[ThatDude30]

I just cant believe or picture a bunch of humans being created from a singe cell organism out in the wild. How could the first humans care for themselves? How could they protect themselves?

How do monkeys, some of our closest ancestors, survive in the wild?

They have their parents to guide them and protect them.

Absolutely. And thus, technically, babies did not need the protection of god.

Also, at other earlier points on our evolutionary path, babies were made relatively self-sufficient to begin with. Eggs, often well-hidden from predators, provided the protection that parents did not in those times.

What about when the human babies began to crawl? Its not like we had wings like birds and have the ability to fly, or turtles that go straight for the water. Can you imagine a human baby hatching from an egg in the wild? I don't think they would have much luck surviving.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

The parenting time of kids in mammals considerably lengthens the further evolved a species is. As long as some form of guardian (of their own species, of course) is present, they'll grow up fine without dying. Generally human babies don't get released from their parents until they start screaming "IT'S NOT A PHASE MOM" over and over again.

 

[S.J.]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

That's not what I'm saying, idiot.

What are you saying then idiot? You are the one that made the claim.

Yeah, idiot? Where did I make the claim that religions don't believe in a higher power?

Who said you made a claim that religions dont believe in a higher power? I asked you what religions dont believe in a higher power idiot.

You're just too funny. But don't quit your janitorial job.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There's really no point of difference unless you believe Genesis is the almighty truth

If the Bible is the Word of God, then of course it is, you moron.

If it is a LIE (you say it's a lie), then God has abandoned us and left us NOTHING.

 

[ThatDude30]

Science does not say there is no God. The most it says is that there is no quantifiable evidence of God.

It is you that demands that one choose. I am not a Christian, but I do not say that there is absolutely no God. Why could God not have guided evolution? Why? Maybe because you want YOUR book to be perfectly factual?

And I never said that science said there is no god. I'm saying it contradicts the bibles version on how we were created

And given the sources, demanding that they are mutually exclusive is odd.

The Bible is not a history or science textbook. And there are things in the Bible that are scientifically impossible.

I know that. What does the rest of the bible have to do with my issue on the creation of human life? Then again god creating adam from the soil is scientifically impossible. But since science cant figure it out does not mean its impossible. Are some stories in the bible a little extreme?, Yes, but if there is a god anything is possible. You cant just believe or not believe solely based on science, there are things that science will never be able to prove, either by lacking technology or understanding, that actually exists and happens. Science can not prove why some creatures can live without oxygen, but their are.
You are trying way to hard my friend, this thread is based on my creative thinking and I was thinking outside the box. I am a thinker and I always analyze. I was just reading a thread posted About evolution being useless, and my mind started going. This is what was going through my head and if you cant understand I'm sorry that you don't have an open mind and cant think in other perspectives and only go by the book. There is no reason for you to act intelligent and demean my opinion, trying to shut down my creative thinking. If you don't agree with it that's cool. It was meant to be talked about with other people that think outside the box.

Prove that God create Adam from existing matter is impossible.
You're playing word games with a language you don't know and your credibility is sinking quickly.

The parenting time of kids in mammals considerably lengthens the further evolved a species is. As long as some form of guardian (of their own species, of course) is present, they'll grow up fine without dying. Generally human babies don't get released from their parents until they start screaming "IT'S NOT A PHASE MOM" over and over again.

Its hard for me to see a new born baby survive to an infant on its own.

 

[godsandmen]

Thinking about the OP, it misses the mark. The problem isn't science versus religion, or chickens or eggs, The problem is the bible versus the bible. THAT matters! More to come.

 

[ThatDude30]

Thinking about the OP, it misses the mark. The problem isn't science versus religion, or chickens or eggs, The problem is the bible versus the bible. THAT matters! More to come.

What problem does The Bible vs The Bible create in this thread? The Bible conflicts within itself doesn't have anything to do with The Bibles version on The creation of man vs Science version. Not comparing The whole bible to science, just on how human life was formed.
You are in the wrong discussion buddy, that's a whole different topic and discussion on its own.

 

[The Professor]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Please show me where the creation account contradicts science.

Use the verse(s) and no ad hominems.

Yes there are conflicts between the Bible and science.

The Book of Genesis cannot be used as evidence of Earth's creation. Contrary to popular belief, there is no single Creation account in Genesis; rather there are two separate creation accounts. The first creation story is told in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, and the second story is from Genesis 2:4-25. The problem is these two accounts contain multiple contradictions. The first major contradiction between these two stories involves the order of Creation.

According the First Chapter of Genesis, on day five the fishes and birdies were brought forth; and on day six all other creatures great and small were created, and then and only then were Adam and Eve created together. Here is how the Bible describes the creation of man on the sixth day:

“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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26, 27, KJV)

However, there is another creation account in the Second Chapter of Genesis which says that Adam was created first, then the animals, and finally Eve.:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.....And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:7, 8, 18-23

Now it is evident from the quoted scripture that God first created Adam, then the animals and finally Eve. The flow of the narrative leaves no doubt about the order of creation, It is logically and linguistically impossible to read the above verses and interpret the order of creation in any way other than this: First Adam, then the animals, then Eve.

The First Chapter of Genesis says Adam and Eve were created after the animals, but the Second Chapter of Genesis says that Adam was created before the animals and Eve was created after them. There are other contradictions between the two versions, such as Genesis 1:20 which says that birds and fowl were created out of the water and Genesis 2:19 which claims they were created out of the ground. This has caused many Christians to claim the Genesis accounts are not to be taken literally, but allegorically. Several denominations, including the Catholic Church do not believe in a literal translation.

Since there are two separate and contradictory Creation accounts, at least one must be wrong and in conflict with science. Another point of disagreement between the Bible and science is is that the first Creation account states the Earth and its inhabitants were created in six days. Science disagrees on this point as they should. Some Christian's argue that each day could be a thousand years or more. They rely on 2 Peter 3:8 which states “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (KJV). There are two serious flaws in this argument. First, the Bible was not written for God but for Man and to each man a day is one single complete rotation of Earth. Second, the Bible described a day as being a period of time embracing a single evening and a single morning. For example after God created the animals and the first pair of humans, the Bible says, “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” (KJV). Note: It is difficult to understand how the first three days could include an evening and a morning when the “lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night”” were not created until the fourth day (see Genesis 1 14-18).

Most Christians do not believe in a literal six-day Creation. Many Church leaders, including St. Augustine, one of the most respected early Christian Church Fathers believed everything was created all at once.

“In City of God, Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings. In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a literal interpretation of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omnia simul ("He created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.”

Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

Yes there are contradictions between science and the literal interpretation of the Bible. One of the most amazing things about Genesis is that no one has the slightest idea how Moses, the purported author of the Book, knew about the Creation. The Bible is complete silent regarding the source of the information.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Now it is evident from the quoted scripture that God first created Adam, then the animals and finally Eve. The flow of the narrative leaves no doubt about the order of creation

You cannot be this dense.

This is what happens when a hostile mind delves into the Scriptures. You're really twisting things buddy.

First of all, the Bible is NOT a science TEXTBOOK. It's a history book, a book of prophecy and INSTRUCTION for Mankind.

Second, you are SEVERELY twisting Scripture to come to this "conclusion."

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There are other contradictions between the two versions, such as Genesis 1:20 which says that birds and fowl were created out of the water and Genesis 2:19 which claims they were created out of the ground.

Gen 1:20 Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens

Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.


NO RATIONAL PERSON WILL TWIST THE SCRIPTURES AS YOU HAVE.

Now, get thee behind me Satan!

 

[gtopa1]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Please show me where the creation account contradicts science.
Use the verse(s) and no ad hominems.

Genesis says God made Adam from the soil. Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism

Ultimate cause: dirt.Edit: Sea dirt maybe? OK; ocean fluids with nutrients from dirt...or rock stuff.



Greg