Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 269
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    Huh?
    I wasn't even addressing your points on evolution, I was just providing some feedback and corrections to some of the statements you made. I definitely do not claim that evolution is a watertight theory and I certainly agree that there is still much to be learned.
    Sorry then....my mistanding.....then I agree with you!

    Thanks for your feedback on the points I share though!

    To be truthful my answer was actually pointed toward the wrong person. I was talking to one of my friends and he was going off on how solid of a theory evolution is, he was still stuck in my head and I guess I just added my answer to him with my response to you. I have also seen some posts on this thread relate the how solid the theory of evolution is to the theory of gravity, etc.... trying to make a point somewhere along the lines that it is rock solid and as close to fact as one can get.....as it is now.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/12/2005 at 03:36 PM.
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The second point I made earlier is that you have to look at who he is talking to when. If you were talking to someone from 1500 BC...
    I guess I still would not tell him that plants came first and then the sun and the moon, given I wanted to tell how earth started and how life on earth developed.

    I don't think the Genesis works as an account about the development of earth and life on earth. I guess also most Christians would agree that the sun was already shining for quite a while when the first plants started growing.

    But I also don't think it should be of major importance for Christians that Genesis does not describe how life on earth started. Aren't other parts of the bible (namely the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus) much more important?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    But I also don't think it should be of major importance for Christians that Genesis does not describe how life on earth started. Aren't other parts of the bible (namely the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus) much more important?
    Yes....the teaching of the gospel, eternal salvation, and the divinity of Christ are among the most important reasons we have the scriptures.
  4. #224  
    In 65 million years, according to the theory of evolution, every mammal that we see today (over 4,000 species) evolved from small, four-legged creatures like Didelphodon. Through random mutations and natural selection, evolution has produced mammals of striking diversity from that humble starting point:

    Humans, Dogs, Moles, Bats, Whales, Elephants, Giraffes, Panda bears , Horses, etc...

    Evolution has created thousands of different species that range in size and shape from a small brown bat that weighs a few grams to a blue whale that is nearly 100 feet (30.5 m) long.
    sorry to say this Hobbes, but Carl Sagan is kinda dated (I used to love his books/shows tho!).
    Lots of new groundwork (neodarwinian synthesis) has been laid in evolutionary biology in the past 40 years - perhaps the best reading is from Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard. The neodarwinian synthesis no longer proposes a steady and linear evolution - instead the current paradigm is "punctuated equilibrium" - where there is evidence of several periods of rapid evolutionary changes followed by periods of stasis. There are several factors that can trigger these period shifts - geographic isolation (say a land mass breaks away from the continent), abrupt climatic shifts, extinction of certain other species in the food chain ...and so on.

    The other examples you have pointed out, about embryonic development, is the available "plasticity" in the gene pool - in other words - how "much" can a particular species evolve? For example - it is far easier for a condor to evolve fairly easily into a flightless bird like the dodo. The basic genetic blueprint already exists and can be "stretched" quite rapidly. All that is needed is a simple genetic instruction of "more of the same": for example, more muscles in the legs can easily lead to faster animal. And this is a central theme in evolutionary biology - it is far easier to imagine that a few chance mutations in the control (or switching) genes can create a new phenotype rather than a whole lot of mutations in the individual functional genes.

    As for the human eye (another tired old example of "intelligent design") - remember Darwin proposed his arguments 150 years ago! He didn't even know about genetics and yet he was able to brilliantly theorize about a mechanism for inheritance of traits. Here is an abbreviated version of the current explanation for the evolution of the human eye:
    Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

    Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

    In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
    and furthermore the human eye isn't even the best eye - for example the blood vessels run across the retina instead of underneath it - and it is easy for these blood vessels to break or leak and impair vision. Furthermore it is very easy for a human eyes to be out of focus (scientists estimate that the number of people that need vision correction goes up exponentially with every generation) - after all there is no longer any evolutionary pressure to have 20/20 vision. So the "intelligent design" of the human eye is really more of a botched design - a squid's eye is far more perfectly "designed" (it evolved independently from those of humans).
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess I still would not tell him that plants came first and then the sun and the moon, given I wanted to tell how earth started and how life on earth developed.

    I don't think the Genesis works as an account about the development of earth and life on earth. I guess also most Christians would agree that the sun was already shining for quite a while when the first plants started growing.
    Okay, I will bite........He didn't say it that way. Let me explain how it is written with comments of my personal point of view.

    Again, you know how I view things. That for the most part, God does use natural means to accomplish his goals. That each day is an unknown time frame. I do not see any major issues with the account of genius given my points above (with the intent in mind and remembering who and when it was given) with the theory of evolution. Again this is only one man's, mine, opinions and insights:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genius The First Book Of Moses KJV
    1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    The sun is created at this time.

    6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    How would a cosmic cloud look to a 1500 BC audience? The earth takes it's shape.

    9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

    11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    Now we have life beginning to take a hold on the earth. It is also interesting that he said let the waters be gathered together in one place, given the hint that there was in the beginning only one land mass, which we know to be true.

    14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    This where a lot of confusion comes in for a lot of people. I find it very interesting that he mentions that the two sources of light, the Sun and The Moon are now all of a sudden working together, and that they are marking the seasons now....and that these events hint of being related within the same time period of this day. Have you ever heard of the theories of how we got our moon? Or how the earth become tilted on it's axis to give us our seasons? There are several in the scientific world.

    One is that the earth captured the moon as it flew by. When this happened, the earth was adjusted on it's axis and seasons either changed or were created....greatly changing the development of life.

    Another is that another smaller planet, collided with the earth and the debris from that massive event formed rings around the earth and the eventually formed our moon. Again changing or creating seasons from the impact and the growing gravity of the moon.

    On a side note is the theory of what would have happened if the earth was not tilted on it's axis and did not have a moon. It is amazing how many life forms a totally dependent on the tides and the seasons that never would have survived or even developed without them.

    The point is something happened in our history to tilt the earth and give us our moon. There are probably half a million different theories. But almost all agree that something did happen to give us our moon and tilt the earth. And that both of these factors have a HUGE impact on the development of life on our planet to make the world we know today.

    This is again when I feel that God can control the environment to further the plan of the creation of the earth to the next step.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    Now animals are coming about. It is interesting that it does stress life in the sea before the land.

    24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    More complex life develops. Now the stage is set for man to arrive.


    Again given what we have and what we don't have on BOTH sides of the issue, I can see that we are still on our way to learning how they all work together.

    Now did Moses see every step in the evolution? I doubt it, it was not relevant to why he was being shown it and I think God didn't want to blow Moses' mind with too much. Are there gaps in this account? Sure. For the same reasons. But I also don't disregard the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't explain how everything happenned and that it has gaps in it too.

    But, given the relative young field of evolution studies, God trying to explain such a complex process to, in essence, a scientific mind of a child that lived in 1500 BC in a totally different culture, understanding that we do not have the original scripts to verify exact wording after several translations had already taken place, could this possibly represent a 1500 BC representation of the evolutionary theory? Is there even the most remote possibility that it could have happened this way?

    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/12/2005 at 05:08 PM.
  6. #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    sorry to say this Hobbes....
    Chilling....there were just points (and I admited probably not the best ones) showing the theory of evolution is still evolving. In fact your answers to these questions (with some of the questions only raised in the last 10-20 years) proves that our understanding of the evolution is still evolving.

    Again, I was not attacking but posing questions, as science dictate that we should. Now we have new answers to these questions, what are going to be revised again with later discoveries or lead to other questions and new discoveries that we have to fit in the evolutionary theory.

    There are questions and gaps that can be reasoned, but have yet to be confirmed or fully understood. Are we still not learning about this process everyday with new discoveries? That was my only point.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/12/2005 at 05:13 PM.
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess I still would not tell him that plants came first and then the sun and the moon, given I wanted to tell how earth started and how life on earth developed.

    I don't think the Genesis works as an account about the development of earth and life on earth. I guess also most Christians would agree that the sun was already shining for quite a while when the first plants started growing.

    But I also don't think it should be of major importance for Christians that Genesis does not describe how life on earth started. Aren't other parts of the bible (namely the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus) much more important?
    I understand you still have a hard time accepting this but it is pretty clear in reading the text of Genesis.

    Light, then plants (Day 3), then sun (Day 4)

    Even if you don't accept that the light was sufficient for the plants (I don't know if it was, but I know it came first), you'd have to concede that plants do OK for a day without sunlight.

    So, to answer your point: For Christians to agree that the sun came before plants is to admit that the Bible is wrong. Upon thinking I'm right and the Bible's wrong, I'm working on a personal religion. Not a good path...

    Is that the most important part of the Bible? You'd then have to ask which parts do we (as humans) think are correct and which are not. I don't think it's for us to say. I think it's all pretty important.

    While I'm a fervent believer in using Science to help explain God's world, I'll drop Science like a bad habit when it contradicts God's clear teachings. Where does it do that? Not really sure. I'm just sure that God is right (not my or some group's understanding of him) and everything else should come second.

    Clulup, we'll have to agree to disagree, but that will mean that you can't assume to speak for other folks.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  8. #228  
    IMHO, it would be arrogant and counter productive to claim that the theory of evolution, as it stands now with ONLY the knowledge we have today is complete and can fully answer all questions of how life began and actually accounted for all steps of theory of evolution. We are still learning. And who knows, when we find the answers to some of these yet to be answered questions, we may have to rethink, redefine, or even replace the theory of evolution.
    I agree - it would be arrogant to proclaim anything in science as absolute knowledge. However, with all the available facts today, evolution is the best explanation for how life on earth got here.

    Here is a question - when you question evolutionary biology - would you have the same level of skepticism about Newton's theory of gravitation? If no, why not? Are there not holes in the theory of gravitational forces?
    To this day physicists have not been able to establish a comprehensive theory (known as GUT: Grand Unification Theory) that accounts for all four basic forces of nature - weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Integrating the force of gravity has proved to be hardest - for an entire generation of physicists going back to Einstein. Even measuring gravitional waves is extremely hard and has not been conclusively proven. But nobody has ever proposed an "intelligent design" theory for gravity nor is it being forced into to the school curriculum. Why not? Why does everybody blindly accept the theories of gravity when there is still so much to be explained?
    I would challenge anyone who questions evolutionary biology to give a rational explantion why they accept gravitational theory without question.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    I agree - it would be arrogant to proclaim anything in science as absolute knowledge. However, with all the available facts today, evolution is the best explanation for how life on earth got here.
    I agreed with that in all my posts above. And the key is "available facts today" and "best explanation" hinting that we are still learning....which is the only point I was making. More discoveries are coming and some may change our whole view on evolution....or they continue to strengthen our current understanding of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Here is a question - when you question evolutionary biology - would you have the same level of skepticism about Newton's theory of gravitation? If no, why not? Are there not holes in the theory of gravitational forces?
    To this day physicists have not been able to establish a comprehensive theory (known as GUT: Grand Unification Theory) that accounts for all four basic forces of nature - weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Integrating the force of gravity has proved to be hardest - for an entire generation of physicists going back to Einstein. Even measuring gravitional waves is extremely hard and has not been conclusively proven. But nobody has ever proposed an "intelligent design" theory for gravity nor is it being forced into to the school curriculum. Why not? Why does everybody blindly accept the theories of gravity when there is still so much to be explained?
    I would challenge anyone who questions evolutionary biology to give a rational explantion why they accept gravitational theory without question.
    What ever gave you the idea that I accept any scientific theory as absolute truth? When did ever say that God has shared all the answers to every aspect or field in science? Science is always evolving, always learning, always asking questions, always making new discoveries, and (hopefully) always revising their theories accordingly. I have stated over and over and over again that scientific theories are always evolving. Which, again, you proved nicely a couple posts up when responding to some questions that have been asked about evolution.

    One reason I have not brought up a Divine Design for gravity is because I didn't think we were talking about that on this thread.....another is simply because God had not jumped into that discusion with his role in the forces of gravity. I don't feel qualified to speak in his behalf, but I don't doubt that He used it when He create the earth, as we have it now...which is evident since my bum is in my chair and my head is not on the cieling. Once we learn His point of view, then I might be able to weigh in with my opinion.

    But, believe me, when I have to chase my 3 yr old 400 ft in the air bacause his feet won't obey the theory of gravity...I will be asking some serious questions. But for now, I am always interested in what science is going to find out about the realities of gravity and what we might be able to do with that knew, yet to be obtained knowledge.

    In fact if you have some cool new studies on it post in my thread I started:

    COOL SCIENCE
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=89831


    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/05/2005 at 04:09 PM.
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I understand you still have a hard time accepting this but it is pretty clear in reading the text of Genesis.

    Light, then plants (Day 3), then sun (Day 4)

    Even if you don't accept that the light was sufficient for the plants (I don't know if it was, but I know it came first), you'd have to concede that plants do OK for a day without sunlight.
    "It is pretty clear in reading the text of Genesis"? I agree with you that the sequence described in Genesis 1 is plants, then sun. HobbesIsReal disagrees with this, he says the bible means sun before plants. His interpretation has the advantage that it fits to reality as everybody actually studying these things finds it: Big Bang, matter, suns, planets, moon, early stages of life, eventually bacteria, animals, plants...

    You say the bible is right based on your belief that the bible is right. I say the bible is wrong about the sequence of events in Genesis (e.g. plants before sun, but also other things) based on tons of scientific evidence, evidence gathered by methods which have been shown to work extremely well in many fields. If those methods were wrong, e.g. modern medicine would not work, and neither would our Treos. But since e.g. modern medicine works, as we all know, and also our Treos (in principle ) and many other things based on scientific discoveries we use in everyday life, I tend to trust scientific results more than mere beliefs.

    If god would not have wanted us to learn these things about nature, why would he have given us a brain to make these discoveries (assuming there is a god)?

    The sequence of events in Genesis 2 is totally different from the one in Genesis 1. Many theologians say there are two accounts in one book. Maybe god wanted us to note the contradictions and find out how it really was?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #231  
    I agreed with that in all my posts above. And the key is "available facts today" and "best explanation" hinting that we are still learning....which is the only point I was making. More discoveries are coming and some may change our whole view on evolution....or they continue to strengthen our current understanding of it.
    we're on the same wavelength

    What ever gave you the idea that I accept any scientific theory as absolute truth? When did ever say that God has shared all the answers to every aspect or field in science? Science is always evolving, always learning, always asking questions, always making new discoveries, and (hopefully) always revising their theories accordingly.
    mea culpa - I misunderstood - but again we agree

    One reason I have not brought up a Divine Design for gravity is simply because God had not jumped into that discusion with his role in the forces of gravity. I don't feel qualified to speak in his behalf, but I don't doubt that He used it when He create the earth, as we have it now...which is evident since my bum is in my chair and my head is not on the cieling. Once we learn His point of view, then I might be able to weigh in with my opinion.
    again sorry - I was going off on a tangent perhaps. The only point I was trying to make was that if anyone challenges evolutionary biology on the basis of scientific credibility - then in principle the same situation would apply to the theory of gravity - regardless of theological considerations.

    Cheers - and have a nice evening!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    "It is pretty clear in reading the text of Genesis"? I agree with you that the sequence described in Genesis 1 is plants, then sun. HobbesIsReal disagrees with this, he says the bible means sun before plants. His interpretation has the advantage that it fits to reality as everybody actually studying these things finds it: Big Bang, matter, suns, planets, moon, early stages of life, eventually bacteria, animals, plants...
    The first step he took was to provide light. What provides light? Certainly not....not having a sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    If god would not have wanted us to learn these things about nature, why would he have given us a brain to make these discoveries (assuming there is a god)?
    I believe that God not only gave us the ability to learn and gain knowledge but also encourages us to seek knowledge of all things.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The sequence of events in Genesis 2 is totally different from the one in Genesis 1. Many theologians say there are two accounts in one book. Maybe god wanted us to note the contradictions and find out how it really was?
    You may be right. I have read through and study this account several times over. I have read a lot opinions on it. But I really do believe that the very brief account in Genesis 2 is just a recap as an intro into introducing Adam. You know kind of like a "Previous on..." intro to a show each week. It is common in literature from this culture to repeat and review important events, both in detail and also in general. There has already been a lot of discussion on this issue several pages back.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/12/2005 at 06:59 PM.
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    we're on the same wavelength

    mea culpa - I misunderstood - but again we agree

    again sorry - I was going off on a tangent perhaps. The only point I was trying to make was that if anyone challenges evolutionary biology on the basis of scientific credibility - then in principle the same situation would apply to the theory of gravity - regardless of theological considerations.

    Cheers - and have a nice evening!
    No apologizes necessary.....

    (sniff) I just love it when we come together on important issues like this. (wipe away tear)
  14. #234  
    Friend Clulup,

    You've stated before that there are contradictions between Gen 1 and 2. Granted, you've stated that there are lots of contradictions throughout the Bible.

    Could you point out, from your perspective, where Gen 1 and 2 are in conflict? I'm not even putting on my "faith hat" to read them. I just want to use the standard tools of debate and English usage (or any other agreed-upon secular rule you can think of) to understand why you see what you do.

    Thanks!

    Oh, for what it's worth, I was wrong in my previous post. As I'm a stickler for what the Bible says over what I think it means...

    Instead of: Light, plants, sun
    I should have written: Light, (grass, herb, tree), greater and lesser lights

    I think it's safe to call (grass, herb, tree) plants and I can see the greater light as the sun while the lesser light is the moon. Those two were described by what they do. Light wasn't given as much defintion.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Could you point out, from your perspective, where Gen 1 and 2 are in conflict? I'm not even putting on my "faith hat" to read them. I just want to use the standard tools of debate and English usage (or any other agreed-upon secular rule you can think of) to understand why you see what you do.
    Here's what I quoted about this before (http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bible.html):
    "[The] first version of the creation story [Genesis 1] always refers to the creator as God {Elohim} - thirty-five times. The second version [Genesis 2] always refers to him by his name, Yahweh God {Yahweh Elohim} - eleven times. The first version never calls him Yahweh; the second version never calls him God. Later comes the story of the great flood and Noah's ark, and it, too, can be separated into two complete versions that sometimes duplicate each other and sometimes contradict each other. And, again, one version always calls the deity God, and the other version always calls him Yahweh. There are two versions of the story of the convenant between the deity and Abraham. And, once again, in one the deity introduces himself as Yahweh, and in one he introduces himself as God. And so on."

    When reading what is actually written in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, it seems quite clear to me that these are two different accounts of how supposedly earth was created.

    The alternative version of Genesis starts in Genesis 2:6:
    6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
    7And 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.
    In this account man (Adam) is made first, not last. You can tell that he was made first because god was worried about Adam being alone. Only THEN god created animals:
    18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    19And 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.
    If god made animals before man, as described in Genesis 1, how comes Adam is alone in Genesis 2, and god changes this by creating animals? But not all is well yet: "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Only then, LAST, "woman" (not Eve according to the King James Version) is created from a rib of Adam:
    21And 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;
    22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    23And 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.
    I guess nobody would call these two accounts free of contradictions, when looking at them with an unbiased mind.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #236  
    I'd like to start by stating your case to your satisfaction. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

    I believe that you think the first two chapters show two creation stories. The first one complete and the second one only covering plants, man, and animals (and in different orders). Therefore, the two stories are contradictory.

    Core question: Did I state your argument accurately?

    For the reasons I've stated before, I'll stick to the KJV for this explanation.

    I think we're in agreement that Gen 1 shows creation sequentially: Light on Day 1, Plants on Day 3, Water Animals on Day 5, Land Animals and Man on Day 6. Gen 2 smoothly continues this sequence by explaining that God rested on the seventh day. The creation sequence ends with Gen 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

    I'll pause for a moment here because I think we're in agreement that from the beginning of the book until Gen 2:3, the author is pretty clear with the order of things.

    Question 1: Do we agree here?

    Now, you contend that following Gen 2:3, the story is repeated (partially) but out of order from the previous version.

    Question 2: Do I understand you here?

    Here are the next three sentences following Gen 2:3:
    Gen 2:4-7
    These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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.
    Given that these sentences come right after the previous creation story, the first phrase seems to clearly summarize what was just described. Then, it goes on to explain that the plants and herbs were in the earth before they grew for two reasons: no rain and no man. Now that the "problem" had been identified (Plants in earth but no rain or man) the "solution" comes in the next two sentences (Mist and Man).

    Conclusion on this part: Again, I think we're in agreement that the "Plant then man" order is not broken here.

    Question 3: Do we agree that the "Plant then man" order is still intact?

    Next: Adam and being alone

    This will be a good example of why I read the KJV. The version you quoted omitted some key information.
    Gen 2:18-20
    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.
    Adam was a lone man. He was alone. If I were to stand shipwrecked on a desert island with birds flying by and monkeys in the trees, I would sure feel alone. Adam did not have a help worthy (meet) for him, God would have to make one worthy for him. Of all of the animals that God created, none were worthy.

    Question 4: Is a single man, even with animals around, alone?

    Now, at this point, you may be suggesting that a understandable reading of this would be: God made (Act 1) man and then realized he had to make (Act 2) a helper. He then tried making a helper out of animals (Act 2) but that didn't work. He must have failed in this second act of creation so he had to try again. Would this be your understanding?

    If so, does that fit with any depiction of God in the Bible? God tried to do something but it didn't work so he tried again. I think that would be inconsistent with the rest of the writings. THAT would be a contradiction.

    Question 5: Have you found the only instance of God admitting to a failure?

    In keeping with the theme of the writing and the characters, I think we see that 18-20 is not a creation sequence as clearly shown in Gen 1 but a narrative to explain why 21-23 was necessary.

    Since Adam still needed a help worthy for him, God created woman.
    Gen 2:21-23
    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.
    She's called Woman here in the KJV, too. Adam doesn't call her Eve until Gen 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

    I think we're in agreement that the first creation story sets the stage with a sequential progression. Next, we have the "Plants in earth but no rain or man. God uses mist and creates man"-segment. After that, we have the "Man is alone and he needs a help worth for him. Animals weren't worthy. God created Woman"-segment. This is my open-minded reading of a literary narrative. I still don't see the contradictions that you claim are so clear.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  17. #237  
    AlaskanDad just gave a detailed answer to my general comments on this topic, which is very similar to what I was going to respond with.

    You may also be trying to read it from a 21st Century literature perspective. There are several points of cultural literature styles, traditions, oratory narration, pacing that play an important role in this, which some have already been brought up throughout this long thread several times over.
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I'd like to start by stating your case to your satisfaction. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

    I believe that you think the first two chapters show two creation stories. The first one complete and the second one only covering plants, man, and animals (and in different orders). Therefore, the two stories are contradictory.

    Core question: Did I state your argument accurately?
    Not quite. The two accounts can be identified as such because they are repetitive, and because god is referred to with different terms. In Genesis 1 and up to Genesis 2:3, he is called "God" without exception. Then, all of a sudden, he is "LORD God" all the time without exception, starting in Genesis 2:4, and, at the same time, a new description of the sequence of events starts. Striking, isn't it?

    The accounts are contradictory because they show a different sequence of events. In Genesis 2:4 (ff) Adam comes first, he is alone, then god creates e.g. animals, and later Woman. In Genesis 1, man and woman are created together on day six.
    For the reasons I've stated before, I'll stick to the KJV for this explanation.
    I quoted the King James Version from www.biblegateway.com. Since you do not agree with that version, there must be different version of the King James Version.
    I'll pause for a moment here because I think we're in agreement that from the beginning of the book until Gen 2:3, the author is pretty clear with the order of things.

    Question 1: Do we agree here?
    I guess so.

    Now, you contend that following Gen 2:3, the story is repeated (partially) but out of order from the previous version.

    Question 2: Do I understand you here?
    The new version starts at Genesis 2:4, when god isn't God, but LORD God.
    Here are the next three sentences following Gen 2:3:
    Given that these sentences come right after the previous creation story, the first phrase seems to clearly summarize what was just described. Then, it goes on to explain that the plants and herbs were in the earth before they grew for two reasons: no rain and no man. Now that the "problem" had been identified (Plants in earth but no rain or man) the "solution" comes in the next two sentences (Mist and Man).

    Conclusion on this part: Again, I think we're in agreement that the "Plant then man" order is not broken here.

    Question 3: Do we agree that the "Plant then man" order is still intact?
    Up to Genesis 2:3 yes.
    Next: Adam and being alone

    This will be a good example of why I read the KJV. The version you quoted omitted some key information.
    That's not possible because I quoted from a KJV version.
    Question 4: Is a single man, even with animals around, alone?
    The bible says
    "18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    So judging from that, Adam was alone. Then god made animals,
    "19And 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."

    But still:
    "20... for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

    So then LORD God created Woman.
    Now, at this point, you may be suggesting that a understandable reading of this would be: God made (Act 1) man and then realized he had to make (Act 2) a helper. He then tried making a helper out of animals (Act 2) but that didn't work. He must have failed in this second act of creation so he had to try again. Would this be your understanding?

    If so, does that fit with any depiction of God in the Bible? God tried to do something but it didn't work so he tried again. I think that would be inconsistent with the rest of the writings. THAT would be a contradiction.

    Question 5: Have you found the only instance of God admitting to a failure?
    I don't think so. Remember the story of Noah and the flood? God killed almost everybody and started over, according to the bible. Granted, it may have been part of the original plan to send a flood and have only Noah's family survive, but at least in my view, that's sounds a lot like a restart.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #239  
    Wow, I missed the boat on that one! According to your post, written passages are contradictory when they use multiple names for the same character and are repetitious.

    Let me warn you against the NY Times then. It has contradictions all over the place. Here's an example:
    From today's NY Times
    WASHINGTON, July 13 - President Bush parried questions about Karl Rove today, insisting that he will not comment about his trusted adviser until the conclusion of an investigation into the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative.

    I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation," Mr. Bush said, as Democrats continued to press their attack. "I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports." The president added, "I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

    Mr. Bush spoke in a brief question-and-answer session after a Cabinet meeting. He was asked whether he had spoken with Mr. Rove, his deputy chief of staff, about the episode, and whether he thought Mr. Rove had behaved properly.
    The above excerpt must be dismissed as contradictory due to your stated rules: several names for a given character and repetition.
    Multiple names:
    The article refers to President George W. Bush as:
    President Bush
    Mr. Bush
    The president (should be the President)
    ...and it refers to Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, as:
    Karl Rove
    Mr. Rove
    Repetition:
    "President Bush parried questions"
    "Mr. Bush said"
    "The president added"
    "Mr. Bush spoke"

    I've got to hand it to you (and the author of that personal website you had quoted): you've created a brand-new rule for reading standard English. Contradiction can be identified through multiple names and repetition.

    I was hoping we could have this discussion using commonly accepted rules of understanding. Instead, you make up your own.


    On the KJV: Thank you for posting your source. I realized that the problem wasn't with the version of the Bible you were using (that was dead on, there's only one KJV), instead YOU were the one who omitted words in your post. You left out "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." from your original quote.

    Now, for your explanation of what is a sequential passage. First, the author is clear about establishing rules for listing things in succession (Day 1 through Day 7; you've agreed to that). Then, according to your reasoning, the author abandons this convention and adapts a new one.

    This seems to be a paraphrase of how you believe the author wrote Gen 1 & 2:
    - Heaven, Earth, Day, Night created on Day 1
    - Firmament created on Day 2
    - Dry land, Seas, Plants created on Day 3
    - Sun, Moon created on Day 4
    - Sea animals, Birds created on Day 5
    - Land animals, Man created on Day 6
    - God rested on Day 7
    (Editor's note: Now that we just described how everything was created and it's fresh in our memory, let's start over and say it again.)
    - Some completely different God created plants (Editor's note: didn't we already cover plants? Will anyone notice if we add "LORD" before God's name? Darn it! We forgot to re-mention the creation of Heaven, Earth, Day, Night, Firmament, Dry land, and Seas. Oh well, no one with a closed mind will notice.)
    - The previously mentioned, different God created Man (Editor's note: Shoot! We skipped past the Sun, Moon, Sea animals, Birds, and Land animals like we wrote about earlier. No worry. We'll just play catch up next.)
    - Previously identified second God created animals (Editor's note: I think we might have forgotten the order of our story from a few sentences ago. It's not important.)
    - Same God created Woman.

    This has got to be the worst group of literary editors anywhere. They obviously didn't care about continuity and couldn't keep a theme together for a few sentences. They also had no problem presenting their sloppy work to King James. I'm sure you can find lots of examples in enduring English Literature where continuity breaks up like this right from the beginning.


    I showed up to this discussion only armed with an understanding of standard English usage. I've never applied my faith at all (e.g. "I believe that God meant..."). Your analysis fails miserably on the grounds of poor reading comprehension.
    Simple parallel example without any faith-based issues:
    Mike was lonely. His friend, Bill, decided to find him a girlfriend. Susan was born the only girl in a family of five boys. She grew up as quite a tomboy. Bill set up Mike and Susan on a date. Mike never like tomboys. Bill had to find another girl for Mike.
    Effectively, your response to this passage would be: This is horrible! Susan was born after Bill decided to find Mike a girlfriend. Mike was dating a baby!


    I'm afraid that this will have to end my discussion with you. You appear unable to leave your belief-system behind when evaluating literary passages. It is obvious that neither of us will make any headway here.

    I wish you well.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Wow, I missed the boat on that one! According to your post, written passages are contradictory when they use multiple names for the same character and are repetitious.
    No, that's not what I meant. The use of different terms for god (God vs. LORD God in KJV) shows where different sources of the bible were put together. That is not a contradiction, just indication for different sources, in my view. The contradictions stem from the content.

    For instance in Genesis 6, "God" asks Noah to take two of each kind into the ark (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=6&version=9):
    13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (...)

    19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

    20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. ...
    Then, in Genesis 7, there is a switch from "God" to "LORD" again, and this time, LORD asks Noah to take seven of each kind (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...07;&version=9;):
    1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

    2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

    3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
    Ok, maybe you say the LORD said "seven of all clean beasts" (and two of the rest?), but in the case of fowls (birds), it seems unambiguous that Noah is to take two in Gen 6 and seven in Gen 7. What do you think, did Noah have seven or two of each fowl or bird spiecies?

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying God and the LORD are not meant to be the same, I just think there are two different versions of the story. That doesn't mean the story or the bible in general must be totally wrong, it just means that not all of it is meant to be taken literally. If the intention would have been that the bible is to be taken literally, I think such discrepancies would have been removed. I think the bible is more "open" and less "fundamentalistic" than many believe.
    Last edited by clulup; 07/14/2005 at 04:12 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions