How did life begin? (Earth, creation, God, science)

[linwood]

Now I will have to concede that the entire story of these fossils could indeed be a well conceived hoax as I have no actual evidence otherwise.

I choose to weigh the probability of that however.
There are hundreds of scientists working in different fields studying these fossils apparently independently coming to pretty much the same conclusions.
They aren`t always immediately coming to the same conclusions, they will publish their different theories on certain details and eventually one group will come to reject their original theory once another group or they themselves have shown it to be false.
This is why I have trust in science for the most part because I have often seen these professionals abandon ideas they had held and worked on and treasured for years once they have been proven false.
I also trust it for not so noble reasons.
Many of these scientists do indeed have other agendas and perhaps not so honest ones at times BUT the system of peer review keeps them all in line.
These guys are eager to publish their work because it is self promotion as well as educational, if they see another scientists work published that they KNOW is wrong they are quick to refute it even if for no other reason than it gets them published by the refutation.
The creationists mantra that the scientists work together to create a falsity cannot be farther from the truth.In reality the entire scientific systems only purpose is to refute what others find if they can.

This is what leads to correct evidence.

I understand your skepticism Mr.Emu but as Mr. Spinkles has asked, why do you not apply it to creationsim?

Creation science aside why don`t you apply it to the story of Genesis itself?
I am assuming you believe it if i`m wrong I apologise.

When I first read the Bible I got no further than the first two chapters of Genesis and realized I was reading two differing stories.

How could they both be "truth"?

[Mister Emu]

Science has already proved God's word wrong.

Where?

Creation science aside why don`t you apply it to the story of Genesis itself?

I know that God exists, I may not be able to prove to you, but I know He does. It never says in Genesis that God did not create the matter and start the big bang, so I believe that could be a possibility.

When I first read the Bible I got no further than the first two chapters of Genesis and realized I was reading two differing stories.

How could they both be "truth"?

Adam was created first. Man as a race was not created until woman, so humanity was finished last.

[destined]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Adam was created first. Man as a race was not created until woman, so humanity was finished last.

Man as a race was not created after Adam...it was created before.

First...Science has found human bones dating older than 5-6 thousand years old.
( I understand that this, in itself, may not sway your thinking)

Second...In the creation account it clearly states that Adam left his "father and mother" and clinged to his wife. (suprised?)

I will explain...
Hermenutical principal (how to interpret the Bible) teaches us that everthing
must be taken in context. In Genisis the story of the Man and Woman is going right along and the Church says that this story is LITERAL and not a form of symbolism...okay....if we agree with this then how do they justify this verse about "a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife" ??? Did the author decide to through a short sermonete in his description of Adam and Eves early days??? I don't think so Tim... We must conlude FROM CONTEXT that Adam did indeed have parents and thus was not the first human...

I will say this though... he was the first of his kind.... (anyone interested???)

CHECK THIS OUT...

The Bible states that Adam "walked upright before the Lord" interesting that it says "upright" could this be the difference between Adam and the rest of the pre-souled beings before him??? who knows???

[linwood]

Quote:
Science has already proved God's word wrong.


Where?

I just posted a listing of impossibilities and scientific falsities in another thread I believe you`re involved in.
You`ll see it.

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I know that God exists, I may not be able to prove to you, but I know He does. It never says in Genesis that God did not create the matter and start the big bang, so I believe that could be a possibility.

Thats fine I can accept that is what you believe but doesn`t it strike you as disingenuous to demand proof for various evolutionary happenings but not require any for the single focus of the theory you put forth?

Adam was created first. Man as a race was not created until woman, so humanity was finished last.

Actually thats not what Genesis says.
Genesis 1 says that man and woman were created together.
Genesisi 2 says Adam was created first then Eve much later.

I don`t really know what Destined is speaking of but I`ll re-read the chapters and see whats there...the concept sounds familiar.

[Mister Emu]

First...Science has found human bones dating older than 5-6 thousand years old.

Where did I say anything about 5-6 thousand years?

Second...In the creation account it clearly states that Adam left his "father and mother" and clinged to his wife.

Where?

if we agree with this then how do they justify this verse about "a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife" ???

I suppose you are talking about this.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh

I read this as, because man and woman were made of one flesh, then a man leaves his father and mother to cleave to the woman and again become one flesh.

I will say this though... he was the first of his kind

If you mean the first man than yes Adam was the first of his kind. Man = Homo Sapien Sapien our species.

Thats fine I can accept that is what you believe but doesn`t it strike you as disingenuous to demand proof for various evolutionary happenings but not require any for the single focus of the theory you put forth?

I do have proof it is just not observable you cannot observe that when I ask God pain goes away, you cannot observe the knowledge that God is inside you.

Science is based on observation thus I demand unquestionable observations to believe it.

Actually thats not what Genesis says.
Genesis 1 says that man and woman were created together.
Genesisi 2 says Adam was created first then Eve much later.

Actually, Genesis 1 says about the creation of humanity.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If you note at first man is a "him" then there is man and woman "them".

Another interpretation is that Man Adam was created and put in the garden(after all the other animals were created) and when God saw he was lonely he made more of the animals, this inside the garden, this is when Adam named them all to his liking, but was still lonely so God put him to sleep and made woman. This is all on the sixth day.

[linwood]

I do have proof it is just not observable you cannot observe that when I ask God pain goes away, you cannot observe the knowledge that God is inside you.

Science is based on observation thus I demand unquestionable observations to believe it.

That too is unfair Mr.Emu
You attempt to reconcile the two (evolution & creation) yet you do not judge them by the same standards.

It`s not what standards each idea is judged by seperately that counts.
If you are going to compare the two you must use the same single standard for the entire comparison or you cannot possibly come up with a believable conclusion.

When comparing evolution to creationsim by scientific standards creationism doesn`t hold up.

But...

When comparing evolution to creationsim by spiritual standards they both hold up because I don`t have to submit evidence for evolution I can simply say "I do have proof it is just not observable "

Of course the Pink Unicorn, Leprachauns, and Spiderman also hold up by spiritual standards.

Actually, Genesis 1 says about the creation of humanity.

If you note at first man is a "him" then there is man and woman "them".

Another interpretation is that Man Adam was created and put in the garden(after all the other animals were created) and when God saw he was lonely he made more of the animals, this inside the garden, this is when Adam named them all to his liking, but was still lonely so God put him to sleep and made woman. This is all on the sixth day.

Ok..for the sake of argument I`ll accept your interpretation of the creation of man in chapter 1 ( I don`t think it`s very strong however)

How do you reconcile the fact that the beasts you speak of were made before man in chapter one but after man in chapter 2.

The story you tell above isn`t the way it is stated in Genesis, You`ve combined the two to make it more believable at a glance but when you read each verse seperately (but in context) they cannot be reconciled.

Chapter 1
1:25
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.
1:26
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.
1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Chapter 2

2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19
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.

I notice in your interpretaion of creation you stated that God did make beast first but then made MORE because Adam was lonely.

But again thats not at all what is stated in scripture.
Noticed Gen 2:19 states that God made EVERY beast of the field and fowl of the air.
It doesn`t say he made MORE of them it says he made ALL of them..or EVERY one of them.
It even says he made EVERY in Gen 1 as well.
Which is it?

In Gen 1 God says he will make man in his image in order to have dominion over the beast birds and fish.
How can you have dominion over things that do not yet exist?

Yet in Gen 2 God says he will bring the beast forth from the ground so Adam can name them.
Why does he have to "bring them forth" if Adam already has dominion over them?

What you`ve done is twist the scripture Mr. Emu in order for it to correspond but careful analysis shows it can`t be done.

[Mister Emu]

That too is unfair Mr.Emu
You attempt to reconcile the two (evolution & creation) yet you do not judge them by the same standards.

It`s not what standards each idea is judged by seperately that counts.
If you are going to compare the two you must use the same single standard for the entire comparison or you cannot possibly come up with a believable conclusion.

When comparing evolution to creationsim by scientific standards creationism doesn`t hold up.

But...

When comparing evolution to creationsim by spiritual standards they both hold up because I don`t have to submit evidence for evolution I can simply say "I do have proof it is just not observable "

Some things are irreconcilable between science and religion that is a fact.

I do not claim Christianity to be a science, but as long as evolution is considered a science I will demand the unquestionable observable proof that science demands, if I make a scientific claim of any kind I will expect to need the same.

How do you reconcile the fact that the beasts you speak of were made before man in chapter one but after man in chapter 2.

In the above interpretation they were not made after in chap. 2.

The story you tell above isn`t the way it is stated in Genesis, You`ve combined the two to make it more believable at a glance but when you read each verse seperately (but in context) they cannot be reconciled.

So you, a person out to prove the Bible wrong, say.

I notice in your interpretaion of creation you stated that God di make beast first but then made MORE becasue Adam was lonely.

But again thats not at all what is stated in scripture.
Noticed Gen 2:19 states that God made EVERY beast of the field and fowl of the air.
It doesn`t say he made MORE of them it says he made ALL of them..or EVERY one of them.
It even says he made EVERY in Gen 1 as well.
Which is it?

I believe the "every" in gen 2:19 means something to the effect of "one of every" without giving an exact number

In Gen 1 God says he will make man in his image in order to have dominion over the beast birds and fish.
How can you have dominion over things that do not yet exist?

They did, and even if they didn't God knew he would create animals for Man to have dominion over.

Yet in Gen 2 God says he will bring the beast forth from the ground so Adam can name them.
Why does he have to "bring them forth" if Adam already has dominion over them?

Because Adam was alone in the garden of Eden, in monarchial countries a prince still reigns even if he has never seen his serfs.

What you`ve done is twist the scripture Mr. Emu in order for it to correspond but careful analysis shows it can`t be done

In your eyes, in mine I have presented two plausible ways to interpet the first two chapter regarding the order of creation.

[linwood]

Ok..so if you can indeed give the words of the Bible meanings that it does not itself state.

What worth does the book have as a proof of God?

I can find passages and arrange them in a way to make it look like Satan is behind the Bible in a massive attempt to mislead Christians.

What worth does it have if I can do this within your own standards?