The creation of the universe and all it contains.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
The creation of the universe and all it contains.
Rhetoric is not evidence. How much water is available and how much was in the canopy?
They are not lying if that is what they believe. You have no scientific evidence the earth is billions of years old. This show you don't understand radio metric dating.
our experts, including Gould say you don't.
It is not . You need to show how it is genetically possible.
It is not a lie unless you can show it was taken out of context. This is the usual pathetic reply I get when I post a comment from an evolutionist that refutes evolution.
No you don't. Because it is necessary to try and prove evolution, you call distinct and separate species intermediates. If you want to call something a lie, start thee.
Again teh usual complaint about evolutionists casting doubt on the theory.
He was not, he was basically saying there are not intermediate fossils.
He was more than an advocate, He and Eldridge invented the model, which is eved more absurd than the old belief and you have no evidence that was long periods of time in stasis and even if there was, stasis is not a mechanism for a change of species.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that statement.
Now you are speaking from your . I did accept evolution when I was a junior in high school and at that time I was not a Christian.
I h ave been listening to those much more qualified in science than you are, and you have accepted opinions as evidence. That means you do not understand scientific evidence.
Give me a better explanation.
You haven't provided any evidence yet.
None of you links had any evidence. It was the usual evo talking points. Now is you chance to show I am wrong. Go to you post and cut and paste the evidence they offered.
I just got my crystal back from being re-calibrated and it says, you will not cut and paste what your links offered as evidence.
Since the canopy is dynamically impossible, there was no water there.
On the contrary, I bet I understand it a great deal better than you do. One of my specialties is physics, especially nuclear physics.
And yes, there is a great deal of scientific evidence the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That you don't understand this oly shows you are unfamiliar with or don't understand the evidence.
Gould wrote quite a number of books. You might try reading one of them.
Actually, no we don't. We only need to show it happened. While the genetics would be quite interesting, it is likely we will never know them because the raw material (the DNA) isn't available.
But again, that isn't required to show evolution happened. What is required is showing a sequence of species going from eohippus to the modern equus. And that is exactly what we have (along with side branches and dead ends).
Do you really want me to track down the original quote? I have done so for many of those claimed by creationists and found that *uniformly* they are taken out of context and misrepresent what was really said.
Knowing what Gould has said is quite enough to convince me this quote is out of context.
Intermediates would be distinct species. That is a problem with your understanding, not with evolution, or the sequences that have been demonstrated.
No, it is a claim.
Sorry, but if you really think that Gould said that, then you simply don't understand what Gould said. Go read one of his books. How about 'The Panda's Thumb'. It might just open your eyes.
*sigh* he was talking about the patterns of change. The pattern is that there are long periods of stasis and rather shorter periods of quick change. he showed that with evidence from the fossil record.
Which statement? That there are sequences with gradual transitions? The horse sequence is a good one. That Gould did his work using the fossil record? Go look up his research.
And I suspect you understood it just as poorly as a high school student as you do now. The difference is that Morris, Hovind, and a few others have deluded you. Go do your own research at a library with actual journal articles and see who is lying.
And exactly why do you think I am unqualified in science? Maybe it's the PhD qualifying exams I have passed in physics? Or perhaps the discussions I have had with biologists concerning the stuff we have talked about? Or perhaps it is the research level articles I enjoy reading for fun? Or the PhD in mathematics I have?
Yes, I do understand the scientific evidence. For example, I could tell you quite a bit about how the dates for the age of the universe are obtained. I could talk for hours about the different methods of radioactive dating and their relative uses.
Exactly how much do *you* understand th scientific data, the scientific methods, and the history of the ideas we have been discussing and why science came to the conclusions it did?
I don't believe the sun was created on the fourth creative period. Rather, Genesis 1:1 reveals; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This includes the sun, moon, and stars, all created before the first day mentioned in verse 5. I believe what God did on the fourth creative day was to "put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness." (verses 17,18) God caused the Sun, moon, and stars to be visible in the atmospheric expanse. Prior to day 4, the diffused light of the sun apparently sufficed for plant growth during day 3.
I do not think Noah had to collect the animals. Rather Genesis 7:8,9 records: "Of every clean animal and of every animal that is not clean and of the flying creatures and of everything that moves on the ground, they went inside the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, just as God had commanded Noah." The true God would see to it his purpose was fulfilled by bringing the animals to Noah.
The ark had 3 decks and an estimated floor space of 96,000 sq. feet. I believe just as humankind with it's great variety descended from Noah and his wife, the great variety of animal species today could descend from a relatively small number of ancestor "kinds" that survived the flood.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You could have said: " I believe in the Tower of Babel because I have seen paleoanthropoligical research which suggests it was a real structure, in a real place, during a real period of History.." You also could have said "I believe in the Tower of Babel because there are secondary and tertiary sources which also refer to a similar structure, similar circumstances, and similar outcomes."
But you didn't...
You didn't say any of those things because they aren't true. So, at least you're honest.
There is a problem with the historicity of the Babel Myth in that those evidences simply do not exist. (If you want to claim that they do - you'll have to substantiate those claims here.) If the evidences existed, then more people would take the story seriously. But, again, they don't. That fact should lead you to certain conclusions.
First of all, you're lying in implying that you read those links. Which is unfortunate given that I just gave you credit for being honest in your first response.
Secondly, you chose the wrong person to attempt to call the bluff of...
"Teosintes are critical components of maize evolution, but opinions vary about which taxa were involved. According to the most widely held evolutionary model, the crop was derived directly from Z. m. parviglumis by selection of key mutations;[2] but in some varieties up to 20% of its genetic material came from Z. m. mexicana through introgression [3]
All but the Nicaraguan species of teosinte may grow in or very near corn fields, providing opportunities for introgression between teosinte and maize. First- and later-generation hybrids are often found in the fields, but the rate of gene exchange is quite low. Some populations of Z. m. mexicana display Vavilovian mimicry within cultivated maize fields, having evolved a maize-like form as a result of the farmers' selective weeding pressure. In some areas of Mexico, teosintes are regarded by maize farmers as a noxious weed, while in a few areas, farmers regard it as a beneficial companion plant, and encourage its introgression into their maize."
Doebley Lab
First, the oldest archaeological maize specimen to be "directly dated" has an age of 6,000 years ago (Pipierno and Flannery 2001). Direct dating involves getting a carbon-14 date for the actual maize specimen. Thus, maize domestication must have occurred at this time or earlier. Second, the earliest time for the domestication of any crops in Mexico is 10,000 years (Smith 1997) ago so maize domestication is unlikely to preceed this date. Third, molecular dating suggests that maize was domesticated about 9,000 years ago (Matsuoka et al. 2002), which is consistent with the archaeological evidence. Finally, there are "indirectly dated" maize specimens with an age of 9000 BP (Piperno et al. 2009). Indirect dating involves getting a carbon-14 date for material in archaeological association with a maize specimen but the maize specimen itself is not dated. Thus, there is an unproven inference that the date of the maize and the date of the associated material are the same. In one case, specimens of maize originally indirectly dated to 7500 BP were subsequently shown to be only 5500 BP by direct dating (Long et al. 1989). Thus, we can securely concluded that maize was domestication at least 6000 years ago, and it was likely as early as 9000 to 10,000 years ago.
How Did Corn Evolve?
"Have you ever wondered how corn evolved? After all, the seeds are all crammed together on the cob and wrapped tightly inside the thick husks. Seems impossible for the seeds to disperse without a human to peel the husks and separate the kernels.
Come to find out, corn, or maize, only exists in its modern form because of humans. Evidence from archaeological and genetic studies suggests that maize was bred and cultivated by early inhabitants of Mexico as early as ten thousand years ago. The early Mesoamericans managed to develop corn from its grassy ancestor by selective breeding. Maize was bred from a wild grain called teosinte.
Teosinte is so unlike modern corn that originally botanists didn’t think the two were even related. An ear of teosinte is only about three inches long, with just five to twelve kernels. Compare that to the corn we eat today, which can have over five-hundred kernels!"
Teosinte - Zea Diploperennis | Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds
"Teosinte is a beautiful plant that looks and behaves very much like corn, that is until it goes to tassel! It is one of the ancient forms of corn, and if you are interested in reliving crop history, it is a fun and wonderful crop to grow to inspire yourself. How this eventually became the corn that we know with thousands of landrace varieties is as perplexing as any mystery can be. Teosinte will flourish even in the North, but if your goal is to produce the unusual seed spikes, you will need to be in the South, as it just does not have time to set seed before frost in the North. Our plants in Connecticut grew almost 10 feet tall but started tasseling in late October, and the frost caught them after that. Teosinte will need at least 5-6 months of good weather to produce a crop and should do great everywhere in the South. The grains are actually edible, although a bit gritty because of the thick seed coat. They can be ground like other corn. We believe this to be “diploperennis,” but with further scrutiny think it could be another species of ancient corn!"
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/
"Ranere said that the studies confirmed that maize derived from teosinte, a large wild grass that has five species growing in Mexico, Guatemala and Nicaragua, The teosinte species that is closest to maize is Balsas teosinte, which is native to Mexico’s Central Balsas River Valley, he said in a news statement about the research.
“We went to the area where the closest relative to maize grows, looked for the earliest maize and found it,” Ranere said. “That wasn’t surprising since molecular biologists had determined that Balsas teosinte was the ancestral species to maize. So it made sense that this was where we would find the earliest domestication of maize.”
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Is the Raven by Edgar Allan Poe a myth or literally true?This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.
I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.
(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?
(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?
(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?
I've included this in the science and religion category so we could consider the scientific evidence that would support or refute either perspective.
Many people where I live (New Zealand) don't believe any of it, let alone being literally true. I don't live in the USA where many think differently.
I'm a Baha'i who believes in the same God, Bible, and Jesus as the Christians. I view some aspects of the Bible allegorically, whereas my Christian brothers and sisters might interpret literally.
Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.
And before you roll your eyes too hard and dismiss this as trolling, answer me this; what qualitatively makes my question distinct from yours?
siti
Well-Known Member
As long as you are prepared to accept that humans just a few thousand years ago lived for hundreds of years. As long as you are prepared to accept that the conflicting versions of the genealogies can somehow be reconciled. As long as you are prepared to accept that Adam, Noah and the rest were real people who had real offspring - exactly as the Bible lists them. How then can you claim the Biblical accounts are symbolic?
Baha'u'llah traces his ancestry back to a character known only from an account that Baha'is themselves interpret as Hebrew mythology.
I have to say that this is, in my opinion, and with all due respect, perhaps the most preposterous Baha'i argument I have seen so far.
Last edited:
There is no evidence Exodus of Genesis was written prior to ~600 BCE. If you believe there is evidence please cite the documented archeological evidence that such ancient texts exist. There are none, zero, nada, negatory, zip Hebrew texts that date earlier than the silver scrolls (~600 BCE).
Your arguing the 'fallacy of ignorance' claiming what might exist when there is no actual evidence.
Talk is cheap! Can you cite any academic sources that describe older documents of the Old Testament from academic sources.
Virtually all academic scholars of the Middle East accept the dates of the Dead Sea scrolls. Can you document an academic source that disagrees with these dates?
From: Sacred Texts: Dead Sea Scrolls
"These celebrated texts are of unique historical and religious significance. The 800-plus manuscripts - written on papyrus or animal skin, and discovered in caves by the Dead Sea in the late 1940s and 1950s - include virtually the only known surviving Biblical documents written before the second century. This piece, part of the Psalms, dates from the year 50.
What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 800-900 documents, many containing ancient Biblical texts. Some are in tantalising fragments (there are over 50,000 individual pieces in all). Others are substantial and complete, the longest scroll being eight metres long.
They were written over a period of around 200 years, and were evidently placed in the caves to hide them from the advancing Roman army at the time of the First Jewish Revolt, and hence no later than 68AD. Carbon dating puts the earliest of them at about 150BC. They may have been written out by the scribes of an ancient community living at Qumran, near the caves where they were found. However, their origins are the subject of much scholarly debate, and there are many different theories. What is clear is that the authors were Jewish, and disapproved of the Jerusalem priesthood of the time.
The dry climate on the shores of the Dead Sea, parts of which today are 400m below sea level - the lowest place on earth a human can walk - helped preserve the ancient documents."
I refer to contemporary academic sources as above and not apologetic conservative claims without extra Biblical documented archeological sources.
I'm reasonably certain that the Hebrew says nothing of the kind.
Talk is cheap, where's your evidence?
On the contrary, I bet I understand it a great deal better than you do. One of my specialties is physics, especially nuclear physics.
And yes, there is a great deal of scientific evidence the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That you don't understand this oly shows you are unfamiliar with or don't understand the evidence.[/QUOTE]
Talk is cheap, where's your evidence
Not necessary. His punctated equilibra theory basiclly says there are not intermediate fossils. You need to believed your best expert.
That's the point, you don't know and you don't need DNA. The laws of genetics prevent evolution from happening.
You can't show that without intermediate fossils.
I did paraphrase it, but it is basically what he said and it was not taken out of context. Not only that, Ernst Mayr, said basically the same thing. In fact I think what I quoted was actually hiss comment. Mayr also said the fossil record remains woefully inadquate.
Not true. A distinct species by definition is not an intermediate.
I know what he said.
That is pure bolony. Stasis IS NOT a mechanism for a change of species. If you still say it is, tell me HOW IT WORKS.
What was a horse before it was a horse? What did the horse evolve into? How many steps did it take for non-horse to become a horse and how many steps did it take for the horse to evolve into something other than a horse?
Actually Darwin and all of his evangelist have deluded you into thinking opinions are scientific evidence.
A PhD in math is a great thing, congratulations, but a degree in math doe snot mean you understand genetics. So tell me what determines the traits the offspring will have when it is born?
Wonderful. Please start with the assumptions they have to make to get their results and do these assumptions give a shorter time for a longer time.
Very little but I do understand the difference between an opinion and evidence, and that is the only understanding one needs.
Since you are so well educated, and i gladly accept that you are, explain how the nose of land animal can evolve into the blowhole of a sea creature.
You could have said: " I believe in the Tower of Babel because I have seen paleoanthropoligical research which suggests it was a real structure, in a real place, during a real period of History.." You also could have said "I believe in the Tower of Babel because there are secondary and tertiary sources which also refer to a similar structure, similar circumstances, and similar outcomes."
But you didn't...
You didn't say any of those things because they aren't true. So, at least you're honest.
There is a problem with the historicity of the Babel Myth in that those evidences simply do not exist. (If you want to claim that they do - you'll have to substantiate those claims here.) If the evidences existed, then more people would take the story seriously. But, again, they don't. That fact should lead you to certain conclusions.
First of all, you're lying in implying that you read those links. Which is unfortunate given that I just gave you credit for being honest in your first response.
Secondly, you chose the wrong person to attempt to call the bluff of...
"Teosintes are critical components of maize evolution, but opinions vary about which taxa were involved. According to the most widely held evolutionary model, the crop was derived directly from Z. m. parviglumis by selection of key mutations;[2] but in some varieties up to 20% of its genetic material came from Z. m. mexicana through introgression [3]
All but the Nicaraguan species of teosinte may grow in or very near corn fields, providing opportunities for introgression between teosinte and maize. First- and later-generation hybrids are often found in the fields, but the rate of gene exchange is quite low. Some populations of Z. m. mexicana display Vavilovian mimicry within cultivated maize fields, having evolved a maize-like form as a result of the farmers' selective weeding pressure. In some areas of Mexico, teosintes are regarded by maize farmers as a noxious weed, while in a few areas, farmers regard it as a beneficial companion plant, and encourage its introgression into their maize."
Doebley Lab
First, the oldest archaeological maize specimen to be "directly dated" has an age of 6,000 years ago (Pipierno and Flannery 2001). Direct dating involves getting a carbon-14 date for the actual maize specimen. Thus, maize domestication must have occurred at this time or earlier. Second, the earliest time for the domestication of any crops in Mexico is 10,000 years (Smith 1997) ago so maize domestication is unlikely to preceed this date. Third, molecular dating suggests that maize was domesticated about 9,000 years ago (Matsuoka et al. 2002), which is consistent with the archaeological evidence. Finally, there are "indirectly dated" maize specimens with an age of 9000 BP (Piperno et al. 2009). Indirect dating involves getting a carbon-14 date for material in archaeological association with a maize specimen but the maize specimen itself is not dated. Thus, there is an unproven inference that the date of the maize and the date of the associated material are the same. In one case, specimens of maize originally indirectly dated to 7500 BP were subsequently shown to be only 5500 BP by direct dating (Long et al. 1989). Thus, we can securely concluded that maize was domestication at least 6000 years ago, and it was likely as early as 9000 to 10,000 years ago.
How Did Corn Evolve?
"Have you ever wondered how corn evolved? After all, the seeds are all crammed together on the cob and wrapped tightly inside the thick husks. Seems impossible for the seeds to disperse without a human to peel the husks and separate the kernels.
Come to find out, corn, or maize, only exists in its modern form because of humans. Evidence from archaeological and genetic studies suggests that maize was bred and cultivated by early inhabitants of Mexico as early as ten thousand years ago. The early Mesoamericans managed to develop corn from its grassy ancestor by selective breeding. Maize was bred from a wild grain called teosinte.
Teosinte is so unlike modern corn that originally botanists didn’t think the two were even related. An ear of teosinte is only about three inches long, with just five to twelve kernels. Compare that to the corn we eat today, which can have over five-hundred kernels!"
Teosinte - Zea Diploperennis | Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds
"Teosinte is a beautiful plant that looks and behaves very much like corn, that is until it goes to tassel! It is one of the ancient forms of corn, and if you are interested in reliving crop history, it is a fun and wonderful crop to grow to inspire yourself. How this eventually became the corn that we know with thousands of landrace varieties is as perplexing as any mystery can be. Teosinte will flourish even in the North, but if your goal is to produce the unusual seed spikes, you will need to be in the South, as it just does not have time to set seed before frost in the North. Our plants in Connecticut grew almost 10 feet tall but started tasseling in late October, and the frost caught them after that. Teosinte will need at least 5-6 months of good weather to produce a crop and should do great everywhere in the South. The grains are actually edible, although a bit gritty because of the thick seed coat. They can be ground like other corn. We believe this to be “diploperennis,” but with further scrutiny think it could be another species of ancient corn!"
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/
"Ranere said that the studies confirmed that maize derived from teosinte, a large wild grass that has five species growing in Mexico, Guatemala and Nicaragua, The teosinte species that is closest to maize is Balsas teosinte, which is native to Mexico’s Central Balsas River Valley, he said in a news statement about the research.
“We went to the area where the closest relative to maize grows, looked for the earliest maize and found it,” Ranere said. “That wasn’t surprising since molecular biologists had determined that Balsas teosinte was the ancestral species to maize. So it made sense that this was where we would find the earliest domestication of maize.”
About languages. Don't tell me what I could have said, explain how different language developed. Please include the supporting evidence.
About corn and teosinte. Get an ear of each and plant some of the seeds and tell me what the corn seed produced and what the teosinte seed produced.
Then grind some of the seeds into powder and get them tested for DNA. Now see if there is a difference .
Most good study Bible give the approximate date of each book. All I have checked give a date of about 1440 BC for exodus. I am sure they have checked the facts thoroughly. Since there are no longer any original mss, it is impossible to date any book of the Bible or any writings from that time.
Unless you can accurately date both the books of the Bible and the secular writing of that time, and you can't, so are you.
I just did and so far you have not presented any evidence to support your claims.
Not necessary. The dead Sea scrolls do not tell when any book of the Bible was written.
The Dead Sea schools are probably copies of copies. That is what the scribes did. The have no bearing on the age of any books of the Bible.
Okay, what does the Hebrew say?
The Dead Sea scrolls are simply the oldest known texts of the OT. That is the evidence!
What extra Biblical archeological evidence can you cite and provide that any text of the Hebrew Bible existed prior to ~600 BCE? There is no evidence of Hebrew writing in the form used in the Dead Sea scrolls except for the silver scrolls and a few Stella in primitive Hebrew found in the Hills of Judah.
Still waiting . . .
Therefore?
As indicated in a previous post, that is not necessary.
So what are the conflicting versions of genealogies you believe need to be reconciled?
One major aspect of this thread is we have a biblical narrative that is part mythology and part literal. There are clearly significant aspects of the stories outlined from Genesis that are predominantly myth, if not entirely. We know this because the scientific evidence overwhelming tells us they can not be literally true. The myth has meaning, and there is truth in that myth. Prophets and Great Spiritual Teachers that come after make use of that mythology to convey spiritual truths. There are clearly biblical stories that we can examine and say with relative certainty they did, or did not happen. Then there is a huge narrative that we are unable to determine whether it literally happened or it didn't. Some of the biblical genealogy falls in this category.
Another important Baha'i teaching is the relationship between science and religion.
"It (humanity) cannot fly with one wing alone. If it tries to fly with the wing of religion alone it will land in the quagmire of superstition, and if it tries to fly with the wing of science alone it will end in the despairing slough of materialism."
"There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance."
So God commanded the animals to travel to the Ark? How about animal and flightless birds on Islands and other continents? How do you think they made it to the ark?
So about 10,000 m2? How did you calculate that?