In the beginning of what?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In the beginning of what?
On the contrary, evolution has been proven scientifically in many different ways, from genetics, to the fossil record, to actual studies on living populations. Yes, whales evolved from land animals. They are mammals. That is simply a scientific fact.
Rhetoric is not evidence. Evidently you don't understand the laws of genetics. You can't provide the evidence for one thing the TOE preaches.
Yes, I do have plenty of evidence that the belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a myth. First of all, it is derived from a part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is a much older Babylonian story. Second, the flood, as described in the Bible, is simply impossible. Not only is there not enough water (no, not even in a canopy, which would have other very nasty effects), but the specifics of a 'laminar flood' do not *at all* correspond to what we see in the actual geological strata.
Furthermore, the claims that the Earth is less than a few tens of thousands of years old is clearly refuted by multiple lines of evidence in science, from geology, to biology, to physics, to cosmology, to planetary geology, etc. ANYONE who claims that the Earth is less and a few billion years old is at least misinformed. If they are claiming to be informed and saying this, they are lying.
On the contrary, we have many examples of species appearing from a long line of intermediates.
The horse and human fossil records are particularly good in this. But, and this is important, while we often don't have the resolution for specific species, we *do* have the resolution for categories above that of the species level: genera, families, etc. This is quite enough to prove that bilogical species change over geological time. And *that* is evolution.
his is called quote mining. It is taking a statement out of context. This is a very typical technique of creationists. And it is a lie.
We do, in fact, have several cases of major morphological change demonstrated in the fossil record. The transitions from fish to amphibian, from basal reptiles to early mammals, and from certain dinosaur and searly birds are all very well documented and, while not complete, are certainly enough to show this 'major morphological change'.
Again, a quote mine.
The pattern he was talking about wavolution per se, but the gradualist model that was very common at one point.
Remember that Gould was an advocate of punctuated equilibria: where there are long periods of stasis in morphology and rather quick changes when the environment changes.
Subsequent to Gould, it has been realized that Punk Eq if often the case, but it isn't the *only* pattern we actually see in the record. We do see other examples where there are gradual transitions over millions of years. And don't forget-Gould arrived at his conclusions based on the fossil record.
On the contrary, if you do *not* believe in the fossil record, it is because of your religious faith and not because of the scientific evidence.
You have been listening to people who are lying to you about the science. I have read their books (many of them) and have gone to the actual research articles they point to. The actual articles are *usually* saying exactly the opposite of what the creationists are claiming. And that is a lie.
Geology - Wikipedia
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
"Just believe what I believe - don't think about it too much because thinking about it makes you question things. And questioning things is bad!"
This is great advice for creating followers but not for discerning truth.
"There is nothing new under the sun..."
I'll argue that there is absolutely nothing unique about Christianity. Name a facet of the faith and I'll show you a religious idea that predates it and most likely influenced it.
It's not the definition that makes your myth a myth - it's your explanation.
You said that the Tower of Babel adequately explains various languages, right? You are accepting of the story of Babel not based on factual information, or on archaeologcial evidence, or on outside sources. You are only accepting the story because it came from the Bible and, to you, adequately explains the source of various languages... That's the very definition of Myth, my friend.
Oh, would you like some more evidence?
I'm happy to oblige!
Zea (plant) - Wikipedia
Doebley Lab
How Did Corn Evolve?
What is teosinte?
Teosinte - Zea Diploperennis | Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/
Maize - Wikipedia
Tracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years
Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/pub...mymonogra/cornandcornimpr/1?access=0&view=pdf
History of Corn - Where does corn come from? - Quatr.us
Don't take my word for it though. You're probably right - I'm just accepting opinions as evidence...
Since the canopy is dynamically impossible, there was no water there.Rhetoric is not evidence. How much water is available and how much was in the canopy?
On the contrary, I bet I understand it a great deal better than you do. One of my specialties is physics, especially nuclear physics.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.
Gould wrote quite a number of books. You might try reading one of them.our experts, including Gould say you don't.
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.It is not . You need to show how it is genetically possible.
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.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.
Intermediates would be distinct species. That is a problem with your understanding, not with evolution, or the sequences that have been demonstrated.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.
No, it is a claim.Again teh usual complaint about evolutionists casting doubt on the theory.
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.He was not, he was basically saying there are not intermediate fossils.
*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.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.
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.You have absolutely no evidence to support that statement.
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.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.
Thanks for sharing
At least you have the days divided into much longer periods. However we would be looking in the order of millions of years if we wanted to reconcile with science. Does it matter to you whether your beliefs align with science?
Since the Bible does not specifically say how long each creative period is, scientists estimates may or may not be correct. I find proven science consistent with what the Bible says.
How do you account for Cain's wife that he found in the land of Nod? (Genesis 4:16)
After their fall into sin, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she was to become the mother of everyone living." (Gen. 3:20) The Bible says Adam and Eve had numerous children. (Genesis 5:4) I believe Cain married one of these or one of their descendants.
Do you believe a serpent literally talked? How can this be possible?
The Bible reveals that a superhuman spirit person used the serpent to speak with Eve. It was not the serpent speaking, IMO, but it appeared so to Eve. (Revelation 12:9
So how did Noah and his family go about collecting all the known species and how did they fit onto the Ark?
Hope you don't mind answering these questions.
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."Give me a better explanation.
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.
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.
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?There is nothing in either the Bible or Baha'i writings that suggests the genealogy outlined in the Bible is incorrect.
Genesis is the beginning of everything. NOTHING came before it. There is no evidence at all, let alone any overwhelming evidence that Genesis was copied Babylonian writings. You don't eve know if all the scrolls from that time have been found or are even still available. Conservative scholar estimate Exodus was written anywhere from 1290 BC to 1440BC, That is older than what you call the "silver scrolls, " and Genesis is much older than that.
Talk is cheap, present your evidence. How were the scrolls dated?
All good study Bibles give an approximate date as to when it was written. I just gave you the opinion of conservative Bible scholars.
I'm reasonably certain that the Hebrew says nothing of the kind.The creation of the universe and all it contains.
Since the canopy is dynamically impossible, there was no water there.
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.
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.
xactly 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?
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.”
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.
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.
Therefore?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.
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?
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.