• 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!

Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If you agree with that quote, then what are you doing throwing bible quotes at science?
What's a scientific fact, now?
I'm sorry but you're statement is making very little sense to me.

You understand what I mean.
The bible says there was a point in earth's history when it was
oceanic, dark and with no land or life.
And God's "command" I take to be the physical laws of nature.
We have no idea where these laws come from or why they are
here.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Wet came later"
The bible doesn't give you every point in the creation - for all we know
it could be an infinite number of points.
Are you referring to a lava earth?
Well, sorry, accumulated debris came before that
sorry... accretion disk came before that
sorry...heavy metal and hydrogen gas clouds before that
sorry... first stars before that which created metals
sorry.....
etc
etc

and let's not forget the Snowball earth
and the various inter-glacial periods

We could be here forever. And that's not what the
bible is about. It's a theological book and it cared
little for issues of earth and time.
You have no clue as to what you are babbling about. Genesis is myth. You are grasping at straws.

And no, you can't find a time when the Earth was dark and oceanic.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You understand what I mean.
The bible says there was a point in earth's history when it was
oceanic, dark and with no land or life.
And God's "command" I take to be the physical laws of nature.
We have no idea where these laws come from or why they are
here.
Once again you are claiming that the Bible was wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Darwin's theory of evolution only deals with the progression of life, after self replicating life appears on the earth. It does not deal with the original formation of this first life, from scratch. This is the subject of a separate area of science, called abiogenesis, which has the word genesis in it. Genesis of the Bible is the original theory of abiogenesis.

Evolution in the bible is dealt with under Noah's Arc. In the story of Noah's Ark there is a selection process, where two of each animal, male and female, are selected. These will become the source of furthering evolution of species. This is very similar to Darwin, or should I say, Darwin says a similar thing, but in a slightly different way to suit those times.

In terms of the science of abiogenesis, this area of science has never made life in the lab. It is only a theory and not a proven fact. The fact that life does exist on the earth shows us something happened, but the mechanism or theory is not entirely proven or clear.

The main difference between the two theories, is the theory in Genesis uses a God that has a plan. While abiogenesis theory uses a God of chance and gambling to created whatever conditions you think you will need. The first God uses the logic within the principles of physical creation to form life; laws of science extrapolated in a logical way. The second God buys lottery tickets hoping to for life to appear. He has no plan, but depends on luck. He is the little brother of the first God; Fredo.

In terms of humans, created in the image of God, the atheist attempt to mimic a God of gambling, while the religious people attempt to mimic a God of planning and reason. It makes no sense that the Atheist, who claim to be rational, ignore the God of planning and reason, and prefer a gambling God approach. They worship the God Fredo.

The bible gives us a hint about the approach of God, the elder, for the formation of life.

2Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Water is the most abundant solid material of the universe; ice, and therefore is the main gravity source for the formation of new stars. Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind only H2; hydrogen gas. Hydrogen and Oxygen are the two most abundant atoms in the universe. Water is the wild card molecule of the universe with over 70 anomalous properties.

Water is the logical and planning foundation needed to create life. Fred science assumers any solvent can work, even though nobody has ever proven, life in the lab, with or without water. This pseudo science assumes Fredo is all powerful, and he can do this, if we he has enough time and enough dice. The US Government needs to stop funding all Fredo science, due to separation of church and state.
No, just no. Noah's Ark never happened.


You cannot poorly reinterpret science and try to fit it to the Bible.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You understand what I mean.
I don't, which is why I asked for clarification.

The bible says there was a point in earth's history when it was
oceanic, dark and with no land or life.

And when do you think this was?
Citations required.

And God's "command" I take to be the physical laws of nature.

And how is that useful? Or even sensible?

We have no idea where these laws come from or why they are
here.

Then what are you doing asserting them to be commandments of some god?

So in other words, we can just ignore your guesses, since you just said you really have no idea. You just hold this belief because... you like it? Not sure. But not for any rational reason it seems.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You have no clue as to what you are babbling about. Genesis is myth. You are grasping at straws.

And no, you can't find a time when the Earth was dark and oceanic.

When Earth’s continents rose above its oceans | EarthSky.org
About three billion years ago the continents rose. They rose about 4km
from the ocean floor. That means the earth was oceanic for probably
over a billion years.

The closest we can come to an idea of the early earth is the cloud shrouded
moon Titan
Earth analog - Wikipedia

No, I am not "babbling"
You are getting too personal.
You don't know Genesis is a "myth" because neither of us were there. We can
however look at the facts and tease out what Genesis is saying.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member

I don't, which is why I asked for clarification.
And when do you think this was?
Citations required.

See my post above


And how is that useful? Or even sensible?
Genesis says God commanded. Who was He speaking to? There's no life there to hear Him.
There's nothing else but the laws of physics. What laws would create the world we see today?
You could simulate them if you were a physicist to see all the universal variables, and create
a universe with just that set. But I digress.



Then what are you doing asserting them to be commandments of some god?
The bible says God brings the rain. People also understood that the clouds bring the rain. But there
was an appreciation that "behind it all" there was a God. Not God of the gaps, the bible doesn't say
that everything is directly controlled by God - but there are these mysterious and wondrous laws of
nature.


So in other words, we can just ignore your guesses, since you just said you really have no idea. You just hold this belief because... you like it? Not sure. But not for any rational reason it seems.
I cite the evidence
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We can
however look at the facts and tease out what Genesis is saying.

square-peg-round-hole-gif.gif.gif
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
When Earth’s continents rose above its oceans | EarthSky.org
About three billion years ago the continents rose. They rose about 4km
from the ocean floor. That means the earth was oceanic for probably
over a billion years.

Without going in on the oceanic part, do you realise that this is in direct contradiction with your other claim of life arising on land?

The oldest trace of life is about 3.8 billion years old. So how could life have formed on land, if you are now saying that land only appeared 3 billion years ago?

Regardless of what the actual science says, YOUR case seems to be falling apart rather quickly.

You don't know Genesis is a "myth" because neither of us were there. We can
however look at the facts and tease out what Genesis is saying.

Or, we can just look at the facts and not bother with trying to retroactively forcefit the babblings of bronze age peasants into the findings of science.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Why? It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. Nothing in the bible does - it's an inconsistent mishmash of myths....

So you don't believe life came out of the sea?
Actually, until 2018 it was on the cards that life came out of the sea
but now it seems too difficult due to the problem of sodium and
potassium ions in sea water.
Bible says life came from the land first. It first flourished in the
oceans, probably - but it came from land or fresh water first.

Life's Origins by Land or Sea? Debate Gets Hot
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And how is that useful? Or even sensible?
Genesis says God commanded. Who was He speaking to? There's no life there to hear Him.
There's nothing else but the laws of physics. What laws would create the world we see today?
You could simulate them if you were a physicist to see all the universal variables, and create
a universe with just that set. But I digress.

What makes you think that a "commandemend" (ie: magic) is required for the laws of physics to exist?


Then what are you doing asserting them to be commandments of some god?
The bible says God brings the rain. People also understood that the clouds bring the rain. But there
was an appreciation that "behind it all" there was a God. Not God of the gaps, the bible doesn't say
that everything is directly controlled by God - but there are these mysterious and wondrous laws of
nature.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.
Again: you could also say that undetectable pink graviton pixies are regulating gravity, but what does it add to your understanding of gravity? What use does it have to include obsolete undemonstrable entities which are without any kind of detectable manifestation??

So in other words, we can just ignore your guesses, since you just said you really have no idea. You just hold this belief because... you like it? Not sure. But not for any rational reason it seems.
I cite the evidence

No, you cite the claims. And then try to defend them by piling on more claims.
None of which are in evidence.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Without going in on the oceanic part, do you realise that this is in direct contradiction with your other claim of life arising on land?

The oldest trace of life is about 3.8 billion years old. So how could life have formed on land, if you are now saying that land only appeared 3 billion years ago?

Regardless of what the actual science says, YOUR case seems to be falling apart rather quickly.



Or, we can just look at the facts and not bother with trying to retroactively forcefit the babblings of bronze age peasants into the findings of science.

Your point is an excellent one. It's just that both science and Genesis say the same thing
1 - first the land
2 - then land life (or at least origin)
3 - then sea life (or at least its origin)

Some get tripped up because having said that life came from land, Genesis then describes
this land life. But many assume its sequential when its not - the list of things on land and in
the sea is just a descriptor of what we see today.
Deciphering Genesis is no different than deciphering any other ancient or alternate culture
document. Again, it's not meant to be science - it's theology with a broad description of the
beginning of it all.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Your point is an excellent one. It's just that both science and Genesis say the same thing
1 - first the land
2 - then land life (or at least origin)
3 - then sea life (or at least its origin)

Some get tripped up because having said that life came from land, Genesis then describes
this land life. But many assume its sequential when its not - the list of things on land and in
the sea is just a descriptor of what we see today.
Deciphering Genesis is no different than deciphering any other ancient or alternate culture
document. Again, it's not meant to be science - it's theology with a broad description of the
beginning of it all.
so... really it's all about "heads I win, tails you lose"

:rolleyes:
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
In other words, it is mythology.

You could say the same thing about the Book of Acts
It's not meant to be history - it's theology with a broad description of the beginning of it all.

Now, you can take out the spiritual stuff (cos you don't believe it, but you weren't there)
and what you are left with is .... history.
Thus Acts is the early church like Genesis 1 is the early earth. Strip out Genesis' theological
talk (ie seven days) and you have a plausible account that accords broadly with the science
account.
Remember, the bible isn't interested in history or science or geography --- it's a theological
book first. And other stuff comes later.
 
Top