Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[Taylor]

Are you an expert on the beginning of the universe?

The modern day school child has such a greater understanding of what the universe is than a group of men writing about another man over two thousand years ago, back when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Lethality, are you seriously that bored?

 

[Seeds]

Reason brings people to creationism too.

No it doesnt. Show me reasoning where it does and I guarantee you there is a major error in that reasoning.

 

[Roylion]

It's not a science book. But it might contain key answers, such as the creation of the universe by a sentient being.

And it might not.

The Bible is a mixture of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and even on occasions a bit of actual history.

Genesis 1–11 for example is imbued with Mesopotamian myths from the Enuma Elish and the Atra-Hasis epic.

 

[DrEvil_]

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. When asked how this common ancestor came to life by itself, they have no credible answer.

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves--up to a set point.

Science unintentionally supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth.

QUESTION 1: How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

NeutralZone

Science, it's good to learn some.

 

[RupieDupie]

The Library of Babel would theoretically have the answer to any question, there would actually be a part of a book written that already has the post I am writing. But the issue would be in locating the particular book that answers the particular question. Alternatively, if given enough comprehensible information, a person could find meaning within the one book, and two people could find different meanings.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Hmmmm....Yes, very interesting question O/P.

I don't see either choice as having a 'leg up' on the other, so to speak.....Certainly not from an existential viewpoint anyhow.

Macroevolution just happens to be science'e 'best guess' ATM for the question as to life on earth......Just as God remains humanity's best guess to the answers of existence & the inevitable, 'Why are we here'?

P.S....It's nice to see someone using the word MYTH, in it's correct context.

 

[Lethality]

The modern day school child has such a greater understanding of what the universe is than a group of men writing about another man over two thousand years ago, back when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

What do you base this on? Those men over two thousand years ago were supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, so while they don't have specific scientific knowledge, they were privy to the secrets of the universe and its Creator.

 

[Lethality]

And it might not.

The Bible is a mixture of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and even on occasions a bit of actual history.

Genesis 1–11 for example is imbued with Mesopotamian myths from the Enuma Elish and the Atra-Hasis epic.

Yes, it may or may not. I think its arrogant to dismiss it, since none of us has the answers to the origins of the universe.

 

[Lethality]

No it doesnt. Show me reasoning where it does and I guarantee you there is a major error in that reasoning.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Bible, which is the story partly of the creation of the universe and the desires of the Creator.

 

[Lethality]

The modern day school child has such a greater understanding of what the universe is than a group of men writing about another man over two thousand years ago, back when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Unless those men were inspired by the creator of the universe, who is all-knowing. That means knowing more than scientists today.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, it may or may not. I think its arrogant to dismiss it, since none of us has the answers to the origins of the universe.

I find it difficult to accept that a series of writers sometime between the 8th century BC and the 2nd century BC, using previous myths to construct their own version of a creation story have the actual answers to the origins of the universe. The Genesis account is made up of at least two stories: the first (the Priestly story) is concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos, while the second (the Yahwist story) focuses on man as cultivator of his environment and as a moral agent. The Prieslty source in particular has similarities to more ancient Babylonian / Mespotamian texts.

That there are two stories are confirmed by the differences in the actual text. For example:

• Does God create the skies and the earth, then plants, then animals, and then both male and female in his image OR does Yahweh first form man from the ground, then plants, then animals, and then lastly woman from man’s rib? (Gen 1:1-27 [Priestly] vs Gen 2:4b-23 [Yahwist])
• Does God create the earth, the skies, and man on the same day OR not? (Gen 2:4b-7 [Yahwist] vs Gen 1:1-27 [Priestly])
• Is earth initially created as fecund and fertile OR dry and barren? (Gen 1:9-10 [Priestly] vs Gen 2:5 [Yahwist])
• Are both man and women created in the image of God OR is man formed from the ground, and women formed from man? (Gen 1:26-27 [Priestly] vs Gen 2:7, 2:21-23 [Yahwist] )
  
• When is all the vegetation created: before the creation of the animals, and man and woman OR after the creation of man and before the creation of the animals and woman? (Gen 1:11-13, 1:29-30 [Priestly] vs Gen 2:9-10 [Yahwist])

I see no compelling reason to accept those particular accounts having possible answers to the origins of the universe or even the Earth.

 

[Lethality]

I find it difficult to accept that a series of writers sometime between the 8th century BC and the 2nd century BC, using previous myths to construct their own version of a creation story have the actual answers to the origins of the universe. The Genesis account is made up of at least two stories: the first (the Priestly story) is concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos, while the second (the Yahwist story) focuses on man as cultivator of his environment and as a moral agent. The Prieslty source in particular has similarities to more ancient Babylonian / Mespotamian texts.

I find the entire story difficult to believe, but I don't think we can discount it simply due to different accounts and perspectives on the same story.

 

[Roylion]

I find the entire story difficult to believe, but I don't think we can discount it simply due to different accounts and perspectives on the same story.

Upon what basis can we accept that the Genesis account in the Bible may be an accurate account of the origins of the Universe and/or Earth?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Upon what basis can we accept that the Genesis account in the Bible may be an accurate account of the origins of the Universe and/or Earth?

From a Mythological one, pertaining to the human imagination.

 

[Taylor]

Unless those men were inspired by the creator of the universe, who is all-knowing. That means knowing more than scientists today.

All knowing, all powerful and all loving can't exist. Because so many innocents suffer. Babies getting malaria etc.

So you have to choose which of those three God isn't.

 

[FredLeDeux]

All knowing, all powerful and all loving can't exist. Because so many innocents suffer. Babies getting malaria etc.

So you have to choose which of those three God isn't.

If it comes to that, all-knowing (in the religious sense of, inter alia, knowing the future) and all-powerful can't co-exist, either.

 

[Lethality]

Upon what basis can we accept that the Genesis account in the Bible may be an accurate account of the origins of the Universe and/or Earth?

Human beings' belief in it.

They believe in creation, I accept science only. None of us is known to have the answers.

 

[Lethality]

All knowing, all powerful and all loving can't exist. Because so many innocents suffer. Babies getting malaria etc.

So you have to choose which of those three God isn't.

Are parents less loving because they allow suffering then?

 

[BEaston]

Are parents less loving because they allow suffering then?

When do you think you'll get bored with this Devil's Advocate shtick?

 

[Snake_Baker]

When do you think you'll get bored with this Devil's Advocate shtick?

It's not as if it hasn't been done a trillion ****ing times.

 

[Lethality]

When do you think you'll get bored with this Devil's Advocate shtick?

When I stop respecting others' rights to hold certain beliefs, probably. Hopefully that never happens.

It's the natural question that pops up when love is questioned due to the presence of suffering. Parents allow their children to suffer without having their love questioned. Why would God be any different?

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's the natural question that pops up when love is questioned due to the presence of suffering. Parents allow their children to suffer without having their love questioned. Why would God be any different?

Because God doesn't cook me spaghetti on Thursday nights.

 

[Lethality]

Because God doesn't cook me spaghetti on Thursday nights.

Without God there would be no spaghetti, or Thursdays, or nights.

 

[Taylor]

Are parents less loving because they allow suffering then?

Yes. Teaching their baby a lesson they couldn't understand by giving them a painful death makes then bad.