Total Posts:191|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bible Supports Evolution

Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 11:35:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

That's a reach. More like the bible doesn't say one thing or another about evolution because it simply isn't concerned with that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:18:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
They talk about being created from dirt. That isnt creation that is manipulation and resembles change or rearranging, not creating. They also knew about procreation and thus the sons. Plus a bunch of people existed outside the garden, so they weren't the only ones created, which in light of evolution makes a heck more sense.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:23:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:18:15 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
They talk about being created from dirt. That isnt creation that is manipulation and resembles change or rearranging, not creating. They also knew about procreation and thus the sons. Plus a bunch of people existed outside the garden, so they weren't the only ones created, which in light of evolution makes a heck more sense.

But the Bible doesn't claim transformation or even "manipulation" and it suggests dust as a base material which is simple imagination. They couldn't imagine what else existed prior to life, so they mentioned dirt, because they knew dirt existed. And since bodies aren't liquid, they likely had no clue that bodies are more water than anything else. The problem is that we have a purely fabricated account, based on primitive man's best imagination, and people are trying to make it fit with scientific reality. It simply doesn't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:26:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

The bible does not, in any way, support evolution. The two are compatible, so far as I know, but the bible does not describe the process by which God creates life. It would not support any theory about how life develops.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:33:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:23:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:18:15 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
They talk about being created from dirt. That isnt creation that is manipulation and resembles change or rearranging, not creating. They also knew about procreation and thus the sons. Plus a bunch of people existed outside the garden, so they weren't the only ones created, which in light of evolution makes a heck more sense.

But the Bible doesn't claim transformation or even "manipulation" and it suggests dust as a base material which is simple imagination. They couldn't imagine what else existed prior to life, so they mentioned dirt, because they knew dirt existed. And since bodies aren't liquid, they likely had no clue that bodies are more water than anything else. The problem is that we have a purely fabricated account, based on primitive man's best imagination, and people are trying to make it fit with scientific reality. It simply doesn't.

In the creation account it started off from the water. Hardly anyone believes those days represent a literal day so they certainly arent going to take creation literal. Stories will fit their reality, but its clearly a creation myth and happens to ring some truth to it. These people simply were more intelligent than we give them credit.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:38:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:33:40 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:23:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:18:15 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
They talk about being created from dirt. That isnt creation that is manipulation and resembles change or rearranging, not creating. They also knew about procreation and thus the sons. Plus a bunch of people existed outside the garden, so they weren't the only ones created, which in light of evolution makes a heck more sense.

But the Bible doesn't claim transformation or even "manipulation" and it suggests dust as a base material which is simple imagination. They couldn't imagine what else existed prior to life, so they mentioned dirt, because they knew dirt existed. And since bodies aren't liquid, they likely had no clue that bodies are more water than anything else. The problem is that we have a purely fabricated account, based on primitive man's best imagination, and people are trying to make it fit with scientific reality. It simply doesn't.

In the creation account it started off from the water. Hardly anyone believes those days represent a literal day so they certainly arent going to take creation literal. Stories will fit their reality, but its clearly a creation myth and happens to ring some truth to it. These people simply were more intelligent than we give them credit.
Those who insist that they weren't literal days are doing so simply because we know that literal days makes the story completely fictional. So they use that as a means to insist that it could possibly be true (even though there are many other problems). But when they claim they're not literal 24-hours days, they're ignoring the definitions the Bible provided for these "days" in Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:13, Gen 1:19 and Gen 1: 23 and Gen 1:31. And in each instant, it defines a "day" as the period between evening and morning (in compliance with the old Hebrew view, where a day ended in late evening). So the Bible most certainly claims these are 24-hour days. And people ignore that because they want to believe that the Bible is true, when it obviously isn't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 9:35:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:38:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:33:40 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:23:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:18:15 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:00:58 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/26/2014 11:44:56 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

We're far more water than anything else. And if you'd have a look at what the Bible says...

(Genesis 1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

... you might notice that it is portrayed as a "creation" event, and makes no mention of species adapting, changing, evolving or in any other way, becoming other than what they were "created" to be.

So no; the Bible absolutely does NOT support evolution, in any way, shape or form. Reality, however, absolutely does support evolution, in every nuance of related evidence.
So why does it say "male and female create"? We do know how male and female create, even they knew.

It says "create" out of ignorance. Male and female do not "create", they mate and the transforming chemical reactions of life begin on a new individual. They didn't know. They demonstrate their ignorance.
They talk about being created from dirt. That isnt creation that is manipulation and resembles change or rearranging, not creating. They also knew about procreation and thus the sons. Plus a bunch of people existed outside the garden, so they weren't the only ones created, which in light of evolution makes a heck more sense.

But the Bible doesn't claim transformation or even "manipulation" and it suggests dust as a base material which is simple imagination. They couldn't imagine what else existed prior to life, so they mentioned dirt, because they knew dirt existed. And since bodies aren't liquid, they likely had no clue that bodies are more water than anything else. The problem is that we have a purely fabricated account, based on primitive man's best imagination, and people are trying to make it fit with scientific reality. It simply doesn't.

In the creation account it started off from the water. Hardly anyone believes those days represent a literal day so they certainly arent going to take creation literal. Stories will fit their reality, but its clearly a creation myth and happens to ring some truth to it. These people simply were more intelligent than we give them credit.
Those who insist that they weren't literal days are doing so simply because we know that literal days makes the story completely fictional. So they use that as a means to insist that it could possibly be true (even though there are many other problems). But when they claim they're not literal 24-hours days, they're ignoring the definitions the Bible provided for these "days" in Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:13, Gen 1:19 and Gen 1: 23 and Gen 1:31. And in each instant, it defines a "day" as the period between evening and morning (in compliance with the old Hebrew view, where a day ended in late evening). So the Bible most certainly claims these are 24-hour days. And people ignore that because they want to believe that the Bible is true, when it obviously isn't.
Days should be age which changes the whole context. Jews are one of the top religions that believe in evolution next to buddhists. I think that should be a clue that maybe Christians dont know how to interpret "their" own scripts.

It is also showing a pregression in intelligence beyond mere language as it began. Thinking of things as right and wrong and development of a conscience. Mythology is a story that has a meaning behind it and is never meant to be taken literal, like a parable.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:47:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

It is relevant to your argument that jews should be yecs when the study I presented shows otherwise that jews think more similar to Buddhists than YECS.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:47:18 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

It is relevant to your argument that jews should be yecs when the study I presented shows otherwise that jews think more similar to Buddhists than YECS.

1. Unless you can show Buddhists use the Bible as their holy text, it is irrelevant what their belief of evolution is.

2. Classical Rabbis (hmmm, I wonder why they call them classical) share beliefs similiar to those of YEC, and are not supported by Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. YEC believes something not supported by evolution and contradicts evidence for many other scientific theories.

"Young Earth creationism is contradicted by scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines that shows the age of the universe is 13.798"0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, and life first appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago.[8][9][10][11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. The only theistic model that comes close to evolution is theistic evolution, and while this was the theory I embraced as a Christian, there are serious problems with it.
If humans evolved, then death existed before the fall of man, and that contradicts Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Which is in reference to Genesis 2:16

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

So, no, the Bible does not support evolution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also death would have been occurring naturally, only the garden was preventing it. The rest of the people outside of paradise would die naturally just like the humans and animals in the garden. The whole physical death thing is not what really changed physically, it was the spiritual departure from god.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:44:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
It had already been in the world, they simply left the garden. The garden had the tree of life. Humans and animals outside of paradise die just like them once they left the garden.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:52:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:44:22 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
It had already been in the world, they simply left the garden. The garden had the tree of life. Humans and animals outside of paradise die just like them once they left the garden.

Do you think the Garden had some sort of special properties that kept them from dying?

Plus, Genesis 1 is Adam and crew, and Genesis 9 is Noah and crew. So, Noah never knew the Garden...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:52:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:44:22 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
It had already been in the world, they simply left the garden. The garden had the tree of life. Humans and animals outside of paradise die just like them once they left the garden.

Do you think the Garden had some sort of special properties that kept them from dying?

Plus, Genesis 1 is Adam and crew, and Genesis 9 is Noah and crew. So, Noah never knew the Garden...
It is still a metaphor, the garden represents oneness with god. However the story is explicit that the humans didn't have any special properties that were theirs physically making them immortal. It was not something that god had to change in them physically, so as the story goes they were already mortal but were only immortal when with god.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:01:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:58:41 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:52:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:44:22 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
It had already been in the world, they simply left the garden. The garden had the tree of life. Humans and animals outside of paradise die just like them once they left the garden.

Do you think the Garden had some sort of special properties that kept them from dying?

Plus, Genesis 1 is Adam and crew, and Genesis 9 is Noah and crew. So, Noah never knew the Garden...
It is still a metaphor, the garden represents oneness with god. However the story is explicit that the humans didn't have any special properties that were theirs physically making them immortal. It was not something that god had to change in them physically, so as the story goes they were already mortal but were only immortal when with god.

The creation story can not be a metaphor and support evolution. Plus, Jesus can't be a descendant of a metaphor.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:04:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:01:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:58:41 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:52:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:44:22 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:40:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:26:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:48:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:39:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:32:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:01:04 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:40:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:03:42 AM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 10:52:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:55:51 PM, Karmanator wrote:
The bible says humans come from the earth and that is a process of change not creation ex nehilo. Where is "creation" involved? I will also say that the trinity concept supports evolution as well, no creating necessary.

"All we are is dust in the wind." That statement supports the bible and science.

uh..nope, no it doesn't. Not even close.
If that is a fact then why do most Jews believe in evolution unlike Christians? Because the Christians are misinterpreting Genesis. Catholics other denominations and Muslims fall below 60 and 50 percent belief in evolution.

Belief in Evolution by Religion-
Atheist/Agnostic 87%
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Secular unaffiliated 77%
Jewish 77%
http://en.wikipedia.org...


So, you're arguing the Bible supports evolution by interpretation. Well, why didn't you say so!! Why don't you go ahead and have it support quantum theory...or better yet, you can get ahead of the scientists and have it explain the unified theory of everything!

If the authors of the Bible knew of evolution, and the Bible has supported it since Genesis was written, then why did it take a couple of millennia after the writing of Genesis for anyone to come up with it? The reason is: the Bible doesn't suggest anything like evolution, and you're attempting to drag your primitive religion into the modern era.

If the Bible was truly the word of god, then you shouldn't need to re-interpret it every time science shows parts of it to be flawed.
The Jewish bible is understood better through the Jewish oral traditions and evolution is very compatible with the schools of thought found in the Kabbalah. Some culture later coming to reinvent it and reinterpret it really bastardizes the whole thing. Again, why do you think 77% of Jews would believe evolution is a better explanation than their bible, because they know how to interpret their own works and they know it is meant to be read as metaphorical. 81% of Buddhists accept evolution based on the study I referenced and their religion specifically says that it should adhere to modern knowledge.

Classical Judaism believes the exact same thing Christians of the YEC persuasion believe, and guess what? It contradicts evolution. If we look at what the elders of the Christian Church believed, circa the creation of Genesis (pun intended), we'll see the understanding of Genesis differs greatly from then and what scientifically minded Christians, embarrassed by this primitive book, believe now. Also, what difference does it make what Buddhists believe when discussing if the Bible backs evolution? Stay on topic.

How is it embarassing to have a belief on something that the authors of genesis (nor the Church Fathers) didn't even have in mind? I don't find it embarassing at all.

And, again, the Church Fathers' or elders didn't have a unanimous understanding on Genesis.

To say they didn't have a unanimous understanding is a given.

But you make it sound as if they all understood Genesis in roughly the same way and that Christians today are somehow going against this understanding that was just a common knowledge "given" back then.

Well, yes, I believe the writer of Genesis did intend a literal creation week. This is illustrated by the introduction of death into the world by the fall of Adam. Paul when writing Romans understood this.

Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Death came by sin, and sin apparently didn't come until humans. The fossil record does not start with humans so there was death before humans (and sin!). The Bible cannot support evolution unless it contradicts itself.
That is spiritual death and Paul gets into the the difference. The goal being reborn of spirit. Spirit would have been in anything with life. Spiritual death could not occur until we knew right from wrong.

Genesis 1:29

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Everyone eats plants and fruits. No blood is spilled.

Genesis 9:3

3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Now meat is on the table (so to speak). What changed? Sin and death had entered the world.
It had already been in the world, they simply left the garden. The garden had the tree of life. Humans and animals outside of paradise die just like them once they left the garden.

Do you think the Garden had some sort of special properties that kept them from dying?

Plus, Genesis 1 is Adam and crew, and Genesis 9 is Noah and crew. So, Noah never knew the Garden...
It is still a metaphor, the garden represents oneness with god. However the story is explicit that the humans didn't have any special properties that were theirs physically making them immortal. It was not something that god had to change in them physically, so as the story goes they were already mortal but were only immortal when with god.

The creation story can not be a metaphor and support evolution. Plus, Jesus can't be a descendant of a metaphor.
It has to be a metaphor for it to support evolution.

Jesus was the descendant of a chosen lineage which evolved, they didn't get to magically skip anything evolution wise.