Does the bible actually teach evolution?

[caniswalensis]

Are you serious? Aren't you familiar with Genesis? The poster said each day was really an age. Do you care to tell us what day trees were created and then what day the sun was created? Recall that he said those were ages then please stop trolling and contribute to the thread.

NR,

This sort of post is what detracts from a thread, in my opinion. I believe the question was an honest one, asked for the purposes of discussion, not trolling. There is no reson at all to think this was a case of trolling.

When I see nasty, hateful posts like this one coming again and again from the same source though, I have to wonder.

Canis

 

[noreligion]

NR,

This sort of post is what detracts from a thread, in my opinion. I believe the question was an honest one, asked for the purposes of discussion, not trolling. There is no reson at all to think this was a case of trolling.

When I see nasty, hateful posts like this one coming again and again from the same source though, I have to wonder.

Canis

And when I see posts defending those from trolls that twist my words (sun was changed into light) I have to wonder.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

The bible teaches you about evolution just like it teaches you abortion is murder and that abortion isn't murder all at the same time.

Books don't teach us anything, it's what we make of them that teaches us anything.

Essentially, with enough volume of text and proper cherry picking you say any book teaches you whatever you like.

There are any number of attempts by silly attempts to show evolution through god's work in the "hidabrot" lectures, which I suppose would be the equivalent to your appologetics.

One idiotic attempt mentioned that there's a common expanded myth on the tower of babel stating that god turned those people into monkeys. Therefore, when evolutnitists discovered human monkey relations, than they may have discovered decendents of those specific monkeys...

Yeah...

 

[caniswalensis]

And when I see posts defending those from trolls that twist my words (sun was changed into light) I have to wonder.

No one tried to twist your words, m'man. He was trying to have a discussion with you. That is what happens when you post on internet forums. If you do not want to express your thoughts, why would you even post in a forum?

You are right that there is a dinstinction between "sun" & Light" but you were biting his head off in post #54 before he ever said the word "light." He was only asking you to expand on your earlier post. I don't see why you couldn't just point out the difference and give us your thoughts in a civil manner.

You are always spoiling for a fight, it seems. Seriously, almost every post I see from you is a horror show.

Back on topic, MG1962 raises an interesting point.

Genesis 1 says:
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

...and then later:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

If taken literally, there were clearly seperated periods of darkness & light called day & night, with times called evening & morning before there was a sun. That only makes sense if you apeal to God's supernatural powers.

If we are going to appeal to the supernatural, I see no reason that the pre-sun light spoken of could not have all the life sustaining properties of the sunlight we currently enjoy. Further, such an approach means that the creation of the sun ages after the creation of trees would not necessarily represent an internal inconsistancy in Genesis.

Beyond that, I believe there is an inconsistancy in genesis that shows it should not be taken as a literal chronological record by anyone. God seperates the light from the darkness on two different days, the first & the fourth. It makes no sense unless Genesis is simply considered as a beautiful piece of poetry, devoid of actual technical detail.

It is OK to repeat yourself in verse, but in a sequence of real events, it can't be done.

Regards, Canis

 

[bokonon]

And when I see posts defending those from trolls that twist my words (sun was changed into light) I have to wonder.

Nobody twisted your words.

You said trees and such depended on sunlight -- clearly an error, as any light with the proper wavelengths and intensity can support photosynthesis.

MG1962 pointed out that the account you were questioning claimed that light (wavelengths and intensity not specified) had been introduced prior to the vegetation in question, so your counterclaim was questionable.

As usual, your response was to start hissing and spitting like Gollum defending his Precious.

He didn't "change" sun to light, he merely implied the undeniable fact that light can come from sources other than the sun.

 

[RationalVetMed]

Hmm, rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black I feel . Less of the ad hominem attacks if you please.

Yuri

OK, that didn't come out too well MG1962. I didn't mean to impune your kettle, it is unsmirched, I have always found your posts to be balanced and well argued. It was the pot I was concerned with

Yuri

 

[luchog]

So plants, trees and grass that need sunlight to survive were created ages before the sun. Ok got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Others have already addressed this. I'll simply state that you seem to lack understanding of the term "poetical".

Luckily, regardless of all that, there is an extensive genealogy that shows us that Earth is roughly 6000 years old.

For those with a profound lack of understanding of both scripture and the nature of Hebrew Genealogy. I've already addressed this more fully in other posts.

You mistook what I was saying. My phrasing was a little odd, so I understand why. I was not making a statement about what people believed at all. Wether or not they take the bible literally, I was wondering out loud if the majority of people who follow Judeo Christian religions would see Genesis as possibly describing evolutionary processes.

The majority of those who consider themselves Christians and Jews understand that the book of Genesis is a poetical narration of the origin of the world; not intended to have any literal or directly metaphorical applicability to any physical mechanism involved in that creation. That is official doctrine of many of the largest denominations worldwide, most of whom accept a theistic evolution model if they take any official position at all.

Genesis does not describe evolution, nor does it describe G-D literally moulding man from literal dirt. It is what the Church typically refers to as "mystery", something which happened, but which we are not given explicit information about. It is not necessary to the faith to know how G-D created the world, only that He did. The former we can discover easily enough through the intelligence and curiosity that He gave us; the latter is an article of faith.

It is only an ignorant minority, unfortunately vocal and growing in some places, who believe that it describes a literal process, despite the clear indications that warrant against such an interpretation. Their dogmatism on this issue is part of what scripture referred to as "straining out gnats while swallowing camels"; nitpicking irrelevancies while neglecting the fundamental principles of the faith (in their case, as the Pharisees He was castigating, love, mercy, and faithfulness). It is not an indication of the strength of their faith as they claim; but an indication of their rejection of reason and understanding.

Did I somehow offend you? If so it was unintentional. I find your phrasing here to be a little snarky, though. I think people on this forum could stand to be a bit friendlier to each other.

The tone was also unintentional, and I apologize if it seemed snarky. It's difficult enough to convey tone in this medium, and I tend to have only two modes of communicating, excessively rambling, and excessively terse.

I'm not particularly interested in friendliness; but I do agree that people could be more polite and civil. Unfortunately, there are some who feel that civility toward the opposition is a sign of weakness.

 

[luchog]

It makes no sense unless Genesis is simply considered as a beautiful piece of poetry, devoid of actual technical detail.

It is OK to repeat yourself in verse, but in a sequence of real events, it can't be done.

And the mode in which the story is written is a poetical one common to the Hebrew and Aramaic languages; but not typically found in European ones.

 

[noreligion]

Others have already addressed this. I'll simply state that you seem to lack understanding of the term "poetical".

Right. If Genesis can't be understood it magically becomes poetical. That is the oldest and most bs argument that the bible is true anyone has ever heard.

 

[Cainkane1]

Right. If Genesis can't be understood it magically becomes poetical. That is the oldest and most bs argument that the bible is true anyone has ever heard.

Is there really anything to understand? Someone a long time ago took a stylus in hand and wrote this nonsensical tale. It may have been a made up story by the author or it may have been a plagerized story from an even more ancient religion.

Some scientists say that the Eden story is a thinly disguised tale of civilized man comming into conflict with more savage cultures. Becomming aware that something was wrong with being unclothed and being forced to give up supporting themselves by hunting and gathering in favor of farming.

Adding talking snakes and yahway may have made the story more interesting and in many ways more exciting.

This is on the internet somewhere and if I can find it I will post it.

 

[Cainkane1]

Is there really anything to understand? Someone a long time ago took a stylus in hand and wrote this nonsensical tale. It may have been a made up story by the author or it may have been a plagerized story from an even more ancient religion.

Some scientists say that the Eden story is a thinly disguised tale of civilized man comming into conflict with more savage cultures. Becomming aware that something was wrong with being unclothed and being forced to give up supporting themselves by hunting and gathering in favor of farming.

Adding talking snakes and yahway may have made the story more interesting and in many ways more exciting.

This is on the internet somewhere and if I can find it I will post it.

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

 

[RationalVetMed]

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

""The whole Garden of Eden story, however, when finally written, could be seen to represent the point of view of the hunter gatherers," Zarins reasons. "It was the result of tension between the two groups, the collision of two ways of life. Adam and Eve were heirs to natural bounty. They had everything they needed. But they sinned and were expelled. How did they sin? By challenging God's very omnipotence. In so doing they represented the agriculturists, the upstarts who insisted on taking matters into their own hands, relying upon their knowledge and their own skills rather than on His bounty.
There were no journalists around to record the tension, no historians. But the event did not go unnoticed. It became a part of collective memory and at long last it was written down, highly condensed, in Genesis. It was very brief, but brevity doesn't mean lack of significance."
​

Nice idea, I love that kind of stuff. I notice they don't mention Conan the Barbarian at any point though, surely this undermines the authors credibility.

Yuri

 

[Soapy Sam]

not exactly.
i live quite an isolated life, though.
i live in the bush in a fairly remote location.
this is my connection to the world, and verrrrry slow dialup at that.
(and cbc radio)
i haven't had or watched tv for years.
i have only known of dawkins as an outspoken athiest.
i was not aware of his works.
thanks for that .
i always enjoy learning.

While RD has been personally atheistic for a long time, and this is clear in his earliest biological popular writing, he only went "full-time pro evangelical atheist" in the last ten years or so.

He was always better known in Britain than America, in part because the late Stephen J. Gould rather dominated the (American) pop-sci evolutionary niche.
Dawkins and Gould had several (rather over publicised) differences of opinion about evolution, which rivalry was hugely positive (IMO). Both wrote great stuff on evolution, but Dawkins' first book, "The Selfish Gene" presented a powerful popular treatment of the gene-centred model created by Haldane, Fisher , Hamilton and many others, which revolutionised the way most biologists since think of how natural selection really works.

If you only ever read one popular book on evolution, I'd recommend that one.

I suspect the majority of religious Americanadians and a lot of Europeans too, only heard of Dawkins in his second career as atheist, because they were more interested by his antireligious writing and broadcasting, than by his far longer history as a writer on evolution.
Which is a shame, because he's far more interesting as an explainer of evolution.

 

[bikerdruid]

While RD has been personally atheistic for a long time, and this is clear in his earliest biological popular writing, he only went "full-time pro evangelical atheist" in the last ten years or so.

He was always better known in Britain than America, in part because the late Stephen J. Gould rather dominated the (American) pop-sci evolutionary niche.
Dawkins and Gould had several (rather over publicised) differences of opinion about evolution, which rivalry was hugely positive (IMO). Both wrote great stuff on evolution, but Dawkins' first book, "The Selfish Gene" presented a powerful popular treatment of the gene-centred model created by Haldane, Fisher , Hamilton and many others, which revolutionised the way most biologists since think of how natural selection really works.

If you only ever read one popular book on evolution, I'd recommend that one.

I suspect the majority of religious Americanadians and a lot of Europeans too, only heard of Dawkins in his second career as atheist, because they were more interested by his antireligious writing and broadcasting, than by his far longer history as a writer on evolution.
Which is a shame, because he's far more interesting as an explainer of evolution.

thanks for the positive and informative post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Others have already addressed this. I'll simply state that you seem to lack understanding of the term "poetical". ....

"Poetical" used in a sentence in this context: If it is obviously crap, pretend it was meant to be "poetical".

 

[TubbaBlubba]

While RD has been personally atheistic for a long time, and this is clear in his earliest biological popular writing, he only went "full-time pro evangelical atheist" in the last ten years or so.

He was always better known in Britain than America, in part because the late Stephen J. Gould rather dominated the (American) pop-sci evolutionary niche.
Dawkins and Gould had several (rather over publicised) differences of opinion about evolution, which rivalry was hugely positive (IMO). Both wrote great stuff on evolution, but Dawkins' first book, "The Selfish Gene" presented a powerful popular treatment of the gene-centred model created by Haldane, Fisher , Hamilton and many others, which revolutionised the way most biologists since think of how natural selection really works.

If you only ever read one popular book on evolution, I'd recommend that one.

I suspect the majority of religious Americanadians and a lot of Europeans too, only heard of Dawkins in his second career as atheist, because they were more interested by his antireligious writing and broadcasting, than by his far longer history as a writer on evolution.
Which is a shame, because he's far more interesting as an explainer of evolution.

Well, I got interested in him via the God delusion and his anti-ID campaign, mostly, but I also ended up reading Greatest show on Earth, got more interested in evolution than before, and yesterday I ordered just about his complete works, barring A Devil's Chaplain and some other book.

 

[dafydd]

 

[RationalVetMed]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094c87f863403e6.jpg[/URL]

The complete silliness of an all powerful creator of the universe bothering with unimportant and obscure life forms in a fraction of the tiniest speck of his great creation; rather like us taking a paternal interest in a colony of bacteria growing on a dust mote under the stairs in an enormous mansion.

Another good illustration of this for me was the Arthur C Clarke short story 'the Star' where a Jesuit priest in space discovers a far off planet with the ruins of an Earth-like civillisation which was destroyed when its star was exploded to make the star of Bethlehem appear on Earth at the right time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_(short_story)
http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html

Yuri

 

[Cainkane1]

The complete silliness of an all powerful creator of the universe bothering with unimportant and obscure life forms in a fraction of the tiniest speck of his great creation; rather like us taking a paternal interest in a colony of bacteria growing on a dust mote under the stairs in an enormous mansion.

Another good illustration of this for me was the Arthur C Clarke short story 'the Star' where a Jesuit priest in space discovers a far off planet with the ruins of an Earth-like civillisation which was destroyed when its star was exploded to make the star of Bethlehem appear on Earth at the right time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_(short_story)
http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html

Yuri

A god that commands his people to wipe out women and children including babies could destroy a whole civilized planet I guess.