Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 3:50 am
In the version they read on thebiblereloaded, God starts talking about "us" in certain parts of the creation story, but not in others. It must be where one story came from a pantheon and one from monotheism. Also he creates man and woman, with no drama, then goes on to create man from dust ignoring the fact that he already made man. This is all right at the start of the bible. I mean, isn't this enough to make you question the sanity and integrity of the authors?
But good point, it's not stupid to make up stories. Believing them is stupid. They are probably camp side tales for children to answer their ceaseless questions about everything. Somewhere along the way someone got them mixed up with a science book and the rest is fake history.
Posts: 7157
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 6:39 am
Both writers make use of that device. In the first creation account, god says "let us make man in our image." There is no similar use in the second creation account, but in the story of the fall (which is written in the style of the writer of the second creation account) god laments that "man has become like one of us." No reference is made to any other specific being, and so it could refer to a pantheon of gods, but could also refer to spirit beings such as angels. The creation accounts do not mention angels, but at the end of chapter three we are told that god places a cherubim at the entrance of the path to the tree of life. That is the first specific reference to any other spiritual being in the Bible, since the serpent is not identified as anything but a serpent.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 7:06 am
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 7:06 am by robvalue.)
In some versions of the bible, after the snake is introduced, there is an interpolation of "the snake is satan", written in crayon.
Posts: 1347
Threads: 2
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 7:33 am
I heard somewhere that the snake represents oral sex and god was pissed that Eve would oraly pleasure Adam. Can't reproduce with oral sex when you have been instructed to populate the earth.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 8:03 am
(January 16, 2015 at 2:26 am)Drich Wrote: There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:
No, no, no ,no, you just don't get to argue creation over evolution for over 100 years then as the weight of evidence becomes too compelling decide it fits in with your picture of creation after all.
You bastards killed Copernicus then took his ideas and quietly hushed up the fact you were flat-out wrong. You don't get to pull that one again. You are wrong, grow-up and admit it and stop trying to worm your way out of it. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Hypocrisy thy name is Christianity.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 8:30 am
(January 21, 2015 at 3:50 am)robvalue Wrote: In the version they read on thebiblereloaded, God starts talking about "us" in certain parts of the creation story, but not in others.
Maybe he was talking to the tooth fairy.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 9:06 am
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 9:09 am by Drich.)
(January 21, 2015 at 8:03 am)ManMachine Wrote: (January 16, 2015 at 2:26 am)Drich Wrote: There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:
No, no, no ,no, you just don't get to argue creation over evolution for over 100 years then as the weight of evidence becomes too compelling decide it fits in with your picture of creation after all.
You bastards killed Copernicus then took his ideas and quietly hushed up the fact you were flat-out wrong. You don't get to pull that one again. You are wrong, grow-up and admit it and stop trying to worm your way out of it. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Hypocrisy thy name is Christianity.
MM
How old do you think I am?
Plus this theory I put together must have really shaken you if you are telling I am not allowed to argue it because of what happened hundreds of years...
Before I break down your indivisual arguements I'd like a simple question answered first...
What does it matter if the Genesis account was written by more than one person? Not saying it was mind you, just want to know what victory you think you've won here? Perhaps maybe you think that if you can dispel moses wrote it the whole book some how becomes invalid?
If that's the case please explain the leap in logic.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 9:49 am
(January 21, 2015 at 9:06 am)Drich Wrote: (January 21, 2015 at 8:03 am)ManMachine Wrote: No, no, no ,no, you just don't get to argue creation over evolution for over 100 years then as the weight of evidence becomes too compelling decide it fits in with your picture of creation after all.
You bastards killed Copernicus then took his ideas and quietly hushed up the fact you were flat-out wrong. You don't get to pull that one again. You are wrong, grow-up and admit it and stop trying to worm your way out of it. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Hypocrisy thy name is Christianity.
MM
How old do you think I am?
Plus this theory I put together must have really shaken you if you are telling I am not allowed to argue it because of what happened hundreds of years...
Before I break down your indivisual arguements I'd like a simple question answered first...
What does it matter if the Genesis account was written by more than one person? Not saying it was mind you, just want to know what victory you think you've won here? Perhaps maybe you think that if you can dispel moses wrote it the whole book some how becomes invalid?
If that's the case please explain the leap in logic.
Hey kiddo you just use the word theory because well here is what a theory basically is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. While your argument for the genesis creation account of man does not take place in reality. So chill out and drink a juice box and eat a cookie and let the scientists and the adults find out the real answers to everything.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 7157
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 9:51 am
(January 21, 2015 at 9:06 am)Drich Wrote: What does it matter if the Genesis account was written by more than one person? It only matters in terms of understanding how the books of the Bible were assembled, what the origins of the stories are, and what it might tell us about the cultures and people who told the stories and ultimately assembled them into the form we have today. If that understanding makes the divine origins of the book doubtful, that is incidental.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 21, 2015 at 9:53 am
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 9:54 am by ManMachine.)
(January 21, 2015 at 9:06 am)Drich Wrote: (January 21, 2015 at 8:03 am)ManMachine Wrote: No, no, no ,no, you just don't get to argue creation over evolution for over 100 years then as the weight of evidence becomes too compelling decide it fits in with your picture of creation after all.
You bastards killed Copernicus then took his ideas and quietly hushed up the fact you were flat-out wrong. You don't get to pull that one again. You are wrong, grow-up and admit it and stop trying to worm your way out of it. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Hypocrisy thy name is Christianity.
MM
How old do you think I am?
Plus this theory I put together must have really shaken you if you are telling I am not allowed to argue it because of what happened hundreds of years...
Before I break down your indivisual arguements I'd like a simple question answered first...
What does it matter if the Genesis account was written by more than one person? Not saying it was mind you, just want to know what victory you think you've won here? Perhaps maybe you think that if you can dispel moses wrote it the whole book some how becomes invalid?
If that's the case please explain the leap in logic.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension I am saying that this is in some way related to some kind of temporal 'sell-by date'. I'm not.
I'm telling you that this position is hypocritical, which it clearly is.
Laugh at that chuckles.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
|
