This topic is locked from further discussion.
Precisely.Guys, countless ancient civilizations said our planet is the flat center of the universe riding on the backs of various giant animals and the sun is a wise, omnipotent life-form definable as a deity. Countless hundreds of millions of people all across the planet said things to this effect, therefore it must be true.
dhyce
It cant be a coincidence.
Right, hartsickdiscipl?
Everyone in this thread, especially the TC, should read: Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. Its a good summary of what scientific truth is, and Evolution is certainly the best truth we have when it comes to how life is governed and how it has developed. To say its just a theory requires a misunderstanding of how science works.Guys, countless ancient civilizations said our planet is the flat center of the universe riding on the backs of various giant animals and the sun is a wise, omnipotent life-form definable as a deity. Countless hundreds of millions of people all across the planet said things to this effect, therefore it must be true.
dhyce
I suggest you go to a bookstore/library, pick up a biology textbook and read about evolution. Yes, it's a theory, anyone who is semi-knowledgeable about evolution knows that it is "The Theory of Evolution." Just a fun tidbit for you though, evolution has more evidence to back it up than gravity does.
Where the hell did I even imply anything about aliens and their possible interactions with primitive cultures? 0_o[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I don't consider it to be an abstract notion when I see Native Americans drawing pictures of "men from space," and then I see the same basic thing going on from South America through parts of the middle east. Why would an ancient people from all around the world who were having enough trouble just surviving make up stories about heavenly (read- from space) beings creating and/or interacting with humans? Some of the sculptures from Egypt and Latin America actually look like people in space suits.
Ridicule away, right up until the day that it all comes together in front of everyone. Primitive men view advanced beings as Gods, as proven by the interaction of our own pilots with islanders in the pacific during WW2. They even built wooden models of our planes and formed religions based around us! All because we had the power of flight, and came from the sky with all sorts of advanced (to them) technology.
UFO sightings, Religions, and science.. They are all on a collision course. They all fit together, but most of us are too arrogant and blind to connect the dots.
hartsickdiscipl
You didn't, directly. But by sticking to your guns on evolution, by believing that humans as we know ourselves simply evolved without a creator infringes upon these areas as well. All of these pieces have to fit in somewhere.
Go seek psychiatric help, immediately.
You must be new to hartsickdiscipl!Where the hell did I even imply anything about aliens and their possible interactions with primitive cultures? 0_o
Teenaged
Everyone in this thread, especially the TC, should read: Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. Its a good summary of what scientific truth is, and Evolution is certainly the best truth we have when it comes to how life is governed and how it has developed. To say its just a theory requires a misunderstanding of how science works.ProudLarry
Wait, what's happening? Big fat "duh" to evolution. I'm just here to be sardonic and fun. The veracity of evolution as the most eloquent and likely explanation for the diversity of life is irrefutable to anyone with a remotely preliminary understanding of it.
Lovely article though.
[QUOTE="dhyce"]Everyone in this thread, especially the TC, should read: Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. Its a good summary of what scientific truth is, and Evolution is certainly the best truth we have when it comes to how life is governed and how it has developed. To say its just a theory requires a misunderstanding of how science works.Guys, countless ancient civilizations said our planet is the flat center of the universe riding on the backs of various giant animals and the sun is a wise, omnipotent life-form definable as a deity. Countless hundreds of millions of people all across the planet said things to this effect, therefore it must be true.
ProudLarry
Wow, that was actually one of the best reads I've come across in a long time. Thanks for that.
I suggest you go to a bookstore/library, pick up a biology textbook and read about evolution. Yes, it's a theory, anyone who is semi-knowledgeable about evolution knows that it is "The Theory of Evolution." Just a fun tidbit for you though, evolution has more evidence to back it up than gravity does.
Bluestorm-Kalas
Again, one should differentiate between the law of gravitational attraction and the theory of gravity; they aren't one and the same, and although I agree with those who say that there are many things that creationists accept unquestioningly that have less evidence in their favor than evolutionary theory, the law of gravitational attraction, which is what most picture when they hear "gravity", is not one of them; it's the theory of gravity that one refers to there. Atomic theory is the scientific theory that I usually point to as one with plenty of holes that creationists have no problems with. I highly doubt that most creationists even know what the theory of gravity is, so I would not presume that they have an opinion on it one way or another.
[QUOTE="ProudLarry"]Everyone in this thread, especially the TC, should read: Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong. Its a good summary of what scientific truth is, and Evolution is certainly the best truth we have when it comes to how life is governed and how it has developed. To say its just a theory requires a misunderstanding of how science works.dhyce
Wait, what's happening? Big fat "duh" to evolution. I'm just here to be sardonic and fun. The veracity of evolution as the most eloquent and likely explanation for the diversity of life is irrefutable to anyone with a remotely preliminary understanding of it.
Sorry, I should have made it clear in the post, I knew you were being sarcastic to make a point. But I read the OP, saw your post, and it reminded me of the essay. (you should still read it if you have the time)Sorry, I should have made it clear in the post, I knew you were being sarcastic to make a point. But I read the OP, saw your post, and it reminded me of the essay. (you should still read it if you have the time)ProudLarry
Many apologies. I also read a good chunk of it so far and it's highly insightful.
[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]
I suggest you go to a bookstore/library, pick up a biology textbook and read about evolution. Yes, it's a theory, anyone who is semi-knowledgeable about evolution knows that it is "The Theory of Evolution." Just a fun tidbit for you though, evolution has more evidence to back it up than gravity does.
GabuEx
Again, one should differentiate between the law of gravitational attraction and the theory of gravity; they aren't one and the same, and although I agree with those who say that there are many things that creationists accept unquestioningly that have less evidence in their favor than evolutionary theory, the law of gravitational attraction, which is what most picture when they hear "gravity", is not one of them; it's the theory of gravity that one refers to there. Atomic theory is the scientific theory that I usually point to as one with plenty of holes that creationists have no problems with. I highly doubt that most creationists even know what the theory of gravity is, so I would not presume that they have an opinion on it one way or another.
While I agree that many creationists wouldn't know the logistics behind the theory of gravity, if being told it's only a theory they should understand it's also not a fact, but will still think it exists because of simple observation of gravities force at work (objects falling, or us not floating around). I've always seen that comparing the amount of hard evidence between to two as a good way to show how much evidence there is behind evolution. Being that the majority of people who don't believe in it, are just uneducated.
This thread is still going eh? I remember getting involved in the argument like 200-300 posts ago. Man was that a waste of time.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]
Gravity is a theory, the cell theory is a theory, so is the notion that matter is comprised of atoms.
It's quite easy to identify scientific illiterates like yourself who cannot even grasp the idea of a scientific theory. It's not used in the everyday definition similar to a guess or hint. A Theory in science is the highest form of truth you can attain.
VisigothSaxon
That makes it no better than the Theory of God brought forth by organized religion. Stop your bias assumptions, face the facts, a theory is theory. Like it or not, Evolution does not hold more truth than Religion, they are on the level playing ground of cannot be proven nor disproven.
its theory thats has alot of evidence. any non-observational theory cannot be considered as a fact because its only based on evidence that it is true. much like gravity, evolution is as much as a fact as gravity is. the theory of god does not have any evidence at all, it only attacks other theories with nonsense like irreducible complexity.its theory thats has alot of evidence. any non-observational theory cannot be considered as a fact because its only based on evidence that it is true. much like gravity, evolution is as much as a fact as gravity is. the theory of god does not have any evidence at all, it only attacks other theories with nonsense like irreducible complexity.iliatay
*Hypothesis of God.
[QUOTE="iliatay"]its theory thats has alot of evidence. any non-observational theory cannot be considered as a fact because its only based on evidence that it is true. much like gravity, evolution is as much as a fact as gravity is. the theory of god does not have any evidence at all, it only attacks other theories with nonsense like irreducible complexity.dhyce
*Hypothesis of God.
thanks for that :)Bad David Hume. Gravity is a fact. If objective knowledge were unattainable then none of our knowledge would be worth anything. And so science, like religion, all comes down to belief. And like religion, I choose to believe. (Yes, evolution too is a fact, for obvious reasons.)Gravity is technically still a theory 99% of scientists have chosen is the best idea we have come up with for a lot of things that happen in this universe. So we label it as a Law. It's technically not fact. It just has piles and piles of evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by the scientific community to be the law governing the state of large objects in the world. The law of gravity however holds absolutely no merit when on the sub-atomic level when dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atoms together. But it works pretty damn good for everything else. Same with a lot of phsycis and math.
The Theory of Evolution also has piles and piles of evidence from thousands of independent sources from across the planet who do scientific experiments and make general observations that can be redone over and over and over with the same results.
The only other theory of how humans came into being that is generally accepted in the western world is supported by 1 book with no observations, no reproducible scientific experiments, or any sorts of measurementsat all. It's still accepted based upon pure faith. There is absolutely no science behind it.
"Since you can't disprove it, it must be right" is not science, it's a argumentative fallacy that makes no sense. That's what the other theory soley relies on in the scientific community. Which is completely incorrect.
Wasdie
That living organisms evolve is a fact. It has been observed both in the laboratory and in the natural world. The theory of evolution does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of evolution. The theory of evolution is a proposed explanation of how organisms evolve.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]
I suggest you go to a bookstore/library, pick up a biology textbook and read about evolution. Yes, it's a theory, anyone who is semi-knowledgeable about evolution knows that it is "The Theory of Evolution." Just a fun tidbit for you though, evolution has more evidence to back it up than gravity does.
Bluestorm-Kalas
Again, one should differentiate between the law of gravitational attraction and the theory of gravity; they aren't one and the same, and although I agree with those who say that there are many things that creationists accept unquestioningly that have less evidence in their favor than evolutionary theory, the law of gravitational attraction, which is what most picture when they hear "gravity", is not one of them; it's the theory of gravity that one refers to there. Atomic theory is the scientific theory that I usually point to as one with plenty of holes that creationists have no problems with. I highly doubt that most creationists even know what the theory of gravity is, so I would not presume that they have an opinion on it one way or another.
While I agree that many creationists wouldn't know the logistics behind the theory of gravity, if being told it's only a theory they should understand it's also not a fact, but will still think it exists because of simple observation of gravities force at work (objects falling, or us not floating around). I've always seen that comparing the amount of hard evidence between to two as a good way to show how much evidence there is behind evolution. Being that the majority of people who don't believe in it, are just uneducated.Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm just saying that the idea that there is more evidence in favor of evolution than in favor of the law of gravitational attraction is not really true. We can see the latter in action every day; you can't get more evidence than that. If one wishes to point at a scientific theory with less evidential support than evolutionary theory that most creationists nonetheless understand and accept without issue, I would say that atomic theory is your guy.
Pretty much the reason why we can't trust the biblev13_KiiLtzWhere do I start. That site didnt prove any inconsistencies. First of all, the sun gives off light, but it is not the only source of light. And Genesis chapter 1 if im not mistaken is chronology while Genesis 2 is not (which is a purposeful ancient way of telling history). Everything in that website was ridiculous (example: talking about God doing things that we arent pemitted to do saying that it is a "contradiction" or "error").
While I agree that many creationists wouldn't know the logistics behind the theory of gravity, if being told it's only a theory they should understand it's also not a fact, but will still think it exists because of simple observation of gravities force at work (objects falling, or us not floating around). I've always seen that comparing the amount of hard evidence between to two as a good way to show how much evidence there is behind evolution. Being that the majority of people who don't believe in it, are just uneducated.[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Again, one should differentiate between the law of gravitational attraction and the theory of gravity; they aren't one and the same, and although I agree with those who say that there are many things that creationists accept unquestioningly that have less evidence in their favor than evolutionary theory, the law of gravitational attraction, which is what most picture when they hear "gravity", is not one of them; it's the theory of gravity that one refers to there. Atomic theory is the scientific theory that I usually point to as one with plenty of holes that creationists have no problems with. I highly doubt that most creationists even know what the theory of gravity is, so I would not presume that they have an opinion on it one way or another.
GabuEx
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm just saying that the idea that there is more evidence in favor of evolution than in favor of the law of gravitational attraction is not really true. We can see the latter in action every day; you can't get more evidence than that. If one wishes to point at a scientific theory with less evidential support than evolutionary theory that most creationists nonetheless understand and accept without issue, I would say that atomic theory is your guy.
to be fair we only actually see the effects of gravity. Not gravity itself. The theory of gravity predicts the mechanisms by which gravity acts, not necessarily what it does to other objects. (although we can predict the effects that it will have on objects by testing the mechanisms by which we think it acts) but the mechanisms by which evolution acts are far easier to observe than the effects of gravity. (know the mechanisms by which mutations occur and about how often they occur and other things such as genetic drift based on isolated populations)
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"] While I agree that many creationists wouldn't know the logistics behind the theory of gravity, if being told it's only a theory they should understand it's also not a fact, but will still think it exists because of simple observation of gravities force at work (objects falling, or us not floating around). I've always seen that comparing the amount of hard evidence between to two as a good way to show how much evidence there is behind evolution. Being that the majority of people who don't believe in it, are just uneducated.
Guybrush_3
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm just saying that the idea that there is more evidence in favor of evolution than in favor of the law of gravitational attraction is not really true. We can see the latter in action every day; you can't get more evidence than that. If one wishes to point at a scientific theory with less evidential support than evolutionary theory that most creationists nonetheless understand and accept without issue, I would say that atomic theory is your guy.
to be fair we only actually see the effects of gravity. Not gravity itself. The theory of gravity predicts the mechanisms by which gravity acts, not necessarily what it does to other objects. (although we can predict the effects that it will have on objects by testing the mechanisms by which we think it acts) but the mechanisms by which evolution acts are far easier to observe than the effects of gravity. (know the mechanisms by which mutations occur and about how often they occur and other things such as genetic drift based on isolated populations)
As I said above, I do not believe that most creationists even know what the theory of gravity says, and as such, I would doubt that they have any opinion at all about its merits. As such, pointing to it as something that creationists accept is, I believe, in error.
[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]Pretty much the reason why we can't trust the biblegaming25Where do I start. That site didnt prove any inconsistencies. First of all, the sun gives off light, but it is not the only source of light. And Genesis chapter 1 if im not mistaken is chronology while Genesis 2 is not (which is a purposeful ancient way of telling history). Everything in that website was ridiculous (example: talking about God doing things that we arent pemitted to do saying that it is a "contradiction" or "error"). First off, the key word is "seperated". Second off, did you read the "IMPORTANT" note?
[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]Pretty much the reason why we can't trust the biblegaming25Where do I start. That site didnt prove any inconsistencies. First of all, the sun gives off light, but it is not the only source of light. And Genesis chapter 1 if im not mistaken is chronology while Genesis 2 is not (which is a purposeful ancient way of telling history). Everything in that website was ridiculous (example: talking about God doing things that we arent pemitted to do saying that it is a "contradiction" or "error").
This is rather off-topic, and yes, many inconsistencies pointed out there are easily reconcilable, but I should point out that many are not so easily cast aside. For starters, Genesis undeniably (well, it ought to be undeniable, at least) contains two inconsistent creation stories, one in which humanity is created last of all that exists on Earth, and another in which humanity is created first. And it absolutely does say that God separated the light from the darkness before anything existed to either create light or obstruct that light's path.
This is rather off-topicGabuExWhoops :oops: I thought this was another Creation vs Evolution thread hah.
If its any help evolution is essentially a fact with that mosquito species that recently has evolved into two separate species or w/e :P. Thats about as close to fact as anything can be.
If its any help evolution is essentially a fact with that mosquito species that recently has evolved into two separate species or w/e :P. Thats about as close to fact as anything can be.
TacticalDesire
This is the point where most would probably invoke the idea that "microevolution" is possible while "macroevolution" is not... of course without rigorously defining either term. :P
[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]
If its any help evolution is essentially a fact with that mosquito species that recently has evolved into two separate species or w/e :P. Thats about as close to fact as anything can be.
GabuEx
This is the point where most would probably invoke the idea that "microevolution" is possible while "macroevolution" is not... of course without rigorously defining either term. :P
That might be true, I was just pointing something out to be of help though. I mean if you really think about it not many things are truly fact, but evolution is about as close as they come.
Where do I start. That site didnt prove any inconsistencies. First of all, the sun gives off light, but it is not the only source of light. And Genesis chapter 1 if im not mistaken is chronology while Genesis 2 is not (which is a purposeful ancient way of telling history). Everything in that website was ridiculous (example: talking about God doing things that we arent pemitted to do saying that it is a "contradiction" or "error").[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]Pretty much the reason why we can't trust the bibleGabuEx
This is rather off-topic, and yes, many inconsistencies pointed out there are easily reconcilable, but I should point out that many are not so easily cast aside. For starters, Genesis undeniably (well, it ought to be undeniable, at least) contains two inconsistent creation stories, one in which humanity is created last of all that exists on Earth, and another in which humanity is created first. And it absolutely does say that God separated the light from the darkness before anything existed to either create light or obstruct that light's path.
I just went through that. Genesis 1 is chronology, while Genesis 2 is a form of explaining what happened Genesis 1 (type of writing that ancient historians used to describe history). And I think you didnt understand what I said about the light part. The person who made that website was trying to claim that it was "inconsistent" to say that light came before the sun, but the sun isnt the only form of light.I just went through that. Genesis 1 is chronology, while Genesis 2 is a form of explaining what happened Genesis 1 (type of writing that ancient historians used to describe history).gaming25
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 'So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so." (Genesis 1:26-30)
Man was created after all plants, animals, or clouds.
"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:4b-7)
Man was created before any plants, animals, or clouds.
And I think you didnt understand what I said about the light part. The person who made that website was trying to claim that it was "inconsistent" to say that light came before the sun, but the sun isnt the only form of light.gaming25
It wasn't just the sun; both the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created on the fourth day. What exactly was the light that God separated from the darkness on the first day?
Just me talking here now, if someone doesn't know some of the major theories of science (evolution, atomic, gravity, relativity, cell, and to an extent big bang) they shouldn't be debating whether evolution is a valid theory or not.Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm just saying that the idea that there is more evidence in favor of evolution than in favor of the law of gravitational attraction is not really true. We can see the latter in action every day; you can't get more evidence than that. If one wishes to point at a scientific theory with less evidential support than evolutionary theory that most creationists nonetheless understand and accept without issue, I would say that atomic theory is your guy.
GabuEx
That being said, I agree that atomic theory would be a good example to use also.
Just me talking here now, if someone doesn't know some of the major theories of science (evolution, atomic, gravity, relativity, cell, and to an extent big bang) they shouldn't be debating whether evolution is a valid theory or not.
Bluestorm-Kalas
Here's a fun thing to do: ask someone bringing up the second law of thermodynamics in opposition to evolution how many such laws there are and to name them. :P
Isn't evolution, perhaps life itself, in direct opposition to the theory of entropy? Life isfairly organized, but with entropy, it's a losing battle. The universe should be proceeding to a less orderly state or so that theory states.
Dawkins fans: I believe in natural selection, so cool your jets.
Isn't evolution, perhaps life itself, in direct opposition to the theory of entropy? Life isfairly organized, but with entropy, it's a losing battle. The universe should be proceeding to a less orderly state or so that theory states.
Dawkins fans: I believe in natural selection, so cool your jets.
sonicare
Entropy only increases in a closed system that experiences no influx of energy. The earth is clearly not a closed system.
[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]
Just me talking here now, if someone doesn't know some of the major theories of science (evolution, atomic, gravity, relativity, cell, and to an extent big bang) they shouldn't be debating whether evolution is a valid theory or not.
GabuEx
Here's a fun thing to do: ask someone bringing up the second law of thermodynamics in opposition to evolution how many such laws there are and to name them. :P
Haha agreed. When someone brings in the 2nd law of themo. though, I just can't help but feel they came from a quick google or bing search, and were too lazy to search into the issue further. Either that or they don't know that the sun exists."Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 'So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.' And it was so." (Genesis 1:26-30)
Man was created after all plants, animals, or clouds.
"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:4b-7)
Man was created before any plants, animals, or clouds.
It wasn't just the sun; both the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created on the fourth day. What exactly was the light that God separated from the darkness on the first day?
Here is what I was trying to tell you explained further... "The questioner sets Moses against himself in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. It would seem to me that if there was a contradiction between the two accounts, Moses ought to have caught it prior to finishing his work. Yet Moses seemingly made no effort to correct any supposed error, nor did he acknowledge any such error. Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be. It is noteworthy that in Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man. -- God planted a garden and put the man in it (v 8, 15) -- God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named (v 19-20) -- God took a rib from man, and created woman for him (v 21-25). The questioner makes some false assumptions and assertions which ought to be addressed: Regarding Day 6, the Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "...at the same time..." They were created in the same day, but not at the same time. Regarding "days", "evenings", and "mornings", the questioner scoffs at the idea that such distinctions could exist before the Sun was created. Do we need to see the sun for it to be day? Must we see the moon for ti to be night? If so, the extreme artic has no night through the summer months, and no day through the winter months. However, 1:3-5 mentions God's establishment of Day and Night. Moses' mention of "evenings" and "mornings" coincides with the Jewish clock, wherein the days run from sunset to sunset. Indeed, Elohim is plural. The same word is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, where Moses writes, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD." The question then is how can more than one be one? Well, in marriage, two people are one flesh (Genesis 2:24). In the church, many are one body (1 Corinthians 12:12). Lukewise, three persons of the Godhead are one God. All three persons of the Godhead were active in creation (Genesis 1:1-2, 26; John 1:1-3). Finally, the questioner assumes that Adam was brought into a desolate Earth. Did he not read that the Lord placed him in the garden? That doesn't sound desolate to me. Perhaps such reasoning is the product of the supposed contradiction between chapters 1 & 2. If the questioner would understand that Moses' purpose in the two chapters is different, he might have an easier time understanding the specifics in the text. There is no contradiction." That was lookinguntojesus.net aplogeticspress.com explains it even more clearly... "The fact is, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation" (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man."[QUOTE="sonicare"]
Isn't evolution, perhaps life itself, in direct opposition to the theory of entropy? Life isfairly organized, but with entropy, it's a losing battle. The universe should be proceeding to a less orderly state or so that theory states.
Dawkins fans: I believe in natural selection, so cool your jets.
Entropy only increases in a closed system that experiences no influx of energy. The earth is clearly not a closed system.
What if you consider the universe, itself, as the system?[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="sonicare"]
Isn't evolution, perhaps life itself, in direct opposition to the theory of entropy? Life isfairly organized, but with entropy, it's a losing battle. The universe should be proceeding to a less orderly state or so that theory states.
Dawkins fans: I believe in natural selection, so cool your jets.
sonicare
Entropy only increases in a closed system that experiences no influx of energy. The earth is clearly not a closed system.
What if you consider the universe, itself, as the system?Well, if the universe itself were a closed system then logically it should never have had any order at all, which probably indicates either that it's not a closed system or that there is something that we fundamentally don't yet understand.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="sonicare"]
Isn't evolution, perhaps life itself, in direct opposition to the theory of entropy? Life isfairly organized, but with entropy, it's a losing battle. The universe should be proceeding to a less orderly state or so that theory states.
Dawkins fans: I believe in natural selection, so cool your jets.
sonicare
Entropy only increases in a closed system that experiences no influx of energy. The earth is clearly not a closed system.
What if you consider the universe, itself, as the system?Depends on how we are viewing the universe here.
Here is what I was trying to tell you explained further... "The questioner sets Moses against himself in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. It would seem to me that if there was a contradiction between the two accounts, Moses ought to have caught it prior to finishing his work. Yet Moses seemingly made no effort to correct any supposed error, nor did he acknowledge any such error. Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be. It is noteworthy that in Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man. -- God planted a garden and put the man in it (v 8, 15) -- God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named (v 19-20) -- God took a rib from man, and created woman for him (v 21-25). The questioner makes some false assumptions and assertions which ought to be addressed: Regarding Day 6, the Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "...at the same time..." They were created in the same day, but not at the same time. Regarding "days", "evenings", and "mornings", the questioner scoffs at the idea that such distinctions could exist before the Sun was created. Do we need to see the sun for it to be day? Must we see the moon for ti to be night? If so, the extreme artic has no night through the summer months, and no day through the winter months. However, 1:3-5 mentions God's establishment of Day and Night. Moses' mention of "evenings" and "mornings" coincides with the Jewish clock, wherein the days run from sunset to sunset. Indeed, Elohim is plural. The same word is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, where Moses writes, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD." The question then is how can more than one be one? Well, in marriage, two people are one flesh (Genesis 2:24). In the church, many are one body (1 Corinthians 12:12). Lukewise, three persons of the Godhead are one God. All three persons of the Godhead were active in creation (Genesis 1:1-2, 26; John 1:1-3). Finally, the questioner assumes that Adam was brought into a desolate Earth. Did he not read that the Lord placed him in the garden? That doesn't sound desolate to me. Perhaps such reasoning is the product of the supposed contradiction between chapters 1 & 2. If the questioner would understand that Moses' purpose in the two chapters is different, he might have an easier time understanding the specifics in the text. There is no contradiction." That was lookinguntojesus.net aplogeticspress.com explains it even more clearly... "The fact is, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation" (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man."gaming25
No offense, but neither of those two responses even read the text of Genesis 2. Let me repeat it, with extraneous text cut out:
"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
When God formed man from the dust of the ground, we are told in Genesis 2, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". This is undeniably in contradiction with Genesis 1, which clearly places the creation of man chronologically following the creation of plant life on Earth.
Also, Moses as the author of the Pentateuch is traditional, and is rejected by all modern scholarship. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (well, minus the first few verses) were not written by the same author. See the documentary hypothesis, which covers this in detail.
Wait, why would you assume that the universe started at a state of maximum entropy?Well, if the universe itself were a closed system then logically it should never have had any order at all, which probably indicates either that it's not a closed system or that there is something that we fundamentally don't yet understand.
GabuEx
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment