Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
RavenHawk

Evolution and Creationism

46 posts in this topic

As many are probably aware by now, the History Channel has shut down their boards. For good or bad, that means an influx of new members will occur. FYI, they are not newbies to the genre, just new to this forum. So you might perceive a kind of arrogance. Don’t worry too much about it. As a means to introduce myself and see how well I’ll fit in here, may I present this treatise on Evolution and Creationism? I’ve perused this forum and have not seen anything similar, so either I haven’t looked hard enough or this is virgin territory. I have expressed several concepts in this paper not completely seen before, therefore by virtue of being posted, is under my intellectual copyright.

Of course, I’m sure that there will be many that will only catch this presentation at a superficial level (i.e. they won’t get it or they will just outright reject it). I’m not writing this for them. I’m a Christian (heretical maverick with Deist leanings) but also a skeptical and critical thinker. My atheist buddies have called me a believer with the mind of an atheist. In Sunday school I was the one that asked where Cain’s wife came from etc. My belief is more in my faith than dogma. I’m willing and able to view heretical knowledge without fearing that I am sinning.

For example: I do not think that Jesus is anti-homosexual. I think that it is from the writings of Paul that we get that sense from. But that’s not to invalidate the importance of what Paul brings to Christianity. He is just a man and is flawed as we all are, just as Mohammed and Buddha were. Paul was basically a xenophobe anyway. I think that as the faith goes there is still room to mature in a collective sense. I think that Judas was Jesus’ armor bearer and that he was doing what Jesus had ordered. I do not think that that changes the dynamics of the Salvation of Christ. I believe that Mary Magdalene was not the prostitute and that in fact, she and Jesus were married and that they had at least one child. I.e. DaVinci’s “Last Supper” is of Mary and Jesus.

I think that these things became heretical because they went against the Character of the Catholic Church and the direction that its path was set on, more so than being wrong. It would have been different if some other sect had taken control of the reins (Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Copts …). Even before Nicea, the nature of Christ was in debate. Was he divine, human or both? It’s hard for us to clearly think of anything else because of 1700 years of influence by the Catholic Church. So given this background, you might begin to understand how I am open to consider the following.

This is an ongoing pet project that I work on from time to time (this is 45+ years in the making). And I’ve just recently incorporated a lot of updates, so there are probably more edits due. I’m always interested to see what kind of response it garners. Are there others that share an interest in looking at this in a different way? I encourage you to rip this apart mercilessly but constructively (those two must go together). I.e. if you do not have constructive criticisms, please don’t waste both our time. If you don’t agree, that is fine, state why and back it up, please. Are there sites that you know of that support/counter what I say here? Are you aware of a similar work? It’s meant as a serious look into what Genesis really represents. What is it really telling us? How literal is it? Personally, I don’t think Genesis was meant to be taken literally but that’s not to say that it is all allegorical or just fairy tales either. I.e. it’s not a lifestyle guide to follow, just a record of events.

It is simply the story or a conglomeration of stories of a people handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth via the storyteller. It had to be concise for memorization. Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch which was included into the Bible in 325ce at the Council of Nicea. The Bible is primarily the story of Christ and his message. It is the inspired and inerrant word of GOD. Does that mean that the Bible does not have contradictions in it? No! That is not what *inerrant* refers to. So is Genesis perfect? It depends on what you are looking for.

Genesis may not be exact but it lets us know that these events took place and the rest is left up to imagination. It’s like being in high school history class and you read that the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution. At that point, you have no idea how that was accomplished and you never will know everything but you will always remember the painting by Howard Chandler Christy and see the images of who was there and how that stimulated your imagination.

That is what Genesis is. It paints a picture for us (a snapshot in time). It only marks the passing of events but doesn’t give us all of the details. And this is my premise, that Genesis 1 is an observation of evolution. No, it is not a good scientific observation that can be tested but it is an observation none-the-less and recorded long before the Concept of the Scientific Model or Darwin’s theory was known and understood. The one thing missing from proving evolution as a law is direct observation. Genesis 1 just says that we are correct in our concept of evolution. It is not an exact proof, it is only a guidepost. It’s kind of like gravity. We can’t see it or prove it, but we see the effects of it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Darwin wasn’t thinking the same thing?? It also implies then that evolution is a creation of GOD. And perhaps the chaos in natural selection (or is it innate intelligence) is the design? It’s the mechanism to trigger change that GOD put in place so that he could ‘sit back and watch’.

I guess at this point, it would be too easy to scoff at that and try to deny what it appears to be. If you look at the history of elements and the Periodic Table, you’ll see that the table we have today is more complete than it was years ago. Scientists knew that a particular element with a certain weight existed (because of the “hole” in the table) but they had never seen it – until it was discovered. They knew what the characteristics of the element were. The Bible can give similar clues. Saying that GOD did it is not good enough, but it gives us a clue that *it* exists and it’s up to science to find *it*. This is how science and religion go hand-in-hand.

Another way to look at it is to consider many generations after a post-atomic holocaust. Those living would have no technology or the collective memory to fly but they have access to an old archive that had survived and it has books on flight. Providing that they could decipher the books, they certainly don’t have the science to get something in the air but by reading these ancient books, they know it is possible. Some might even consider it a fairy tale. Or kind a like the scene in “Planet of the Apes” where Cornelius is showing Dr Zaius, Taylor’s paper airplane and he just crumples it up and discards it.

In Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.” This is the beginning of science. Science is a tool of man expressing his curiosity that we use to explain GOD’s creation. Creation and evolution are just simply two sides of the same coin. When they cross, they should collaborate and not oppose. Maybe I can only say that because I never had that inner conflict between faith and science? And unlike Dr. Zaius, I never felt the need to protect faith from science.

So what is Genesis? For the Jew of David’s time, these stories were ancient. It is pretty much agreed that the Genesis that we know today was written down for the first time during the Babylonian Captivity (circa ~586bce – 538bce). Because of this captivity, Genesis was probably culled from at least two sources, from Hebrew stories and stories of the Enûma Elish (the Babylonian texts), which both derive from older Sumerian texts. Both have the same source but between Abraham and the Captivity the two versions diverged, as were many other versions from other cultures lost to time. I’m sure that at that time the Enûma Elish was more complete than it is today and the Hebrew version probably contains Egyptian influence. This may be the reason Abraham was chosen to be the father of nations and that is because since the Tower of Babel, his people had been the most faithful in keeping the most accurate record.

Scholars seem to think that the Pentateuch had 4 different authors. But it’s not clear as to what that means. Moses gets the credit for Genesis but that doesn’t mean he wrote it. He probably had a scribe cull these stories from the original authors, which could have been Adam, Noah, Abraham, and maybe Joseph. And then Moses edited them together. But maybe there were other authors? One writer identified as Author “P” or Priestly wrote Genesis 1-11, so was that Adam or his chronicler? But author “P” is said to have written his portion circa 500BCE which would put it during the Babylonian captivity. The one thing you can conclude is that there have been many hands in preserving this document.

Genesis can be broken down into two sections: 1-11 is the genesis of the beginning and 12-50 is the genesis of Israel, Abraham to Joseph. Located at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c022.html, goes further into examining what the first 11 chapters are and answering questions about what Genesis is. “Are any of these chapters poetry?”, “Are any of these chapters parables?”, “Are any of these chapters prophecy?”, “Are any of these chapters letters, biography, or autobiography/personal testimony?” are the questions and by examination points to Genesis 1-11 being basically personal testimony. But read it and decide for yourself.

You can break down the first 11 chapters as (Remember that the people in the first 11 chapters were not Jews):

1: Adam’s version of Creation (Babylonian).

2: Eve’s version of Creation (Hebrew).

3: Fall of Man.

4: Cain and Abel.

5: Generations from Adam to Noah.

6: Noah and the Flood.

7: Flood begins.

8: Waters recede.

9: Covenant with Noah.

10: Table of Nations.

11: Tower of Babel.

If you follow one interpretation, chapter 2 could be Lillith’s version (Eve coming later). And there are indications that it could be Lillith. That’s why man has always had the ‘other’ woman on the side! I’m sorry, that one was too good to pass up :-) Adam’s flows with the Enûma Elish. Chapter 2 would seem to be more of having a woman’s touch. The term “The Man” is used nine times. And placed at the end of Verse 20, one reference to Adam is made. This is why I would think that Chapter 2 is Lillith’s story.

On http://talkorigins.org, there is a section there that lists all the flood stories from various cultures. The list stands at ~261. All these cultures have their creation myths. They all pretty much have some kind of deity involved. Very few do not. Now it is true that the vast majority of early cultures were centered along coastlines so flooding was a psychological terror. A flood myth would seem logical and it doesn’t take too much stimulation of the imagination to wipe out the world. But there are other disasters just as catastrophic. There are earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, asteroids, fire, meteors, drought, famine, tornadoes, and hurricanes. The idea is that you would think that these myths would be more evenly distributed among the various disasters at least with some variance. But they are not, which would indicate one origin; even if you consider the concept of a local flood. As the cultures became more diverse so did the story, but the roots remain.

The discovery of the evolutionary process from Lucy (3.2 million years ago) through Homo sapiens (200,000 years ago) would seem to indicate that man’s origin is in East Africa. For the most part this agrees with the first portion of Genesis that man originated from one location. Is it possible that Genesis 1 is the story of Evolution?

Another thing to take note on is that about 1650 Bishop Ussher had published a Chronology of the age of the Earth based on the assumption of a literal reading of the Bible and that the ages listed are consecutive with no lapses. Today, science has shown that the Earth is not 6000 years old and it was a bad assumption on Ussher’s part. And this has proven to be ammunition for atheists to attack the Bible. But this doesn’t mean that the Bible is wrong. It means that man’s interpretations of the Bible are not necessarily correct and it also means that Genesis cannot be taken literally as a complete chronology. The entities that we call Adam and Eve could have lived 200,000 years ago (the first Homo sapiens). The flood could have happened when the last Ice Age receded (10,000 – 18,000 years ago).

Finally, I believe that in the Book of Mormon describes a bit more on what happened to some tribes that dispersed from Babel, which implies that as the tribes dispersed around the globe, their stories of origin also went with them. As did morals. That’s why most religions at a core level are basically the same.

Now I’m going to cover just the first chapter of Genesis. The assumption that I make is that it is the testimony of Adam. Obviously he was not living when all of this took place, but Adam communed with GOD through visions. And in those visions, GOD presented to Adam the wonder of creation. Genesis 1 represents those events as Adam could comprehend. What’s unknown is how long this story was passed on from generation to generation before it was written down? So I’m going to allow for errors to enter into the equation. To some, this story would be in the form of a fairy tale; in fact it may be the very first fairy tale. But what’s wrong with that? Fairy tales were used to teach. So why wouldn’t a scientist take it as a rudimentary guide? Not one that shows how evolution works but an observation that evolution happens (note the subtlety). Kind a like the mnemonics used to memorize Mohs hardness scale. I see it as a top level recorded observation of evolution. Not something that puts faith in competition with evolution.

As I think what happened during captivity, the Genesis story set each “day” of Creation to a Babylonian day of the week. Whether I chose correctly or not shouldn’t matter. As there seems to be more major events to the story, it’s interesting how the parings of events were grouped together to fit into seven days. I think using the Babylonian week was used not only as a mnemonic to set the rhythm of the story but also to appease the Babylonian rulers by combining Hebrew origins and the Enûma Elish (or perhaps just filling in the holes). Although, this may not necessarily be only a Babylonian concept as Hebrew & Babylonian (Chaldean) origins were the same anyway. The general outline of the chapter goes like:

1) “Let there be light!” (Event 0 - Big Bang)

2) Expanse (Universe)

3) Earth – Plants

4) Stars (and solar systems form)

5) Fish – Birds

6) Animals-Man

7) GOD rested.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Chapter abstract.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Introduction. This is the calm before the storm of Creation. The Cosmic egg is forming. Innate intelligence is at work. Evolution is about to be triggered. Adam’s point of view is “Earth” bound and he could not physically experience the environment. So, the moment prior to the Big Bang, Adam would “see” the Earth as formless and empty (it hadn’t been created yet). It would then seem obvious that the terms “deep” and “waters” are not references to H2O, but great emptiness, plasma, dark energy, etc. The Big Bang and swirling strings forming galaxies and dust clouds forming stars in a galaxy might just appear as turbulent “waters”. Galaxies and planets (Earth) could be considered Islands in an ocean. “Darmok and Jalad… on the ocean”.

DAY 1:

Shamash – Sun - Sunday

> 1) “Let there be light!” (Event 0 - Big Bang)

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.

Verse 3 is the obvious verse that most people consider “the Big Bang”. Verse 4 is the cosmic egg expanding from its dark gaseous (plasma) cocoon. Matter forming galaxies and coalescing from the nothingness.

It had always seemed that day and night here is poetic license as a mnemonic to build a rhythm to make it easier to tell and pass on. I’d say that it worked fairly well. Day and night do not represent an actual Earth bound period of time.

DAY 2:

Sin – Moon – Monday

> 2) expanse (universe)

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

What is this expanse? Note that it doesn’t say that the Earth was created yet so sky cannot be Earth’s sky. Earth’s continents don’t separate the seas. This is a political boundary idea. The concept wouldn’t be in Adam’s vocabulary at this point. So the interpretation that this is the creation of the Earth is wrong.

If we look at Einstein’s concept of the universe, he considered it like a balloon, or more precisely, the skin of an expanding balloon. But it was never clear as to what was blowing it up and to what it was expanding into. The one drawback to the Big Bang was that when the egg exploded, all the matter would have expanded evenly. Gravity would be equalized and life could not have begun. Gravity could not start to clump things together. If however, some matter was missing, then gravity would then be able to work. But how do you encourage matter to go “missing”? Something to cause a chain reaction in gravity.

Current string theory says that there are multiple layers of dimensions or membranes. When membranes contact each other it releases energy. Or in this case the Big Bang. But let’s say that what actually happens is that one brane penetrates the other causing a rip that allows dark energy to pass. But it’s not a complete tear but more like an aneurysm, like Einstein’s balloon blowing up but with this explosion anchored at one point, expansion is not even and gravity is not distributed evenly allowing matter to organize into galaxies. Again, the “sky” is the skin of the balloon and the “waters” inside and outside of the balloon is dark energy.

DAY 3:

Nergal – Mars – Tuesday

> 3) earth – plants

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Earth has obviously been created at this point. A link is made between the land and the plants. Perhaps this is an implication of biological evolution beginning? RNA to DNA? Plant life is usually the first form of advanced life that will appear on a planet, so it’s appropriate to have both together. It obviously skips a lot of steps, but that’s been the case so far. Again, this is not a scientific observation, but it is an observation none-the-less.

DAY 4:

Nabû – Mercury – Wednesday

> 4) stars (and solar systems form)

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.

This is clearly the evolution of stars and with stars, solar systems form. And here we see “expanse of the sky” and that the stars are part of this expanse (going back to Day 2).

And here we have what appears to be a major goof but is it really a major error that invalidates the whole thing? It’s obvious by the structure that Day 3 and 4 should be swapped but as we go through the rest of the chapter, it is the only error of its kind. There are two explanations for this. Either it is Adam’s perspective or it is a typo in which the two steps somewhere along the way were swapped. There were many hands involved in the preservation of this story. It is so easy to confuse Day 2 to be the creation of Earth because of a lack of understanding as to the structure of the Universe. The steps are accurate and distinct within themselves. I.e., you don’t have Plants being created before the Earth.

DAY 5:

Marduk – Jupiter – Thursday

> 5) fish – birds

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Fish evolved before the birds, so this is straight forward. Although, expanse appears here too, the context is now clearly referring to the sky of the Earth. At this point, you can begin to see that Adam had no concept in the difference between the sky above his head and space beyond that, especially if his POV changed from somewhere in space to the surface of the Earth and not being able to experience the environment. To him it was all the same and that concept stuck around until, say Copernicus? This also shows the mindset at the time of Babel, not understanding the difference between a breathable atmosphere and passing through a boundary layer to outer space.

We also see the phrase “according to their kind” for the first time. Many have concluded that this disproves evolution because it shows that evolution can’t happen if change doesn’t occur. But because of variation (breeding) we know that this is not the case here. It just simply means that horses beget horses and pigs beget pigs and has nothing to do with evolution. I.e. horses don’t beget pigs. In fact, if evolution was not at work, there would be no meaning to “according to their kind”. Day 2, 5, & 6 is the basic order of biological evolution.

There is a term called innate intelligence. It basically states that everything in nature knows what to do. I.e. a flower knows to open its pedals and face the sun or a baby knows that crying will bring attention from its parents. Evolution is no different. Evolution is not as randomly chaotic as can be imagined but it knows how far to go with mutations that have better chances for succeeding. From the Cambrian Explosion to the time of the Dinosaurs, there was the span of a ~ 400 million years and then another 65 million for man to develop. Evolution didn’t waste its time on dead ends (chaotically random combinations) a lot. Viable mutations survive. No one is really aware of how many stillborns occur (there are vastly more than abortions). Women can pass the fetus without knowing and reporting is as inconsistent as rape. Most stillborns are caused by a non viable mutation in the chromosomes.

Day 6:

Ishtar – Venus – Friday

> 6) animals-man

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 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."

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

28 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."

29 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. 30 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.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

What is meant by the “land produce” if it is not a reference to evolution?

DAY 7:

Ninurta – Saturn – Saturday

7) GOD rested (Sabbath).

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Why the tail end of Adam’s version of creation appears in Chapter 2 is problematic. I am working under the premise that the Genesis account and evolution are both true and that they are just two different explanations of the same thing (two sides of the same coin). They parallel each other. If that is so then this is probably the only way to properly read Genesis. Another clue as to why Day 3 & 4 are reversed is if you look at Day 1, 2, & 4 has a single event. Day 3, 5, & 6 have dual events. The pattern would make more sense if it was prologue, single, single, single, dual, dual, dual, epilogue.

Man has the capability to rationalize anything and everything but you can tell when you’re reaching. In this case it is not reaching but a very logical, rational analysis. It’s a matter of leaving your mind open and being aware. This explanation is very believable. Someone thousands of years ago, knew about how evolution worked and wrote it down long before Darwin. The concept is not new; our science has advanced enough for us to begin to understand it. This is not someone’s invention, but it is recorded events written down (actually originally memorized) according to their understanding without the benefit of science to help. But the bottom line is that Genesis 1 does appear to be a top level observation of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say that jesus might not of disagreed with homosexuality, but he said 'john 5:46-47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”' and 'matthew 5:18

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jesus does not agree with sexual immorality or fornication( premarital sex ), so if you cant have sex unless your married and you can only be married if a man is marrying a woman, jesus would not of been okay with homosexuality.

The Torah ( the law) consists of the first five books of the Jewish scriptures. It consists of the The Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. jesus did believe the law to be written by moses.

Jesus, like all the Jews of the first century, divided the Old Testament into three "collections": the law, the prophets, the psalms. Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

i have no problem with gay people, im using a christian cliche but some of my best friends are gay. im just pointing out that in christian theology, jesus did believe in the law and he also died to attone for all the sins of the people who believe in him. so even tho being a christian your still capable of doing bad things( premarital sex, homsexuality....and so on), your forgiven for doing so, if you believe in jesus. Most religions have judgment but how many have forgiveness? i have nothing but love for all people, even people who hate. is any sin greater than another? if i stop a homosexual from having sex or any hetrosexual couples from having sex, do i acomplish any thing? you dont have to be a good person to come to god, he will take you as you are. the mission of a christian is to spread the gospel.

was a good read, i will comment on the rest 2moz. im going to bed. shallom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Overall I find the reasoning here to be sound. However there are two issues that I find problem with. The first is actually somewhat unrelated to your overall thesis, and that is that Genesis 2 might be an account from Lilith. I find this to be a totally unworkable theory. There is no evidence that Lilith was ever believed to have anything to do with Adam (certainly not as a first wife). Lilith appears only once in the whole Bible (Isaiah) and appears as a night bird of some description (such as an owl). In later Hebrew mythology, Lilith is a demon. It isn't until circa 10th Century AD (many centuries after even Jesus' time) that someone wrote a text known as the Alphabet of ben Sira. This medieval text does describe Lilith as Adam's first wife, but it is also clearly a work of parody - intended to make fun of figures throughout biblical history (eg, the Prophet Nathan is said to break wind before every prophecy he makes). I cannot accept this medieval parody as sufficient evidence to trace back more than a millennia and insert Lilith into the original Garden of Eden.

The other issue I have is with the interpretation of the seven days you provided. I don't see this passage as early man's observation of evolution as best they understood it. I certainly agree that it wasn't intended to be written as a piece of scientific writing or 100% history. You are right that this represents generations of oral tradition relating the history of pre-Abraham Hebrew life, and therefore I would argue that the purpose in writing this (the first 11 chapters of Genesis, though this seems to be focused on chapter 1 and 2) is to give a theological account of our world and its/our relationship with the God that created it/us.

It is therefore unsurprising that the days of creation are mapped out as they are from days 1-6. They form a neat poetic link between each other. One issue you seemed to bring up was about days 2 and 3 and how you think they may have needed to be reversed. I would argue that how it is written is exactly as it should be. You were trying to fit the story into some broad overview of how a primitive mind might expect to view evolution, but if we remove that assumption, then the days fit together nicely as is. My overview of the seven days would be as such:

Day 1 - God creates light

Day 2 - God separates the skies from the ocean

Day 3 - God separates water from land

Day 4 - God creates the sun and stars

Day 5 - God creates fish and birds

Day 6 - God creates animals, including mankind

Day 7 - God rests

There is a clear relationship between the first three days and the second three days of creation, hence why I left a line spaced between them. Notice how the first day in the first section is directly related to day 4 (the first day of the second set of three). Likewise Days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 are directly related. In short, the correlation is thus:

Day 1 and 4 - God first creates light and then creates the source of that light

Day 2 and 5 - God first creates the skies and the oceans, and then follows that with creating the animals that primarily live in the skies and the ocean.

Day 3 and 6 - God first creates the land, and then follows that by creating animals to live on the land.

Finally, God rests on day 7 - a nice number to end on for Hebrew symbolism, considering that the number 7 was representative of perfection and completion. Taking this into account it seems obvious that the text is written as intended. Day 2 and 3 are exactly where they should be, in order to keep the symmetry between the first three and second three sets of days.

It is likely that there were people on whom the stories of Genesis 1-11 were based, but through the course of many generations the Hebrews used them in their accounts not as scientific accounts of what happened but as I said, as theological approaches to our world and God. I do not think that the creation accounts represents early man's attempt to observe evolution (though on the balance of ideas I do believe that evolution is most likely the way by which our world developed, though with an intelligent process known as "God" that guided that process to intentionally create the world which we now live in).

Nor do I find contradiction in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. What we need to remember when reading our modern Bibles is that the chapter/verse breakdown as we have today did not exist. Nor do those headings which introduce new sections exist in the original. They are added in as supposedly helpful pointers but they often do the opposite and confuse matters. This is what I think has happened here. For example, this is how my current Bible separates the sections of Genesis 1-2:

Genesis 2:2-5

2By the seventh day God ahd finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens - 5and 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...

In particular, the publishers decided to try and be "helpful" in separating verse 3 and 4 with a big bold heading titled "Adam and Eve". This gives the impression that a new train of thought has started. That chapter 1 right through to chapter 2:3 was one account of creation, and now comes an entirely new account prefaced with verse 4's "This is the account....". But a very very slight change can change the entire meaning of this section. As such:

Genesis 2:2-5

2By the seventh day God ahd finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Adam and Eve

When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens - 5and 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...

All I did here was move the publishers heading forward half a verse. Now there is a massive difference in interpretation. Verse 4 is no longer the prologue to a new explanation of creation, but is instead now the conclusion to the first section - a final reminder that chapter 1 is the account of creation. Verse 4b-5 then begins a new section, saying that when God had made the heavens he then created the Garden of Eden in which he placed Adam and Eve. This is a more specific look not at overall creation as was Genesis 1:2-4 but only at one small section of that creation (Eden). It's only a very slight amendment to the headings, but I would argue that this is much more appropriate in understanding how the story fits together.

Putting everything together her, the logical conclusion is that the author was attempting to show us what our relationship with God is. Firstly that he IS the creator, and he was powerful enough to simply "speak" the world into existence ("And God said... and it was so"). This directly contrasts many of the other creation myths of those nations surrounding them. The Babylonian story of creation, for example, shows Marduk in a battle with Tiamat, and Marduk slices Tiamat in two, and the two halves separate and collect waters, one half becoming the earth and the oceans, the other half becoming the sky. The purpose of having a single God simply speak the world into existence without these fancy acts of deities battling was purposefully intended to set the Hebrew creation myth as different to everyone else's. It therefore stands to reason that it was NOT written as direct history, but instead to directly stand in opposition to the myths of other nations.

Secondly, the story (more generally now the entire Genesis 1-11) intends to convey how mankind left on its own slides further and further away from God. It is shown through three primary events - Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Each event represents a devolution in our relationship with God. First one man turns against God by killing his brother. Then in the Flood narrative the story shows that the thoughts of the people was "only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). Then the total devolution of our relationship with God is encapsulated in the Tower of Babel and the desire to build a Temple to reach God. At this time it was believed that God dwelt in the heavens and that if we could build something tall enough to reach God then we could become God ourselves. So note the devolution of humanity from Genesis 4-11:

* One man sins against God (Cain murders Abel)

* Whole world sins against God (their thoughts were "only evil all the time")

* Finally the whole world wants to BE God (build a Temple to reach God on their own, without God's help).

These three stories combine to form an impressive diatribe against the human race. Left on our own we totally turned away from the creator and hit our lowest point. What these stories also show is that it is clearly not an historical account. History doesn't work this way. Sure, some individual events can escalate and climax this way - we see this in the fall of Gaddaffi in Lybia (being one example). But over the course of many generations there are rises and falls in fortunes, people turn to and from gods, do good and bad things. But these three events were chosen by the authors to paint this picture of humanity in a very specific way. And all in the purpose of setting up chapter 12 and the absolute necessity for which God had to institute a covenant with Abraham and elect him as the founder of the Hebrew race.

Sorry, I've kind of rambled a bit here. I had only intended to write a couple of paragraphs but thoughts just kept on piling on each other. Nevertheless, I think this is all information that may be helpful to you in your exploration of this topic. Once again I do thank you for your time in posting what you have. Welcome to UM and hopefully we'll get to see a bit more of you over time :)

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Evolution is directly observed. We can watch bacteria change to over come hostile stimulouse, and we can breed animals even humans for specific traits. Some babies are born with tails, and we have some parts of our anatomy that are now useless.

If anyone comes on here and says that babies born with tails are demons prepare for a tonge lashing ( or in in this case a letter lashing)

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say that jesus might not of disagreed with homosexuality, but he said 'john 5:46-47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”' and 'matthew 5:18

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Very beautifully put. But Jesus never states anything directly against homosexuality. It is all left to interpretation. You are looking at this through the eyes of 1700 years of Catholic influence. Besides, the law *IS* accomplished. It was accomplished on the Cross. This is a difficult concept for many people. Every time I speak of this, I have to qualify it that this does not mean that we are free to sin. Through the salvation of Christ we are under a state of grace (no longer under the law). We must acknowledge that we are sinners. And that we will sin even after accepting Christ. Jesus fulfilled the law, he didn’t do away with it. It is written on our hearts. We all have the responsibility to confront (preferably one at a time) our sins so that we no longer have the desire to sin. And only through Christ can we find that path. It’s not just reaching the end of the journey, but it’s the journey as well.

Jesus does not agree with sexual immorality or fornication( premarital sex ), so if you cant have sex unless your married and you can only be married if a man is marrying a woman, jesus would not of been okay with homosexuality.

Jesus sat with the sinner and shared meals with them. That sounds like the sin wasn’t as important as the person. I.e. sinning is not something that others get to attack a sinner with, but that happens. We are all sinners. Sin has become a stigma that condemns us to Hell, only by the power of man. The only unpardonable sin is to die denying Christ. It is through building a personal relationship with Jesus that we learn not to sin.

Let’s look at the law. There are 613 Mitzvah or Mitzvot. So then, we can assume that Jesus does not agree with the violation of these? Would you agree? I have not looked for the exact numbers but at least half do not apply to gentiles. So non Jews are already sinning without knowing it. In other posts and other boards I’ve stated:

If you could boil down the Ten Commandments to one word, that word would be RESPECT. Respect of yourself, respect of others, and respect of GOD. The Ten Commandments expands out into the 613 Mitzvah and finally comes back down to the Golden Rule. These laws were not meant to rain on people’s parade but give guidance to proper health, hygiene, and relationships, i.e. respect. The intent was not to have GOD condemn us to Hell when we broke one of these laws, but to teach us to think for ourselves, to protect ourselves. Jesus releases us from the law, only so that we may hold it in our hearts. The evolution from intellect to love.

Given that premise, let’s look at a few. Now you can pull up just about any source, I’m using http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. #101 Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period (Lev. 18:19). Today, I’m sure many married couples have had sex at these times. I just can’t see Jesus really being offended. Up until just a century ago, women used reusable cloth as menstrual pads. It just wasn’t as sanitary as what there is today. And that’s the key; we know the need to be clean so as not to spread disease and infection. Many women died from menstrual infection. Therefore #101 becomes unimportant and useless in the modern world because we know how to protect ourselves and show respect in this matter.

So know, let’s drop down to #103 Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22). Now a lot of Women don’t even like to do it, claiming “exit only”. But carrying the concept of hygiene over from #101, we see how the lack of cleanliness caused the spread of aids in the 80’s. It wasn’t GOD punishing us. It was us not heeding the warning that was put in place to protect us. Now we know better. With proper hygiene, one can respect oneself and others when partaking in such acts.

It’s the old argument of the parent telling the child to not play around the stove. The child doesn’t understand and yet will continue to play and may still get burned. After that if the child is still alive, the child will give the stove a little bit more respect. #101 & #103 make sense during a more primitive less sanitary time. Another aspect is found in #63 To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Sodomy was basically wasting sperm. Again today, being fruitful and multiplying is the last thing we need to worry about. I won’t argue that perhaps homosexuality is chemical imbalances in the body (normal response) caused by over population, in order to self regulate said population.

You can look through the list yourself and see which ones don’t apply anymore and which ones are actually current laws of the land. So you really think that Jesus would condemn you to Hell for violating #204 Not to swear needlessly (Ex. 20:7)? You hit your thumb with the hammer and refuse to exclaim “fnck!” and because of that, you’re condemned? This is why Jesus came to fulfill the law. It had become too legalistic. No wonder atheists laugh at Christians. We are not setting ourselves apart, but spiraling in. Now, since this wasn’t even a part of the main point let's get back to the subject of the thread. If you want to continue this thought, let me encourage you to create a new thread – thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I find the reasoning here to be sound. However there are two issues that I find problem with. The first is actually somewhat unrelated to your overall thesis, and that is that Genesis 2 might be an account from Lilith. I find this to be a totally unworkable theory. There is no evidence that Lilith was ever believed to have anything to do with Adam (certainly not as a first wife). Lilith appears only once in the whole Bible (Isaiah) and appears as a night bird of some description (such as an owl). In later Hebrew mythology, Lilith is a demon. It isn't until circa 10th Century AD (many centuries after even Jesus' time) that someone wrote a text known as the Alphabet of ben Sira. This medieval text does describe Lilith as Adam's first wife, but it is also clearly a work of parody - intended to make fun of figures throughout biblical history (eg, the Prophet Nathan is said to break wind before every prophecy he makes). I cannot accept this medieval parody as sufficient evidence to trace back more than a millennia and insert Lilith into the original Garden of Eden.

In Hebrew mythology, before Lillith became a demon, she was Adam’s first wife, which predates Ben Sirah. I just find it interesting that in Chapter 2, Adam is referred to as “The Man”. This third person referencing seems disrespectful as if the writer was upset at something, i.e. Lillith not being equal although she was created equal. Then the only time Adam is referenced comes at mid verse of the 20th verse “But for Adam no suitable helper was found”. Implying that Lillith was not a “suitable helper”. But then at that point, it would be Eve’s POV. It’s just something to make you go uhmm? This reference is just an artifact left over from the very first incarnation of this paper all those years ago. It is perhaps time to exercise it from the text??

The other issue I have is with the interpretation of the seven days you provided. I don't see this passage as early man's observation of evolution as best they understood it. I certainly agree that it wasn't intended to be written as a piece of scientific writing or 100% history. You are right that this represents generations of oral tradition relating the history of pre-Abraham Hebrew life, and therefore I would argue that the purpose in writing this (the first 11 chapters of Genesis, though this seems to be focused on chapter 1 and 2) is to give a theological account of our world and its/our relationship with the God that created it/us.

I don’t deny that the first 11 chapters are a theological account, at least in part. It is a collection of personal testimonies memorized and passed down to the next generation. But I’m not pushing Genesis 1 to be early man’s observation. It is Adam’s personal account which is an observation of evolution and a theological account as well as it reflects his relationship with GOD. You don’t present anything that definitely proves that it is not, but still a good analysis.

It is therefore unsurprising that the days of creation are mapped out as they are from days 1-6. They form a neat poetic link between each other.

That was the point of presenting it the way I did.

One issue you seemed to bring up was about days 2 and 3 and how you think they may have needed to be reversed. I would argue that how it is written is exactly as it should be. You were trying to fit the story into some broad overview of how a primitive mind might expect to view evolution, but if we remove that assumption, then the days fit together nicely as is. My overview of the seven days would be as such:

That’s precisely right. Adam wouldn’t have understood every process going on, but he would have understood what he was seeing if he watched it long enough. He probably saw other planets form and knew what was going on when the Earth was forming. That’s why I put that assumption in there, to look at Genesis 1 differently. In the original form, it is assumed that Day 2 is the creation of the Earth. But I don’t think it is, the *feel* is all wrong. If GOD was showing Adam a sped up version of the evolution of the universe then the creation of the Earth is not marked by the separation of the sky (just singular) and the ocean, then the ocean from the land. First came a ball of molten rock which cooled then the sky forms then the ocean. Therefore Day 2 must be referencing something else as I have proposed. There are things about the universe that we didn’t know just 50 years ago. And verse 2 seems to support the concept of cosmic strings and Einstein’s universe.

At this point, I just realized I made a major omission and in my favor. I have no idea how long it’s been there, but I do see what I was trying to do. I left out verse 9 & 10. Primarily because it doesn’t fit well. It looks like they were trying to fit it in somewhere. Day 3 has two parts to it. When I was originally trying to group the days, I was going not only by the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning” but also “And it was so” or “And God saw that it was good” or “God blessed them” or “And God said”. In Day 3 (verse 10 & 12) we see “And God saw that it was good” which would seem to indicate that the Hebrew pre-Babylonian Captivity Genesis may have had more days of creation?? The problem with your breakout is that the operative word in Day 2 is “separate” and in Day 3 it is “gather” (not separate), which would also indicate a separation of events there. The Earth has a supercontinent cycle every .5 billion years or so, so during these times, the waters would gather in one spot. Adam saw one or several of those (Vaalbara being the earliest known) and saw how the waters gathered and then revealing the land.

There is a clear relationship between the first three days and the second three days of creation, hence why I left a line spaced between them. Notice how the first day in the first section is directly related to day 4 (the first day of the second set of three). Likewise Days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 are directly related. In short, the correlation is thus:

I do like your structure. I will need to examine it a bit further. But as I pointed out above, Day 3 is also creation of plant life, which would throw this cycle out of balance. Biology should be in your second group.

Taking this into account it seems obvious that the text is written as intended. Day 2 and 3 are exactly where they should be, in order to keep the symmetry between the first three and second three sets of days.

But we’ve already blown that symmetry. And it will require looking deeper. But question: What would it matter if Genesis is not written as intended? What would that mean? Would it invalidate the message of Christ? Or would it mean that we’ve been locked into only one interpretation?

I do not think that the creation accounts represents early man's attempt to observe evolution (though on the balance of ideas I do believe that evolution is most likely the way by which our world developed, though with an intelligent process known as "God" that guided that process to intentionally create the world which we now live in).

It’s not early man’s attempt to observe. Genesis 1 is the recorded observation of Adam. There is a difference. Adam, being the first storyteller told his story to his descendants and that is what they believed. They didn’t experience it as Adam did.

Nor do I find contradiction in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.

Neither do I. Genesis 1 is a Chronological version and Genesis 2 is more of a topical version. Very much like the Gospels. The four being different versions of the same events.

What we need to remember when reading our modern Bibles is that the chapter/verse breakdown as we have today did not exist. Nor do those headings which introduce new sections exist in the original. They are added in as supposedly helpful pointers but they often do the opposite and confuse matters. This is what I think has happened here. For example, this is how my current Bible separates the sections of Genesis 1-2:

This is why I said it was problematic. At different points, various ways of dividing chapter and verse has been employed. The question is when and where was the current form of Genesis established? Is it pre Babylonian Captivity, post, pre Nicea, post, pre Renaissance, post?

The Babylonian story of creation, for example, shows Marduk in a battle with Tiamat, and Marduk slices Tiamat in two, and the two halves separate and collect waters, one half becoming the earth and the oceans, the other half becoming the sky. The purpose of having a single God simply speak the world into existence without these fancy acts of deities battling was purposefully intended to set the Hebrew creation myth as different to everyone else's. It therefore stands to reason that it was NOT written as direct history, but instead to directly stand in opposition to the myths of other nations.

A good point in that I should elaborate more with the Babylonian story. It seems clear to me that Marduk slicing Tiamat in two is the equivalent of the first half of Day 3. And this shows that how the same story diverged from Babel. And again, this is why I said this may have been a factor that Abraham had become the father of Israel, because his people had kept a truer record more faithfully than any of the other cultures. It is not direct history, but it is personal testimony of these events.

Sorry, I've kind of rambled a bit here. I had only intended to write a couple of paragraphs but thoughts just kept on piling on each other. Nevertheless, I think this is all information that may be helpful to you in your exploration of this topic. Once again I do thank you for your time in posting what you have. Welcome to UM and hopefully we'll get to see a bit more of you over time :)

I won’t comment on the rest. I think it is good rambling :-) It is helpful. You rambled a bit too much on trying to say that this is not historical, but I don’t think I’ve been pushing it as that. One could say that it is historical but only in the light that it exists. Thanks, for the welcome. As I get more comfortable, you will see more of me. Time is the main factor. I’ve already gotten into it with BM and nibs. It just went on and on and on and on … Don’t get me wrong, it was good stuff, but it started recycling and I had other things like this that I wanted to focus on.

Again, thanks

RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The one thing that always strikes me about the Evolution vs. Creationism debate is why is it always assumed to be the christian creation myth and not any of the countless others. There are other beliefs, there are other creation stories from not just religions but other cultures. While I do not subscribe to a creation myth and instead believe in evolution, the automatic jump to the christian faith being the only alternative to evolution is to me limiting.

Edited by darkmoonlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If all scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim.3:16) Then everything Paul wrote was dictated by God. The Bible also promises that God not man will keep His word from being destroyed. No matter how many myths pop up about creation, this one will never be destroyed. Unfortunately, man has not interpreted it correctly therefore there seems to be many holes and contradictions. Cain married a woman in the land of Nod who was a Gentile.

In the beginning God created heaven (if you have a translation that says "heavens", it is a false translation) and earth. The 2nd heaven (making it plural) did not happen until later.

God moved across the waters and saw earth was completely submerged. He said confusion and emptiness and darkness was here. He had given Lucifer for a covering of the earth. Lucifer is the author of confusion (that's what the Bible says) therefore God saw the work of Lucifer when He moved across the waters. So God set about a plan. Notice God always speaks what He is going to do before He does it and after it is spoken into existence speaks that it did indeed happen just as He said it would. This is something Lucifer can not do -- speak first and then fulfill. God's plan starts with:

Day One - Light which separated the darkness with which Lucifer had covered the earth. And God said, "good." Not perfect, not sinless, but good for His purposes.

Day Two - An expanse above and around the earth called "Heaven" (capitalized) making it the 2nd heaven was created to store much of the water that had submerged the earth. This is the only day God did not look back at His work and proclaim "good" because He knew man was going to become so sinful as to need a curve correction and this storage of water was going to be used for that in a deluge.

Day Three - God pulled the water remaining on earth all together in one place so that earth and dry land would appear. Then He brought forth vegetation, herbs and fruit trees. Notice, God said the seed of the fruit tree will always produce after its kind. It never evolves. Graft a limb from a desirable fruit tree on to the trunk of a sapling and the fruit will be like the desirable graft. But the seed inside that fruit will revert back to whatever was the trunk. That still holds true, today. Evolution doesn't happen. Vegetation and plants grew because the blanket of water in the firmament created Day Two made the earth to be a greenhouse. Water fell in a mist and water everything. The whole earth was covered in vegetation like a jungle.

Day Four - God created lights in the 2nd Heaven for days and nights, for seasons, and for signs. Remember it was a steadfast light in the East that gave sign that Jesus was born.

Day Five - God created water creatures, water/land creatures that moveth such as dinosaurs, and fowl that fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Then as God was surveying His work with "good" He slipped in (almost unnoticed) fowl in the earth. This would be fowl that does not fly such as chickens.

Day Six - God says what He is going to create. It is four things. He lists them but the first thing on the list He created last. Saved the best for last.

1. living creature after their kind (in the Bible "living creature" is always man - never animals)

2. cattle - cows, oxen -- in other words domestic animals.

3. creeping things - smaller animals such as squirrels, skunks, etc.

4. beasts of the earth after its kind - no evolution here either. This would be wild beasts. Zebras would fit here as they can not be domesticated. If they could man would have by now. Proves horses did not come from zebras or vice versa. This would be lions and tigers, etc.

Day Six - God spoke into being

1. beasts of the earth - wild animals

2. cattle after their kind - domestic animals

3. creepeth animals after their kind

Then God steps back, surveys His work and says, Ah "Good"

Day Six - Living creature - AFTER THEIR KIND - no evolution here either. Man was the living creature in the image of each of the Triune Godhead - with a heart (spirit - God the Father), a soul (mind, emotion, power- Holy Spirit), and a body (flesh and blood - Jesus Christ).

These were male and female - two black couples and two white couples. They were blessed and told to multiply. In order to stay after their kind, (a black race and a white race) there had to be two couples of each. God does not bless incest.

Day Seven - God rested - Seven is God's number for a complete unit.

Day Eight - Adam was not spoken into being as was everything Day One through Day Six. Adam was formed by the hand of God like a potter with clay. Adam was the first Jew. Then Adam was taken from the place he was formed and placed in the Garden of Eden which is present day Israel. He was called Man (capitalized) and that is why Jesus was called Son of Man. He is a descendant of Adam. The title has not been used since.

God gave Adam the privilege of naming domestic animals (not all animals). A cat is a cat and a cow is a cow and no one re-names them because they are never discovered anew. The name is handed down each generation. Adam named living creatures Gentiles. Gen means "beginning." Tiles are "baked clays." Gentiles are the beginning male and female created Day Six. The book of Genesis is a book about beginnings. A gene is a beginning cell.

And when Cain was run out of Israel, the land he loved, and away from his family he married a Gentile woman in the land of Nod. Daughters were not born to Adam and Eve until after Seth was born which was after Cain had left.

And the sons of God, (Jews), married the daughters of men (Gentiles) all whom they chose. Gentiles have always been grafted into the Jews.

Adam said right away that man must leave father and mother to get his wife. Therefore, under inspiration from God, Adam was saying incest is forbidden.

May God bless this reading.

Please note: anything worthy of copying or discussing is my honor and copyright free..

May God bless us all is my prayer.

Edited by Copen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that always strikes me about the Evolution vs. Creationism debate is why is it always assumed to be the christian creation myth and not any of the countless others. There are other beliefs, there are other creation stories from not just religions but other cultures. While I do not subscribe to a creation myth and instead believe in evolution, the automatic jump to the christian faith being the only alternative to evolution is to me limiting.

Yet there was a time that said god m********ed and there for born the universe. This site is mostly of the western christian belief so it`s to be expected. All religion is the same no matter what you want to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Hebrew mythology, before Lillith became a demon, she was Adam’s first wife, which predates Ben Sirah.

Do you have any links to confirm this? Everything I have read up on Lilith suggests that the first time she is connected to Adam as a wife is from ben Sira. If there's evidence pre-dating this that I am unaware of that links Lilith and Adam as husband/wife before Eve, I would very much like to see it.

I just find it interesting that in Chapter 2, Adam is referred to as “The Man”. This third person referencing seems disrespectful as if the writer was upset at something, i.e. Lillith not being equal although she was created equal. Then the only time Adam is referenced comes at mid verse of the 20th verse “But for Adam no suitable helper was found”. Implying that Lillith was not a “suitable helper”. But then at that point, it would be Eve’s POV. It’s just something to make you go uhmm? This reference is just an artifact left over from the very first incarnation of this paper all those years ago. It is perhaps time to exercise it from the text??

You are aware that in the Hebrew the words "Adam" and "the man" are identical words? It's just a matter of how the translators choose to render the word. Both are acceptable. There is no impersonal "the man" to compare to the personal "Adam". Both are the same Hebrew root word.

I don’t deny that the first 11 chapters are a theological account, at least in part. It is a collection of personal testimonies memorized and passed down to the next generation. But I’m not pushing Genesis 1 to be early man’s observation. It is Adam’s personal account which is an observation of evolution and a theological account as well as it reflects his relationship with GOD. You don’t present anything that definitely proves that it is not, but still a good analysis.

Oh I see what you mean. Nevertheless that would still not be my interpretation of things. I think trying to suggest that Adam was shown the process of evolution (perhaps sped up) and he then recalled it to the best of his ancient knowledge. I think that's trying to read too much into the passage (my opinion, of course).

I do like your structure. I will need to examine it a bit further. But as I pointed out above, Day 3 is also creation of plant life, which would throw this cycle out of balance. Biology should be in your second group.

I don't see how. The focus of the creation accounts is of the living breathing animals, not the plant life, not the single-cell amoeba. The ancient Hebrews treated taxonomy different than we do today. The point is that Days 1-3 set the conditions for days 4-6 to take place. Ie, making the world ready for the sun, the oceans ready for fish life (which would include algae and other life-forms for the fish to eat), the skies ready for bird-life, and the land ready for animal life (including vegetation for them/us to eat).

But we’ve already blown that symmetry. And it will require looking deeper. But question: What would it matter if Genesis is not written as intended? What would that mean? Would it invalidate the message of Christ? Or would it mean that we’ve been locked into only one interpretation?

What do you mean by this? How do you think I am suggesting Genesis was intended? As far as I'm concerned, whether it is actually describing creation directly, or whether it is Adam's attempt to understand evolution, or whether it is simply a story to bring the theological point that God was behind it, the point is still the same - God did it. Therefore it does not affect in any way the message of Christ.

This is why I said it was problematic. At different points, various ways of dividing chapter and verse has been employed. The question is when and where was the current form of Genesis established? Is it pre Babylonian Captivity, post, pre Nicea, post, pre Renaissance, post?

The chapter/verse outlines and the headings were not added until modern translations (eg, the chapter/verse we have are based on the 1611 KJV, I think). The headings, however, are chopped and changed depending on who the publisher is. Sometimes they don't have headings at all. My example was based on the NIV, though my ESV Bible does not include that heading at all (from memory). The best way to view it is to ignore the chapter/verse references altogether, omit the headings altogether, and find what makes most sense (to me in the example I provided was to push the prologue in 2:4 back to the conclusion of 2:3 instead.

All the best, RH :)

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that always strikes me about the Evolution vs. Creationism debate is why is it always assumed to be the christian creation myth and not any of the countless others. There are other beliefs, there are other creation stories from not just religions but other cultures. While I do not subscribe to a creation myth and instead believe in evolution, the automatic jump to the christian faith being the only alternative to evolution is to me limiting.

I don’t think it is assumed Christian only. It’s just that the majority of the audience is assumed to be Christian or among a Christian environment. Plus, the Judeo-Christian version is perhaps the most complete version out there (that we understand). If you had read my post, I mention that. That was the point of bringing up the flood story. Most cultures have that as part of their creation myth, which indicates a common source. My claim is that if the flood story is that readily identified in all those cultures, then their story of creation must be similar. Since Babel, all the cultures diverged, meaning that the creation myth took on different forms. It’s kind of like the experiment where you get several people lined up and you tell the first person a story and then once you’ve told them the story, they’re to tell the next person and so on. You then go stand next to the last person and have them tell you the story and it will be completely different? That’s kind of what is going on here between all these cultures. The story of creation follows each culture’s sensibilities. Some cultures probably combine the two events. But looking at each one would give more clues and insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it is assumed Christian only. It’s just that the majority of the audience is assumed to be Christian or among a Christian environment. Plus, the Judeo-Christian version is perhaps the most complete version out there (that we understand). If you had read my post, I mention that. That was the point of bringing up the flood story. Most cultures have that as part of their creation myth, which indicates a common source. My claim is that if the flood story is that readily identified in all those cultures, then their story of creation must be similar. Since Babel, all the cultures diverged, meaning that the creation myth took on different forms. It’s kind of like the experiment where you get several people lined up and you tell the first person a story and then once you’ve told them the story, they’re to tell the next person and so on. You then go stand next to the last person and have them tell you the story and it will be completely different? That’s kind of what is going on here between all these cultures. The story of creation follows each culture’s sensibilities. Some cultures probably combine the two events. But looking at each one would give more clues and insight.

I did read your post, however I do not subscribe to the "common source" theory in regards to flood stories. Floods happen in nearly all areas of the earth especially those areas that humans in ancient times tended to congregate which is near water. Oral tradition cultures are in fact more reliable as a means of passing information without change as those who are trained in oral tradition history cannot change the information. Native Americans as an example train their historians to not change details of the story, that in fact to do so would break an unbroken chain that they take very seriously. Oral tradition cultures relied on memorization of stories in such a way as to not lose or change information because it was the only reliable means of passing on stories from one generation to the next.

How is the christian creation myth "more understood" in any sense if it has a supernatural basis? What that implies to me is that there is no understanding other than an assumed knowledge of something you believe happened yet have no evidence to support. Then it becomes a matter of faith which again doesn't alone place the christian myth as any more or less valid than any other creation myth? In my book it isn't. Saying it is basically implies the same prejudice of "my belief is more valid because it's what I believe". Either all creation myths are just as valid as yours seeing as they all depend on the supernatural (which is not scientifically verifiable) when comparing them to evolution.

Having said that my first post still stands, assuming that the christian creation myth has precedent or more importance than other creation myths (which are vastly different btw depending on culture and location) is to treat the christian creation myth as more valid. Yes there is a bias toward Western culture, I understand that, however in asking someone to compare evolution with a creation myth, especially the christian myth you open the door to "god did it" as the ultimate answer as to how we came to be. Therefore in allowing in a supernatural causal relationship to the creation of the universe, man, etc, how then is the christian story then more valid? Supernatural causes then all become equal and any creation myth is valid to use comparing to evolution. That of course isn't what happens, (as in your post) instead you attempt to say that the creation myth of the christian or abrahamic tradition somehow predates all the others and they are spin offs from that original creation myth. Since that isn't the case and creation stories differ vastly dependent on culture, geography and a number of other factors and very seldom resemble the christian creation myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is directly observed. We can watch bacteria change to over come hostile stimulouse, and we can breed animals even humans for specific traits. Some babies are born with tails, and we have some parts of our anatomy that are now useless.

If anyone comes on here and says that babies born with tails are demons prepare for a tonge lashing ( or in in this case a letter lashing)

:tu: Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it interesting how the whole creation story has evolved.

Edited by Disciple of Eris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim.3:16)

This is true, but not all scripture is included in the Bible. To some small degree, I consider my work here as inspirational. But I do not expect that the Book of RavenHawk is going to be canonized into the Bible anytime soon.

Then everything Paul wrote was dictated by God.

That is a bad assumption. We can assume that most was inspired by GOD. Paul is merely a man. If he gets excited, can have his prejudices come out. Paul is a known xenophobe, but he was “red-hot” for Christ. Just like what happens to all of us. Your excitement shows in your reply.

The Bible also promises that God not man will keep His word from being destroyed.

But the Bible is not all of GOD’s word. It is but a facsimile made by the hand of Man. Man can never destroy the word of GOD. As proof, we’ve been brainwashed into only one way of thinking for 1700 years. That hasn’t changed GOD’s word. But we’re learning that Man’s interpretations have not always been correct. John 21:25 states “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” And at Nicaea, not every scripture found its way into the Bible. The Bible is merely a book. It’s a book that contains the recorded inspired word of GOD. It is not the word of GOD. That does not mean that the contents of the Bible are infallible. The Bible has two aspects to it. A natural one and a supernatural one. The supernatural is inerrant. That part can never be destroyed by Man. The natural one has many translations and versions and filled with contradictions. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. GOD gave us a heart and a head to figure it out.

No matter how many myths pop up about creation, this one will never be destroyed. Unfortunately, man has not interpreted it correctly therefore there seems to be many holes and contradictions.

I see what you’re doing with your interpretation. Although I am highly skeptical, I cannot argue against the whole thing (your interpretation). I appreciate your version, but you are making the same mistake that Ussher made. You are too literal with a heavy influence of Catholicism and no regard to nature. When it comes to the creation, I am pretty much a Deist. But I can’t say that GOD never dirties his hands to tweak the system from time to time. I agree with you that some contradictions are due to incorrect interpretations and yours fall into that category (more so than mine). At first I thought you were bull$hitting but I don’t know you so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You need to show how Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1, instead of the more accepted two different versions of the same event. The writing styles are different from one to the other, so they can’t be continuous. I can see how you come up with a Day 8, but this is the first time, I’ve heard of it being part of the seven days of creation. You need to abide by logic and science. If science did not matter, then GOD would have never given us the capability of curiosity (and hence science) and would have just said “I did it” and wouldn’t even bother with a story.

I think what is one major error in your interpretation is that you have the man (Gentile) that is made in the image of GOD (1:26) as the inferior to the man (Jew) made from the dust of the Earth (2:15). And what is the relation of the Gentile of today with those that did not survive the flood? Although this brings up two possibilities. One, that the Gentile is a Neanderthal. Or two, that the Jew is right out of Zecharia Sitchin and was created by the Anunnaki.

Cain married a woman in the land of Nod who was a Gentile.

It was never stated that Cain’s wife was from Nod or even if they were married there, just that they lived there. Cain could have been married to her before killing Abel. It’s all left up to speculation. And it really doesn’t matter. We know she existed so if we want to know how, then we are left with natural law and logic to use. GOD didn’t deem it necessary to tell us any more about her. He figured that we would use common sense and imagination.

He said confusion and emptiness and darkness was here. He had given Lucifer for a covering of the earth. Lucifer is the author of confusion (that's what the Bible says) therefore God saw the work of Lucifer when He moved across the waters. So God set about a plan.

That is an interesting interpretation, bringing Lucifer into it. You should read CS Lewis’ Space Trilogy. Lucifer is the Oyarsa of Thulcandra.

These were male and female - two black couples and two white couples. They were blessed and told to multiply. In order to stay after their kind, (a black race and a white race) there had to be two couples of each. God does not bless incest.

OK, your interpretation is getting weirder. Where does this come from? FYI, there are three main stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, & Mongoloid. And tradition says that they originate from the three sons of Noah. How can you not have incest when you are following the command to be fruitful and multiply? Incest was just not an issue or even a law then. This is what has to happen at first to build up a population. It happened with Adam and Eve and Noah and his sons. I seem to recall that the best way to rebuild a population is to have 1 female to 3 males. The males took turns impregnating her. And she basically becomes just a baby factory. This probably goes on for several generations. This practice ends on its own because there is now more of a selection to choose from. I wonder if this is the significance of Noah’s three sons?

Garden of Eden which is present day Israel.

Are you aware that some think that the Garden was located in the Persian Gulf just a little SE of Basra? They believe that they know what the Gihon is and have found the remains of the Pishon.

Daughters were not born to Adam and Eve until after Seth was born which was after Cain had left.

How do you know? As soon as Eve gave birth for the first time, she probably kept punching out kids. That’s the nature of things. The only birth control was abstinence and the both concepts were probably ludicrous to both Adam and Eve. There was no concept of Planned Parenthood in those days. We don’t know if Cain was the first born male. Although, you probably could assume that because of 4:25?? But it doesn’t hint one way or the other if they did or didn’t have daughters during that time. We tend to look at those times with today’s sensibilities. Back then women were subordinate primarily because they were baby factories and most women didn’t rate mention. Again, if they were normal humans, they probably had many sons & daughters.

Adam said right away that man must leave father and mother to get his wife. Therefore, under inspiration from God, Adam was saying incest is forbidden.

It’s not clear that Adam said that as opposed to some commentary added later. This comment has nothing to do with incest. A Man's wife could still have been his sister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I find the reasoning here to be sound. However there are two issues that I find problem with. The first is actually somewhat unrelated to your overall thesis, and that is that Genesis 2 might be an account from Lilith. I find this to be a totally unworkable theory. There is no evidence that Lilith was ever believed to have anything to do with Adam (certainly not as a first wife). Lilith appears only once in the whole Bible (Isaiah) and appears as a night bird of some description (such as an owl). In later Hebrew mythology, Lilith is a demon. It isn't until circa 10th Century AD (many centuries after even Jesus' time) that someone wrote a text known as the Alphabet of ben Sira. This medieval text does describe Lilith as Adam's first wife, but it is also clearly a work of parody - intended to make fun of figures throughout biblical history (eg, the Prophet Nathan is said to break wind before every prophecy he makes). I cannot accept this medieval parody as sufficient evidence to trace back more than a millennia and insert Lilith into the original Garden of Eden.

The other issue I have is with the interpretation of the seven days you provided. I don't see this passage as early man's observation of evolution as best they understood it. I certainly agree that it wasn't intended to be written as a piece of scientific writing or 100% history. You are right that this represents generations of oral tradition relating the history of pre-Abraham Hebrew life, and therefore I would argue that the purpose in writing this (the first 11 chapters of Genesis, though this seems to be focused on chapter 1 and 2) is to give a theological account of our world and its/our relationship with the God that created it/us.

It is therefore unsurprising that the days of creation are mapped out as they are from days 1-6. They form a neat poetic link between each other. One issue you seemed to bring up was about days 2 and 3 and how you think they may have needed to be reversed. I would argue that how it is written is exactly as it should be. You were trying to fit the story into some broad overview of how a primitive mind might expect to view evolution, but if we remove that assumption, then the days fit together nicely as is. My overview of the seven days would be as such:

Day 1 - God creates light

Day 2 - God separates the skies from the ocean

Day 3 - God separates water from land

Day 4 - God creates the sun and stars

Day 5 - God creates fish and birds

Day 6 - God creates animals, including mankind

Day 7 - God rests

There is a clear relationship between the first three days and the second three days of creation, hence why I left a line spaced between them. Notice how the first day in the first section is directly related to day 4 (the first day of the second set of three). Likewise Days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 are directly related. In short, the correlation is thus:

Day 1 and 4 - God first creates light and then creates the source of that light

Day 2 and 5 - God first creates the skies and the oceans, and then follows that with creating the animals that primarily live in the skies and the ocean.

Day 3 and 6 - God first creates the land, and then follows that by creating animals to live on the land.

Finally, God rests on day 7 - a nice number to end on for Hebrew symbolism, considering that the number 7 was representative of perfection and completion. Taking this into account it seems obvious that the text is written as intended. Day 2 and 3 are exactly where they should be, in order to keep the symmetry between the first three and second three sets of days.

It is likely that there were people on whom the stories of Genesis 1-11 were based, but through the course of many generations the Hebrews used them in their accounts not as scientific accounts of what happened but as I said, as theological approaches to our world and God. I do not think that the creation accounts represents early man's attempt to observe evolution (though on the balance of ideas I do believe that evolution is most likely the way by which our world developed, though with an intelligent process known as "God" that guided that process to intentionally create the world which we now live in).

Nor do I find contradiction in the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. What we need to remember when reading our modern Bibles is that the chapter/verse breakdown as we have today did not exist. Nor do those headings which introduce new sections exist in the original. They are added in as supposedly helpful pointers but they often do the opposite and confuse matters. This is what I think has happened here. For example, this is how my current Bible separates the sections of Genesis 1-2:

In particular, the publishers decided to try and be "helpful" in separating verse 3 and 4 with a big bold heading titled "Adam and Eve". This gives the impression that a new train of thought has started. That chapter 1 right through to chapter 2:3 was one account of creation, and now comes an entirely new account prefaced with verse 4's "This is the account....". But a very very slight change can change the entire meaning of this section. As such:

All I did here was move the publishers heading forward half a verse. Now there is a massive difference in interpretation. Verse 4 is no longer the prologue to a new explanation of creation, but is instead now the conclusion to the first section - a final reminder that chapter 1 is the account of creation. Verse 4b-5 then begins a new section, saying that when God had made the heavens he then created the Garden of Eden in which he placed Adam and Eve. This is a more specific look not at overall creation as was Genesis 1:2-4 but only at one small section of that creation (Eden). It's only a very slight amendment to the headings, but I would argue that this is much more appropriate in understanding how the story fits together.

Putting everything together her, the logical conclusion is that the author was attempting to show us what our relationship with God is. Firstly that he IS the creator, and he was powerful enough to simply "speak" the world into existence ("And God said... and it was so"). This directly contrasts many of the other creation myths of those nations surrounding them. The Babylonian story of creation, for example, shows Marduk in a battle with Tiamat, and Marduk slices Tiamat in two, and the two halves separate and collect waters, one half becoming the earth and the oceans, the other half becoming the sky. The purpose of having a single God simply speak the world into existence without these fancy acts of deities battling was purposefully intended to set the Hebrew creation myth as different to everyone else's. It therefore stands to reason that it was NOT written as direct history, but instead to directly stand in opposition to the myths of other nations.

Secondly, the story (more generally now the entire Genesis 1-11) intends to convey how mankind left on its own slides further and further away from God. It is shown through three primary events - Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Each event represents a devolution in our relationship with God. First one man turns against God by killing his brother. Then in the Flood narrative the story shows that the thoughts of the people was "only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). Then the total devolution of our relationship with God is encapsulated in the Tower of Babel and the desire to build a Temple to reach God. At this time it was believed that God dwelt in the heavens and that if we could build something tall enough to reach God then we could become God ourselves. So note the devolution of humanity from Genesis 4-11:

* One man sins against God (Cain murders Abel)

* Whole world sins against God (their thoughts were "only evil all the time")

* Finally the whole world wants to BE God (build a Temple to reach God on their own, without God's help).

These three stories combine to form an impressive diatribe against the human race. Left on our own we totally turned away from the creator and hit our lowest point. What these stories also show is that it is clearly not an historical account. History doesn't work this way. Sure, some individual events can escalate and climax this way - we see this in the fall of Gaddaffi in Lybia (being one example). But over the course of many generations there are rises and falls in fortunes, people turn to and from gods, do good and bad things. But these three events were chosen by the authors to paint this picture of humanity in a very specific way. And all in the purpose of setting up chapter 12 and the absolute necessity for which God had to institute a covenant with Abraham and elect him as the founder of the Hebrew race.

Sorry, I've kind of rambled a bit here. I had only intended to write a couple of paragraphs but thoughts just kept on piling on each other. Nevertheless, I think this is all information that may be helpful to you in your exploration of this topic. Once again I do thank you for your time in posting what you have. Welcome to UM and hopefully we'll get to see a bit more of you over time :)

~ Regards, PA

Nice response PA! I'll definitely keep that in mind for future discussions. That has got to be the best commentary I've read on the subject yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is directly observed. We can watch bacteria change to over come hostile stimulouse, and we can breed animals even humans for specific traits. Some babies are born with tails, and we have some parts of our anatomy that are now useless.

If anyone comes on here and says that babies born with tails are demons prepare for a tonge lashing ( or in in this case a letter lashing)

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species.

One species becoming another species is called speciation. While speciation is a product of evolution, evolution in and of itself is more than just speciation.

Speciation

29+ evidences for macroevolution

Dr. Richard Lenski's long term E.Coli evolution experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true, but not all scripture is included in the Bible. To some small degree, I consider my work here as inspirational. But I do not expect that the Book of RavenHawk is going to be canonized into the Bible anytime soon.

That is a bad assumption. We can assume that most was inspired by GOD. Paul is merely a man. If he gets excited, can have his prejudices come out. Paul is a known xenophobe, but he was “red-hot” for Christ. Just like what happens to all of us. Your excitement shows in your reply.

But the Bible is not all of GOD’s word. It is but a facsimile made by the hand of Man. Man can never destroy the word of GOD. As proof, we’ve been brainwashed into only one way of thinking for 1700 years. That hasn’t changed GOD’s word. But we’re learning that Man’s interpretations have not always been correct. John 21:25 states “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” And at Nicaea, not every scripture found its way into the Bible. The Bible is merely a book. It’s a book that contains the recorded inspired word of GOD. It is not the word of GOD. That does not mean that the contents of the Bible are infallible. The Bible has two aspects to it. A natural one and a supernatural one. The supernatural is inerrant. That part can never be destroyed by Man. The natural one has many translations and versions and filled with contradictions. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. GOD gave us a heart and a head to figure it out.

I see what you’re doing with your interpretation. Although I am highly skeptical, I cannot argue against the whole thing (your interpretation). I appreciate your version, but you are making the same mistake that Ussher made. You are too literal with a heavy influence of Catholicism and no regard to nature. When it comes to the creation, I am pretty much a Deist. But I can’t say that GOD never dirties his hands to tweak the system from time to time. I agree with you that some contradictions are due to incorrect interpretations and yours fall into that category (more so than mine). At first I thought you were bull$hitting but I don’t know you so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You need to show how Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1, instead of the more accepted two different versions of the same event. The writing styles are different from one to the other, so they can’t be continuous. I can see how you come up with a Day 8, but this is the first time, I’ve heard of it being part of the seven days of creation. You need to abide by logic and science. If science did not matter, then GOD would have never given us the capability of curiosity (and hence science) and would have just said “I did it” and wouldn’t even bother with a story.

I think what is one major error in your interpretation is that you have the man (Gentile) that is made in the image of GOD (1:26) as the inferior to the man (Jew) made from the dust of the Earth (2:15). And what is the relation of the Gentile of today with those that did not survive the flood? Although this brings up two possibilities. One, that the Gentile is a Neanderthal. Or two, that the Jew is right out of Zecharia Sitchin and was created by the Anunnaki.

It was never stated that Cain’s wife was from Nod or even if they were married there, just that they lived there. Cain could have been married to her before killing Abel. It’s all left up to speculation. And it really doesn’t matter. We know she existed so if we want to know how, then we are left with natural law and logic to use. GOD didn’t deem it necessary to tell us any more about her. He figured that we would use common sense and imagination.

That is an interesting interpretation, bringing Lucifer into it. You should read CS Lewis’ Space Trilogy. Lucifer is the Oyarsa of Thulcandra.

OK, your interpretation is getting weirder. Where does this come from? FYI, there are three main stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, & Mongoloid. And tradition says that they originate from the three sons of Noah. How can you not have incest when you are following the command to be fruitful and multiply? Incest was just not an issue or even a law then. This is what has to happen at first to build up a population. It happened with Adam and Eve and Noah and his sons. I seem to recall that the best way to rebuild a population is to have 1 female to 3 males. The males took turns impregnating her. And she basically becomes just a baby factory. This probably goes on for several generations. This practice ends on its own because there is now more of a selection to choose from. I wonder if this is the significance of Noah’s three sons?

Are you aware that some think that the Garden was located in the Persian Gulf just a little SE of Basra? They believe that they know what the Gihon is and have found the remains of the Pishon.

How do you know? As soon as Eve gave birth for the first time, she probably kept punching out kids. That’s the nature of things. The only birth control was abstinence and the both concepts were probably ludicrous to both Adam and Eve. There was no concept of Planned Parenthood in those days. We don’t know if Cain was the first born male. Although, you probably could assume that because of 4:25?? But it doesn’t hint one way or the other if they did or didn’t have daughters during that time. We tend to look at those times with today’s sensibilities. Back then women were subordinate primarily because they were baby factories and most women didn’t rate mention. Again, if they were normal humans, they probably had many sons & daughters.

It’s not clear that Adam said that as opposed to some commentary added later. This comment has nothing to do with incest. A Man's wife could still have been his sister.

Whew!!! Where to start - - - -

"Not all scripture is in the Bible...." If it isn't then God has not kept it, which the Bible says that God promises it is He who will keep it.

"Paul was a mere man . . ." Yes, and so were Adam to Moses. If man under inspiration of God taking dictation were not taking it accurately, then there is none of the Bible that is reliable. If there is one error, there might well be many more. God's word is not a pick and choose book. It is God's word. If He says He is going to keep it, by Providence the false books have been whittled out. The Council of Nicene was a confirmation of what was already held from the first century as true scripture. Paul said his revelations were from God and were so abundant that he had to go through much suffering to keep him humble.

The style of Genesis 1 from Genesis 2 is not the only thing that is different. The sequence of things created is different. The name God reveals Himself is different. Elohim- (plural, implied Triune) in Genesis 1 as opposed to Jehovah - (One God) in Genesis 2. And that is how God has revealed Himself to the Gentiles as Triune and to the Jews as One God. The mode of creation is different. Spoken into being --- as opposed to being formed out of the dust of the ground. These differences show that Genesis is not a re-cap of Genesis 1; but an entirely different creation.

How could anything I wrote imply that Gentiles were inferior to Jews? The Bible says male and female were made in His image. That's not inferior.

I will give you --- the Bible does not say Cain's wife was from the land of Nod but Adam and Eve did not have other sons and daughters until after Cain went to Nod and after Seth had been born. The Bible gives the strict order of births. Adam knew Eve, his wife, .. and she bore Cain. And she again bore his brother Abel.....And cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod ...And Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son and called his name Seth, For God hath appointed me another seed (- another seed) instead of Abel. ...And Adam was eight hundred years old, after he begot Seth and he begot sons and daughters and lived to be 930 years old. And when men (Gentiles) began to multiply and daughters were born to them (without incest because the Gentiles were two couples of black and two couples of white people. God says we can depend upon the fact that He is the same, never changing-- what is a sin has always been a sin -- and God forbids incest)-- the sons of God (Jews) saw the daughters of men (Gentiles) and took them wives of all whom they chose.

God gave Peter KEYS to unlock things in heaven and on earth. With those keys the scriptures can be understood.

Example: The way God uses numbers in the Bible is a KEY. Numbers in the Bible have a meaning that confirm what is being said. The number 7 is God's number for a complete unit. The number 6 is the number for Gentiles. That's because Gentiles were created on Day Six. The number 2 is for proof. That's which God requires two witnesses of a crime, etc. The number for 5 is the number for death and sometimes it shows grace from God through a death to self-righteousness. Likewise, the number for 8 is God's number for-- beginning again that which is already. Men (Gentiles) were already created. Creating man (Adam) for a specific purpose on Day Eight was --beginning again that which was already. The specific purpose was that by the sweat of the brow only Adam and his ancestors, the Jews, would be the direct link of receive bread (God's word) to us. Look at any false religion, and it didn't come from a Jew.

Here is another KEY: Hebrew 6: 17, 18

"God willing to show the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath" And that oath was - - "That by TWO IMMUTABLE THINGS, in which is was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation ..."

There it is!!!!! -- Genesis 1 and 2 and any true doctrine can be found twice in the Bible. If it can't be found twice in the Bible we are not to declare it a doctrine and do not have strong consolation that the conclusion is truth. The creation story is full of twos.

Read the deluge story again. Eight people (called "living creature" -- spiritually alive creature) were saved besides Noah and the other seven. Noah gathered food for those "living creature" --- not for all animals on the boat. They were in that boat for a whole year. No refrigeration. Food had to be kept fresh -- on the hoof. Therefore, these eight Gentiles would have been two black couples and two white couples just like on Day Six in order to keep the different races. The very black people are God's special proof that they did not evolve from Adam and Eve for she was flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bone. She had his exact DNA. Blood is manufactured in the bone. Two of the same produce the same. It was a closed loop.

There are other KEYS in the Bible also. As long as there is a contradiction, the truth has not been found. The Bible does not say all people came from Noah's three sons. It tells where the three sons intermingled and migrated and spread. Shem became the true Jewish line Jesus would come through, Japheth went into the European Gentiles and Canaan became the Phoenicians who through their commerce and maritime skills became the servants that brought mathematics and written alphabet, etc. And as prophecied the Gentile line of Japheth came into the Jewish religious tent of Jewish Shem.

Edited by Copen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

Even the most drastic changes can occur gradually. Being unable to locate the exact point in which this sentence turns red does not make the entire thing blue.

The terms "horse", "red" and "blue" are merely labels that humans have chosen to assign to different things for the sake of convenience. The truth is that these things - animals, colours - exist on a continuum. Nature sees no solid distinctions between them in the way that we do.

Edited by Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not evidence of evolution -- one species becoming an entirely different species. It is evidence of natural selection. The fittest survives. You can breed a horse (or any other animal) for desirable attributes; but it always remains a horse. And in fact through the refined breeding that species becomes weaker in many ways and more prone to incompatible with many natural circumstances and have to be carefully nurtured.

Do you know that all dogs came from wolf or cyote like canines. The variations in dogs is increadible. At some point the chiwawa if Selective breeding continued would be so different from a great Dane, that they would no longer be considered the same species. It would just take a few thousand generations or more.

You did not address babies born with tails. What do you think demons? Or genetic throw backs?

Of course changes to animals cause problems. That's how evolution works. It's a shotgun system. Most changes cause problems so the animal has difficulty naturally passing on those genes. Only in the rare circumstance that the gene benefits the propagation of an animal does it continue to exist.

Your suggestion that the unnatural selective breeding causes problems for the animal in it's survivability in nature is entirely true and consistent with natural selection. the genes are selected by people not natural circumstances. in fact it's another Piece of strong evidence of the theory. There are many many evolutionary dead ends. Being attractive to humans is a sure way to continue to exist. Cats, dogs, corn, wheat, horses, many food species.... Are examples. There are many more cows on the earth because we humans like to eat them. We also make sure that the species evolved in a more and more productive manner. On it's own it's toast. We have long bread out most of it's survivability without us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know that all dogs came from wolf or cyote like canines. The variations in dogs is increadible. At some point the chiwawa if Selective breeding continued would be so different from a great Dane, that they would no longer be considered the same species. It would just take a few thousand generations or more.

You did not address babies born with tails. What do you think demons? Or genetic throw backs?

Of course changes to animals cause problems. That's how evolution works. It's a shotgun system. Most changes cause problems so the animal has difficulty naturally passing on those genes. Only in the rare circumstance that the gene benefits the propagation of an animal does it continue to exist.

Your suggestion that the unnatural selective breeding causes problems for the animal in it's survivability in nature is entirely true and consistent with natural selection. the genes are selected by people not natural circumstances. in fact it's another Piece of strong evidence of the theory. There are many many evolutionary dead ends. Being attractive to humans is a sure way to continue to exist. Cats, dogs, corn, wheat, horses, many food species.... Are examples. There are many more cows on the earth because we humans like to eat them. We also make sure that the species evolved in a more and more productive manner. On it's own it's toast. We have long bread out most of it's survivability without us.

No I don't know that dogs come from wolves, etc. The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa. Babies born with a protrusion is not a tail but an abnormality just as a cleft palate is. Such defects do not result in their offspring also having such abnormality. Thus no such evolution.

There is no such thing as an organ that has evolved and no longer of use. Medical science is saying the tonsils and the appendix do have a function.

If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly. The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly. The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

........seriously? :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa.

Humans domesticated horses.
If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly. The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

This is typical creationist nonsense. Perhaps you could stop making straw men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied this:

Evolution Cannot Explain Left-Handed Molecules

28.08.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106...ded_Molecules-0

By Babu G. Ranganathan

Millions of high school and college biology textbooks imply that

Stanley Miller, in the 1950's, showed that life could arise by chance.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino

acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by

chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various

amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise

sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning

protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein

molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids

can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein

molecules.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory

apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the

moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly

disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and

forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to

bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as

easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various

amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells

of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already

existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed

amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed.

So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct

sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed

amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function.

There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise

sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids

in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a

left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A

partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become

complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate

in the open environment, especially without the protection of a

complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a

complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all,

even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies!

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic

code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of

more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when

there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the

probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming

into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a

junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to popular evolutionist writers like Richard Dawkins, many in

society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of

evolution's problems.

Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from

what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once

there is life and not before.

Evolutionists believe that chance mutations in the genetic code will

produce increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to use

so that life can evolve from simpler species to more complex ones.

There is no evidence that chance mutations can or will provide

increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to act upon so

that evolution would be possible from simpler species to more complex

ones. It's like saying that the random changes caused by an earthquake

will increase the complexity of houses and buildings!

Natural selection is not an active force. It is a passive process in

Nature. Only those variations that have survival value will be

"selected" or be preserved. Once a variation has survival value then,

of course, it's not by chance that it is "selected". But, natural

selection, itself, does not produce or design those biological

variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech.

Nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an

entirely passive process. "Natural selection" is just another way of

saying "natural survival". If a biological change occurs that helps a

species to survive then that species, obviously, will survive (i.e. be

"selected"). Natural selection can only "select" from biological

variations that are possible in a species.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is

amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that

scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing

has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing

forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have

been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these

new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do

produce life from non-living matter it will only be through

intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any

theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Even artificial, or synthetic life, is a creation by scientists,

through intelligent design, of a DNA code built from "scratch" which

is then inserted into an already existing living cell.

There simply is no scientific basis for believing life could have

arisen by chance processes even if given the right environmental

conditions to sustain life. What if we should discover life on Mars?

Even if we should discover life on Mars it wouldn't prove that such

life originated by chance. Also, if we do find evidence of life on

Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet -

Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which

could have easily spewed rock and dirt containing microbes into outer

space much of which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek

article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars",

says scientist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility

that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth"

[Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

This would also explain, as MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown has pointed

out, why some meteorites contain organic compounds because they are

remnants of the original debris spewed from the Earth due to very

fierce ancient geological disturbances and activity.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the

universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected

natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by

chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"

by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents

"simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which

aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook

or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great!

Dr. Gish's aricle may be accessed at: http://icr.org/article/3140/ .

All this simply means that real science supports faith in an

intelligent Designer behind the origin of life and the universe. It is

only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to

students alongside of evolutionary theory.

Science cannot prove that we're here by either chance or design. Both

require faith. Where will you place your faith?

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible

http://www.icr.org/article/3140/

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.*

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical

geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a

hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has

recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we

may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such

a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the

question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture,

under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give

unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product

with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the

reaction products?"2 That pretty well summarizes the extent of the

progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic,

atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a

century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is

possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an

evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible.

The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an

intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe.

There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the

insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.

1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular

oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon

(Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would

be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for

life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules

required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that

the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the

atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no

oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be

fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there

would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is

produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere,

converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3),

which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone.

The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down

on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic

molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as

nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an

irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not

evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist

primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical

discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive

decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of

destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy

vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason

Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in

his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his

products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two

problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive

Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary

scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further

evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In

his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These

short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly

preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of

organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided

by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics,

cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean

full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5

3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an

incredible clutter.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some

way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a

significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would

have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids

found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would

have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the

five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other

five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars

would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and

pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other

purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance,

the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all

amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50%

right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively

right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth

would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one

right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar

is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There

would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the

correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have

been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and

there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete

with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules,

including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates,

etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible

primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a

big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it

with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't

do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility

that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result.

Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to

produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and,

furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that

would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and

journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have

been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of

life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that

the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a

self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a

self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The

formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type

of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form

it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA

and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of

purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are

dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a

protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are

dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly

break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The

same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the

chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds

a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide

reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino

acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds

between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water).

This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living

organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or

anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a

steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would

not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the

appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a

self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in

the sky.

5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is

destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light,

reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article

reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more

will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability

caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an

overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA

repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents

that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be

dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in

it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it

could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for

DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not

survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could

DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and

other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical

primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and

survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA!

But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve

before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for

ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we

see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is

ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if

a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of

amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents

that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated

into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be

incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different

ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid

must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and

the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid

and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and

utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids,

attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein

chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many

enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a

brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found

even in a bacterium.

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought

this?" (Job 12:9).

Endnotes

1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism

or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres

34:308.

2. Ibid., 316.

3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric

evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969.

Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial

atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham.

1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the

geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley.

1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary

distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth

Sci., 13:1161.

4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under

possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.

5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous

generation. Nature 186:693.

6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.

*Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.

Cite this article: Gish, D. 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin

of Life Is Impossible. Acts & Facts. 36 (1).

This should settle the argument once and for all! :)

Edited by Jaguiar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.