Jack the Bodiless

No, the best we get is "what math problem?"

Creationists like to spin such problems out of thin air by arbitrarily decreeing just how complex a basic self-replicating molecule has to be. Nobody actually knows this yet. We don't know that there is a "problem" at all.
Yes, we do. Though this is a topic for the E/C forum, not this one.
...Or maybe this will happen in a century or two. You are now indulging in fantasy to create more "problems".
You really need to spend some time in E/C.

Jack the Bodiless

Magus55:
I'm confused. Why are you not a Muslim?

Even Christians agree that the Christian gospels (and all the other books of the Bible) were written by men. Men also voted on which books to include and which to exclude, and the votes were far from unanimous: Revelation only made it by a single vote.

...Whereas the Koran was supposedly dictated directly by Allah. Other than Allah directly picking up a pen or searing the words into a cliff in letters of fire, it couldn't be more direct than that.

And then there's the Book of Mormon, inscribed on golden pages by an angel.

It appears that "God's revelation" is becoming increasingly more direct. And yet you've chosen to ignore all but the old, obscure stuff.

Kosh

Paul,

I often find that Xians who proclaim "I am not a Fundy" do so simply because they don't like the label. So they dance and prance around their true beliefs in an attempt to make their position appear "logical", much like that of a morally corrupt defense lawyer.

But in the end, their words often betray their true position. As have yours.

I have plenty of arguments, and your attempt to misdirect the jury regarding my comment has been unsuccessfull.

Amaleq13

Keeping in mind that "the earliest possible moment" was over 3 billion years after the formation of the planet, I'm not sure where the problem is. Based on the evidence, life does exist whenever and wherever it can (e.g. underwater volcano vents, deep underground with only minerals for sustenance).

It is difficult to confront a "problem" that only exists in the minds of creationists.

I agree that science should "never mind" such a false assertion. The website www.talkorigins.org provides lists of examples of observed speciation.

Yep and that includes the vestigial evidence that the single toe used to be one of many. The modern horse is still a horse but the fossil record cleary shows that there used to be other sorts of "horses" before and this is the only one that survived. The earlier "horse" fossils show gradually increasing size as well as gradually diminishing multiple toes. The fossil record for horse evolution is, perhaps, one of the most complete available for any species. It is unfortunate you have apparently kept yourself ignorant of the actual evidence.

Mageth

I thought it was somewhere around 1 billion years or so after the formation. The Earth is @4.5 billion years old, and the evidence of life appeared sometimes around 3.5 billion years ago (Stromatolites in Australia have been dated to 3.4-3.5 billion years).

In any case, 1 billion years is a long time, though we don't know when in that period what we would call "life" appeared.

Stromatolites

Wayne Delia

The question wasn't whether Adam was related to Noah. The question involved which Bible character would be the latest single-origin point. That would be Noah, since all other humans were either supposedly eradicated in the Flood, or were already Noah's descendents.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Exactly where can I find the objective process, or set of operating definitions, with which I can "learn to read it with my heart?" If none are available, then your suggestion is pointless. And if it's supposedly only through the Holy Spirit, then any misunderstanding or skepticism on my part would be the Holy Spirirt's fault, wouldn't you agree?

WMD

Wayne Delia

Oh - you're another Timecube fanatic. Carry on.

WMD

Ellis14

This thread is about the bible being nonsense, not evolution. I am going to spell this out clearly for some theists around here:

Evolution is a scientific fact. The way we understand it is a scientific theory. This theory isn't perfect. It doesn't claim to be. Evolution doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that God didn't start the whole thing off.

Evolution has nothing to do with the bible. The point of contention is theists' interpretation of the bible:

e.g.: In the 17th century when it was proved that the sun was the centre of the solar system, did the Church throw the bible out? No, they admitted that human interpretation of it was wrong.

Modern day theists could learn a lot from this. The reason creationists and theists have nothing to do with science is because they spout unchangeable dogma which they consider is flawless and will never be disproved.

You insult your own intelligence and others when you say things like "relegate your theory of macro-evolution to the trash heap wherein it belongs" or "a horse is still a horse, a dog is still a dog".

But I digress, this isn't the place for evolution vs bible. This is about the bible being the mass of self-contradictory absurdities that it is. Come on you theists, stop with the red herrings and defend your book!

Doctor X

Notes the fracas that has erupted next to the jacuzzi. Instructs Seed to pass out the cattle prods to the Staff. . . .

Right, first off welcome Paul5204 and Love Fountain. The inherent problem with a Bible Criticism & History forum is that most people will consider it an equivalent to a "Bible Study Group" where the general purpose is to interpret texts in such a way as to validate the participants' faiths.

We must not forget that most of us came from a background that rather assumed "the Truth" [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] of scripture--at least historical if not theological. It comes as a surprise that two separate creation myths were combined, for example, or that no Exodus happened, all the way to a "school" of scholars who question whether of not Junior is based on an actual historical figure.

I do not denegrate those who have just started studying this stuff. Granted, I find a Magus dishonest when he proclaims he follows "evidence" when his only consistent response is to ignore evidence. However, perhaps it is unfair to judge everyone by his criteria.

Take Paul5204 . . . please . . . he tries an analysis of the language of the creation myths--kudos. The problem is he really does not understand what he is writing about. YHWH and Elohim are distinct conceptions--with Elohim once being considered a plural. The fact that you have iconography of YHWH demonstrates that. The development of the "verb"--the "causitive imperfect of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew verb hwy 'to be'"--[Stop that!--Ed.] into a figure in and of himself is an interesting discussion in its own right. Nevertheless, Paul's analysis lacks appreciation of the differences between the P text which uses Elohim and the J text which used YHWH. Not to put words at his fingertips, but he has to deal with that.

He also has to deal with the fact that the creation myths parallel earlier myths--a "primordial sea" which pre-exists any "creating." In fact the Elohim do not so much "create" as "separate" the heavens from the earth--motiff from the Sumerians.

Now his comments regarding evolution and all of that suggest a belief in creationism. Very well, but these discussions get sent over to another forum. Perhaps it seems unfair, but scholarship has long ceased believing the myths "actually happened." A creationist would have to rehabilitate the myths based on evidence first before they can argue the writers "got it right."

Lacking, also, is an understanding of the purpose of myth. Perchance we are locked in to a mentality that "writers write truth" or what they conceive it to be. Wander about a political discussion on liberal and conservative books and see how "honest" the opinions are! Early mythmakers did not necessarily believe in the "literal" word of the stories. If they did, you could not have the P writer disagreeing and rewriting his sources--any more than you could have a Lk and a Mk rewriting their source Mk!

Love Fountain offers a confession of faith. He is free to it, but it is not scholarship and the details are contradicted by scholarship.

Yes, Kosh, perhaps Paul and Love Fountain even are mere fundamentalists. It is interesting that the term arose as a reaction against biblical scholarship, where one of the "fundamentals" was that the Bible "just is" inerrant by fiat. That rather describes Magus which is why I consider him a classical fundamentalist. However, both may just be at the beginning of their journey.

--J.D.