catman

Ok--think how scientist say that life--maybe all life began. Why they say it all started in the primordial(sp?) soup, do they not? And what is the primordial soup except for mud? And the bible tells us man--being Adam--aka First Man--was created by God out of volcanic gasses, right? No--it says man was created in the likeness of God--from mud--so man began as a single cell animal in the likeness of God. Now, man at that time needed no women because he multiplied by dividing (oxymoron alert) himself for billions of years. Now this single cell animal was destined to become multicellular and into a mammal. Through the progression of time--from a multicellular, invertabrae stage--female divisions were created from what I have been calling men thus far. Are you with me? Thsu from men, women were formed--and as they now could coupulate and propogate, they did so out of preference etc.

scigirl

Well, yeah. We have evidence that for a while the earth existed without life on it. Then life got here. So it clearly wasn't here forever, thus life at some point came into being.

Well mud and a bunch of other things, namely amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, other carbon-based compounds essential for life.

Yes among other things. The bible's account of creation also says that plants were made after he made humans, which is not supported at all by the fossil record. Read this site from talk origins to see what types of biblical interpretations are supported by the evidence, and what interpretations are clearly wrong scientifically.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc</a>

Here's a good clip:
Um, no.

So you are saying that when the bible said "adam and eve" he meant a bacteria? I find that incredibly hard to believe (of course I'm an atheist so I find God saying anything very difficult to believe). Plus, all species appear to have a male and female form. Bacteria included. So your analysis is not only silly, it is also incorrect scientifically.

So what is your point exactly? If you twist the bible to such ridiculous proportions, it will support science? Let me ask you a question - does this "account" of evolution in the Bible give us any new knowledge about evolution, that WASN'T discovered by scientists?

Didn't think so. The bible is not a science book, never was intended to be one, never will be one. Period. When people attempt to make it a science book, the Bible loses any meaning and credibility that it might have had.

scigirl

scigirl

Actually I think the caliciviruses look like God more than any single cell I can think of (unless God has flagella!)

Check this out - isn't it just awesome? I almost converted to Judaism after seeing this EM shot (note the almost ! )

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/calici.htm" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/calici.htm</a>



scigirl

catman

scigirl I am not saying the bible is a science book. Did I say that? What I am saying is that yes you can distort (if you want to call it that) the Genesis account to agree with evolution. Moreover, the bible is not infallible any way you want to look at it. It was written by scribes and it describes the jews search for truth and a god. I don't even regard most of it as being very much inspired because there are too many inconsistancies. I merely regard it as a book one can use to guide their life--and not an infallible one even for that purpose. Certainly the most inspired book in the bible is Matthew. I ony bring up what I have to show people that the creationist view versus evolution is not a christian view versus fact. Creationism is fanatacism--so it is fanatacism versus facts. Or fanatical lies versus evidential fact. Take your pick.

lpetrich

I was expecting something like a Biblical argument for evolution by natural selection that I once devised:

The Bible has several genealogies, with numerous "begots". These are neither very entertaining nor very edifying, being a sort of bookkeeping detail. However, they may be useful for demonstrating certain people's eminent ancestry.

So why else might they be there? Think evolution -- descent with modification. Could these genealogies be a hint that there are other important genealogies to be found, such as genealogies that connect different species of living things?

Turning to natural selection, the first thing that comes to mind from the Bible is how "every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 3:10).

Is this much worse than many other theological arguments?

Jay30

OK, do you mean the genesis account roughly describes evolution over billions of years: god made grass and fruit on day 3, the sun, moon and stars on day 4; the fowl, whales and fish on day 5; and land creatures and human(s) on day 6. I don't think many would agree that this is the sequence of evolution on earth (if that's what you're saying). Unless you say that the bible writers had absolutely no idea and messed up the sequence. All this was laid out in detail before god "breathed air" into Adam's "nostrils" and knit Eve out of one of his ribs.

Genesis seems to be quite explicit about creating different creatures on different days according to land, water, air -- then made man and put him in Eden, where the rivers Pihon, Gihon, Euphrates, Hiddekel meet -- there seems to be a lot of details there in genesis for it to be strictly an allegory.

bleubird

I do not understand why we spend so much time talking about the bible.It is prose.Bad prose,at
that.But prose none the less.Just more desert goat herder myth that gets in the way of real search for knowledge.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: bleubird ]

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: bleubird ]</p>

emotional

I beg to differ. The Bible does not contain mathematical equations, but it is meant as a truly scientific account set in simple words. Genesis 1, barring equations and obfuscated professional language, is an account of the origins of the universe, this world, life and man, which are really scientific matters. The chief difference between the Bible and modern science is that the Bible has the wrong answer.

For more:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/genesis1.htm" target="_blank">Elucidation of Genesis 1</a> - the cosmological picture that the Bible tells people.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/sci-gen1.htm" target="_blank">A Scientifically Correct Genesis 1</a> - what Genesis 1 would say if it had truly been written by the All-Knower.

The Bible is a book of science, as well a religious book. And the theory of evolution, conversely, is a religious/metaphysical theory as well as a scientific one. More here:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/whyevolution.htm" target="_blank">So Why Should Evolution Be Taught At Schools?</a>

"Non-overlapping magisteria" is a politically-correct myth. Science and religion do mix.

Starboy

devnet,

Considering the realm of the natural and supernatural the only possible ways of explaining our surroundings, this results in three universes of explanations:

1. Only natural explanations allowed - this is the universe of explanations that science restricts itself to. Everything that can be detected or inferred is natural, and only natural explanations are allowed to explain natural phenomena.

2. Natural and supernatural explanations allowed - this is the universe that many of the "realistic theists" (oxymoron if there ever was one) espouse. This is a schizophrenic point of view. You must constantly figure out where the line is to be drawn between which method of explanation is applicable or should dominate. Calling this point of view an alternative is like saying you have a choice between hitting a big old tree or a solid brick wall during an accident. Sure you have a choice but it will lead you to the same end. No supernatural explanations. There are some so-called religions that have come very close to this point.

3. Only supernatural explanations allowed - this is an ancient view and one espoused by the extremely religious. In the age of reason this view is completely discredited by intelligent, freedom loving people. This is where many of the fundamentalists would like to take us. I guess they recognize that adopting two will only result in the end of religion. An excellent example of what this type of thinking brings is the current war in Afghanistan.

Starboy

pz

Ick, no. Science is defined by its methods, not by the phenomena it tries to describe. The bible certainly contains attempts to describe the way the world works, but they are by no means scientific. I'd say that the methods advocated by religion (dogma and revelation) are completely antithetical to science.