The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Five: The Revenge of Mike Shermer

[Stewbert 08]

Don't friggin try to argue semantics with me.

Genesis makes a claim about the order in which things appeared in the universe.

Day One: an earth without form but with water. Creation of light and darkness.

Day Two: Division of water into sea and a layer of liquid water above a "firmament."

Day Three: Land rises from the sea. Creation of land plants.

Day Four: Sun and moon appear in the "firmament."

Day Five: Creation of sea-dwelling life and birds.

Day Six: Creation of land-dwelling animals, insects, and Man.

This claim gets the chronology wrong in almost every way possible.

Your argument comes down to this: do you buy this chronology, or not?

If you say that this portion of Genesis should be taken seriously: you aren't worth arguing with.

If you say that this portion of Genesis should not be taken seriously: um, then why is it ok to say that the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor for evolution?

You can't take a story of 100 sentences, of which 90 are wrong, and say that the ten sentences that I haven't directly disproven tell a deep and compelling story about how man arose from animals.

Again, if you can't see why that's silly...

 

[Bill3000]

We can end the argument with the fact that Plotinus agrees with Stewbert.

 

[Berzerker]

Don't friggin try to argue semantics with me.

Why are you anti-semantic? I just shredded your "science doesn't support creationism" argument and you want wine with your semantics.

Genesis makes a claim about the order in which things appeared in the universe.

The universe aint even mentioned in Genesis. But what does that have to do with my argument? You know, MY argument as opposed to your strawman? I said the story of man's departure from the animal world in the Garden shows evolution at work. You ignored that and started rambling on and on about a different sequence of events in Genesis.

Day One: an earth without form but with water. Creation of light and darkness.

No, day 1 started with "let there be light". The watery depths of the proto-Earth were already in existence. And what does God call the light and the darkness? DAY and night. The Sun shining on a spinning planet is why we have day and night. I'd go on and make more corrections but you're just repeating the same nonsense.

If you say that this portion of Genesis should not be taken seriously: um, then why is it ok to say that the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor for evolution?

Wait a minute, not only are you ignoring what I said about evolution and the Garden, now you're claiming that allegedly false information in one part of Genesis disqualifies all information in Genesis? Does that mean the false information you've posted disqualifies everything you've said?

 

[Perfection]

While editing my post, I accidentally ruined the post Warpus replied to. Unfortunately, he replied selectively and so I don't remember the full post that he replied to.

I'm not asking about an increase in size, I'm asking about a new species appearing since humanity started. By 'larger' I mean an animal that is bigger than your head - something we can recognise.

Have any new species appeared since humanity spawned?

Sheep.

@Berzerker, I largely agree with Stewbert here, Genesis clearly does get things out of order and whatnot (sea animals actually came before land plants which came after land animals which came after birds). That of course doesn't rule out the idiot-writing-down-a-crappy-version-of-what-God-showed-him stuff or it's just a metaphor for God's relation to man or whatevs. My goal here isn't to integrate evolution into Christianity, but to discuss the scientific problems with antievolutionary creationism from all religions.

 

[Berzerker]

Then the problem you have is in interpreting what the creation stories say. As for Stew and the sequence of events in Genesis, he's full of BS. I never said that sequence was exact, or even mostly accurate, I didn't even mention it. I said the story of the Garden represents a major step in our evolution - the knowledge of good and evil. Instead of addressing that he went off into lala-land about plants and animals and what order they appeared. As for Genesis, I still say what they wrote is quite impressive - how did ancient peoples know that plants and sea life preceded land animals and themselves?

 

[Stewbert 08]

I said the story of man's departure from the animal world in the Garden shows evolution at work.

Do I have to list the obvious faults in the story of the Garden of Eden too? Humanity does not trace back to two individuals. Herbivores did not suddenly all become carnivores. Animals (and even plants) lived, were diseased, ate each other, and died long before humans appeared on the scene.

The Garden of Eden story doesn't say anything about evolution, it talks about a perfect, sinless, deathless creation which was drastically changed after the original 2 humans chose to eat fruit. Well guess what, all of that is BS too.

The garden of Eden story is not a parable about evolution. It takes an enormous stretch of the imagination to apply it to evolution at all, as is evidenced that before evolution was a theory, no one made that connection.

Do you know what eisegesis is? You can read whatever you want into Genesis to make it look like a story that is "supported by science," but

every

single

testable claim Genesis makes about the state of the early earth and the order in which life evolved, is wrong.

As for Genesis, I still say what they wrote is quite impressive - how did ancient peoples know that plants and sea life preceded land animals and themselves?

They didn't know, because Genesis isn't true.

There were animals - fish - living in the sea 25 MILLION YEARS before the first plants appeared on land, not days or millions of years later.

There were animals on land - amphibians and reptiles - 160 MILLION YEARS before the evolution of birds, not days or millions of years later.

There were animals on land over 200 MILLION YEARS before the evolution of flowering plants, not days or millions of years later.

Are you actually at all familiar with the order in which life evolved on this planet?

 

[Stewbert 08]

No, day 1 started with "let there be light". The watery depths of the proto-Earth were already in existence.

The Sun is MILLIONS OF YEARS OLDER than the Earth.

Jesus!

 

[Perfection]

I said the story of the Garden represents a major step in our evolution - the knowledge of good and evil. Instead of addressing that he went off into lala-land about plants and animals and what order they appeared.

That's all well and fine and definitely outside of the focus of this thread. I'm not attempting to make evolution compatible with evolutionary biology.

Then the problem you have is in interpreting what the creation stories say. As for Stew and the sequence of events in Genesis, he's full of BS. I never said that sequence was exact, or even mostly accurate, I didn't even mention it.

As for Genesis, I still say what they wrote is quite impressive - how did ancient peoples know that plants and sea life preceded land animals and themselves?

These two sentiments are interesting. You say that you don't think (I'm surmising that from "didn't say", correct me if I am mistaken) the sequence is exact or accurate yet you are impressed by this one instance. This seems akin to watching a blind kid pulling out slips of paper with the numbers 1-10 on them and being impressed that he pulled 2 and 6 out before 7 and 9.

 

[Gogf]

No, day 1 started with "let there be light". The watery depths of the proto-Earth were already in existence. And what does God call the light and the darkness? DAY and night. The Sun shining on a spinning planet is why we have day and night. I'd go on and make more corrections but you're just repeating the same nonsense.

So how was the earth here before creation?

 

[Berzerker]

Do I have to list the obvious faults in the story of the Garden of Eden too?

If you're gonna address what I said, have at it. If you're gonna blather on about something else, save us both the time.

Humanity does not trace back to two individuals.

Jesus H Christ, you are gonna blather on about something else. What is it with you? I'm still waiting for you to explain why mankind obtaining the knowledge of good and evil is a denial of evolution. The Bible does not say Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet, people were made the 6th day but Adam was placed in the Garden, not all of humanity. After murdering Abel, Cain was banished and he married a woman.

The Garden of Eden story doesn't say anything about evolution, it talks about a perfect, sinless, deathless creation which was drastically changed after the original 2 humans chose to eat fruit. Well guess what, all of that is BS too.

Where did you find all that in the Garden story? Oh yeah, you dont answer questions.

So human intelligence is not a product of human evolution? The Garden specifically refers to the state of human consciousness before and after the tree of knowledge. Here are some verses:

2:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Why would God seek a helpmate for Adam from among the other animals? Because Adam was an animal, but he was destined to become human. He was already on the way...

2:025 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Because they were animals awaiting the evolutionary jump to human consciousness.

3:005 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And there's our evolutionary jump, but it is interesting that the Serpent knew what was going on and told Eve the truth. Look at what God said would happen if they ate the "apple" and what the Serpent said and compare both predictions with the actual result expressed by God to his colleagues... He was not happy... And the Serpent was right...

The garden of Eden story is not a parable about evolution. It takes an enormous stretch of the imagination to apply it to evolution at all, as is evidenced that before evolution was a theory, no one made that connection.

Many ancient peoples spoke of evolution, including the Greek philosopher Anaxiamander. But why draw the connection if you dont think its important? You can read the verses for yourself. Did Adam leave the Garden with the same consciousness he had when entering? No, he was a human being when he left...

every single testable claim Genesis makes about the state of the early earth and the order in which life evolved, is wrong.

How did continents form before plate tectonics? If thats how continents form, then they weren't there before plate tectonics. That means it is quite feasible the Earth was covered with water before plate tectonics took over and started forming land masses. And that means all those myths that claim the land appeared from under the water do not conflict with what science tells us. I'm not going to keep correcting your BS, show me the science that says the Earth could not have been covered with water 4 bya.

Oh yeah, what can we test to know what the proto-Earth was like 4.2 bya? Well, we know the Earth had oceans and land ~3.9 bya followed quickly by life and that was only 100 million years after the catastrophe that struck the Earth, so if the proto-Earth is ~4.5 bya then by 4.4 bya the proto-Earth could have settled down enough for an ocean to form. So much for your "early Earth volcanism" and slowly developing oceans.

They didn't know, because Genesis isn't true.

You dont even know what Genesis says, I've spent a good chunk of this thread correcting your mistakes and you just keep repeating them. Genesis says plants came before the Sun... Genesis says plants came before the Sun...Genesis says plants came before the Sun... No, it doesnt say that. Hell, you think "Day" refers to the Sun and not the Earth's rotation.

Are you actually at all familiar with the order in which life evolved on this planet?

Somewhat, enough to know the Bible is right when it places plants and sea life before land animals and us.

The Sun is MILLIONS OF YEARS OLDER than the Earth.

The "Light" does not refer to the Sun, it refers to the Earth's "day" or rotation. God called the light, Day, not Sun. It aint that complicated... The Sun was there all along, but the Earth was not. The collision (the act of creation) imparted new orbital characteristics to the remains of the proto-Earth so that the newly born Earth had a new tilt (seasons), a new orbit, a new "sky" - and life.

 

[Berzerker]

So how was the earth here before creation?

It wasn't, the collision 4 bya undoubtedly pushed the remains of the proto-Earth to a new orbit... I'm sure there must be a trail of debris where the collision occurred.

You say that you don't think (I'm surmising that from "didn't say", correct me if I am mistaken) the sequence is exact or accurate yet you are impressed by this one instance. This seems akin to watching a blind kid pulling out slips of paper with the numbers 1-10 on them and being impressed that he pulled 2 and 6 out before 7 and 9.

What if that kid told you sea life and land plants preceded animals and people on land? I'd say he learned his science lesson for the day.

 

[Perfection]

It wasn't, the collision 4 bya undoubtedly pushed the remains of the proto-Earth to a new orbit... I'm sure there must be a trail of debris where the collision occurred.

Wrong on both counts. Current theory calls for the impactor to be of relatively low velocity (due to the fact that the orbit of the impactor and proto-earth were largely the same) this wouldn't cause much of a change in orbits.

Secondly, 4.some billion years is more then enough time for Earth/The Moon to impact some of the debris and scatter the remaining far across the solar system.

What if that kid told you sea life and land plants preceded animals and people on land? I'd say he learned his science lesson for the day.

If the kid told me that in between telling me that birds came before land animals and plants came before sea life then I'd be hard pressed to say that he actually learned that sea life and land plants preceded animals and people on land and that he might just be randomly ordering things.

 

[Stewbert 08]

Here, kid, since you're so eager to reinvent Genesis into something that isn't scientifically fallacious, why not try reading the ACTUAL TEXT.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6
28 And God blessed them, Gen. 5.1, 2 and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Everything I've attributed to Genesis is right there in the text. You can make up BS about "protoEarths" and how "winged fowl" actually means insects all day long if you want, the ACTUAL TEXT says God made the stars, Sun and Moon after flowering plants.

The reason all this is relevant? Because if Genesis got THIS MUCH WRONG, then a claim that a myth about how human gained consciousness is actually a parable pointing to evolution, is ridiculous.

The harsh reality is, the Genesis scribes were just pulling stuff out their ____, or stealing from earlier myths. None of it means anything. Something that someone who patently had no clue what they were talking about wrote down, that coincidentally superficially resembles a scientific discovery made thousands of years later, does not mean that the scriptures have suddenly become "supported by science."

Which was your initial claim and I think has been about friggin demolished by now.

if you study the religious explanations (myths) about the origin of the Earth, the science supports religion.

No, it doesn't, but everyone is free to believe silly things.

Adios.

 

[Berzerker]

Wrong on both counts. Current theory calls for the impactor to be of relatively low velocity (due to the fact that the orbit of the impactor and proto-earth were largely the same) this wouldn't cause much of a change in orbits.

Wrong on both counts? What does that mean? Where did I say the change in orbit was enormous, or small. I got Stewie for strawman, I dont need someone else making stuff up. The Earth's orbit would have changed even had it not been struck, but it was struck. Does your current theory provide a range? Has current theory found the location of the collision? Is there a pattern to planet formation? Like, if the Earth was not here do the planets line up at some mathematical ratio? Where would the Earth have to be to fit that pattern? I suggest they build their theory on the actual evidence and not speculations about how hard the Earth got hit. If this collision occurred, a trail of debris would be evident.

Their theory includes the origin of the moon so they need a low velocity impactor, but the moon shows evidence of being present during the collision. The Moon got hit by a massive wave of debris around 4 bya followed by a period of declining activity. Yeah, the Earth got hit hard enough to strip away any evidence of the proto-Earth's crust/surface (aside from the abundance of water) but the orbit didn't change much at all?

Secondly, 4.some billion years is more then enough time for Earth/The Moon to impact some of the debris and scatter the remaining far across the solar system.

Not if the Earth was pushed to a new orbit. But you're right, the Earth and other bodies in the vicinity have been getting pelted ever since by debris from the collision. That poses a big problem for astronomers, they think meteors are what the solar system looked like 4.5 bya. It may have, but if meteors are the remnants of this collision then they were released long after the planets formed.

Oh, and I'd suggest the impactor was following an inclined retrograde orbit. That would explain the long term comets following such an orbit, no need for the Oort Cloud.

If the kid told me that in between telling me that birds came before land animals and plants came before sea life then I'd be hard pressed to say that he actually learned that sea life and land plants preceded animals and people on land and that he might just be randomly ordering things.

I've gone thru this already with Stewie and I'm not going to repeat everything again.

 

[Berzerker]

Here, kid, since you're so eager to reinvent Genesis into something that isn't scientifically fallacious, why not try reading the ACTUAL TEXT.

Everything I've attributed to Genesis is right there in the text. You can make up BS about "protoEarths" and how "winged fowl" actually means insects all day long if you want, the ACTUAL TEXT says God made the stars, Sun and Moon after flowering plants.

Lets see

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

What is the Earth? Its the name God gave to the dry land. Where was it? Below the waters, ie not dry land. This is the proto-Earth and Genesis refers to it whether you like it or not.

And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Hmm... day and night? Sounds like a rotating planet near the Sun. If you think that means there was no Sun then you can explain why we have night and day without referring to a rotating planet near the Sun

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

This is the newly born Earth's "sky", not God creating stars or the universe. Notice how the celestial bodies served a purpose? To provide light, to tell time, to occupy our sky during the day and night. That leaves out all those stars, galaxies, black holes, etc etc etc that dont serve the stated purpose. The story is telling us what the Earth's sky looked like, not an inventory of celestial objects created by God.

In fact, if you READ the ACTUAL TEXT God doesn't create this planet or even the dry land. "Earth" was exposed by the receding waters, and no, God didn't create the waters either.

I'll use this translation if you dont mind

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures having life, and flying creatures above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.
21 And God created the great living creatures, and every living creature that moves, which swarmed the waters after its kind, and every winged creature after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures multiply on the earth.

If you're gonna be a stickler for chronology, then the birds followed life in the sea.

The reason all this is relevant? Because if Genesis got THIS MUCH WRONG, then a claim that a myth about how human gained consciousness is actually a parable pointing to evolution, is ridiculous.

So instead of addressing what I said, you employed a strawman - Genesis denies evolution, not because you refuted my claim about the Garden and man's consciousness, but because you found something else in Genesis thats wrong. Whoopedy-de-do... That means everything you've said is wrong because you thought Genesis was talking about the universe. How do you like your standard now?

The harsh reality is, the Genesis scribes were just pulling stuff out their ____, or stealing from earlier myths. None of it means anything. Something that someone who patently had no clue what they were talking about wrote down, that coincidentally superficially resembles a scientific discovery made thousands of years later, does not mean that the scriptures have suddenly become "supported by science."

Which was your initial claim and I think has been about friggin demolished by now.

I know you aint too bright, but are you dishonest too? You haven't even addressed my initial claim. My initial claim had nothing to do with the creation story in Genesis. My initial claim was that the Garden of Eden describes the evolution of man's consciousness from animal to human. Instead of debating this, you started blathering on and on about plants and birds and blah blah blah. You replaced what I said with a strawman so you could argue against yourself. Didya win?

 

[brennan]

Lets see

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

What is the Earth? Its the name God gave to the dry land. Where was it? Below the waters, ie not dry land. This is the proto-Earth and Genesis refers to it whether you like it or not.

Factually incorrect. As the Earth formed it heated up, the Earth was initially hot and dry, water originated from gas escaping from the rocks. i.e. scientifically the land came first.

And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Hmm... day and night? Sounds like a rotating planet near the Sun. If you think that means there was no Sun then you can explain why we have night and day without referring to a rotating planet near the Sun

"Sounds like a rotating planet near the Sun." you're having a laugh? A statement that light and dark are not the same describes a rotating planet near a sun? Non sequitor, or just drivel, you decide....

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Factually incorrect, the moon is not a light. I'm sure you'll object that the author couldn't have known , but he could. Divine inspiration remember?

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

This is the newly born Earth's "sky", not God creating stars or the universe. Notice how the celestial bodies served a purpose? To provide light, to tell time, to occupy our sky during the day and night. That leaves out all those stars, galaxies, black holes, etc etc etc that dont serve the stated purpose. The story is telling us what the Earth's sky looked like, not an inventory of celestial objects created by God. :

But if this is a divinely inspired telling of the creation, why the hel does it leave out the vast majority of what happened? And what's so special about a story that *gasp* describes what the sky looks like.

In fact, if you READ the ACTUAL TEXT God doesn't create this planet or even the dry land. "Earth" was exposed by the receding waters, and no, God didn't create the waters either.

Still wrong.

I'll use this translation if you dont mind

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures having life, and flying creatures above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.
21 And God created the great living creatures, and every living creature that moves, which swarmed the waters after its kind, and every winged creature after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures multiply on the earth.

If you're gonna be a stickler for chronology, then the birds followed life in the sea.

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures having life, and flying creatures above the earth" From where are you getting a chronological order in the sentance? Because I don't see one, just the word 'and'; an 'and then' might suggest chronology, 'and' on it's own does not cut the mustard.

So instead of addressing what I said, you employed a strawman - Genesis denies evolution, not because you refuted my claim about the Garden and man's consciousness, but because you found something else in Genesis thats wrong. Whoopedy-de-do... That means everything you've said is wrong because you thought Genesis was talking about the universe. How do you like your standard now?

Genesis denies evolution right where it says that all the living things were created 'after their kind', which is kinda different from them evolving from a common ancestor over half a billion years or so.

I know you aint too bright, but are you dishonest too? You haven't even addressed my initial claim. My initial claim had nothing to do with the creation story in Genesis. My initial claim was that the Garden of Eden describes the evolution of man's consciousness from animal to human. Instead of debating this, you started blathering on and on about plants and birds and blah blah blah. You replaced what I said with a strawman so you could argue against yourself. Didya win?

Er, no, it's supposed to describe how we gained knowledge of good and evil or somesuch. Quite how you get us going from animal to human I don't know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have a question about the Garden of Eden. Did it disapear after Adam and Eve were dispelled or should it still be around somewhere?

 

[Lotus49]

Why hasn't archeological evidence surfaced which can conclusively link man via evolutionary branch(es) to other primates/apes?

I'm fully prepared to say that I evolved from apes, provided it can be scientifically proven. As it stands, there is a massive evolutionary genetic gap which remains unexplained. But I'm sure the answer can be found, right here... in CFC. Let us be enlightened.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When all you can find is snapshots, you shouldnt be looking for a movie

 

[Berzerker]

Factually incorrect. As the Earth formed it heated up, the Earth was initially hot and dry, water originated from gas escaping from the rocks. i.e. scientifically the land came first.

Genesis is not describing the proto-Earth 4.5 bya. It describes the proto-Earth at the time of creation, ie ~4 bya when the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars sized object. The earliest rocks date back to ~3.9 bya, life dates back very close to that time, and so do the oceans. It took maybe 100 million years after the collision for rocks, the ocean, and life to develop. That strongly suggests the proto-Earth already had a crust and an ocean ~100 million years after the planet formed 4.5 bya. Obviously after the proto-Earth was struck volcanism and outgassing occurred, but that does not mean the proto-Earth wasn't covered with water before the collision. Today the Earth would be covered with water if not for plate tectonics.

"Sounds like a rotating planet near the Sun." you're having a laugh? A statement that light and dark are not the same describes a rotating planet near a sun? Non sequitor, or just drivel, you decide....

Oh boy, it aint a statement about light and dark, its a statement about day and night. An Earth day is a result of the Earth rotating in close proximity to the Sun.

Factually incorrect, the moon is not a light. I'm sure you'll object that the author couldn't have known , but he could. Divine inspiration remember?

just go away

But if this is a divinely inspired telling of the creation, why the hel does it leave out the vast majority of what happened? And what's so special about a story that *gasp* describes what the sky looks like.

Where did I say it was divinely inspired? What was left out? Read the Enuma Elish if you want a longer version. And where did I say it was special? It just is... If you're gonna describe the Earth, describing the sky seems relevant.

Still wrong.

You need more than that Where does Genesis say God created this planet or the waters or the dry land?

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures having life, and flying creatures above the earth" From where are you getting a chronological order in the sentance? Because I don't see one, just the word 'and'; an 'and then' might suggest chronology, 'and' on it's own does not cut the mustard.

One came before the other? That seems to be how y'all are reading it... I dont, I see it as a running narrative from different authors with their own storylines that overlap, like the 4 gospels describing Jesus' life.

Genesis denies evolution right where it says that all the living things were created 'after their kind', which is kinda different from them evolving from a common ancestor over half a billion years or so.

After their kind refers to species procreating, not how those species came to be. I never said the creation story in Genesis supports evolution (you'd know that if you were reading the thread), I said the Garden of Eden describes man's evolving consciousness. It would be nice if y'all debated what I said and not Stewie's strawman.

Er, no, it's supposed to describe how we gained knowledge of good and evil or somesuch. Quite how you get us going from animal to human I don't know.

Well then maybe you should try reading my explanation instead of repeating questions I already answered.