The Origin of Man

[DeMann]

In Genesis 1, God created all of the animals then he created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman.

Which part is true? Did the animals come first or second? Is woman just an improvement on the Irish Setter? Maybe, maybe not? Setters don't nag

 

Actually, Gen 1 is the general overview of the creation experience. Then, Chapter 2 gives the details. The part that gives you trouble is in verse 19 when it is reiterated that God made the animals from the dirt. Here, as is common for those looking to fabricate an error, you take the reiteration as a flaw in the timing. The verb is in the past tense, so that we see that the animals had already been made. Sorry. You really should take a couple of years of Aramaic if you want to check it out for yourself.

 

3) if God had nothing to do with it, why did any early organisms reproduce? did they live for 'eons' before they slowly and subtly changed into a reproducing form? did the first organism happen to come to life and also happen to have DNA so that it could reproduce?

3. Not clear the connection between God and reproduction.

 

well, he states that God has nothing to do with the diversity of life in general. He states that it takes eons for even small changes to occur. I contend that God made everything in 6 days, and set it all in motion in one fell swoop. If God had nothing to do with the beginning of life on earth, then my question is,Why did the first organism ever reproduce any way? And if it did, did it take it eons to do so? What are the odds? I mean, for an organism to pop into existence, and then begin reproducing on its own? And without errors?

 

Ok. Again; I am just a dumb lug. Call me FarmBoy. I cannot fathom this change in dna and chromosome stuff. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is becoming more and more common these days for human bodies to get some of these cells changing up their DNA and making those changes that then result. Dont they call that cancer? I mean, I havent seen an old man grow a third eye that works. Or pop out an extra arm that he can use to scratch his back with. Hey, how about retractable skin that is UV proof? You know, to cover our balding heads? But, then, maybe one of those guys (first pusk maybe?) has a link to a site with all that information. You know, one with pictures and stuff like that.

 

Here, I wish to copy what Packsaddle has said ((by the way, sir, you are good. Defending the wrong side, I think, but nevertheless good.)) The problem here is that there is absolutely no comparable scientific or experimental support for the alternative and "reductio ad absurdum" is today mostly used to reject arguments, not to support otherwise unsupportable arguments.

 

Here, Pack, you fall into your own words. These cannot be lent to defend the question of evolution, as no experimental, or for that matter scientific evidence, has ever been offered to support it. My questions are not reductio ad absurdum, they are VERY SIMPLE and to the point. For the theory to have any validity, they MUST be answered. Otherwise, the theory has some very large gaping holes in it; nothing to base the very concept(s) upon. Without a solid base, you can and must fall.

 

 

[DeMann]

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!"

 

 

So DeMann,

Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's!

 

 

ok. dude. let me reiterate in a more clear context. NO we did not study that trash in particular (Nebraska man) as current theory. nor did we, for example, that baby humans, while in the womb, have tails. But those and other ideas (theories??) were indeed covered, and we did most certainly have to take tests over them. I hated every minute of it. I understand that you are looking for some however slight error, or its appearance, on which to pounce- it makes good sense if one wishes to win some form of debate or argument. I am sorry that you misunderstood what I said. I will try to be more clear in the future.

 

[littlebillie]

DeMann,

 

Do YOU have any knowledge of Aramaic? Since you suggest that others study it, it would seem so. So here's the question - was the word really originally "eon" or "age"? This is a serious question, not a snipe.

 

Thanks for any info!

[littlebillie]

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday"

2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant

of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

 

So can we at least say that the 6 days of Genesis may give us up to 6000 years? At least?

 

 

[packsaddle]

littlebillie, the Hebrew calendar is currently in the year 5763. Not bad!

[packsaddle]

Americans are notoriously deficient in foreign language skills and I must confess that I contribute to this sad situation. I...don't...know...Aramaic. I know, it's ugly -but it had to be told.

[firstpusk]

DeMann,

 

Thank you for acknowledging that I was correct on Nebraska man. I am sorry if studying evolution was emotionally tough for you in your school days. I am not insensitive to the struggles folks go through when confronted with these ideas.

 

"You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere..."

 

If you hated every minute of it, how likely is it that you would be able to accept any evidence regardless of how compelling it may be? Is that discomfort still not allowing you to look at the evidence?

 

I apologize if these questions are a bit too personal. It is simply that I have tried to give you my arguments straight up and even given links to back them up. You seem to be a bit too dismissive. I am not asking you to agree with me, change religions or anything like that. However, I am asking that you engage in the debate in a fair manner. I have offered evidence, not proof. You have a right to refuse to accept it. I would expect that you try to articulate the difference you have with the evidence. Instead, you flatly deny I have given you anything while addressing me with personal remarks. I have been pretty tough with you. I admit it. I apologize if it has offended you or your religious sensibilities.

[DeMann]

To littlebillie:

- was the word really originally "eon" or "age"? This is a serious question,

 

I must ask, in what verse are you talking? How do YOU define eon and how do YOU define age? give me those, and I will try to help you.

 

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday"

2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant

of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

 

So can we at least say that the 6 days of Genesis may give us up to 6000 years? At least?

 

No, sir, I dont think so. The above quoted verses are to show (when you take them in the context in which they are written) that time is irrelevant to God. Remember, Gen. 1 uses the phrase,and the evening and the morning were the ----- day.. the use of both evening and morning are in the singular, and are used elsewhere in the description of days as we know them. The same original words are used, thus requiring us to see them as days as we now know and experience them.

 

To Firstpusk:

If you hated every minute of it, how likely is it that you would be able to accept any evidence regardless of how compelling it may be? Is that discomfort still not allowing you to look at the evidence?

 

I did indeed question it and actually lean towards it when in college. Early on, It actually looked reasonable. That is why I do not fault you for falling for it. But, those ad absurdum questions that just beg to be answered so that a foundation can be laid just would not leave me alone. And then, the study began in earnest for some factual basis. And, yes, faith came into the picture. You, sir, must believe in evolution only on your faith. Again, I contend that there is no proof of it.

 

I apologize if these questions are a bit too personalI have been pretty tough with you. I admit it. I apologize if it has offended you or your religious sensibilities.

 

you owe me no apologies. I am not offended. Not even in the slightest. I also contend that you have not offered any proof, and that YOU have ignored questions. I use as my basis of fact the Bible, and you discount it. I have asked how you can do that, only to get no reply. The simplest of questions are the most hard hitting- the concept upon which evolution must begin. And it is those very questions that the evolutionist must remain silent on, for any answer he or she must give will come from God; there is no other possibility.

Let me again ask:

1) why did the first living organism reproduce? Did it have DNA, RNA, or some form of a Chromosome? Did it use mitosis or meosis?

2) At what time did man become man and not animal anymore?

3) How can you tell what to believe and what to disbelieve in the Bible? Can we believe none of it? (this is the ONE question I really want you to answer.)

4) How is right and wrong determined? A higher power? Or is it some common belief among man? If so, how is right and wrong determined?

You see, there is no separation of the life and the spiritualit is intertwined throughout. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[NJCubScouter]

DeMann says:

 

The above quoted verses are to show (when you take them in the context in which they are written) that time is irrelevant to God.

 

OK, if time is irrelevant to God, then why can't the "days" in Genesis 1 be a million years? Or a billion years? Or, I suppose, a second or a split-second? Point is, once you accept (as most people do) that the "days" are representational rather than literal, you are then free to look at the actual evidence, which suggests to most scientists that the Earth is somewhere between 4 and 4.6 billion years old.

[NJCubScouter]

And by the way, while we're at it. Genesis 1 also says that God created the Earth, and plant life on Earth, before the Sun was created. Do you really believe that? And if so, what scientific evidence is there for that?

[packsaddle]

DeMann, to your questions:

1. to add to my original answer, no one knows for sure but...My bet is that it was very simple, mostly employed the same amino acids as we do, and had the same base pairs that we have. (It might taste sour if seasoned improperly, though) It reproduced because (and this is going to be a bit circular) reproduction is one characteristic in the definition of life (which, incidentally, is still being debated in some circles, the definition, that is). If it doesn't reproduce, you have to work hard to qualify it as life, much less an organism. Crystals reproduce but don't have the other characteristics.

 

2. Men are animals. What Phylum do you suggest? Or did I not understand the question?

 

3. As I have contended elsewhere, a person's beliefs are theirs and deeply personal. You should look to no other person nor depend on them to form or justify your personal beliefs. Answer it for yourself. I must admit I am a little surprised to see you ask this. Yet, once you have decided, you should not place yourself in a position of superiority over persons with different beliefs (this is where some have trouble).

 

4. You will get different answers from different persons and in different societies. Science will not provide the answer and can't. It will, however, provide numerous opportunities to ask the question repeatedly as a result of new technologies. (Jesus probably never envisioned xenobiotic transplants or genetic engineering, for example, I could be wrong).

 

I am OK with the unity of life and spirituality if that is what persons wish to believe. I see it as neither a superior nor inferior view to others, though.

 

To back up a bit, though, you asked about the odds of an organism 'popping up' and so on. What organism? Why not errors? How could anyone begin to calculate such a probability without making huge guesses? I am looking around me for the perfect organism...Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. You seem to be in disbelief of the biblical creation and this seems incredible. Science does not say, "God had nothing to do with the beginning of life." Science simply can't address God at all. ScienTISTS, again, who might make such an incendiary statement are asking to be taken to task and they usually are, eventually, you might enjoy such yourself. But science simply assumes that there exist rational explanations for observable phenomena. The search goes on for many of those explanations, though, with the probability that there will never be answers for all of them. This is not very satisfying for persons who need to feel secure in their beliefs or need to think they have answers to all the questions. If they feel their views are threatened by or in conflict with this approach, they have misunderstood that the goals of science are not to threaten but to build on rational knowledge. I see nothing wrong with that.

P.S. that sour taste thing was a joke.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

Actually, from my reading of Genesis, God created the Earth and the Sun on the first day.

 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 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. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." (NIV) Genesis 1:1-5

 

Plants did not happen until the third. Regardless, going back to your statement:

 

And by the way, while we're at it. Genesis 1 also says that God created the Earth, and plant life on Earth, before the Sun was created. Do you really believe that? And if so, what scientific evidence is there for that?

 

Even if your supposition was correct (and it's not), you don't seem to be able to grasp the "God concept." That is to say,

 

God is GOD!.

 

He's capable of doing anything he wants, even those things that science says he cannot do.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, I repeat, science does not address God in any way. It does not refute God or religion nor does it support God or religion. It is totally consumed with the rational world and has plenty of questions there without tackling those that are solely a matter of faith. I am sympathetic to some persons who sincerely feel that science is in conflict with religion but there simply is no such conflict, only a personal perception of such.

 

On a different thought, does anyone have any idea of what all this has to do with Scouting? Have I missed something, is there a movement out there to eject science and scientists from Scouting? Or what?

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I see what it says for the first day. But I also see what it says for the fourth day:

 

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. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

 

Isn't the "greater light to govern the day" the Sun? It couldn't be anything else. So what did God do, create the Sun twice? I don't think that's what it means. But the only way it could not mean that is if "light" is being used to mean one thing on the first day and another thing on the fourth. "Light" means both the actual light, the shiny stuff, and the thing that produces the shiny stuff, like a flashlight or a Sun. On the first day, it just refers to light, not a source of the light. On the fourth day, it is clearly referring to specific sources of light, the "greater light" (the Sun) and the "lesser light" (the Moon.) So if I have to pick one of these descriptions as being the creation of the Sun, it is the one for the fourth day.

 

Now, you might ask, where did the light come from on the first day if the Sun was not created until the fourth day? It's a good question. But it's one I don't have to answer, because I think the whole chapter is a pre-scientific parable written by ancient man to explain creation. It's really not consistent, either with itself or with the known facts, but it doesn't have to be consistent -- it's poetry.

 

And no matter how hard you try, now matter how big a font you use, you can't prove otherwise. You can believe otherwise, but your belief does not give anyone else a reason to share your belief. I, on the other, do not care in the slightest if anyone believes what I believe.

 

And it has nothing to do with what God CAN do, the issue is what God DID do. I prefer the answers given by science to the answers offered by conflicting translations from an ancient text -- however great and important that text might be.

[Rooster7]

Okay, twice in one thread where I've been burned on my Bible knowledge. A more prudent man would have re-read the entire book of Genesis more carefully. Unfortunately, I was hastily in my reading. Serves me right for my - "Even if your supposition was correct (and it's not)" - comment. If I had just left off "and it's not", God probably would have been more gentle with me. Perhaps God was, because NJ was rather restrained in his response.

 

So NJ, I concede that it does appear as if the Sun was created on fourth day. Nevertheless, (without the large font this time) if your definition of God is similar to mine (i.e., God has no limits except those that He chooses to impose on himself and/or those that define His character), then I don't think there was a need for the Sun to exist prior to the forth day. As I tried to say more simply in my first post, if you believe in God, you shouldn't be concerned with barriers that science purport to exist. If those barriers apply to God (i.e., limit His power), then God is not God.