Creation myths

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
😠

oblivious.

what judeo creation story? it was inspired by other cultures. it is not really judeo. what order of creation? the "judeo-biblical" one or the real creation order, the one most scientists (real) agree on?
"the judeo story wins hands down" wins what? the prize for one of the few surviving stories? what did the creation story get right apart from "let there be light"?

Oblivious?

I am not the one who thinks that birds require insects to survive because you can observe such birds today. I am not the one who thinks that marine life requires insects to survive because you can observe such marine life today. What is REALLY needed for both marine life and birds to survive, however, is plant life. I have shown both of your charges concerning these issues to be baseless yet you continue to act as though I am the only one here off my rocker. In fact, the most convincing objection you have raised is about plant life existing without the sun, however, I have provided examples of life forms that exist independent of the sun, even though I was taught in my science classes growing up that it was scientifically IMPOSSIBLE but ONLY because they simply had not run across it as of yet. I have also provided a theory by a scientist who suggests that plant life could have survived with minimal light via radiant energy in an primeval atmosphere that would have been quite different than our atmosphere today. In addition, this plant life was not abundant, rather, only a beginning. Schroeder even goes so far as to include Nahmanides remarks that the "firmament", formed on the second day, initially intercepted the light that existed from day one. These comments were from a prescientific era.

Of course I am not claiming that everything that Schroeder says is 100% correct, but I think his theories are worth considering, just as I sat in my science class as I was being taught that it was impossible for life forms to exist independent of the sun. At the time I knew nothing to argue against such teachings other than the uneasy feeling that they seemed terribly cocky and sure of themselves. In fact, at the time I had no reason to dispute their teachings other than pure intuition.

Having said all that, I am continually amazed at scientific discoveries all over the globe in which life forms are found in the most inhospitable places on earth. In fact, I am now convinced that life can exist pretty much anywhere on earth despite how "hostile" the surrounding environment may be. Simply put, the earth is a living planet despite itself. The question though is why?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Stop being so defensive. You sound like Adam.

Not trying to be defensive, just trying to get you to open up a bit. Suppose Genesis does point to a scientific reality, namely the Big Bang? Are you discounting the possibility?

I do like your comment that Genesis has so much more to offer, however, than just a possible glimpse of the Big Bang. For example, the story of creation is about a God who creates an entire universe with the seemingly sole purpose of creating little and insignificant mankind. Mankind is the final creation and after creating him, God is finished and seems satisfied. What that implies to me is that everything may have been created before man just so man could be created. Really, its a love story that defies belief. Who are we that he should create a universe just for us? Who are we that he would come to earth and die for our sins? In effect, we are nothing yet the value he has placed upon us gives us value and defies all logic and understanding.

Can I hear an amen brotha Kirk!!!

Edit: It sure beats the Egyptian god spanking his monkey silly in a stream and, by default, accidentally creating the universe, no? 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Oblivious?

I am not the one who thinks that birds require insects to survive because you can observe such birds today. I am not the one who thinks that marine life requires insects to survive because you can observe such marine life today. What is REALLY needed for both marine life and birds to survive, however, is plant life. I have shown both of your ...[text shortened]... y be. Simply put, the earth is a living planet despite itself. The question though is why?

aa, but here you are wrong. i didn't say birds required insects to survive, i just said insects are less evolved than birds. so why would insects be created first? i am saying that it is preposterous to say that birds were created along with fish before anything else. why birds? why not reptiles? and of course birds don't need insects to survive, your bible says they were all vegetarians doesn't it? they were all vegetarians.

god created all plants to exist without the sun. not just some archaic algae. so he created those plants then the must have slashed them and replaced them with photosynthesis plants because this is just what god does, create useless stuff that he will replace or obliterate later anyway. like he did the dinosaurs.

you didn't pay any attention in class then, or the teacher was bad. the current plant life cannot exist without sunlight and consequently no life form. we have no idea what is out there on other planets or even in space. no scientist must ever make absolute claims. because there can always be a new theory right after that next corner waiting to bite you in the ass.

"I have also provided a theory by a scientist who suggests that plant life could have survived with minimal light via radiant energy in an primeval atmosphere that would have been quite different than our atmosphere today."
yes, that is wrong. maybe you don't understand wrong but it is WRONG. you made the parallel between that atmosphere and venus, but what you failed to mention is that venus has about 400 degrees Celsius atmospheric temperature. if the atmosphere would be as thick as you say, the greenhouse effect would render it quite hot. also you failed to explain how come there was day and night if light was comming from everywhere. also you cannot dodge this because god really separated light from darkness and called the latter night. so there was a night(with darkness) but you theory excludes the presence of darkness. unless of course, that besides the magical watery atmosphere, god created also a magical barrier that separated magically light from darkness.

and of course, after that god created the sun, and everything was as it was supposed to be in the first place.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your bible says they were all vegetarians doesn't it? they were all vegetarians.

Not that I am aware of.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b] i am saying that it is preposterous to say that birds were created along with fish before anything else. why birds? why not reptiles?

To ask why is a far different thing than to assert it is impossible.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

god created all plants to exist without the sun. not just some archaic algae. so he created those plants then the must have slashed them and replaced them with photosynthesis plants because this is just what god does, create useless stuff that he will replace or obliterate later anyway. like he did the dinosaurs.

God forbid things might "evolve" differently.

There is nothing magical about the sun other than it being an abundant and consistent source of energy. In addition, the sun is not the ONLY source out there that can be used as a source of energy as science has ALREADY proven.

As far as creation being "useless", this again is your assumption. I do not view the dinosaurs any more useless than any other creation. You value them as "useless" as where mankind views them with fascination and awe.

Originally posted by whodey
To ask why is a far different thing than to assert it is impossible.

it is simply a matter of what will you believe and why. if we have a dating method and nobody was able to disprove that and that dating method along with other proofs point out the fact that reptiles appeared before birds then why believe the bible that says otherwise?

which is a more reliable source? scientists who dedicate their lives to a certain domain and use facts and verifiable experiments to make assumptions, or a a 4000 year old text which MIGHT have been wholy inspired by God, in which case God MIGHT have spoken the truth and not lied in order to present something the savages would better understand so he can get to the important stuff like "don't kill each other". which MIGHT have been properly translated. which MIGHT have been properly transmitted through the generations.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

"I have also provided a theory by a scientist who suggests that plant life could have survived with minimal light via radiant energy in an primeval atmosphere that would have been quite different than our atmosphere today."
yes, that is wrong. maybe you don't understand wrong but it is WRONG. you made the parallel between that atmosphere and venus, but what ...[text shortened]... ter that god created the sun, and everything was as it was supposed to be in the first place.[/b]

Perhaps I should read back to you what you wrote to me?

"No scientist should make absolute claims, because there can ALWAYS be a new theory right after the next corner waiting to bite you in the ass."

What you fail to consider is what Venus would be like today had it not been for the sun. Would it have evolved the same way? Surely, the planet would not have heated up so quickly as it would have without the sun. In addition, no one is saying that both atmospheres were identical so as to produce identical results, rather, they were merely similar. Having said that, I wonder what Venus would have been like in the icy coldness of space without the sun? Would it slowly heat up from the radiant energy of distant energy sources? Could it have produced plant life that could have slowly reversed the green house effect right before the sun could have been created?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]it is simply a matter of what will you believe and why. if we have a dating method and nobody was able to disprove that and that dating method along with other proofs point out the fact that reptiles appeared before birds then why believe the bible that says otherwise?

The real question for me is how did God go from marine life to birds? As Genesis tends to indicate, God did not magically "poof" things into being, rather, he seems to have used the material and life forms already on earth to create other life. So the question begs, could there have been a progression from marine life to bird during day 5? Could reptiles been in the mix during this evolution? I don't see why it could not.

Originally posted by whodey
God forbid things might "evolve" differently.

There is nothing magical about the sun other than it being an abundant and consistent source of energy. In addition, the sun is not the ONLY source out there that can be used as a source of energy as science has ALREADY proven.

As far as creation being "useless", this again is your assumption. I do not v ...[text shortened]... eation. You value them as "useless" as where mankind views them with fascination and awe.

your ability to draw conclusions out of sarcasm amazes me.

ok when i said that god discarded dinosaurs as useless i was being sarcastic. the creationist view is that dinosaurs existed between the genesis 1-1 and the time of the flood. or maybe even after that. it wasn't evolution who decided they are unfit to survive in the changed environment at the time they disappeared (roughly 65 million years ago) it was god that decided (why) that they shouldn't be around anymore.

i used sarcasm because believing that god has anything to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs is laughable. One could argue that T-rexes might have hindered the development of humanity when god decided(again, why?) to make some animals carnivorous. but here were dinos 35 centimeters long, why did those little critters had to die. Ok so the T-rexes were dangerous. What about the dodo's? the quagga's? why did they had to be killed by god?

btw, the sun is not the only source of energy. i agree. so tell us what was in its place in the billions of years or the day the earth and the plans were alone.

and this just came to me. you never told me if you believed the earth to be revolving around the sun. hope you do, it would be really sad if you don't. so assuming you do, here is how the creation story sounds like to include this little fact:
--begin sarcasm--
"god created the earth. which revolved around the empty spot where the sun will be in the next day or next billion or so years."
or if making a whole planet revolve(what made it revolve btw?) in a completely empty universe(no stars or planets existed) around a blank spot let's try this variant:
"god created the earth and it was completely still. then he created the sun a little farther away, created the planets, and made all the planets revolve around the sun, and made the whole solar system move through the universe along with the galaxy milky way from which we are a part of"

--end sarcasm--

Originally posted by whodey
The real question for me is how did God go from marine life to birds? As Genesis tends to indicate, God did not magically "poof" things into being, rather, he seems to have used the material and life forms already on earth to create other life. So the question begs, could there have been a progression from marine life to bird during day 5? Could reptiles been in the mix during this evolution? I don't see why it could not.

oh so you accept evolution but still need god to personally direct it every second.

well at least is a progress. most creationists i hear consider magic to be the way god works.

i went even further. god doesn't need to direct the evolution process because he, in his infinite wisdom, created a logical universe that could take care of itself. no need to tweak it every step of the way, ensuring adam and eve's children don't produce retarded babies because of incest. and that noah's zoo doesn't get the same problem. btw, cheetahs are in the danger of dying out because there isn't enough genetic material to go around. imagine how big the problem would have been with just 2 individuals.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

which is a more reliable source? scientists who dedicate their lives to a certain domain and use facts and verifiable experiments to make assumptions, or a a 4000 year old text which MIGHT have been wholy inspired by God, in which case God MIGHT have spoken the truth and not lied in order to present something the savages would better understand so he can get ...[text shortened]... been properly translated. which MIGHT have been properly transmitted through the generations.[/b]

The creation story in Genesis is but a few chapters in the Bible. It is vague and it is NOT a scientific text. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of me to treat it as such. However, that is NOT what I am attempting to do here. I am not attempting to supercede Biblical stories over what science says, rather, I am simply saying that there may be some congruency between both that points to it is a source of truth. Now we can argue about the exact sequence of creation, but the fact is the Bible is far more believable in comparison to other creation myths in that it provides a general sequence necessary for the creation/evolution of life. In fact, it is believable enough that crazies like me and Dr. Schroeder dare to entertain that it COULD be taken literally. 🙄

Having said that, perhaps this is one of the many reasons that the major religions of the world today seem to have spun off from the Bible? It simply seems more believable whether you take it literally or not than other religious counterparts.

Originally posted by whodey
The creation story in Genesis is but a few chapters in the Bible. It is vague and it is NOT a scientific text. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of me to treat it as such. However, that is NOT what I am attempting to do here. I am not attempting to supercede Biblical stories over what science says, rather, I am simply saying that there may be some cong ...[text shortened]... ly seems more believable whether you take it literally or not than other religious counterparts.

Major religions spun off the bible?

Come on I'll give you Islam and Christianity vieing for the most followers....

But as far as I remember Buddhism isn't far behind Islam and Hinduism is miles ahead of any of the other Abrahamic religions besides the top two.....

And the reason for their spread has a lot to do with:
1. christians we're for a very long time extremely militant about spreading their religion.
2. Both Islam and Christianity specialize at indoctrinating impressionable children.
3. The fact that America was settled by christians, who then spread like rabbits, same with australia to a lesser extent....

I could go on but its off topic, just wanted to call you on that statment.

Originally posted by whodey
Not that I am aware of.

sorry forgot to answer to the whole "all animals were vegetarians in the beginning"

genesis in the beginning tells quite clearly what all the animals were supposed to eat. i don't think there is anywhere written that some animals are to eat others. also, kelly jay and others claim that the animals were still vegetarians by the time noah built his yacht since all the t-rexes and the raptors would have obviously eaten the rest of the zoo, noah included.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]oh so you accept evolution but still need god to personally direct it every second.

well at least is a progress. most creationists i hear consider magic to be the way god works.

What is magic? Magic to me is nothing more than creating an illusion that is not real. You could then say that there is no real power at all. Either that, or it is by some power that I cannot comprehend. For example, if I were to go back millions of years and show ancient man a lighter, they would say it was magic. The same goes for the Almighty. His power is his own business and it is in large part foriegn to me. Do I understand it all, certainly not, rather, all I do is often times study the power by which he works. The problem I see with most creationists, is that they presume to know by what power God works through and how he works through them. Evolution is an example of this presumption. The presume that God could NEVER work in such a way, therefore, they discount it entirely.