What do you think are the silliest arguments against evolution?

Theory of Probability: This argument is just crazy. I once saw an evangelist website that said "the theory of probablility says that the chance of life coming from an explosion is 0%! :o" I fell off my chair the first time I saw that. :lol:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: closed system, 'nuff said. :P

Not so much as an argument, but more of a defense: What I'm talking about here is the ridiculous 'trickster' God hypothesis in which proponents of the theory claimed that the fossil record is merely a result of God trying to trick his creation totest our faith.

Not so much as an argument, but more of a defense: What I'm talking about here is the ridiculous 'trickster' God hypothesis in which proponents of the theory claimed that the fossil record is merely a result of God trying to trick his creation totest our faith.

MetalGear_Ninty

"Look at how well-adapted every animal is!  I don't understand biology, so that means that God must have done it!"

"Look at how well-adapted every animal is!  I don't understand biology, so that means that God must have done it!"

GabuEx

:P

The silliest argument I've ever heard? I'll quote it word-for-word:



"Since monkeys or apes can't breed human beings any more than zebras, lion, and tigers, can, then humans are not the product, offspring, or descendants of monkeys, apes, or any animal (or other species other than humans since evolutionists have said they don't know the difference between humans and animals). End of debate."



Also, I'm not sure if many here have heard of a creationist who goes by the name of Harun Yahya. If you want a good laugh, you should visit his site: http://www.hyahya.org/

And here's a vid of Richard Dawkins called "Dawkins debunks Harun Yahya" which is quite humorous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L5TD3nwXXA&feature=related

There are some absolutely hilarious ones here:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26358737&union_id=15346

Here's a snippet from a recent post there:

Any theory that explains everything and that can and must be true is either the greatest thing since sliced bread or the greatest swindle ever foisted on gullible intellectuals. The intelligent design community takes the latter view, siding here with Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Still, it's easy to understand why so flimsily a supported theory garners such vast support. It provides the creation story for an atheistic worldview. If atheism is true, then something like Darwinian evolution must follow. Hence, any attack on Darwin becomes an attack on the atheistic secularism that pervades our culture. Nonetheless, even though atheism implies Darwinism, the reverse is not true: Darwinism does not imply atheism. Indeed, Christian theists who embrace Darwin abound.

The wedding between Darwinism and Christianity, however, is an uneasy one. To be sure, plenty of marriages are uneasy, and uneasy marriages are often endured because divorce can entail more difficulties than endurance. Thus, when I got involved with the evolution controversy 20 years ago, I naively thought that any Christian, given sufficient evidence against Darwinism, would immediately jump ship. Darwinian evolution, according to Cornell historian of biology Will Provine, is "the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." Why should Christians stick with such an engine when it's no longer needed?

Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loath to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, Christian Darwinists hope that Darwinism is true. But is it really? In this year of Darwinian bacchanalias, let us soberly reassess whether Darwin's theory is indeed true. And if the evidence goes against it, as the intelligent design community is successfully demonstrating, then let's be done with it. In that case, reconciling Christianity with Darwinism becomes a vain exercise, solving a problem that no longer exists.

Argh, yeah those probabilistic argument always annoy the hell out of me. In terms of just bad arguments though I would submit the ones that aren't even about evolution such as "hah look at this problem with the big bang, evolution is false" or "hah look at this problem with abiogenesis, evolution is false". Also the old *insert quote-mine here* "look this person said X therefore evolution is wrong" deserves a mention along with the *insert scripture here* "lookthe bible says X therefore evolution is wrong".

In terms of silly, facepalm inducing arguments though it's got to be Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck illustration. If creationists expect that a transitional form would look like two halves of different modern day animals sewn together then no wonder they don't believe in evolution.

Oh btw this thread has a response by blackregiment over at the CWU.

The silliest argument for me is actually a justified one: you can't just cite scientists because doing so would be argument from authority. I have no problem with the argument, until they declare that the ultimate authority is God and that even in the face of insubstantial evidence, we must trust this being. It's very hypocritical.

Of course, they insist that they have substantial evidence, but no one has ever observed God creating any life form ever. 

Another silly argument is how they think there are no transitional fossils. Here is just a list of some transitional fossils.

Another silly argument is how there is no evidence of macro-evolution. Here is a list of observations of speciation. 

Another silly one is the moustrap metaphor. If the human body is so irreducibly complex, what use is the appendix then?

Another silly one is the moustrap metaphor. If the human body is so irreducibly complex, what use is the appendix then?

Genetic_Code

If everything is intelligently design, then why do we (and many animals) have useless parts in our bodies? (the appendix in the case of humans).

"If a [insert inanimate object] couldn't form by chance, an animal couldn't form by chance."

"Evolutionists hate god, and don't want to be held accountable for their sins."

"Evolution discredits a creator."

"Was your great great great great grandpa a monkey?"

"Evolution causes people to commit heinous acts."

"Evolution is a religion"

There are so many of them I don't know which one to choose.

And it looks like Black has made a thread about this one over at TCWU.

There are so many of them I don't know which one to choose.

And it looks like Black has made a thread about this one over at TCWU.

Ingenemployee

I'm curious when this is written there (now in trinity triplicate, as usual for this poster within GameSpot!)

"To those visiting, I say hello friends, be sure to check out the mountain of evidence presented here in this thread, and may the free and open debate continue."

In response, I'd welcome all creationist Christians (not forgetting all the other Christians too) to join this union. I assume the free and open debate would be had here in the atheism union, since membership in the BBU and CWU is limited and debate is often disuaded in those forums. Has anyone noticed a popular Christian here now missing from those union role calls?

I think this one must be one of the silliest videos on the topic (1m:04s):

Behold - the atheist's nightmare!

Its totally bananas. 

I think this one must be one of the silliest videos on the topic (1m:04s):

Behold - the atheist's nightmare!

Its totally bananas. 

RationalAtheist

That was the first thing that came to mind but it's more an argument for intelligent design then it is an argument against evolution.

"If a [insert inanimate object] couldn't form by chance, an animal couldn't form by chance."

"Evolution discredits a creator."

dracula_16

2. Well it's upon everyone's belief really, richard dawkins beliefs that evolution leads to atheism and I agree with him.

Many arguments against evolution arent really arguments against evolution, they are against natural selection. People often mix the 2 things, someone who is skeptical about natural selection is not necessarliy rejecting the truth of evolution.

When people say "it's just a theory" they are actually talking about natural selection but dont realise or know that evolution \\=\\ natural selection. 

Natural selection is just a theory albeit a very powerful one although it's not perfect.

A type of argument from probability. It argues that it's been calculated that evolution had something like a 1/10^40 chance of happening. That's legitimately no chance at happening.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

"If a [insert inanimate object] couldn't form by chance, an animal couldn't form by chance."

"Evolution discredits a creator."

Gambler_3

2. Well it's upon everyone's belief really, richard dawkins beliefs that evolution leads to atheism and I agree with him.

You're appealing to authority.

I think this one must be one of the silliest videos on the topic (1m:04s):

Behold - the atheist's nightmare!

Its totally bananas. 

RationalAtheist

That is hilarious. :lol:

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

"If a [insert inanimate object] couldn't form by chance, an animal couldn't form by chance."

"Evolution discredits a creator."

dracula_16

2. Well it's upon everyone's belief really, richard dawkins beliefs that evolution leads to atheism and I agree with him.

You're appealing to authority.

And I also myself believe that evolution leads to atheism and I'll be ready to defend my stance without apealing to authority at all.

That was the first thing that came to mind but it's more an argument for intelligent design then it is an argument against evolution.

domatron23

Actually, Intelligent Design rejects Darwinian evolution, since Darwinism is a natural process. Intelligent Design is a philosophical attempt to wedge God as a creator and argue that evolution is impossible to have occurred naturally. Young Earth creationists add the view that evolution goes against the book of Genesis, so therefore all of the alleged evidence of a universe existing past 6,000 years ago is fabricated by scientists or created with the appearance that the world was old.  That brings in the trickster theory that MetalGear_Ninty mentioned, but I don't know is many creationists hold that view. I think mysterylobster held that view.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

That was the first thing that came to mind but it's more an argument for intelligent design then it is an argument against evolution.

Genetic_Code

Actually, Intelligent Design rejects Darwinian evolution, since Darwinism is a natural process. Intelligent Design is a philosophical attempt to wedge God as a creator and argue that evolution is impossible to have occurred naturally. Young Earth creationists add the view that evolution goes against the book of Genesis, so therefore all of the alleged evidence of a universe existing past 6,000 years ago is fabricated by scientists or created with the appearance that the world was old.  That brings in the trickster theory that MetalGear_Ninty mentioned, but I don't know is many creationists hold that view. I think mysterylobster held that view.

Well yeah I suppose if two things are mutually exclusive then an argument for one is an argument against the other. Still though it doesn't strike me as a direct case of "this is why evolution is wrong". That's more of an implication of what it's really saying which is "this is why God created bananas".

I find that creationists will sometimes fall back on the Omphalos view but they don't often positively hold it and they never admit that it constitutes deception or makes their God a trickster.

"If a [insert inanimate object] couldn't form by chance, an animal couldn't form by chance."

"Evolutionists hate god, and don't want to be held accountable for their sins."

"Evolution discredits a creator."

"Was your great great great great grandpa a monkey?"

"Evolution causes people to commit heinous acts."

"Evolution is a religion"

 

dracula_16

You forgot "evolutionists are blind fools!" :P

And I also myself believe that evolution leads to atheism and I'll be ready to defend my stance without apealing to authority at all.

Gambler_3

OK, I'll bite: How does evolution lead to atheism any more than any other scientific fact?  It says that God, if he exists, didn't do whatever is being explained, but that's a far cry away from declaring that God does not exist, full stop.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And I also myself believe that evolution leads to atheism and I'll be ready to defend my stance without apealing to authority at all.

GabuEx

OK, I'll bite: How does evolution lead to atheism any more than any other scientific fact?  It says that God, if he exists, didn't do whatever is being explained, but that's a far cry away from declaring that God does not exist, full stop.

Yeah I'm a bit curious too. Evolution doesn't seem to affect, for example, the deist God in any way I can think of.

Isn't it about the house of cards effect on a previously absolute knowledge of creation that leads from Christianity from atheism? It is the rational process of questioning, rather than finding answers, that I believe leads people from their faith. If this aspect of the bible is wrong, what else is?

P.S. I agree with Domatron about the bananas vid - but it is the other side to the coin and shows how easily evidence can be fitted to a theory. 

Isn't it about the house of cards effect on a previously absolute knowledge of creation that leads from Christianity from atheism? It is the rational process of questioning, rather than finding answers, that I believe leads people from their faith. If this aspect of the bible is wrong, what else is?

RationalAtheist

I think that Hindus or Muslims would disagree that there is a dichotomy between Christianity and atheism.  And I think that Christians who take the Genesis creation story to be a parable would disagree that there is a dichotomy between that belief and atheism, too.  That's not about the Bible being wrong; it's about people fundamentally misunderstanding what its purpose was when written.

I think that Hindus or Muslims would disagree that there is a dichotomy between Christianity and atheism.  And I think that Christians who take the Genesis creation story to be a parable would disagree that there is a dichotomy between that belief and atheism, too.  That's not about the Bible being wrong; it's about people fundamentally misunderstanding what its purpose was when written.

GabuEx

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.

Through no deliberate attempts to do so, scientific knowledge started to understand the vast wealth of evidence in the world that conflicts with the Genesis account of creation. It gave rise to naturalism in the 17th century - not as an opposition to religion, but as a result of rational naturalism, which gradually emerged into the religious paradigm of the time.

In accepting the fundametal tenets of evolutionary theory, one should acknowledge that evolution is unguided and amoral. In thinking we have evolved as God would have planned, open questions about the length and nature of our evolution, questions over our roles, the roles of our forebearers, justification over historical events, global tragedies and the (1 minute to 12) short time-frame for all human involvement in the planet shoule be raised. 

I've found most Christians (and Islamics) to dither on their beliefs over this - with no satisfactory explanation being given - even intelligent design does not answer some of the questions posed above.

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.

Through no deliberate attempts to do so, scientific knowledge started to understand the vast wealth of evidence in the world that conflicts with the Genesis account of creation. It gave rise to naturalism in the 17th century - not as an opposition to religion, but as a result of rational naturalism, which gradually emerged into the religious paradigm of the time.

In accepting the fundametal tenets of evolutionary theory, one should acknowledge that evolution is unguided and amoral. In thinking we have evolved as God would have planned, open questions about the length and nature of our evolution, questions over our roles, the roles of our forebearers, justification over historical events, global tragedies and the (1 minute to 12) short time-frame for all human involvement in the planet shoule be raised. 

I've found most Christians (and Islamics) to dither on their beliefs over this - with no satisfactory explanation being given - even intelligent design does not answer some of the questions posed above.

RationalAtheist

Well, the Bible is "wrong" if one assumes that its ultimate point was to convey a literal historical account of the universe.  I don't believe that that was the case, though.  The creation story especially has a good number of oddities in it if one takes it literally.  Besides the issue of light existing before sources of light, there's also the issue that God is presented in more human terms than anywhere else in the Bible: he takes six days to create everything, he goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none, he is said to walk in the garden as anyone else, and he seems unaware of what Adam and Eve had done or where they had gone after they eat the apple.

When God was said to have given the Israelites the Ten Commandments, the only thing contained therein that had any relationat all to the creation story, really, was the commandment that one ought to keep the Sabbath holy (i.e., that one ought to rest for a day).  Whenever Jesus made reference to the scriptures, his intention was never to teach the people scientific facts, but rather to teach them about life, about people, about one's conduct.  He spoke practically as much in parable as he did in straightforward language.  It's for reasons like this that I've come to the ultimate conclusion that the Bible was never even intended at all to convey any sort of scientific fact as though it were a classroom textbook.  It was written about the people to whom it was written, about life, and about God.  Many of Jesus' parables began with such an opening as merely, "There was a man who...", yet nobody would claim that he was speaking about someone who actually existed.  But at the same time, nobody would claim that this meant that what he was saying was false; it's just the case that the ultimate point is the message, not the facts created to convey the message.

At any rate, this is kind of a side issue, which might warrant its own thread rather than derailing this thread.  The ultimate point of what I was intending to say with respect to this thread was that evolution certainly rules out a specific god that created the world exactly as it is today some six thousand years ago, but does not rule out any god whose existence and behavior are consistent with evolution as we know it today, and therefore certainly does not rule out the notion of a god in general.

(Heck, the Catholic Church as a whole has basically all but said that evolution is true and that intelligent design is flat-out not science, so at the very least that ought to give an indication that people do not necessarily need to choose between faith and evolution.)

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And I also myself believe that evolution leads to atheism and I'll be ready to defend my stance without apealing to authority at all.

GabuEx

OK, I'll bite: How does evolution lead to atheism any more than any other scientific fact?  It says that God, if he exists, didn't do whatever is being explained, but that's a far cry away from declaring that God does not exist, full stop.

The God of the bible and quran(more than half the world follows them) is omnipotent and omniscient. WIth that God is neither incapable of creating things instantly and neither is he a fool or somethin. That leads us to conclude that God is probably a cruel monster who has to set the brutal stage of survival of the fittest and random mutations "for the lulz". 

I interpret the bible as trying to tell us facts about the universe and it simply got "busted" by scientific advancement. For me the religion is proven wrong, case closed.

Now for those who interpret it as a parable, doesnt that open up a huge gap? Where does the "soul" come into play in the long line of evolution? Evolution happens so gradually, how the hell do you draw the line of soul and "no soul"?? Why did humans only started to have a soul 6000 years ago?

Now we need to apply some common sense. It is very unlikely that an omniscient God would write creation parables that would be so flatly contradicting the real history which God would be fully aware of. It's either God wanted us to get confused and he is "testing" our faith or that it's not written by God at all.

On the other hand things would be exactly like they are if the bible was just a man made attempt at trying to answer the unanswerable....

The muslims pretty much unanimously accept the quran as FACT. Most muslim theologians still dont accept human evolution for that reason. Quran as fact is something pretty much all muslims believe, it really wont be easy for the religion to throw away that doctrine.

Oh and the hindu creation story also flatly contradicts evolution. It's not a parable cuz it explains how the chain of reincarnation started.

Many of Jesus' parables began with such an opening as merely, "There was a man who...", yet nobody would claim that he was speaking about someone who actually existed.  But at the same time, nobody would claim that this meant that what he was saying was false; it's just the case that the ultimate point is the message, not the facts created to convey the message.

GabuEx

Now let me show you a big flaw in your argument,

"There was a God who..."

Do you get where I am going? What if God itself is just a parable? You know hell and heaven arent really real places hez talking about, they are simply a metaphor to instill morals, responsibility and a sense of hope in people.

If the bible isnt a book about scientific facts about the universe as you say, then God is the first thing which is the parable cuz the existence of the supernatural is the most extraordinary claim to superior scientific knowledge than anything else...

(Heck, the Catholic Church as a whole has basically all but said that evolution is true and that intelligent design is flat-out not science, so at the very least that ought to give an indication that people do not necessarily need to choose between faith and evolution.)

GabuEx

Evolution is something which is getting increasingly difficult to reject. It's more like a truth now than anything else. Anyone who unbiasedly gives some time to the study of evolution just cannot deny it no matter how much he doesnt want to accept it. When I started to learn about evolution, I was very biased towards it and was always looking for flaws in it. However it became increasingly difficult for me to be an intellectually honest critic of evolution. I realised that my religious beliefs should have nothing to do with a rational study of evolution.

Slowly but surely I truely grasped natural selection. Then I became an evolution accepting muslim. I then tried all I could to "fit in" evolution with the teachings of the quran and the prophet but I just couldnt.

Then for sometime I was a muslim who had got extremely skeptical about the truth of Islam but yet was a muslim cuz I was unable to accept the "dark" reality. I looked for the silliest reasons to believe in Allah but it increasingly ceased to make any sense. It was a very difficult battle, my character was tested to the limits, I had got extremely depressed knowing that all this time my imagniery friend in God really was nothing but imaginery.

This is just like a guy who knows that his wife doesnt love him but yet he doesnt seperate with her cuz he simply cant "accept" that she doesnt love him. That does not mean that one sided love is actually compatible in a marriage...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

And I also myself believe that evolution leads to atheism and I'll be ready to defend my stance without apealing to authority at all.

domatron23

OK, I'll bite: How does evolution lead to atheism any more than any other scientific fact?  It says that God, if he exists, didn't do whatever is being explained, but that's a far cry away from declaring that God does not exist, full stop.

Yeah I'm a bit curious too. Evolution doesn't seem to affect, for example, the deist God in any way I can think of.

Well, the Bible is "wrong" if one assumes that its ultimate point was to convey a literal historical account of the universe. I don't believe that that was the case, though. The creation story especially has a good number of oddities in it if one takes it literally. Besides the issue of light existing before sources of light, there's also the issue that God is presented in more human terms than anywhere else in the Bible: he takes six days to create everything, he goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none, he is said to walk in the garden as anyone else, and he seems unaware of what Adam and Eve had done or where they had gone after they eat the apple.

When God was said to have given the Israelites the Ten Commandments, the only thing contained therein that had any relationat all to the creation story, really, was the commandment that one ought to keep the Sabbath holy (i.e., that one ought to rest for a day). Whenever Jesus made reference to the scriptures, his intention was never to teach the people scientific facts, but rather to teach them about life, about people, about one's conduct. He spoke practically as much in parable as he did in straightforward language. It's for reasons like this that I've come to the ultimate conclusion that the Bible was never even intended at all to convey any sort of scientific fact as though it were a classroom textbook. It was written about the people to whom it was written, about life, and about God. Many of Jesus' parables began with such an opening as merely, "There was a man who...", yet nobody would claim that he was speaking about someone who actually existed. But at the same time, nobody would claim that this meant that what he was saying was false; it's just the case that the ultimate point is the message, not the facts created to convey the message.

At any rate, this is kind of a side issue, which might warrant its own thread rather than derailing this thread. The ultimate point of what I was intending to say with respect to this thread was that evolution certainly rules out a specific god that created the world exactly as it is today some six thousand years ago, but does not rule out any god whose existence and behavior are consistent with evolution as we know it today, and therefore certainly does not rule out the notion of a god in general.

(Heck, the Catholic Church as a whole has basically all but said that evolution is true and that intelligent design is flat-out not science, so at the very least that ought to give an indication that people do not necessarily need to choose between faith and evolution.)

GabuEx

So what were the creation stories really about? The bible is not a science text book - agreed, but the role of science is to understand. So science is not some category that does not apply to the bible, but a rational way of thinking in trying to understand it. Much understanding gained from the bible belies the natural evidence all around us that we've methodically and repeatably introduced into our "scientific" thinking. Evidence for naturalistic origins overshadows the classical views of creation because of it's wide variety of sources, evidence tending to coalesce into the same conclusions, the sheer preponderance of the evidence and the rigour that has become the scientific method.

I agree entirely on your view of the bible as a series of parables and metaphors for living at the time - some of which may still be relevant today. The reason Darwin sat on his evolutionary discovery for ten years is that he knew it would upset the top-down "establishment" view of God. In doing so, it leaves many modern Christians with unanswered questions over a long unexplained gap in creating us and the rest of the universe, with all the failures of extinct species to note.

I was thinking about the Catholic church as I made my "dither" statement! As hard as I look, I've only found catholic fence-sitting guidance that the nature of our origins is up for debate, rather than anything that has been decided by them or the naturalists.

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.RationalAtheist

The Big Bang Theory proposes light before stars. It says that after a singularity came into existence, that singularity expanded in a great burst of energy (a great burst of energy involves light and heat). People did not make up the Bible. God worked through men to right His word, as is said by multiple scriptures. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.

Through no deliberate attempts to do so, scientific knowledge started to understand the vast wealth of evidence in the world that conflicts with the Genesis account of creation. It gave rise to naturalism in the 17th century - not as an opposition to religion, but as a result of rational naturalism, which gradually emerged into the religious paradigm of the time.

In accepting the fundametal tenets of evolutionary theory, one should acknowledge that evolution is unguided and amoral. In thinking we have evolved as God would have planned, open questions about the length and nature of our evolution, questions over our roles, the roles of our forebearers, justification over historical events, global tragedies and the (1 minute to 12) short time-frame for all human involvement in the planet shoule be raised. 

I've found most Christians (and Islamics) to dither on their beliefs over this - with no satisfactory explanation being given - even intelligent design does not answer some of the questions posed above.

GabuEx

Well, the Bible is "wrong" if one assumes that its ultimate point was to convey a literal historical account of the universe.  I don't believe that that was the case, though.  The creation story especially has a good number of oddities in it if one takes it literally.  Besides the issue of light existing before sources of light, there's also the issue that God is presented in more human terms than anywhere else in the Bible: he takes six days to create everything, he goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none, he is said to walk in the garden as anyone else, and he seems unaware of what Adam and Eve had done or where they had gone after they eat the apple.

this is all false. No where in the book of Genesis does it say any of this.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.J-man45

The Big Bang Theory proposes light before stars. It says that after a singularity came into existence, that singularity expanded in a great burst of energy (a great burst of energy involves light and heat). People did not make up the Bible. God worked through men to right His word, as is said by multiple scriptures. 

http://yltbible.com/genesis/1.htm 

Genesis 1:1 defines "night" and "day", "evenings" and "mornings" on day one - but the stars didn't arrive until day 4. Is this supposed light of the big bang the same light for day 1? Would this big bang light shine on our pre-existing dark earth? How do you account for the calculation of the date for the big bang, as ascertained by red shift - the same evidence used to discover it? Does it matter, since The Genesis 2:4 account has everything happening on the same day?

Is that what you're doing here - righting God's word? Why trust scripture with obvious errors?

For me the religion is proven wrong, case closed.

Gambler_3

Well then there isn't much point in talking about it, is there?

So what were the creation stories really about? The bible is not a science text book - agreed, but the role of science is to understand. So science is not some category that does not apply to the bible, but a rational way of thinking in trying to understand it. Much understanding gained from the bible belies the natural evidence all around us that we've methodically and repeatably introduced into our "scientific" thinking. Evidence for naturalistic origins overshadows the classical views of creation because of it's wide variety of sources, evidence tending to coalesce into the same conclusions, the sheer preponderance of the evidence and the rigour that has become the scientific method.

RationalAtheist

What were the creation stories really about?  Well, basically what I said: I believe that it was intended to personify God to illustrate certain important things to the people, such as the importance of rest, the knowledge of good and evil, the tendency of humans to disobey, and such like.  I do not believe that the people who were first being told this story were sitting there with notebooks asking questions like, "Now, those were six literal days, yes?"  At the time that Genesis was written, the concept of a verifiable scientific fact that ruled out other possibilities was basically nonexistent, strange at it might sound to us.  Stories intended to illustrate a point were pretty common, really.  If the ultimate point was to illustrate scientific facts, I cannot imagine why nobody in the Bible seemed to pay any attention at all to these alleged assertions.

I agree entirely on your view of the bible as a series of parables and metaphors for living at the time - some of which may still be relevant today. The reason Darwin sat on his evolutionary discovery for ten years is that he knew it would upset the top-down "establishment" view of God. In doing so, it leaves many modern Christians with unanswered questions over a long unexplained gap in creating us and the rest of the universe, with all the failures of extinct species to note.

RationalAtheist

Oh, I don't deny that people have certainly tried to find historical and scientific fact in the Bible in the past... but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that this is ultimately an anachronistic view of its content that attempts to read with modern eyes something that was written thousands of years ago.  The idea that the Genesis story was a parable rather than a literal historical account is nothing new.  Alexandria, one of the earliest schools of Christian thought, preached an allegorical interpretation.  Origen of Alexandria put it like this:

"For who that has understanding will sup­pose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, ex­isted without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indi­cate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

Heck, even the writers in the New Testament saw allegory in the Old Testament:

"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.  These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." (Galatians 4:21-26, emph. added)

 

I was thinking about the Catholic church as I made my "dither" statement! As hard as I look, I've only found catholic fence-sitting guidance that the nature of our origins is up for debate, rather than anything that has been decided by them or the naturalists.

RationalAtheist

Well, the late Pope John Paul II wrote the following in 1996:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. .... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (emph. added)

Pope Benedict XVI (at the time Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote the following in 2004:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." (emph. added)

It seems fairly clear to me that the officials in the Church make no attempt whatsoever to dispute the validity of evolution as a scientific theory that is in all likelihood true.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, the Bible is "wrong" if one assumes that its ultimate point was to convey a literal historical account of the universe.  I don't believe that that was the case, though.  The creation story especially has a good number of oddities in it if one takes it literally.  Besides the issue of light existing before sources of light, there's also the issue that God is presented in more human terms than anywhere else in the Bible: he takes six days to create everything, he goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none, he is said to walk in the garden as anyone else, and he seems unaware of what Adam and Eve had done or where they had gone after they eat the apple.

J-man45

this is all false. No where in the book of Genesis does it say any of this.

What?

He goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none:

"The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'  Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam no suitable helper was found." (Genesis 2:18-20)

He is said to walk in the garden as anyone else:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." (Genesis 3:8 )

He seems unaware of what Adam had done or where they had gone:

"But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?'

"He answered, 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.'

"And he said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?'

"The man said, 'The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'

"Then the LORD God said to the woman, 'What is this you have done?'

"The woman said, 'The serpent deceived me, and I ate.'" (Genesis 3:9-13)

I suppose for the first you could say that it was never God's intent to find Adam a helper from the already existing animals, but then the question ought to be asked why on Earth he then gathers together and gets Adam to name all of the animals immediately after declaring his intention to make Adam a helper, and why it then says that no suitable helper from those animals was found.  And I suppose for the third you could claim (as is the usual assertion) that God was simply asking rhetorical questions to make Adam and Eve fess up.  But when you put them all together, I can see no conclusion whatsoever other than that God is portrayed in the creation story as a person, not as an otherwordly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity.  Anything else is, I feel, reading into it what one believes was already there, rather than actually reading the text itself.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

For me the religion is proven wrong, case closed.

GabuEx

Well then there isn't much point in talking about it, is there?

[QUOTE="J-man45"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, the Bible is "wrong" if one assumes that its ultimate point was to convey a literal historical account of the universe.  I don't believe that that was the case, though.  The creation story especially has a good number of oddities in it if one takes it literally.  Besides the issue of light existing before sources of light, there's also the issue that God is presented in more human terms than anywhere else in the Bible: he takes six days to create everything, he goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none, he is said to walk in the garden as anyone else, and he seems unaware of what Adam and Eve had done or where they had gone after they eat the apple.

GabuEx

this is all false. No where in the book of Genesis does it say any of this.

What?

He goes looking for a helper to Adam but finds none:

"The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'  Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam no suitable helper was found." (Genesis 2:18-20)

He is said to walk in the garden as anyone else:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." (Genesis 3:8 )

He seems unaware of what Adam had done or where they had gone:

"But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?'

"He answered, 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.'

"And he said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?'

"The man said, 'The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'

"Then the LORD God said to the woman, 'What is this you have done?'

"The woman said, 'The serpent deceived me, and I ate.'" (Genesis 3:9-13)

I suppose for the first you could say that it was never God's intent to find Adam a helper from the already existing animals, but then the question ought to be asked why on Earth he then gathers together and gets Adam to name all of the animals immediately after declaring his intention to make Adam a helper, and why it then says that no suitable helper from those animals was found.  And I suppose for the third you could claim (as is the usual assertion) that God was simply asking rhetorical questions to make Adam and Eve fess up.  But when you put them all together, I can see no conclusion whatsoever other than that God is portrayed in the creation story as a person, not as an otherwordly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity.  Anything else is, I feel, reading into it what one believes was already there, rather than actually reading the text itself.

But then why does it say 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' The animals of course were already created. The next part is used to imply that Adam was alone when naming all the animals, and the animals were not alone. This sort of explanation on the side can be derived because of the use of the word now. The whole "Now the LORD..." part is used as explanation as to why Adam needed his companion.

I see no problem with using the "usual assertion." And God cannot be a person. He must be an entity in order to create the universe.

[QUOTE="J-man45"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

But the bible was wrong - "there was light before stars", two seperate accounts of creation, etc. I believe the purpose of the creation story to the bible was to explain our origins and tie them to unending thankfullness in, and servitude of, a creator. At the very least, it was the best explanation people had at the time.RationalAtheist

The Big Bang Theory proposes light before stars. It says that after a singularity came into existence, that singularity expanded in a great burst of energy (a great burst of energy involves light and heat). People did not make up the Bible. God worked through men to right His word, as is said by multiple scriptures. 

http://yltbible.com/genesis/1.htm 

Genesis 1:1 defines "night" and "day", "evenings" and "mornings" on day one - but the stars didn't arrive until day 4. Is this supposed light of the big bang the same light for day 1? Would this big bang light shine on our pre-existing dark earth? How do you account for the calculation of the date for the big bang, as ascertained by red shift - the same evidence used to discover it? Does it matter, since The Genesis 2:4 account has everything happening on the same day?

Is that what you're doing here - righting God's word? Why trust scripture with obvious errors?

No I do not believe the Big Bang happened. I do not think it is the same light. You are trying to call the Bible wrong because it says there was light before stars, but the Big Bang Theory proposes the same principle basically. Do you deny that a great burst of energy involves light and heat?

Just because Genesis 2 does not say outright what happened on each day, does not in any way mean it is asserting it happened in one day. Can the Bible not have summaries? Obviously the book was most likely written by one person, (and evidence even suggests it was Adam himself.) In Genesis 2 it mentions nothing about days at all, so why take it out of context and assume that it is saying it happened in one day?

No I do not believe the Big Bang happened. I do not think it is the same light. You are trying to call the Bible wrong because it says there was light before stars, but the Big Bang Theory proposes the same principle basically. Do you deny that a great burst of energy involves light and heat?

Just because Genesis 2 does not say outright what happened on each day, does not in any way mean it is asserting it happened in one day. Can the Bible not have summaries? Obviously the book was most likely written by one person, (and evidence even suggests it was Adam himself.) In Genesis 2 it mentions nothing about days at all, so why take it out of context and assume that it is saying it happened in one day?

J-man45

I'm not saying that the bible is wrong just because of the light issue. There are many other points of issue I have too. I'm, pointing to the description of parts of a day in the first day of creation.

I would indeed say that a large burst of energy need not involve light, since light is only one form of energy. Black holes are associated with singularities - but their gravitational force denies light escaping, according to observation and popular hypothesising.

There are clear differences in the creation stories from the bible:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

Genesis 2 clearly mentions about the day it took:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl1.htm

I can't accept your summary explanation, since they both seem quite lean on detail, different things happen in the two stories - and in other descriptions of creation in the bible. Is six days any more credible than one day?

In thinking that Adam wrote the bible, have you not heard about documentary hypothesis? (Or Moses, or Babylonians?) I find the "obviousness" that you think book was written by one person (Adam) indicates your refusal to accept any rational explanation of scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

WOW way to find a nice cop-out from all my points.Gambler_3

I am simply making the observation that it would be nothing more than a waste of both of our times to talk about something that you're already absolutely convinced about.  What fruit could be borne from that argument?

But then why does it say 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' The animals of course were already created. The next part is used to imply that Adam was alone when naming all the animals, and the animals were not alone. This sort of explanation on the side can be derived because of the use of the word now. The whole "Now the LORD..." part is used as explanation as to why Adam needed his companion.

I see no problem with using the "usual assertion."

J-man45

I suppose, in reading it again, that a valid assertion could be made that what follows God's declaration is simply an illustration of why he must do that, rather than part of that attempted action, so I will concede that point.  I still maintain, however, that God is portrayed very differently in the Genesis story than elsewhere, and appears very much like a person.

And God cannot be a person. He must be an entity in order to create the universe.

J-man45

Well of course God cannot be a person.  Which is why the fact that he is depicted that way in the Genesis creation account makes me feel so strongly that it cannot possibly be interpreted as a literal account, but rather as a parable.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]WOW way to find a nice cop-out from all my points.GabuEx

I am simply making the observation that it would be nothing more than a waste of both of our times to talk about something that you're already absolutely convinced about.  What fruit could be borne from that argument?

I mean really what is your point? In religious discussions or even in other issues many times both the parties are absolutely convinced in their views, doesnt mean that the world stops debating. I was once absolutely convinced that Islam is THE truth and here I am today. Before opening this debate you could have asked me how strongly I am convinced and expressed your desire to not argue with someone who is very strongly convinced as there will be no point. But to say that right in the middle of the debate is a cop-out.

I've come to the ultimate conclusion that the Bible was never even intended at all to convey any sort of scientific factGabuEx

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

No I do not believe the Big Bang happened. I do not think it is the same light. You are trying to call the Bible wrong because it says there was light before stars, but the Big Bang Theory proposes the same principle basically. Do you deny that a great burst of energy involves light and heat?

Just because Genesis 2 does not say outright what happened on each day, does not in any way mean it is asserting it happened in one day. Can the Bible not have summaries? Obviously the book was most likely written by one person, (and evidence even suggests it was Adam himself.) In Genesis 2 it mentions nothing about days at all, so why take it out of context and assume that it is saying it happened in one day?

RationalAtheist

I'm not saying that the bible is wrong just because of the light issue. There are many other points of issue I have too. I'm, pointing to the description of parts of a day in the first day of creation.

I would indeed say that a large burst of energy need not involve light, since light is only one form of energy. Black holes are associated with singularities - but their gravitational force denies light escaping, according to observation and popular hypothesising.

There are clear differences in the creation stories from the bible:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

Genesis 2 clearly mentions about the day it took:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl1.htm

I can't accept your summary explanation, since they both seem quite lean on detail, different things happen in the two stories - and in other descriptions of creation in the bible. Is six days any more credible than one day?

In thinking that Adam wrote the bible, have you not heard about documentary hypothesis? (Or Moses, or Babylonians?) I find the "obviousness" that you think book was written by one person (Adam) indicates your refusal to accept any rational explanation of scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

There is no contradiction. This provides a much better explanation of what I'm saying.

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

And as to Adam writing Genesis (or at least the Creation account):

http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

And God cannot be a person. He must be an entity in order to create the universe.

GabuEx

Well of course God cannot be a person.  Which is why the fact that he is depicted that way in the Genesis creation account makes me feel so strongly that it cannot possibly be interpreted as a literal account, but rather as a parable.

well, as I have already said that I do not feel he actually searched for a helper for Adam, and I think he knew all along what Adam and Eve had done, I think portrayed as a regular person in that way he is not. However that does not rule out that God cannot walk in the cool of his own garden. He can still be a spiritual being. In other words I don't think the story is referring to him as just a regular human at any point in the story. 

However that does not rule out that God cannot walk in the cool of his own garden. He can still be a spiritual being. J-man45

You would surely concede that even a spiritual being would need legs on which to walk though right?

Welcome to the atheism union btw J-man45. It's good to have you.

[QUOTE="J-man45"]However that does not rule out that God cannot walk in the cool of his own garden. He can still be a spiritual being. domatron23

You would surely concede that even a spiritual being would need legs on which to walk though right?

Welcome to the atheism union btw J-man45. It's good to have you.

I would surely concede that. Why not? I think God could do that if he so chooses to.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]However that does not rule out that God cannot walk in the cool of his own garden. He can still be a spiritual being. J-man45

You would surely concede that even a spiritual being would need legs on which to walk though right?

Welcome to the atheism union btw J-man45. It's good to have you.

I would surely concede that. Why not? I think God could do that if he so chooses to.

How does a spiritual being not only walk on the Earth but also make sound as he does, and how does a spiritual being then make garments from the skins of animals and clothe Adam and Eve with them?

Is God physical?