'Adam and Eve' - Could The Evolutionists Possibly be Wrong and the The Creationists Right ?!

Adam and Eve???

Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder. Public domain - copyright expired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucas_Cranach_the_Elder-Adam_and_Eve_1533.jpg
Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder. Public domain - copyright expired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucas_Cranach_the_Elder-Adam_and_Eve_1533.jpg | Source

Creation and Intelligent Design - Correct???

Creationists believe that God designed and created ~ well, that He designed and created everything.

In the case of Christian Creationists, they believe that this occurred just as described in the Holy Bible ~ in the Book of Genesis.

They believe that 'Genesis' provides a combination of 'history' and 'science'!

Even some highly educated and highly qualified scientists believe this ~ and a scientific gloss has been placed on this religious belief ~ it is often called 'Intelligent Design.

I have to say here, right at the beginning, that I, personally, accept evolutionary theory as true ~ but many people feel that they have good arguments against it, so, I am going to ask an important question:

~ Is it at all possible that the creationists could have got it right?

Charles Darwin

Source

'Was Darwin Wrong?' - Documentary

The National Geographic Channel recently aired an hour-long documentary, entitled:

~ 'Was Darwin Wrong?'.

The programme addressed a number of points, put forward by Creationists, as evidence against evolution.

I will address the contents in another hub.

Evolution - Creationists Right and Darwin Wrong ??!!

Source

First: The Bible

What does the Book of Genesis actually tell us ~ and what can we make of it?

I am most interested in the supposed origins of life.

I shall be examining parts of the Book of Genesis

~ Chapters 1 and 2.

Since it is in the public domain, I shall concentrate on the King James Version, but shall make comparisons, where useful, with other translations.

Genesis 1 - Creation of The Universe:

'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep .......'

Comment:

The idea that there was 'nothing' ~ and out of this 'nothing', 'everything' was created, corresponds, loosely, with ‘The Big Bang Theory’ ~ a theory, originally proposed by a Christian ~ a Roman Catholic priest.

Source

The Evolution of Plants

Wikipedia provides information on the evolution of plants.

Plant evolution resulted in ‘increasing levels of complexity’. The earliest ‘plants’ named are ‘algal mats’. ‘Evidence suggests that an algal scum formed on the land 1,200 million years ago’.

Wikipedia notes that ‘it was not until the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, that land plants appeared.’ Bryophytes were very early, non-vascular, land plants. They reproduced via spores, so did not produce either flowers or seeds. ‘Lycopodiophyta’ is the ‘oldest extant vascular plant’, having appeared around 410 million years ago. They reproduce by shedding spores.

It was not until the mid-Devonian period that plants with leaves, roots and secondary wood appeared ~ and seeds did not evolve until the late Devonian. (The Devonian lasted from 416 – 359.2 million years ago, so the middle point would have been around 388 million years ago.)

Gymnosperms (eg conifers, cycads, gnetales and gingko) and angiosperms (flowers) are the seed-bearing plants. Of these two, Gymnosperms came first.

‘Ferns first appear in the fossil record 360 million years ago in the Carboniferous’

It appears that flowering plants started to evolve in the Triassic period ~ around 200 million years ago ~ and, about 130 – 140 million years ago ‘flower-like structures first appear in the fossil records’. The important characteristics of flowering plants include ‘flowers, endosperm within the seeds, and fruits that contain the seeds’.

Grasses were the latest major plant group to evolve, becoming important about 40 million years ago ~ in the mid Tertiary.

Genesis 1 - Creation of Plant Life:

'God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

'the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

'And the evening and the morning were the third day.'

Comment:

Evolutionists agree that plant-life inhabited our Earth before animal life did.

According to Richard Dawkins, ‘425 million years ago .. plants were colonising the land.’

But these would have been very simple plants ~ not fruit trees!

How does the New International Version 2010 version translate this Bible extract?

'God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds”.'

This is not quite in accordance with the evidence.

Relatively early 'vegetation' ~ yes (but not at the beginning of time).

And seed- and fruit- bearing plants were certainly not amongst the very earliest ones.

However, they would have been the ones grown ~ important ones for food ~ at the time that the Bible was written.

Bryophytes: Anthoceros + Moss

 Anthoceros by Pellaea. Copyleft. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anthoceros.jpg Moss by Rippey574. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bryophyte_sp_Moss_3.jpg
Anthoceros by Pellaea. Copyleft. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anthoceros.jpg Moss by Rippey574. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bryophyte_sp_Moss_3.jpg | Source

Genesis 1 - Creation of Animal Life of the Sea and the Air:

'God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

'And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.'

The NIV, 2011 says:

'God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

'So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.'

Comment

Rather than 'whales' or 'great creatures of the sea', the New American Standard Bible has: 'great sea monsters'.

The Bible tells us that on God's fifth day he created the creatures of the sea and the air. The implication is that these were the first ever 'animals'. Certainly evolution agrees that the first Earth creatures were sea creatures, but the fossil record tells us that only very simple organisms existed in the earliest times.

The earliest creatures did not include whales, for example. Whales are mammals and, though they, like the rest of us, originated, ultimately, in the sea, they actually evolved from land creatures ~ and the fossil evidence exists to prove this.

The NIV does not mention 'whales' ~ this is intriguing, since the Bible should be the straightforward true word of God, yet here are two different translations. This is very confusing!

Any more alternatives?

According to the New American Standard Bible, God created 'great sea monsters'.

As for flying creatures, there is evidence for relatively early flying insects ~ but not right at the beginning of life on Earth.

As for 'fowl', fossil evidence proves that birds came along much later.

The Whale and One Of Its Hippo-Like Ancestors

The Whale and One of its Ancestors
The Whale and One of its Ancestors | Source

Genesis 1 - Creation of Animal Life of the Land (Non-Human)

'God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

'And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'


Comment

This was, supposedly, on God's sixth day ~ and we do not know how long a Biblical day was supposed to last. Cattle definitely arrived much later than primitive life.

However, it would appear that day six refers to all of the land creatures (as opposed to those of sea and air ~ which were, apparently, created the previous day).

Out of all of the animals, which have ever lived on Earth, only cattle are named. Why would this be?? ~ Possibly because they were important to the men who wrote the Bible.

But what about mammoths and dinosaurs? What about the myriad other creatures ~ like gigantic sloths, for example?

I am guessing that the author of Genesis wrote what he knew ~ and he did not know about extinct or foreign creatures. If God had created these creatures, then he would have known about them, and if the Bible were the word of God, then he would have included them

Cattle

Source

Genesis 1 - Creation of Animal Life ~ Human:

'God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

'God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ...... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.'

Comment

On the sixth day, after God had already created cattle and creeping things, he, apparently, went on to create beings to have dominion over them ~ humans.

Humans do seem to have dominion over the Earth ~ but this has not always been the case. At one stage, centuries ago, man almost became extinct.

A world where man has dominion over cattle is a relatively recent one. Man the farmer is not an ancient phenomenon.

If God created man ~ Homo sapiens ~ then this would have been a nomadic hunter-gatherer, who competed for food with other wild animals.

The Genesis description of man, and his relationship with animals, equates with the time when the Bible was written ~ not when 'man' first appeared on Earth.

Furthermore, one has to ask which 'man' was created at this time? Was it Homo Sapiens, or was it one of his ancestors?

What about Homo neanderthalensis ~ Neanderthal man?

How does he fit into this scenario?

And what about Homo ergastor? Or Homo habilis?

According to Creationists*, one species cannot give birth to, or turn into, another ~ so where do these other 'men' come from? 

The Bible does not deal with this matter at all.

Note:

(Evolutionists* do not believe that creatures turn into, or give birth to, totally different creatures, either, by the way!)

'God Created Man'

Public Domain - copyright expired - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
Public Domain - copyright expired - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png | Source

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve by Titian. Wikimedia Commons - Publich Domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_091.jpg
Adam and Eve by Titian. Wikimedia Commons - Publich Domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tizian_091.jpg | Source

Genesis 2 - Creation of Animal Life ~ Human: Creation of Adam and Eve

Creation of Adam and Eve


Thus the heavens and the earth were finished ... And on the seventh day God ended his work ... and he rested .......


... every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ... and there was not a man to till the ground. ...

... God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ........

'LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet ... And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field ... Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet ...

'And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam ... and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh .... And the rib ... made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

Comment

In Genesis chapter 2, we seem to have a second creation story.

This one implies that 'man' was created after the seventh day, rather than on the sixth day.

However ~ it could just be a summary of what had, supposedly, already happened.

Since it only confuses matters, though, one wonders why it had to be included, or, at least, why it could not have been clearer. The Bible is, supposedly, inspired by God, so why did God make it so confusing?

NIV, 2011 states:

'Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up ... and there was no one to work the ground'.

The word 'yet' could indicate that this is looking back over the same story. However, it is not clear and one would expect God's word to be clear.

In Genesis 1, we have;

'God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them'

In Genesis 2, we have:

'God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'


'God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet .... and the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam ... and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh .... And the rib ... made he a woman'

Certainly, man is made up of the same minerals as his planet, so, symbolically, humans are, indeed, made 'from' the earth or dust of our planet. John Gribbin states that we are 'stardust'.

However, the idea that man was physically moulded from earth by a God who breathed life into him sounds highly unlikely. As an allegory, it could be fine, but as reality, it is less acceptable.

God Created ....

Conclusion

The 'Creation story', found in the Bible, sounds like the attempt of an early people to answer the age-long human question: Where do I come from?

If 'the beginning' was 'the beginning' then, of course, there would be a 'nothing' with the potential to be 'something'. Story-tellers probably came up with myths to explain and entertain ~ and the oral history was eventually written down. By this time ~ and in the hands of a good writer ~ it became the beautifully poetic story that we recognise today. A similar pattern occurred in many tribes.

Beautiful, and symbolically adequate, but not scientifically correct.

Fruit trees did not blossom at the beginning of time and cattle were not kept by humans at the beginning of time. What we have here is a description of what this tribe knew and what was important to them. Cattle provided milk and meat. Fruit and seeds provided nourishment ~ and also the possibility to grow new crops.

Dinosaurs, megaladons, mammoths and mastodons and giant sloths were unknown to these people ~ so are not mentioned. But, if God had created them, then they would not have been unknown to him ~ and the Bible is supposed to be the very word of God, or, at least, inspired by God ~ so this omission does not make sense.

As for the 'creation' of people, the idea that man was moulded out of clay and then 'magically' turned into a living being is the stuff of fairy tales and ancient myths. It is reminiscent of Pinocchio's story. It is not something that would ~ or should ~ be found in a science book ~ or, indeed, a school science lesson.

And the likelihood of a woman being made from a man's rib is even more unbelievable. Creationists find it hard to accept that humans are related to apes ~ whom we resemble ~ yet find it perfectly acceptable to believe that a human rib turned into the first woman.

Of course, if God exists and is omnipotent, then anything is possible, but, if he did this ~ created all creatures more-or-less together, by moulding them from clay ~ then why did he leave us so much evidence in favour of evolution?

And science shows us ~ evolutionary science and genetics ~ that there was no 'first man' or 'first woman'. The first 'human people' were an ape-human overlap. Our genes and the fossil evidence support this ~ as they support the 'scientific theory of evolution'.

Unless God created us, and placed us in a world that was meant to confuse, then I can see no reason to believe the Bible over science so, in conclusion, having checked the very document that they use, I cannot see how the Creationists may have 'got it right'.

David Attenborough on the Creation of Woman:

Evolution???

Source

Comments 34 comments

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

If anyone reads the bible with a straight "face", they should be able to see that it does not make sense. All of the different translations and interpretations are the attempt by religionist to "make" the bible make sense. They cannot ever do this and more splinter groups are created, not more understanding.

Why do religionists insist that the bible is inerrant when it very obviously is full of errors?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Austinstar :)

Thanks for commenting!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Not much really to support the creationist point of view. Not much in the way of facts at any rate. The Big Bang theory is about it.

Before just about anything there were bacteria and viruses. In fact today there is some forms of bacteria able to live in ice caves and other forms of bacteria able to live in boiling water near active volcanoes. This is the life that was around before humans and a great many other forms if life and is likely to still be around after we make our planet unsustainable for most forms of life.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Rod :)

Yes, those forms of life which can live in incredibly extreme places are really amazing!

Thanks for reading and commenting :)


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

I decided to write about viruses and bacteria in terms of survival on earth in a hub I have just put together. Will they still be here when humans are gone for good? Probably.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Very likely they will, Rod :)

I'll take a look.


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Thanks.


RachaelLefler profile image

RachaelLefler 5 years ago from Illinois

It's funny as hell to me the logical hoops religious people are willing to jump through to sort of jam their religion into a system of rational explanations sort of like a frustrated kid trying to force a puzzle piece to go in where it doesn't quite fit.

Also, in particular the part about man having dominion seems like a total joke to me. What about viruses, bacteria, parasites, and insects? Do we have dominion over the weather and the ability to prevent natural disasters? And do animals always obey us 100% of the time? Or does it take many generations of breeding and many years of training an animal such as a horse or a dog to even get it to learn simple commands?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Rachael :)

Thanks for reading and commenting.

I suppose, with a matter like religion, it is so much a part of someone's make-up that it is hard to look at it objectively.


RachaelLefler profile image

RachaelLefler 5 years ago from Illinois

It would be nice as hell if Nature obeyed our whims, but we're constantly forced to bend to hers... :(

Yeah and I think people tie religion so much with their ancestors and nationality, then it becomes such an inescapable part of themselves that they can't look at anything else or question what they were told because that means questioning everything their ancestors have believed for generations... :(


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Yes ~ 'inescapable' is right, I think, for many people :)


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 5 years ago from South Jersey

Spontaneous Generation? ex nilo, nilo?

Genetic mutations are a loss of information, not the adding of new useful information.

Look into the circular logic of fossil dating...


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Mitch :)

I don't think that evolutionary theory actually states that there was 'Spontaneous Generation' ~ though I agree that many evolutionary scientists may think that is must have happened.

Evolution is about how life evolved, rather than about where life came from. This is why many Christians accept evolutionary theory. They believe that God created life and that it then evolved.

Someone else mentioned this idea of 'loss of information' during mutation. I don't understand exactly what posters are getting at by saying this???

One could say that information is being inherited and 'lost' generation on generation.

Genetic mutations are changes of information, which may or may not benefit the 'mutant' creature. Though one aspect of a trait may be 'lost'; another aspect may be gained.

If the mutation is harmful, then it is likely to die out, or remain only as a relatively rare recessive.

If the mutation is beneficial, then it joins all of the other traits in the gene pool.

As for fossils, I think that there are enough of them ~ and enough fossil experts ~ for fossil dating to be considered fairly accurate.

Thanks for reading and commenting :)


AriussAdvocate666 4 years ago

Read my Hub The Divine Truth...to get the answers that you are looking for.


cam8510 profile image

cam8510 4 years ago from Columbus, Georgia until the end of November 2016.

Genesis 1:2 the earth was a blob of water floating in darkness. In verses 3-5 God created light. In verses 14 -19 He created the sun, moon and stars. The blob of water in verse 2 would then have been a blob of ice without a sun. In verse 11 God created plant life....before He created the sun. Plants growing in frozen turf and ice, without a sun? When God separated the land and water in verses 9-10, before making a sun, did he scrape the ice up and separate it from the land?

Wow, this is almost unbelievable. And where was that light in verses 3-13 coming from anyway?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Cam :)

Thanks for adding your thoughts :)

Yes, Genesis definitely poses a lot of questions, while, no doubt, attempting to respond to others.


gconeyhiden profile image

gconeyhiden 3 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

First off with all the different cultures and creation myths all over the world why is the bible, any bible for that matter given preference over other creation myths? Hmmm. it's just another simplified explaination using the knowledge of ancient times that was then available to the wise men of the times. There was plenty they were ignorant about. Religious people chose to live in the past as they find the warm breast of a loving "God" reassuring.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 3 years ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi, gconeyhiden :)

Yes, I have to agree with .


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Comments from another hub. They seem more relevant here:

Trish_M: Joseph ... I do not believe the creation story.

Joseph O Polanco: Why not? Has Genesis been proven wrong in any way?

Trish_M: Genesis is like a folk tale. There is absolutely no reason to believe very much of it. Sorry, Joseph, but I just do not believe in these folk tales any more than I do the folk tales of any other tribe. It has never been proven to be correct. It is a group of old stories.

Joseph O Polanco: Again I must ask, why not? Has Genesis been proven wrong in any way?

Trish_M: Hello Joseph. Genesis can be taken as an allegory but as real scientific, historical events? No. For a start, let's look at Adam and Eve. Were they Homo sapiens? Neanderthals? Homo erectus? Which? And where did their sons find their wives? And what was going on outside the garden of Eden?

From: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Genghis-Ch...


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Adam and Eve were human beings. Genesis tells us that they had sons and daughters. This is how the population of the Earth began.

Oh, and "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" is pure myth.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Hiya gconeyhiden,

You claim that Genesis is "just another simplified explaination using the knowledge of ancient times that was then available to the wise men of the times. There was plenty they were ignorant about."

Why is it, then, that nothing in Genesis has been scientifically disproven? If it were just the myths of an "ignorant" people how could they have gotten it right?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Apparently God created Adam and Eve as the first two human beings - where does this leave Homo erectus, etc? Genesis does not explain how they fit into the pattern.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Let's look at Genesis.

Genesis 1

Once upon a time God created heaven and earth.

The earth was empty and formless then. The depths were in darkness.

God's spirit moved upon the waters.

God said; "Let there be light" and light appeared.

Then God divided time so that there was light followed by darkness followed by light.

He called the light Day and he called the darkness Night.

The evening and the morning were the first day.

Then God said, "Let there be a sky in the middle of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters."

So God made the sky and divided the waters which were under the sky from the waters which were above the sky. God called the sky Heaven.

The evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God said, "Let the waters under the sky gather together and allow dry land to appear."

And that is what happened. God called the dry land Earth and he called the gathered waters the Seas.

God saw that it was good.

God said, "Let the earth produce grass, herbs bearing seed and fruit trees bearing fruit."

And this is what happened.

God saw that it was good.

The evening and the morning were the third day.

God said, "Let there be lights in the sky to divide day from night and to give light to the earth."

And this is what happened. God made two big lights - the greater one to light the day and the lesser one to light the night - and he also made the stars. Then he set them in the sky to give light to the earth - day and night - and to divide the light from the darkness.

God saw that it was good.

The evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God said, "Let there be living creatures in the waters and birds in the sky."

God created great whales and every other living creature of the water and every winged fowl in the sky.

God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying; "Be fruitful, and multiply."

The evening and the morning were the fifth day.

God said, "Let the earth produce living creatures of the land; cattle, creeping things and other animals."

And this is what happened.

God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image. Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing upon the earth."

So God created man in his own image; he created male and female. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Replenish the earth, subdue it and have dominion over every living thing upon the earth."

God saw every thing that he had made and it was very good.

The evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Joseph, I really don't see how you can say 'that nothing in Genesis has been scientifically disproven.' What's to prove or disprove? It's the sort of creation story that any child could make up.

Once upon a time there was nothing. Then God made our world out of nothing. We have the earth, the sky and the sea; we have birds, animals, fish - and us, of course. Up in the sky we see moon, planets, stars and our sun. We have days, nights, months, seasons.

This is what we experience so, if God created our world, then this is what he must have created. And if he was the creator then there could have been nothing before he created it, so he must have created everything from a dark, deep void.

That's all it is, a creation myth. It's extremely simple so there is very little to argue against. Once there was nothing; now there is something. Hardly science.

But are you really suggesting this happened in a week?

And are you happy to ignore dinosaurs, australopithecus, etc, etc?


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Hiya Trish!

What's to prove or disprove, you ask?

I invite you to perlustrate a host of assertions Genesis makes which can be readily disproved by modern science:

http://bit.ly/1D6tBxR

http://bit.ly/1weaHyP

http://bit.ly/12KVCdr

http://bit.ly/1wZ77LV


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Ok, you don't think that these were 24-hour days. Just wondered. Many Believers do. The items you recommend are Watchtower texts, etc, so I presume that you are a Jehovah's Witness. I have had many conversations with Witnesses at my door and amongst my friends. Their ideas are interesting, but do not convince me. :)


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Happy Wednesday Trish!

If I may ask, why don't you find them convincing? What is it that you're looking for? :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello joseph.

I don't find them convincing because, as far as I am concerned, they are unconvincing. It's as simple as that.

And I'm not looking for anything.

I enjoy writing articles and am always pleased to have new readers. It's interesting to hear their thoughts on my work and on the subjects involved.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Hiya Trish!

Allow me to rephrase. What would it take for it to be convincing, in your opinion. I only ask because, for millions the world over, they are extremely convincing :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Joseph, I was a Christian when I was younger and, after I was about 12, it never really felt right.

My friend was a Jehovah's Witness and I found that interesting but, as I said, unconvincing.

I discussed 'religion' at length with various people (family, friends, priests, teachers, etc) and into my teens I still went to church three times per week. But having doubts feels very uncomfortable - scary, even, because of all those threats about hell etc.

It took me quite a long time - until after I had my children - to feel comfortable with the fact that I simply did not believe it. That is how I feel now and I no longer find it scary, I find it liberating. I'm not sure that anyone could convince me that something I found unbelievable all those years ago is actually true after all.

I do not know why millions find it convincing. That bewilders me. I think some are just scared, partly of the idea of the 'nothingness' that they imagine a God-less world to be and partly because of the potential threat of eternal damnation.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 24 months ago

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing Trish. If I may, what did you have doubts about?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 24 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Hello Joseph, :)

Your questions intrigue me.

I think it's quite clear that my doubts, which began in childhood, concerned everything that school, church, society, etc, believed and taught about God - and everything related thereto.

If you really want to know what I think, and why, you might be interested in another of my hubs:

God, Ghosts and Guesswork

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Ghosts...


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

Hahaha, Trish. I note that Joseph has stopped putting his foot in your doorway. Tried it elsewhere in various hubs, but I don't think he's gained any converts yet.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 18 months ago from The English Midlands Author

Hi Jonny :)

Actually, Joseph is still debating with me, on various hubs. I keep agreeing to disagree.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working