jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (123 posts)

Let's be REASONABLE OK

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8704863_f520.jpg
    It is totally implausible in this postmodern, 21st century society that some people still have some contention regarding evolution.  They contend that evolution is incongruent to religion and the bible.  They further maintain that there is no such thing as evolution and that evolution is false.  They blindly exhort these inconclusions despite the overwhelming evidence that there was evolution.   It is obvious that life forms on this planet advanced from the most simplest to the most complex and some species are still evolving and changing.   

    Why is there is such much contention and denial of evolution?   This is totally illogical thinking.  Humans are descendants from apes.  Humans are primates whether some people wish to acknowledge this or not.  In fact, all life on Earth are descendant from a common ancestor that was alive 3.8 billion years ago.   Species, both mineral, plant, animal, and human have undergone various mutations, some adapting and even thriving in their environment while some have become extinct.   According to a study done by the Proceedings of the National Royal Academy of Sciences indicated that there is a 95% similarily in the DNA between humans and chimpanzees.   Evolution has been consistently proven; what makes some people deny that there was evolution although it is based upon scientific data and evidence?

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      We can easily see here on these forums, at least, that those who reject or deny evolution simply have no clue what evolution is about, they never took the time to understand it and are probably getting their information from Christian apologetic websites that also have no clue how evolution works. It is a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Really sad, some people would rather rely upon baseless superstition than authenticated scientific fact.  Quite implausible to say the least.  It is an exercise in utter futility to fight scientific evidence.  There are those who believe in Adam and Eve when it is been conclusively proven that the first human was named Lucy!  How unreal can people be!

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm really sorry, GM, but you made a major faux pas when you put humans into the animal kingdom.  It is a very poor start as we all know humans are not animals.  Plants, maybe (I'm not sure) but definitely not animals.

    3. 0
      Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not everyone believes what you believe.  Evolution is just a theory.  I do not think I am being unreasonable for believing otherwise.

      1. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        When you say evolution is just a theory,  can you tell me what you think the word theory means?

        1. 0
          Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          A theory is something that cannot be proven.  People might have an idea, but no one really knows how old the world is, because no one was there when it was created.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong. A theory is a reasonable idea, which is set up in a way in which further events or things can be predicted based on the idea.

            People don't have to "be there" to make a reasonable guess, based on the best scientific evidence.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Given that not a single action/thing in the future can be proven to happen (the sun may not rise) and that not a single thing from the past can either, (photographs may be changed), a scientific theory is the best that we can come up with.  It is proof in the world of the scientific method.

            Commonly misunderstood, a theory in science has been proven beyond the ability of anyone to disprove it.  It matches/explains the physical world better than anything else does and it has a great deal of physical evidence to support it.

          3. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Lybrah - I'm going to point you to something from a creationist website called Answers in Genesis.  They have a whole page dedicated to the "arguments that proponents of creationism should NOT use" and "it's just a theory" is on it.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … e-dont-use

            Keep in mind that I'm not a creationist, but this is elementary level stuff that even most fundamentalists know to avoid.  I recommend reading up on the site just for your OWN benefit, although the claims that answers in genesis makes are ALSO false and can be refuted.  That being said, even THEY recognize that a scientific theory is not a guess, and are honest enough to admit it and avoid the argument that you just made.

            FURTHERMORE, the scientific theory is not an educated guess, or a guess of any kind.

            Scientific Theory:  A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

            When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

            Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

            1. 0
              Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'll check it out.

    4. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
      Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If the evolution theory is correct, then what is the next genus when the humans have evolved into .... what?  Surely an evolution is something that continues, correct?

      1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
        Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        and ... does the evolution theory mean that Noah was a chimpanzee?

        1. JMcFarland profile image91
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You do know that no evolutionist says we descended from chimps,  right?  We share a common ancestor with apes.  In fact,  some would argue that we are apes.

          I don't believe Noah was anything, as I think he was mythological, as is the flood story.   If it makes you feel beget,  I don't think that gilgamesh existed either.

          1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
            Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh! My apologies -- I did not mean to offend your ancestors.  smile

            1. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              My ancestors are dead and therefore cannot be offended.    Mythological figures can't be offended either.

              1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
                Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If it makes you feel better, I also believe Gilgamesh is a mythological figure.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  How is Noah any different than Gilgamesh? They are the same mythology.

                  1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
                    Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Not true -- I know for a fact that Noah is Bill Cosby. Did you ever see his act? It was awesomely funny.

      2. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think many evolutionists would say that humans are the end of evolution.

        Although I personally think there's a good chance we are.

      3. JMcFarland profile image91
        JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        We are still evolving right now.  That's why there are different skin colors.

        1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
          Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          True -- and different levels of intelligence. Yet, what will the next step in evolution be?

          1. JMcFarland profile image91
            JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know.   Ask an evolutionary biologist.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I like the Flintstone theory, I think it's the only film showing dinosaurs co existed with man

        2. JohnDCuster profile image61
          JohnDCusterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That is Mendel's Law, the lighter-lights and the darker-darks as the seeds are reproduced over multiple generations. In high school biology they used to teach it with the white and red flowers. It happens with what we call the human races. With people I used to see the National Geographic magazines and they would draw the different local people and tribes people in various lands and you could see the characteristics set apart people from only a few hundred miles apart or separated by a sea or high mountain range. It is quite interesting, isn't it?

    5. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
      Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I find this article very interesting:

      http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/feb/ … ust-hunch/

      Also, in the comments section, a Ronald Jones wrote something I find really interesting. He said: "what really separates "experts" is their ability to win arguments, whether or not their "facts" are factual or not."  hmmmm ... something to ponder on.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Experts" are a group of people who are educated in a certain field, according to the education or learning system of the time. They are whoever that particular group deems as experts.

        I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this. It only becomes wrong when new facts or interpretations of the facts are ignored and/or ridiculed simply for superficial reasons, like stubbornness, people wanting to keep their careers intact, or just plain refusal to accept new ideas.

        In fact, I think this is the case more often than not.

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Lucy is a proven mistake, and Javaman a proven fake. ALL "missing links" have NOT panned out. Do your homework please.

    NO "missing links" have ever been found Not in humans, not in plants (ask any evolution scientist where flowers came from).

    Evolution is obvious. What is not obvious is where the changes come from, because it happens in giant leaps, which are unexplained.

    Humans did not evolve from apes. Not even evolutionists think that.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yet all fossils were "missing links" (during a transition from one form to another) before they were found.  Whereupon they became "discovered links".

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not really. There are plenty of live species, and fossilized species. Fully formed, in their specific niches. But no links between them.

        Not one fossil of a plant has ever been found that had features of something "in between" non sexually and sexually producing plants. Sexual reproduction just suddenly appeared, and biologists can't explain that.

        That is just one example.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kind of hard for a fossil to show the soft tissue of sexual reproduction, don't you think?  I would have to agree that such things will not be found.

          But you will always be able to point to a specific "link" that is missing - that's part of figuring it all out.  We will NEVER have a complete history of all species, and to complain that that proves the theory is incorrect is nonsense.

          Much like saying that we have horses and we have Arthropleura, a giant centipede from the Carboniferous age.  The two are likely related, with dinosaurs being the "missing link" you want.  Just not the specific species you want to see - the million different species have not all been found and never will be.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ok. Explain this then.

            Which evolved first? The female or the male flowering plant? Or did they both do it simultaneously? And when did the pollinator "mutate" to provide the means of procreation between the two? At the same time, after? Before? If pollinating plants don't exist, then bees can't exist. If bees (or another pollinator) don't exist, flowering plants don't exist.

            But, amazingly, they all(male, female, and pollinator) mutated at exactly the right time(or even better, a long, slow series of mutations, each surviving to mutate further), in the right place, without the mutated varieties dying out before the entire system had a chance to get going.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              They probably started as "hermaphrodites", with sexual reproduction providing more and better possible mutations.  If pollinating plants don't exist, then bees cannot exist.  Not flying insects; bees as we know them today.  Which has very little to do with those first flying pollinating insects.  And vice versa.

              But of course a biologist could guess far better than I.  The point is that the questions being asked do NOT indicate or prove it can't happen.

              What's so surprising that plants and animals evolve "sympathetically".  To either one, the other is the environment, and something to adapt to.  You certainly can't say one mutated at "exactly the right time", as any time in the species life span is the "right time".  If it wasn't this millenium, then life goes on as it is until the next millenium, when the first of a thousand mutations happens.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Only biologists, and geneticists can't say. They are as baffled as the rest of us, including Darwin.

                The fact is, the evidence doesn't support long, drawn out evolution based on mutations. Could be possible, sure. But it isn't proven.

                After over a hundred years of search for evidence, there is no proof that explains major changes, such as sexual reproduction. There are guesses.

                It is just as likely that changes were sudden.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Can't say what?  Which started first?  Of course not - there will never be a guarantee that we've found the first example of a new species.  It could have existed for a million years prior to the single fossil we find.

                  The fact is, the evidence doesn't support quick, thousand year evolution based on mutations. Could be possible, sure. But it isn't proven.

                  Perhaps mostly because it is unlikely the changes were sudden because it takes multiple mutations to produce such things.  While it is possible that something happened in the environment to produce a faster rate of mutation (contaminated atmosphere, solar flares, supernova with radiation, etc.) it is still unlikely that dozens or hundreds would all happen at the same time and all be beneficial, all leading to a single major change in a species.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-species-sudden.html

                    Biologists and evolutionists all agree there were many, SUDDEN changes throughout evolutionary history.

                    Why and how is the real question.

            2. JMcFarland profile image91
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Think about evolution as a language.   Spanish and French evolved from earlier Latin.  You did not have someone wake up one morning speaking Spanish when they went to bed speaking Latin.  Who would understand them?   Who would they talk to?  Latin gradually changed and adapted over time into Spanish,  French and other languages.   It wasn't sudden.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting. Creole languages can happen overnight practically, within a single generation. There's been interesting research on that, especially with the Hawaiian creole on the sugar plantations.

  3. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Link please?  Because they in the ancestral hominids tree as far as I know.
    And who mentioned apes?  Humans are primates as are apes and we have common ancestors.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      " Humans are descendants from apes." gmwilliams.

      Links for what?

      It is commonly known that there are NO accepted transitionary specimens found that link one species to another, animal or plant.

      Of course we are descended from primates. I'm saying that we don't know how that happens. Evolutions don't know.

      Here's a question for you: what came first, the flower or the bee?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Uh - the genetic code slowly changes.  And what was species A becomes species B.  Or it changes quickly as in a hybrid like a mule.  And of course, given that the definition is species is rather vague.

        Flower or bee - who knows for sure?  Guarantee that whichever it was, though, it did not depend on the other in the very early stages of it's career as a species.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No it doesn't slowly change.. Change comes in giant, unexplained leaps.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I don't think there are many "giant unexplained leaps" that occur over a generation or even two.  That would be extremely rare.

            Your "giant unexplained leaps" are taking millenia, and many generations, to come about.

            1. lone77star profile image91
              lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness, good theory, but not proven. I believed it for a long time, but now I'm starting to wonder if limited conditions that allowed survival, but created great pain or danger would force a species to evolve in a matter of a handful of generations, rather than many millennia.

              Gradual sounds logical and more doable, but crisis-generated change may also be a factor. It may even be the major factor in species change.

              Bottom line: We just don't know, because we haven't been around long enough to have witnessed such a transition.

              And I seem to remember some scientists discussing strange jumps in evolution.

  4. JohnDCuster profile image61
    JohnDCusterposted 2 years ago

    This is interesting because the Bible does not conflict with evolution theory. Evolution does occur within species but it cannot occur between genus'. I mean that a canine can be bred into different breeds of dog; but, canine cannot be bred to feline. They once bred a lion and tiger both feline genus and got a sickly "liger" as I remember it was called. Horses cannot breed with cattle but a horse and donkey can produce a mule. One problem is that the mules are sterile most of the time, so that, a farmer must breed another horse and donkey to get more mules. This is what is written in Genesis chapter one when it is written every thing after its own kind, its own seed lineage. Otherwise, what a mess this world would be in by this time, wouldn't it?

    1. JMcFarland profile image91
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      except no one can quite agree on what "kind" means.  Is it a family?  A genus?  a sub-species?

      http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/e … asics4.htm

      1. JohnDCuster profile image61
        JohnDCusterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        When working with genus', scientists have tried cross pollination and gotten some hybrid grains. Genus' building codes are hard to break. Most of the work trying to raise stronger cattle with less susceptibility to disease and drought has relied on other cattle strains. Sheep don't breed in, neither do horses as far as I have ever heard. Those type animals are not even interested in each other sexually.

        1. JohnDCuster profile image61
          JohnDCusterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          There is no missing link because Adam and Eve were made separately after the Creator began rebuilding the earth after the war in heaven destroyed the first heaven and earth period. We are in the second heaven and earth period. God did not create light in Genesis 1 he only said let there be light. I think people came out pretty good for most of them. If some people want to walk on their knuckles, they can go right ahead. I don't go to that religion. Seems like a cramped way to go to work. How would you drive your car?

    2. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But there may be examples of interbreeding that cause God to get angry.

      In my new book I discuss evidence that God may have created Noah's Flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of bestiality and the hybrid offspring that would eventually have destroyed humanity, if left alone.

      God has a purpose for us. He created us in His image and likeness, but He is not Homo sapiens. Humans were created (likely not evolved) as a rescue vessel after the fall from grace in the Garden (a thoroughly spiritual, non-physical place, despite the decoration of physical description). The death in the Garden was a spiritual death -- not physical!

      And God wants His children back -- not the bodies they wear.

  5. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 2 years ago

    JANESIX WROTE:
    I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. I've explained that many times.

    Basically I think that there is a plan behind evolution. I think God is the planner.============
    =============
    me  ...   I agree.  ..  The creator said let it be, ... BANG ... here it is. .. life begins. Things evolve.  conditions become suitable for higher forms of life.  ....
             DISCLAMER  ...   the following is only one of many possible scenarios  .... Call it ranting if you will.
        When conditions finally became suitable on earth for higher forms of life; The earth is seeded with different forms of life.   There are numerous humanoid life forms on earth. One of these humanoid life forms is "CHOSEN" to be best most suitable to prosper and was "Chisen" to inherit the earth.  Certain food supplies were poisoned and the "Chosen" species was directed to not consume those food supplies (such as pork and shellfish etc)  This wipes out the majority of those other species of humanoids. 
        However there were many survivors most of which gathered together in cities. The creator instructs this one particular species of humanoids (which are that chosen people) to destroy those cities killing all living things within the borders of that town, eating nothing nor taking anything with them from those towns, that they not be contaminated.
       The genocide of these other humanoids was complete.

         Today, there is only one species of humanoids upon the face of the earth. The war has been won many centuries  ago.
         Unfortunately ...  it would seem ...  Humanity as a whole  ... is addicted to war.  As if the political powers that be, are convinced that war is the most effective form of population control.
    Unfortunately; those instincts have filtered down through out every aspect of societies behavior to the smallest degree.
    If they are different than "US" we gotta do something about it.   
    If we could have more wars there would be fewer people starving to death. 
    It is easy to see what is wrong with the world. 
    Nobody is going to fix the big problems while fighting over the small stuff.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So, what planet are you talking about, certainly not this one?

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        didn't you see he disclaimer at the top?
        As it said, Just one of many possible Theory's which is just as easy for most to believe as LIVE and everything in it came from absolutely nothing, and all mammals evolved from a tadpole type of creature. 

        IMO, One version doesn't sound any more magical than another.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Invoking supernatural explanations because a person doesn't understand theories is not honest at all, and can appear "magical" to the ignorant. To label your religious fantasy as a theory is even more dishonest.

          One has to wonder just how low believers will stoop to deny and reject facts in favor of their religious fantasies.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Fear of a elusive hell or a false promise to heaven is greater than the total love for the real world. Their understanding and love for the natural environment and the other millions of other  species of plants and animals lacks energy,  is my  thought.

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for having such a high opinion of me. I''ve never made  any negative comments like this directed at you.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I see in another thread you attribute those attributes toward the entire human race, so I see you just got a little bit carried away focusing it toward just believers. my mistake in taking it personally just because It seemed to be pointed at me.
                  Also from another thread, ... spiritualist are also believers seeing as how they believe in something. They are just not involved in a religion of a specific god like entity as described in any of the various bibles. I personally believe we can believe there is a God and also not believe the most popular interpretations of any given book. Don't think a God would want us to worship a book even if it is about that God. (??)

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Whether you are willing to admit it or not, ... you ARE believing in magic  when you "BELIEVE" this vast universe and everything in just happened one day, all by itself. It came into existence as a tinny little thing ... and for some reason that you can not explain, exploded into  A  L  L of this,
            It didn't come from anyplace else?  Because someplace doesn't exist ?.Now that is Magic.

            Why do you believe that magic such as that is a one time thing; and it doesn't exist any longer".

            Now ...  can you answer this question without discussing other things which you don't believe in. .       Day one of this universe event certainly was a magic act. And this magic act dodn't even have a performer. And this rabbit didn't even have a hat to be hidden in.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's a very good point, to the ill-informed and uneducated, science probably does appear to look like magic. That's probably why tv shows like 'Duck Dynasty' are still on the air.

              Science has made a tremendous discovery that I'd like to share with you. Did you actually know that the Earth is not flat? Amazing!

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                since you didn't understand the question i will rephrase it so that you might understand, What caused the very first event which set evolution into motion.   If you don't have an answer, it must fall under your definition of magic.??
                If you don't understand the question (?)  I'm sorry I can't make it any more simple.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Abiogenesis.



                  That answer is based on science.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    More often  Magic is use of paranormal methods to manipulate natural forces or the art of appearing to perform supernatural feats.   Magic in fiction, attributed to extraordinary beings or objects. would that sound like God?

                    Science can not prove everything, yet it dose give us a more grounded answers towards the 99% unknown World and Universe.

    2. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Humans addicted to war? Perhaps. More than that, though, humans are addicted to Ego -- the source of war, rape, murder, lust, theft, selfishness and every other evil.

  6. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    Let's be "reasonable?" This is not the type of thing you want to be saying when your life depends on a solution and you think it's impossible, while someone else is in the process of creating that solution. Being reasonable means being incompetent.

    So, being reasonable is not all it's cracked up to be.

    Science studies the products of God's creation. Spirituality studies the sources of creation. Both complement each other.

    Reason is a good tool, but so is inspiration.

    Evolution is fact, but many believers have a hard time, because they're trapped in dogma. Anyone who treats the Bible literally is missing the larger message. It was meant to be read spiritually, not literally.

    Reading the Bible spiritually, you can find a timeline compatible with those of mainstream science. What's amazing is that the new date for Noah's Flood reveals, through science, the target of the Flood -- a species which went extinct at the same time -- a species which matches the description of the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6.

    Evolution is part of God's creation. What a beautiful thing.

    But according to this new timeline, humans have been around for 10.5 million years. Perhaps there was a parent species in the middle of the Miocene Epoch, but I kind of doubt it. Homo sapiens may well be the exception. Not evolved, but created or engineered.

    God created us in His image and likeness and He is not Homo sapiens. These human bodies are only the rescue vessels to help us wake up.

    Reading the Bible spiritually, I also found the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" matrix embedded in two chapters of Genesis. Sweet! Fits like a glove and explains so many mysteries in Genesis.

    You can find out more information on this in my new book, "The Bible's Hidden Wisdom, God's Reason for Noah's Flood." I'd love to get anyone's feedback.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is always interesting to watch the evolution of religious concepts and ideas.  For millenia, man made his gods in the form of mountains, animals, plants and those funny lights in the sky.

      As he learned more and discovered that a tree really isn't a god, the gods became more remote, though they still reacted with man (and woman, making babies with them).  Once more, though, those immaterial but active gods gave way to knowledge and Odin, Thor and the rest disappeared into antiquity and myth while man made a new attempt at a god - the Christian/Muslim creation of one totally removed from man.  One that does not react with anything outside our own feelings, that can never be found or seen.

      But even that one again began to deteriorate with increasing knowledge as so much of the writings provided by the god were shown to be false.  And we have, perhaps the last big effort, to maintain the gods of man with the sophistry that His writings don't mean what they say but whatever we wish them to say.  Whatever fits with what we know, what fits with what we want our god to be and do.  Whatever we decide that "spiritual" readings mean, in other words.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      lonestar
      Science studies the products of God's creation. Spirituality studies the sources of creation and Evolution is part of God's creation.
      - Is not being reasonable,  I't's one-sided and narrow minded towards the 99% unknowns, not even fair or reasonable  towards the millions of other Gods out there.

      The Bible is not  compatible with science or most scientist would be be Christian, not unbeliever of religion all together.

      Noah's story is unscientific and Christians nature environmental road  record of being the worst, is not reasonable.. Yes .mysteries in Genesis has many, just not many reasonable ones  It can not claim most or all spiritually in everything because it's all 99% unknown and greatly unscientific  to us. They are tripping over the light in the dark


      Tree of life was taken from the Hindus and the OT in the Bible was taken from the Jew. Oil and opium  has been taken from the middle east. The most important plant (cannabis) has been taken from our life.

      Homo sapien is closer brother or related more to us than Adam.
      The absence of reason is evil

 
working