ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate

Updated on February 10, 2017

Perspective and Context

Genesis 1 describes only the creation of elements a human would be familiar with: The heavens (night sky – sun/moon/stars), the atmosphere (blue sky), the land, the plants, the animals, and humans of course.

For many centuries this depiction of the earth's creation was the only source available. Because the context of the story is unclear, interpretations of this description depended solely on humanity's best estimations as to what's being described. Many of these centuries-old interpretations are still believed today. However, over the past century or so, and especially in recent decades, science for the first time in human history has really begun to reveal the geological formation of the earth and the biological formation of life, giving us a glimpse of how it all really came together.

With the understanding that it's told on a human level, while keeping in mind the point of view established in the second verse as being 'from the surface', re-reading the Genesis creation story set against the context of our modern scientific understanding reveals incredible insight.

Day 1 - Heavens, Earth, Oceans, Light

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Verse 1 sums up everything that happened prior to the more detailed account to follow by simply saying God created the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’. The big bang that kicked off the formation of the ‘heavens’ is estimated to have happened roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and the earth first began to form about 4.567 billion years ago. So, beyond the first verse, the creation account begins at least 9 billion years along in the process with both the heavens and the earth already in existence.

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate, the second verse provides just enough detail to locate a starting point in Earth’s history.

Verse 2 establishes both the setting (the state of the earth at that time) as well as the point-of-view from which creation is described. The setting is the earth, formless and void, with oceans already in existence, shrouded in darkness. This describes the earth’s state around 4 billion years ago during the latter part of the Hadean Eon (4.57 to 3.8 mya). Scientifically, it’s certain the oceans existed by the end of the Hadean. Some believe they may have existed as early as 4.2 bya. They formed when the earth’s first atmosphere of mainly nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor blocked out the sun enough to allow the earth’s surface to cool and harden. The cooler temperatures then allowed the water vapor to condense, which formed the oceans. So for a time, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed and filled the oceans, the earth matched the description given in verse 2.

Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on.

Genesis 1: 5 - And the evening and the morning were the first day.

From this point forward the earth entered a new age of day and night.

Day 2 - Oxygenated Atmosphere

Genesis 1: 6-8 - And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The mention of light in verse 5 proves relevant because it's a crucial ingredient for every event to follow. It's necessary not only to establish the earth's water cycle, but also as an ingredient for photosynthesis.

About 300 million years into the Archaen Eon (3.8 to 2.5 bya), single-celled organisms first began to appear in the oceans, or ‘midst of the waters’. Among these organisms were oxygen-producing bacteria known as Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These were aquatic photosynthetic organisms, meaning they required both the oceans and sunlight to produce oxygen.

Over the course of a billion years these organisms had become so prolific in the oceans, and had flooded the seas with so much oxygen, that they managed to suffocate all non-oxygen breathing organisms in the sea. This event is referred to as The Great Oxidation Event, or Oxygen Catastrophe (about 2.4bya). Oxygen had also been escaping the seas and working its way into the air. This was the beginning of the Earth’s second atmosphere. The same oxygenated atmosphere we know and breathe today. In other words, this was the creation of the atmosphere relevant to humans.

And the evening and the morning were the second day. The age of an Earth with an oxygenated atmosphere and a water cycle.

Day 3 - Land

Artist's conception of the supercontinent Rodinia. "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place ..."
Artist's conception of the supercontinent Rodinia. "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place ..." | Source

Genesis 1:9-10 - And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

The continents as we know them today began to form around the same time as the Great Oxidation Event, around 2.5 billion years ago at the beginning of the Proterozoic eon (2500 to 542 mya). There was continental crust that formed prior to this, roughly 4 billion years ago, but all that’s left of these are 'Cratons', which make up the core that today’s continents, the continents relevant to humans, formed around.

The majority of total continental land mass in existence today had formed by 1.1 billion years ago. The land masses were bunched together, which formed a supercontinent known as Rodinia. During this time the continents were positioned around the equator between the Earth's poles much like they are today. About 825 million years later, or 275 million years ago, the continents again were bunched together around the equator between the poles, forming the supercontinent Pangea.

However, in the time between Rodinia and Pangea, all of the Earth's continental land mass drifted all the way down to the south pole and back. While still positioned underneath the planet, about 650 million years ago, 70% of all single-celled life in the seas died, most likely due to much colder temperatures as they lived on the continental shelves of the drifting land masses. As the continents began to work their way back up north, something remarkable happened...

The Phanerozoic Eon and the Cambrian Explosion

The most extraordinary event to happen during the formation of life on this planet happened somewhere around 542 million years ago as the continents began their trek back north. It is commonly referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, which marks the beginning of the Phanerozoic eon (542 mya to Present). Somewhere in this timeframe, where every form of life that came before was always a single-celled organism, life made a significant evolutionary leap forward as the first multi-celled organisms began to appear. These more complex organisms ultimately proved to be the beginnings of most major plant and animal groups to come.

Day 3 - Plantlife

Genesis 1:11-13 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, 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. And the earth brought forth vegetation, 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.

Following the Cambrian Explosion, the first life form to make its way onto land was plant life. They first began to leave the sea and grow on land at some point during the Ordovician Period (488.3 to 443.7 mya), the period immediately following Cambrian, which is where the Cambrian Explosion gets its name. By the end of the Devonian Period (416 to 359.2 mya) the first forests were forming. During the Mississippian Epoch (359.2 to 318.1 mya), the first half of the Caroboniferous Period (359.2 to 299 mya), large primitive trees appeared and there were full blown forrests consisting of ferns, club mosses, horsetails, and gymnosperms.

For 3 billion years aquatic photosynthetic plant life flooded the seas with oxygen to the point that oxygen began to work its way out of the water and into the air. Plant life uses the suns rays to split hydrogen from oxygen in water molecules. The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide forming glucose which is absorbed into the plant's makeup while the oxygen is released as a waste product.

Once plant life emerged on land, now being in direct contact with the atmosphere, the process was greatly sped up. Over time the earth's atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent as it is today as plant life on land continued to thrive. Before, daylight from the surface was the lit up dome of the sky, like a perpetual overcast day. As the atmosphere became more and more transparent, heavenly bodies that could not have been made out before from the surface eventually became visible.

And the evening and the morning were the third day, third age. The age of land with plant life.

Day 4 - Sun, Moon, and Stars Set in Firmament

Genesis 1: 14-19 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Here the 'from the surface' point of view established in verse 2 is important. As stated above, while the Cambrian Explosion was happening in the seas, the continents were just beginning to creep back up north out of the deep southern hemisphere. While the land was underneath the planet the days would have been roughly six months long, followed by six months of night, the moon would be visible about half of each month, and the stars in the night sky would just pivot around the south pole.

Over the next 300 million years, as plant life made its way onto land and thrived, not only did the sun, moon, and stars become visible as the atmosphere transitioned from translucent to transparent, the continents continued to drift back up to the side of the planet as they are today. From the perspective of someone standing on land, this moving of the continents would literally position the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky so they could be used for the purposes Genesis stated. They provide light for the day and the night, and they can be used for signs and seasons, and to track days and years. Once the continents moved back up to the equator they've remained there ever since.

Doesn't it say the sun didn't exist until after plant life?

Verse 16 tends to confuse matters for many. It states directly that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. Because this is stated during the day 4 portion of creation it's read by many to mean the sun, moon, and stars didn't exist until day 4, one day after plant life on land and three days after God defined light as day and dark as night.

However, verse 1 states that God created the heavens "in the beginning". In the age the bible was written, when people spoke of the heavens they were speaking of the heavenly bodies; the sun, the moon, and the stars. When God said "Let there be light" in verse 3, verse 2 makes it clear He was speaking from the perspective of the surface when it says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". While the surface has been lit by the sun for roughly 4 billion years, the sun, the moon, and stars have only been visible in the sky for maybe 400-500 million years. Before they were visible, they were not spoken about specifically. Once they were, Genesis simply states a fact, God made these as well and states for what purpose.

The sun, moon, and stars becoming visible and the continents moving to be situated between the poles of the planet proved to be a vitally important development for the animal life to come.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day, or age. An age of 24 hour days of both sun light and darkness for land inhabitants.

Day 5 - Life From the Sea Through Birds

Genesis 1: 20-23 - And 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 on the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Keeping in mind God's spirit was on the surface, and that the point of view is from the land as evidenced by the sun, moon, and stars being positioned on day 4, it becomes obvious that God's declaration to, "Let the waters bring forth..." means He called life to come from the sea onto the land.

Vertebrates first made their debut on land during the Carboniferous Period (359.2 to 299 mya). By this period there were already forests of plant life on land, including large primitive trees, and the continents were already well across the equator.

Beyond the point of view already established, the real clue here is God's call for birds in the same verses as life from the sea. The assumption has always been that these verses are specifically talking about sea life. Here God calls for 'moving creatures that hath life' and birds. We know birds didn't remain in the sea, so why would we assume everything else did? Only now do we really know better. Birds, along with everything else, did actually originate in the sea.

We're all but certain birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. In fact, all amniotic creatures are categorized this way; sauropsids, which are reptiles and birds, and synapsids, which are mammals and mammal-like reptiles. There is a direct line of evolution that can be seen from the first land vertebrates, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day, or age. The age of life on land and birds in the air.

Why aren't there dinosaurs in the Bible?

Source

When the events of 'day 5' are read in this context something really interesting can be seen in verse 21. In the above translation it says, "God created great whales and every living creature that moveth...". In other translations, instead of stating God created 'great whales', it sometimes says 'great sea animals' (CEB), or 'giant sea monsters' (CEV).

The actual Hebrew words used here that are translated so many different ways are 'e-thninm', which means 'the monsters', and 'e-gdlim', which means 'the great ones'. We now know that between the debut of vertebrates on land and the appearance of birds there were numerous creatures that much more aptly fit these descriptions than 'great whales' .... namely dinosaurs.

Considering the intended audience at the time Genesis was written would have no knowledge of dinosaurs it's unlikely they are what it was speaking of. It's more likely that these descriptions refer to large reptiles or other large non-mammal creatures familiar to people in this age. However, if there were to be any mention of dinosaurs anywhere in the bible, it would be right here.

Day 6 - Living Creatures from the Land

Genesis 1: 24-25 - And 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.

Here that dividing line mentioned above between sauropsids and synapsids begins to take on a whole new context. In verse 24 God calls for the 'earth' to bring forth specific kinds of creatures. Knowing that life had already made its way onto land during 'day 4', there would be plenty of living material to use.

The first mammals appeared way back during the end of the Triassic Period (251 to 199.6 mya), most likely evolving from synapsid reptiles (see proto-mammals). All throughout the Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 mya) mammals continued to etch out an existence in terrain dominated by dinosaurs, but grew no larger than a small rodent. But once the dinosaurs were out of the way by the end of the Cretaceous Period (145.5 to 65.5 mya) mammals really began to thrive as placental mammals, and then modern mammals, developed all throughout the Paleogene Period (65.5 to 23.03 mya).

Day 6 - Humans

Genesis 1: 26-28 - And 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. And 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."

While it is clear that humans are mammals, the lineage between chimpanzees and early humans of the Homo genus are relatively unknown. The first mammals to begin to take on the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans were bipedal hominins who walked on two legs. These beings first showed up about six million years ago. It is not known at this time if these hominins are direct anscestors of modern humans or not.

God gave humans very specific instructions according to Genesis. Each subsequent species of early humans progressively exhibited physical traits that more resembled the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans and behaviors that realized the instructions given; fill the earth, subdue the earth, establish dominion over all the living creatures of the earth. This is exactly what early humans did, throughout the course of many generations and many different species.

Homo Habilis first appeared during the early portion of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 mya to 11,400 years ago), marking the beginning of the Stone Age as they were the first species to use stone tools. Pleistocene is most well known for being the Epoch where megafauna existed; mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, dire wolves.... When the dinosaurs were taken out by the seemingly selective K-T mass extinction (65.5 mya), mammals enjoyed dominance in the animal kingdom and eventually grew to exceptional sizes. While Homo Habilis exhibited increased mental capabilities in forging and using tools, they proved to be no match for the dominant megafauna, as fecal evidence shows they were a fairly regular diet for large cats known as dinofelis.

About 300,000 years into the Stone Age, a new species called Homo Erectus showed up in the same region where most species of the Homo genus appear to have originated, the Great Rift Valley in East Africa. Homo Erectus were very similar to modern humans in their skeletal build, the trait which earned them their name. They also proved to exhibit a natural 'will' to migrate over long distances mirroring God's command to 'fill' and 'subdue' the earth as this went a long way towards establishing humanity's existence in the natural world. Many also believe this to be the species where early humans lost a majority of their body hair and developed the ability to sweat. Traits that would definitely prove beneficial for long trips on foot.

According to DNA evidence, both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appear to have evolved from a species known as Homo Heidelbergensis, who also migrated great distances. Neanderthals first showed up in Europe about 400,000 years ago. This is where early humans really began to establish their dominance in the animal world as Neanderthals only appear to have really done one thing, and they did it really well, they hunted megafauna. Homo Sapiens, who appeared around 200,000 years ago in East Africa, were also skilled hunters who preyed on megafauna, and who ultimately proved to be too much for Neanderthals as they literally pushed them out of existence within about 30,000 years.

From the moment Homo Sapiens first appeared they migrated, they hunted, and they filled the earth, adapted to the various climates, and established dominance in the animal kingdom throughout Africa, Europe, Asia, and even Australia. They lived lives much like, and probably very much resembled, indigenous tribal cultures that still exist today. Namely the Aborigines of Australia and tribal cultures of central Africa.

In fact, every human alive today shares a common ancestor, a Homo Sapien woman, that lived roughly 160,000 years ago in East Africa. She is known as Mitochondrial Eve, a name inspired by Eve from Genesis. Her descendants continued to fill and subdue and dominate the terrain, spreading to North and South America when the sea level was low enough to expose the Bering Land Bridge that linked Eastern Asia to the other side of the world.

The First Farmers

"When major climate change took place after the last ice age (c. 11,000 BC), much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favored annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

So as a result of climate change, at the beginning of a series of dry seasons, the conditions made for abundant plant life that produced a lot of seeds, which led directly to the discovery of horticulture and the first human settlements.

Genesis 1: 29-31 - And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat"; and it was so. And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

By 10,000 BC, all species of megafauna were extinct, and the planet was 'filled' by Homo Sapiens, the only remaining species of the Homo genus. About 2,000 years later, early humans first began to farm. Farming first appears to have begun in Mesopotamia, and then spread from there.

Verse 29 and 30 both depict God showing humans the 'green herbs' and 'fruit trees' He provided for both the animals and humans to eat, but for the humans only He specifically spoke of the herbs and fruit that bore seeds. Seeds that only humans would begin to use.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day, the age of mammals and humans.

Conclusion

Using a more complete picture of earth's history provided by modern science, it can now be seen that the creation account in the Book of Genesis is much more accurate than many have given it credit for. Many of the things detailed throughout this article have only been determined in the past few decades.

It is unknown just how old the Books of Moses really are. Scholars estimate it's original inception, based on a study of the text as it was around 200 BC when the oldest surviving copies were made, was probably during the kingdoms of Judah and Israel no earlier than 950 BC. Others say they were written by Moses around 3500 BC, though there's the logistical issue of Moses' death being written into the story. Tablets containing stories very similar thematically to stories in Genesis were written by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia as early as the end of the 3rd millennium BC.

In any case, the creation account in Genesis was written back when humans thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Without divine intervention in some form, it's hard to believe the scribes that wrote the creation account could have correctly listed 13 details and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct chronological order....

Details in order: The heavens, earth, oceans, darkness, light, atmosphere/water cycle, land, plant life, position of sun/moon/stars, life from the sea, birds, mammals, and humans.

Major eras or 'days':

The 6 'Days' of Genesis

Day 1: Verses 1 through 5
Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere became translucent
Day 2: Verses 6 through 8
Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established
Day 3: Verses 9 through 13
Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land
Day 4: Verses 14 through 19
Paleozoic Era - Age when continents moved from beneath planet to between poles
Day 5: Verses 20 through 23
Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds
Day 6: Verses 24 through 31
Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • LawrenceS profile image

      Lawrence Stripling 5 years ago

      Food for thought, I have found this very interesting and very informative. Thank you for posting.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      It was my pleasure. Thank you for reading and for your comment.

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      This is just YOUR personal interpretation of a very vague text to begin with. This is far from proof of anything. How can you even suggest that this garbage is compatible with science?? You are clearly making a mockery of a very noble field, science. Scientists are not vague, they are very precise, yet you want to convince me that when god said, "let there be light," it only meant that the fog lifted and the light of the sun which he already made with the heavens shone through? That is clearly just one of many interpretations. What makes yours right? You would have to back this up with solid evidence, which you don't offer. This hub is purely subjective and you should be forthright in stating that. It is your opinion. You are no expert. And you certainly are not qualified to claim that you know the mind of god.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Everything I refer to is verifiable. Every event can be looked up and confirmed. I'll add hyperlinks if that makes you happy, though I generally do not because I want to encourage people to look into it for themselves and not simply follow my same footsteps.

      I have another, much more detailed, write-up covering this topic over on my blog here ...

      http://promptprocrastination.com/PPBlog/10/13/2011...

      There you will find plenty of links to references and all the detail you could ever want to completely obliterate my theory if it's not true.

      I respect science. Science is the study of the natural world. God's creation. It's an unflinching look in great detail at this incredible place He created. I'm not about to make a mockery of it.

      I understand you're not going to just simply read this and accept it. That would be a pretty jarring shock to the system for you. If you ever really dug into what I'm saying, and didn't simply dismiss it like you somehow know for certain better than I or anyone else, you'd see everything here is very much grounded in science.

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Verifiable how? By reading the bible? You have a serious misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. In science you never approach a discovery with the intention of trying to justify what you think you already know. That kind of defeats the purpose of scientific inquiry. And, yes, I am very eager to see what your sources are. I'm sure they are just as deluded and uneducated as you. And how dare you assume I have not already dug into this nonsense? I was a Christian for nearly 30 years. Reading the bible was what made me question god's existence. I took it upon myself to get educated by going to the experts. I don't rely on quacks on the internet. Why don't you run your little theory by the National Academy of Sciences and see what they say? They are the experts, or are you suggesting that you know more than them? How arrogant of you to think you do and claim, "oh, look, I've made this discovery that everyone before me missed!" and base it on absolutely nothing but your interpretation of a text that is riddled with errors to begin with. No, it wasn't missed. It was proven to be a dud a long time ago.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      The only thing is, the scientific understanding that actually verifies it's correct is still very new. And yes it would be very easy to miss because Christians are arrogant and think they already have it figured out to the point that they can completely dismiss science categorically, and people on the other side of the fence miss it simply because they have the same view as you, that there's basically nothing to see here.

      All I'm showing is that the events listed in Genesis are in the right chronological order. That they accurately describe events that could not possibly have been known to the authors. Every scientific event I refer to can be verified with an approximate date. The only thing in Genesis itself that needs verifying is the text itself. Nothing else.

      I've been a Christian for a long time too, and probably hit some of the same road blocks you did that led you to where you are. The only difference is I took a different route and ended up here.

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      You haven't offered any evidence! Are you completely insane? And do not talk to me like I am the one that hit a roadblock. You hit a roadblock but just ignored it and invented your own little solution--interpreting vague text to fit your selfish purposes. You are quite laughable, sir. The audacity to sit there and tell me that everything is verifiable, yet you offer nothing that I can verify it with, is unbelievable! I'll say you took a different route--the one that leads into fairy tale land.

    • John Sarkis profile image

      John Sarkis 5 years ago from Los Angeles, CA

      Great hub emmaspeaks.

      John

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Emma - I'm not sure where exactly the disconnect is here. My claim is that the events listed in Genesis did in fact happen in that order according to science....

      The heavens - the earth - the oceans - light hitting the surface - the atmosphere - land - plant life - life from the sea - birds - life from the land (mammals) - humans.

      The link on my blog I referred you to actually does link to references that back up what I'm talking about. I illustrate in great detail where these things happened in the course of the earth's geological formation and the evolution of life.

      What I find odd is the only particular thing you addressed is the light breaking through the cloud cover on day 1. Did you actually read the whole thing? Or did you just skim the first few paragraphs with an already made up mind?

      And what's with all the name-calling and personal attacks? What did I do to warrant that?

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Headly, they did not in fact happen in chronological order. You are just claiming that they did, and not offering any proof of it other than, the bible itself. This is your interpretation, and it is not a very honest one at that. I am making a hub right now that will show you just how ridiculous your little theory is.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Okay, I look forward to reading it.

      I'm curious what other source I'm supposed to provide as proof regarding what Genesis says other than what I have. It's one of the oldest written texts in existence. What else exactly am I supposed to provide that would appease you?

      And I assure you that while I do not deny I could be totally delusional, I am not being dishonest.

      With all of your comments about me disrespecting science and its methods, I expect your rebuttal hub to contain scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts what I'm claiming. If it's just a hub about delusional believers trying to justify their beliefs with 'dishonest' interpretations in general then I'll be highly disappointed.

      Please understand I respect you and your views and am hoping for a fully engaging argument here from an intelligent woman. So far much of what I've gotten has been emotionally charged and seemingly coming from some other place that's not logical or reasonable. I expect much more than that.

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

    • profile image

      JBoston 5 years ago

      Haha! This is great comedy. Thanks for the laugh!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      You're welcome, JBoston. I'm glad you got something out of it. Obviously you have a wealth of knowledge well beyond me that makes this all seem laughable to you. Maybe you could contain your laughter long enough to help a brother out? Enlighten me? Don't just leave me down here, lying in the dirt, getting laughed at.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Headly, why would you make yourself into such a farce with a hub as silly as this? Are you some kind of joker?

      Why don't you first compare the BS in the bible with a real scientific text before you open your mouth to say you have any idea about science?

      Here is a good one to get you started if you are ready to open your mind a bit:

      "Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Donald Goldsmith

      http://books.google.ca/books/about/Origins.html?id...

      Emma even has a very good video where Neil talks about why religion is a dead-end idea powered by BS ... :)

      Franto in Toronto

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      "Why don't you first compare the BS in the bible with a real scientific text before you open your mouth to say you have any idea about science?"

      Obviously you find my scientific knowledge base sub-par. Does that mean you see an error/s? If there's something I have wrong here, please, help me understand. Point it out to me.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Ok, when we talk about science and a scientific way of thinking, not every thing you have heard or watched on TV can be used to support facts.

      You sound like you have an open mind and you want to learn, so start by reading solid science texts and put them into your foot notes so we can see you did some home work, ok?

      Anything from the bible or other religious texts - such books are ONLY story books! They can't be used to show any facts at all - it's all mythology.

      Nature has to be studied for us to learn how she does things. You are a product of nature - and since nature has no gods and requires no gods to function, nor do you.

      That's reality based on facts ...

      Now you can say: "I don't understand cosmic evolution!" ... that's ok - I gave you a link to a book you should read first before continuing to sound so uneducated.

      You can also say: "I like the idea of me having been made in the image of some god" ... but these kinds of silly things are religious BS and have no foundation in objective reality ... that's why they are irrational!

      There are human activities, like the arts where anything can be made into a book, play, film, etc. - some will be informative, some can be documentary, other things are pure fiction or just entertainment.

      The arts are totally different from natural science!

      Reality is based on what nature does and how she does it. For that to understand, you have to train your mind first before you even learn how to follow a scientific argument and know where the border between rational reality and irrational absurdity. No gods, or any super-natural creations of the human mind exist in the real world - that's why the bible is nothing more than a story book which explains nothing about the real world and can't be used for any real scientific research!

      Just asking questions without training your mind first to understand your own thoughts more clearly, what they are all about, where they are taking you, etc., is not going to get you ahead very far ... no matter what others may tell you!

      Start reading "Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Donald Goldsmith

      http://books.google.ca/books/about/Origins.html?id

      Post some questions from that book after you have finished reading it!

      Good luck!

      Franto in Toronto

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me, f_hruz. I really do. I am familiar with Neil Tyson's work. He's a brilliant man and I enjoy hearing him talk about what he loves. He's passionate. And I don't disagree with him from a scientific standpoint.

      You seem to think I draw my understanding from the movies or television. I assure you everything I refer to here in the realm of earth's geological formation or the evolution of life is well documented and fairly well known. I'm not drawing on some vague, unheard of, out there theories or anything in pop culture.

      There are plenty of names of events and dates and specifications of timeline according to the geologic timescale referenced in my hub to verify what I'm talking about if you feel so inclined to investigate further.

      I chose to keep this as uncluttered as possible by not including a bunch of links, but I may decide to flesh it out a bit to clarify for those that may not be familiar. However, if it's references you want you're welcome to check out my much more detailed write-up here ... http://promptprocrastination.com/PPBlog/10/13/2011...

      Again, if there's something in particular you see here that I have wrong that's giving you this sense that my scientific understanding is somehow flawed or deluded, please point it out to me. I am doing this to learn, not to teach.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Your starting point is irrational!

      God created evolution? Gods are mythological things and only exist in story books ... geee man?

      It's as absurd as thinking that some gods created nature and the universe ... these super-natural claims of what gods did, makes all the other stuff into a joke!

      You try to avoid facing the fact all gods are simply irrational creations of the human mind ... anyone who wants to hold a rational view and show some understanding of natural science can't come along with the bible and start talking religious BS!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      I understand that's how you see it. I see it as irrational to dismiss any possibility of a higher power based merely on science, which is the study of the natural/physical world.

      There's more to life than just the physical. The human conscious mind obviously exists, yet cannot be detected scientifically. If there is anything in existence that is not strictly physical, then it stands to reason that it's not the only thing that exists that's not strictly physical.

      The only reason we know about consciousness is because we experience life through it. Just think for a minute how you would describe your conscious experience to someone/thing that didn't have one. Could you show them?Could you possibly make them really understand it? So how can you possibly know there's nothing else in the universe that exists, that's just as undetectable physically?

      Most humans since the beginning of recorded history believed in a higher power of some sort. The earliest writings, the oldest civilizations, all believed there was a higher power.

      Scientifically we know just enough to know there's still a whole lot we don't know. We're doing pretty good if we've managed to figure out even 1% of everything there is to know about the universe and everything in it. For anyone to take our still very young scientific understanding and determine with utter certainty that there is definitely no God is irrational to me.

      Science has ruled out the traditional interpretation of Genesis, but not Genesis itself. The way I see it, it has managed to clarify it and tell a much bigger, much more fascinating story that depicts a powerful God designing an earth, populating it with life, and then introducing free will into it, which spread throughout the world right along with civilization.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Your main problem is lack of rational thinking skills in itself! You clearly don't even know what it is, where it begins and what all the parameters are ...

      "I see it as irrational to dismiss any possibility of a higher power based merely on science, which is the study of the natural/physical world."

      Can you see any clear reasoning power at all in this? What the hell else is there as the worlds finest minds?

      Don't say it's mythology, or religion? Subjects which are in part also covered by a branch of science ... but not the exact natural sciences!

      Well, mythology may also be part of literature, and as such part of the arts and not as much of science!

      That's where you become a BIG joke!

      You show no understanding of scientific thought, logic, reason or any grasp of what nature really is and how she can function so well WITHOUT any evidence of any gods nowhere EVER to be found - forget that silly bible of yours - it's a story book for the mindless!

      Do you even know the difference between Rationalism & Empiricism?

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empi...

      Do some reading, get an education ... use your time a bit more productively than being stuck in gods rectum ...

      Why do you expose your untrained mind in public to the point where it's painfully clear you must have shits for brains if you can't direct your mind on your own in a more open ended direction of discovery than to re-hush religious BS?

      Let's talk again after you have discovered why god is the only export product sold by the Vatican around the world at higher prices than real bull shit with only a fraction of the value of real manure ... ok?

      Good luck!

      Franto in Toronto

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Why thank you, f_hruz, that was ... colorful.

      "You show no understanding of scientific thought, logic, reason or any grasp of what nature really is and how she can function so well WITHOUT any evidence of any gods nowhere EVER to be found"

      I'm just curious what you think evidence of God would look like exactly. Would you expect a giant thumb print on the moon? Are you certain there's no God because no one has ever peered through a telescope and saw his signature on anything?

      Let me try this again. The natural world is God's creation. It's the result. Just like your colorful comment above. That was the result of your conscious mind.

      Now, can you show me your conscious mind formulating that comment? Can I actually see it? Or hear it? I could see your physical body type it out, but not the thoughts that strung all of those wonderful metaphors together. Not the internal process that picked and chose from memories and associations you used to then fashion this jewel of a comment into a physical form so I could then enjoy it too. I can only see the result. Not the cause.

      "Don't say it's mythology, or religion? Subjects which are in part also covered by a branch of science ... but not the exact natural sciences!

      Well, mythology may also be part of literature, and as such part of the arts and not as much of science!"

      Yes, exactly. There are all kinds of things in existence that you yourself know about, that many people all over the world study, that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. They exist. They're part of existence. They only exist because someone's conscious mind created them; art, literature, mythology, psychiatry, psychology, etc.

      So why would you think science, which only covers what is physical, should be the tool used to determine whether or not God is there? Science can only see the cause if the cause is physical. You yourself confirmed there are things in existence born of something that is not physical. So, why would you think our conscious mind is the only thing that exists anywhere in the universe that's capable of creating things, yet is not physical?

      "Why do you expose your untrained mind in public"

      Your comment is in public too. Just FYI.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      You obviously can't even think clearly - forget about trying to formulate scientific thoughts we could build anything on, in that untrained mind of yours!

      The brain is a complex biological device which processes all kinds of impulses from internal and peripheral sources - there is NOT ONE thing in nature that's without a cause OR a reason - that's why we have a law of causality so it's quite clear by now that all gods are simply major BS for the mindless!

      Let me give it to you again!

      Natural science is NOT the study of all things physical - that's called Physics and is only a small part of it!

      Natural Science the SCIENTIFIC study of all things NATURAL - from Nuclear Physics to Micro Biology and every thing in between - which you are simply not able or willing to see ... and since you have no grasp of neither all natural forces, natural forms of energy, etc. and obviously don't want to train your stupid mind to study anything seriously, you just cling to the dark hole of this god of yours and keep wasting valuable time which you could much better apply to conducting serious mind space research IF you only had the qualifications to formulate advanced thoughts not based on religious BS but real scientific concepts!

      You keep slipping up at a very basic level - try some Math, like in Probability and Statistics ... you may just discover that nature requires a god with the same probability as my ass is calling out for sandpaper - :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      Right, there are the natural sciences and then there are the social sciences. As in, all the other fields outside of the natural sciences.

      Existence is bigger than natural science. It doesn't all fit in that box. You have to count the other stuff too. A majority of that branch is made up of fields dedicated to understanding human consciousness, ultimately.

      There are physical studies as well, like neuroscience, that attempt to understand the conscious mind, along with everything else 'brain' related, phsycially. But they're not there yet. We're beginning to understand the brain well as a mechanism, but haven't even begun to grasp the 'mind'.

      Your certainty that there is no God is the same as my certainty that there is. Neither can be proven so both are taken on faith. You seem certain, though it may be decades or even centuries after you and I are gone, that science will ultimately prove the conscious mind to be just as natural as everything else. So you take it on faith that it will ultimately be true.

      Existence is made up of more than what the natural sciences alone can cover.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      It ALL is part of NATURE or it's man made - can you grasp at least that much?

      ALL gods and ALL religions are man made ideas by silly people to keep uneducated minds like yours busy ... :)

      The probabilities are not 50/50 ... they are 99.99% against any man made deity having anything to do with nature ... and nature herself has absolutely NO use for any gods!

      Where do you see nature calling out for some help from any gods created my some retarded humans?

      You say: "The natural world is God's creation" when you clearly have NO idea what NATURE even is - that's where you are out of luck ... BIG time - each and every time, with any of your infantile arguments!

      You don't even know how you'd have to define the word "god" so it could fit the bill of having come close to running your own bowl for a day so you wouldn't have the shits for 24 hours non stop, man! :)

      That's how much you know about your own digestive system you think in your stupidity, some god made for you?

      No gods exist for rational people who have brains to think clearly enough to know what scientific thought requires, and why religion is just mindless speculation of no use for REAL discoveries ... got it?

      I can't stop you to keep on speculating in your mindless fashion, wasting your time ... but where do you think such silliness will ever get you?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      You're so close! You're almost there. You might say you're 'circling the bowl'. Your answer is right there in the middle.

      The key is here .... "It ALL is part of NATURE or it's man made"

      Get it? We ourselves don't fit in the natural sciences. We're apart from it. At least, what we create. Whatever is a product of our 'mind'. That in itself says there's more to existence than what natural science can detect.

      Now, we're natural, right? I assume you agree with that. We're made of the same stuff as the world and universe around us. We formed naturally, just as everything else did. We evolved. We're all part of the same thing.

      So, how does this human ability to create things (ie. man-made) come about if it exists nowhere else?

      Here's another question... If we're a part of nature just like everything else, then why are we the only beings that live in opposition to nature? Why do we create waste and harmful materials like we do? Why do we destroy?

      Destruction in the natural world simply breaks something down to be used again. Nature recycles! Our physical bodies even recycle, but we don't. We, through our conscious minds, actually manipulate things, elements, chemicals, to serve a purpose of convenience usually, that do not break down. That only cause natural problems because they're not 'of' nature. They're 'of' human consciousness.

      How is that if we're no different than the rest of nature around us? How/Why would something, anything, of nature evolve into something that destroys itself and everything around it?

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Nature has her use for all forms of life ... maybe our main function is to sound smart and act stupid by not even caring why other, smarter life forms than us - dolphins and whales - live in total harmony with nature with out gods, while we created gods to tell religious lunatics it's ok to rape nature for all its worth?

      Are we really so stupid and blinded by religion not to even care to drop this crazy idea of " .... having been given domain over every thing natural by god" and related religious BS?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I'm not sure blaming 'religious lunatics' as being responsible for humanity's tendency to be destructive really sums it up. And if you're right about dolphins and whales being smarter, or even as smart, then it's not necessarily related to intelligence either.

      The first known civilization, the Sumerians, who built the first cities to ever exist, actually built their cities around temples where their stories say the gods they served lived. So from the very beginning of man's departure from natural harmony humans believed in, and actually structured their very lives around, a religious belief.

      So, if you were to equate 'free-will' as the difference between living in or out of harmony with nature, then it seems that one of the very first choices humans made of their own free will was to instead follow the will of a deity of some sort.

      Of course, being a 'religious lunatic' myself, I've got my own loony theory about that, but I'll leave that be for now.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      You put way too much value into irrationality and religiosity where there is no place for it, and you do it at the expense of wanting to grasp the fundamental reality of nature - that's what's so unscientific about your views.

      Our total support system is based on nature and not on gods or what man invented ... nothing would work if it weren't for the laws of nature - so give these silly gods a brake and get a new and open ended perspective on reality based on an objective, critical view of the world using scientific thinking skills, if you can get some!

      So what, we have tools, toys and instruments now. Every thing existed in nature before we discovered a use for it. Only once we started to ask the right questions did nature show us how we can take advantage of things, from gravity to the whole electro-magnetic spectrum.

      There is nothing new about humans having been misguided by various religions, cults and myths since the day they thought the sun or fire was a god.

      Where is your desire to be a rational being and help advance our insights into nature, reality and a knowledge based culture instead of dragging gods and all that religious BS with you?

      How much longer do you want to stay so retarded?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      There are plenty of experts out there doing all of the scientific thinking. That's not my place and that's why you won't catch me here arguing whether or not what they say is true or accurate. I concede to their expertise and will gladly read the dumbed-down version they provide for yokels like me.

      But just how far do the experts have to drill down into the natural world before you realize there's more to it than that? Every direction we go, from the most microscopic of layers, to the most distant reaches of the universe, to the deepest recesses of the human mind, we only ultimately find more questions than answers.

      As experts all over the world continue to dig in every direction to fill in the blanks, the gaps that consistently remain only further confirm what I'm trying to get across. There's more to it.

      We don't know what caused the big bang. We don't know what causes the laws of nature you speak of. We don't know where the very consciousness we experience life through came from. When it developed. How it developed. Why it developed.

      We can see the effects of the laws of nature on matter. We can reconstruct how just injecting matter into a space where these laws are already in place can form an entire universe. But we can't determine the origin of the laws that define existence, that first had to be in place, for all of that to happen.

      Whether you agree or not, whether you want to accept it or not, the study of the natural/physical world alone cannot answer all questions about existence. Everything that exists, past/present/future, is relevant. That includes human consciousness and everything born of it. Gods, real or imaginary, are relevant. Religion is relevant. Art and mythology are relevant. Literature. Depression. Wars. You and me. It's all relevant.

      Any hope to understand the entirety of existence must consider everything that exists within it. Everything.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Again, you have no focus. Your chatter is not reducing the confusion you keep creating for yourself by asking more silly questions and calling them relevant.

      Relevant to what? Your flat earth ideas of reality are no longer relevant in the forefront of science - your landscape of reality most likely looks like a maze ... and you are lost in it because you have never learned how to structure your thoughts based on LOGIC, etc. ...

      You babble, you use smart sounding words but you have no clue why some ideas are way more relevant than others in building a progressive knowledge base around, which can be shared internationally with other creative thinkers around the world who REALLY want to advance human understanding and have taken the time to learn how to apply scientific principles correctly ...

      You obviously don't know the least about it and don't care to do the work on that silly mind of yours to start grasping such highly vital facts, such as NATURE being ALL there is - because SHE IS the foundation to objective reality, even though we have created a lot of artificial things our selves as a species, non of it could function if it were not based on natures laws and work in conformity to it - NOTHING supernatural exists in the real world.

      Pigs can't fly no matter how long you tell them about your silly god and all the myths you have heard about him ... so train your brain to become more useful in conducting your own discoveries and before too long, you may very clearly see ... not all things have the same relevance in all the schemes of things, and most definitely not all at once or at the same time ... so structure your outlook on reality and maybe you will learn how to fix your own crazy mistakes ... :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I realize you feel my perspective is dated and archaic. You feel we've now enlightened ourselves in just a few short decades to a higher level of understanding than has ever been known in all of human history, and that anyone who hasn't bought into this 'superior' worldview is simply holding up progress and deluding themselves.

      I don't deny we've made enormous strides in our understanding of the physical world. A big reason for this growth-spurt initially is because not that long ago it was considered 'forward-thinking' to not let previously established concepts limit your thinking. To think outside the proverbial box. And it has worked. It's brought us a long way.

      So why would you then decide we've come far enough, that we've now more clearly defined 'the box', and discourage anyone from looking outside of it any further? As we've covered in great length, you have no proof that says there's no reason to continue to look outside the box. So why would I?

      I've given you my reasoning. You continuing to insist I'm just 'untrained' intellectually is not going to convince me of anything. My landscape is more clear now than ever before. The traditional interpretations of God I was taught left gaps that didn't make sense to me. Our scientific understanding leaves gaps too. It's only when these two are combined that things become clear and gaps disappear.

      The key to moving forward in understanding is to first admit to yourself you don't "know" everything. There are still many unanswered questions. As long as there are, taking any element out of the equation on the assumption that you know better is premature.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      It's not just me, Emma and many more have already told you, you are a BIG Dummkopf!

      We don't require any gods to discover that we derive our intellect through natural sources like all other forms of life. We know matter contains information and knows how to interact with each other or we woulnd't have discovered how to build a battery or a nuclear reactor.

      Any rational thinking, educated person can tell you right off the bat, you are full of crap and pissing into the wind when you say: "God Created Evolution"

      You don't have to know EVERYTHING ever! You just have to know the most relevant things at the right time, and know them well to be able to ask the most appropriate questions correctly and know when you are given a good enough answer to shape your thoughts and ideas in the right direction ... but you have no clue of any of it!

      Don't you know by now what you are doing in your head?

      You are looking up gods rear end and are thinking it's soo original being outside the box when you are building sand castles in the shape of gods ass.

      WOW - how original! Now that's real scientific thought based on a lot of education and a creative mind, eh? Why don't you instead try to get a basic education in how to learn how to think!

      Not a thing you have said in all your hubs goes one step outside your religious shit box ... you know that by now, right?

      Nature is not a BOX ... you have boxed yourself into a maze inside your god delusion box!

      So why do you think your god delusional diarrhea is going to miraculously produce golden eggs suddenly? Do explain that to me ... I like to know and learn - ahahaha!

      If you only tried to drop that stupid idea of a man made god and this mindless bible as being more than an infantile idea for a few months ... and tried to look at NATURE as the source of our ultimate, objective reality, your way of thinking may show some progress towards eventually seeing a clearer picture of what NATURE and REALITY is!

      It's not premature for you to finally grasp you can't think one step past your silly god who put you into the box you want to be in, because you let him screw your mind so badly!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      You're right, I've been called many things over the past couple of weeks by you and Emma and others. So far, that's all you've got. You don't agree with me and until I get with the 'program' I'm not worth listening to, seems to be the basic jist of the arguments thus far. Nothing of substance whatsoever to dispute my claim.

      You can't tell me what exactly I have wrong that makes you say I'm such an idiot. You just think my logic is flawed. I think yours is flawed. We're at an impass.

      "You don't have to know EVERYTHING ever! You just have to know the most relevant things at the right time, and know them well to be able to ask the most appropriate questions correctly and know when you are given a good enough answer to shape your thoughts and ideas in the right direction ..."

      I agree with that. We can't know everything. So why in the world would you go ahead and cut anything out of the equation? How could you possibly deem anything in existence as irrelivant when we don't know everything? How could you possibly know for certain there is nothing to the bible and nothing to this idea of a God that remained consistent through 66 books, written by 40 different men, over the course of many centuries?

      In this hub I illustrate how the creation account correctly lines up with the history of the earth as we now understand it. I spent some time over the weekend adding links and pictures to more clearly convey the fact.

      Please, tell me where I'm wrong. Please show me how this can't possibly be true. If you can't then how can you possibly continue to dismiss it? Just as I've said throughout, there's more to the story than what natural science alone can explain.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Why does irrational thought have to be dismissed as irrelevant? Well, for one, study this scholarly video here first ...

      http://www.youtube.com/v/sNDZb0KtJDk&hl

      Next, since I had previously posted it to one of my hubs, you may wish to read the rest of them with a bit more care!

      You should start to see a clear answer to your question in due course ...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      I watched the video. As usual, you seem to be assuming I haven't pondered these things. That you're somehow introducing profound new ways of thinking to an intellectual child who's simply not as enlightened as you are.

      In other words, you're bringing stock arguments fit for a stock debate to a conversation that's not even standing in that arena. All based on your assumption of who I am and what I believe.

      What you don't seem to get, or keep ignoring entirely, is that I'm making a direct claim here. I've been through the motions of these philosophical debates. I went through more here with you. I see that it ultimately gets nowhere.

      So I'm introducing a claim that I can prove Genesis as a legitimate and relevant source of information beyond just mythical tales of morality. I'm illustrating how texts written thousands of years ago, somewhere around the same time and place that civilization first sprung up in the human race, accurately describe the creations of the earth and all life on it, and how the subsequent chapters describe the same supreme being who created everything introducing free will into His creation.

      Between my first two hubs I'm introducing a much bigger idea that I've only just begun to get into. I've taken everything we know about the natural world, everything we know about our history as a species, everything man-made, every idea or belief or myth, every civilization, every religion, into consideration in my search for the one truth.

      Because there is only one. One truth. One answer. No single traditional religion or belief explains everything.

      Science doesn't explain everything. History doesn't explain everything. I've looked. Nobody, and certainly know individual school of thought, on this planet right now has all the answers. If they did we'd all know about it. It's only when you take a step back and look at everything that you can ever hope to find any real meaning.

      Dismissing anything in existence as irrational or irrelevant is nothing short of arrogance and short-sightedness. Dismissing the beliefs of the majority of humans throughout history, the very humans who's shoulders you stand perched on top of claiming with absolute certainty that you've got the intellectual authority to edit out whatever you deem fit, is the equivalent of a teenager who thinks they know it all.

      The video you provided trying to justify atheism as some sort of forward thinking trait of the enlightened is nothing more than intellectual laziness. In essence, what the guy with the accent is suggesting is that naturally evolved humans developed some sort of unfortunate destructive trait along the way that now has to be eradicated by the logical, rational mind that naturally evolved right along with it.

      Basically, it's arrogantly suggesting that we as a species have finally reached the point that we can take over and decide for ourselves how to steer natural progression from this point on. We barely understand it. We're only just now really beginning to get a glimpse. But somehow we now know enough to know some turns along the way were absolute mistakes and that it's okay to grab the wheel and right the wrongs done over the course of thousands of years.

      Think about it.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      I have ... that's why I now see a clear picture of nature and reality, what's part of it and what's an absurd fabrication or plain religious BS not fit to be part of a healthy, thinking persons mind with some grasp of nature and reality.

      You can hang on to your god delusion as long as you like and keep on pondering till you are blue in the face or learn how to think a bit more critically ... good luck!

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      I was gonna rip this but it appears it's been ripped already. Interesting connections you make however absurd. I myself tried at one time (when I was a Christian) that the days in Genesis were not exactly a day to us but just to God or that a day was just a moment in time where he decided to make certain things happen, but that was idea was quickly eradicated with the rest of Genesis and the parts about Giants and how long people lived and who begat who and so on... as I learned more science I found that none of the Bible follows any of the sciences discoveries about the nature of the world, the universe or man that have been found and verified to be true.

      Good luck with your quest for truth and acceptance, you need to move beyond your own belief and look at the world, perhaps come to understand why we disagree with you, what science is about. Take a few basic science courses, especially in Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Anthropology, History Pre-History and Paleontology... they have basic courses for all those areas. Maybe even pick up a book of each of those sciences instead. But the labs that show you things working the way science says they will is very important to at least observe.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      artblack01,

      I appreciate you taking the time to check this out. However, I can't do much with what you gave me. You call the connections I make absurd, but don't say what makes them absurd. Then you suggest I take some classes. I assume this means you see some glaring errors in my perception of our current scientific understanding, yet you give me no specifics.

      I feel I have a pretty firm grasp on basic science, but do not claim to be a scientist by any means. I'm simply using a timeline put together through the collective effort of teams of scientists and researchers over many decades and compare that to what's written. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the geologic timescale.

      If you see something I have wrong in my understanding of the earth's history, please point it out to me. If you have specific things elsewhere in Genesis that you feel doesn't work in knowable history, please point it out.

      It doesn't do me any good if people see holes in my theory or in my logic, yet refuse to say specifically what they are. Though it may be more trouble, I would appreciate specifics so I can better educate myself if I am wrong.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      I don't see anything wrong with your understanding in the Earth's history just your absurd connection to the Bible, it's hard to point out anything in particular that hasn't already been pointed out here mostly because this is your wishful interpretation of it in your desire to connect science's view on Earth's history with your views on Biblical history. The hole is in the whole. There is no actual connection. The Bible was written not out of complete stupidity but desires for explanation of observations outside of reality.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I'm sorry, artblack01, but you have to see how you deeming it 'absurd' with no specific reasoning to explain is simply inadequate from my perspective.

      Calling this my 'wishful interpretation' just doesn't fly when the text is so specific. There are 13 details directly mentioned that line up chronologically with earth's history. The text states directly that this is an account of earth's formation, so there's no mistaking.

      You yourself say you see nothing wrong with my understanding of earth's history according to modern science. So trying to dismiss this by claiming I'm twisting things around to make the interpretation work is simply inadequate.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Because genesis is so vague when it comes to each thing being "created". And considering that the concepts are not new I am not surprised by their vagueness. But let's take this into perspective. The science is not vague, you can take a vague idea and connect it to anything you want, it doesn't make the vague idea accurate to the whole. And the vague nature of story or the author giving God credit for the story shouldn't add credence to the story. I can't get any more specific than that, you can connect any story of fantasy to any science and make it seem likely to have happened... Take any fantasy story you like... Is the Quran accurate, they've pretty much given the exact same arguments as you, but theirs "appears" more detailed than the Bible's. Vague interpretations can make anything connect.... Also consider that the Bible is not translated to 100% accuracy, especially the old testament. Example is tht the word for god in the original text is plural. Catch my meaning?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      artblack01,

      "And the vague nature of story or the author giving God credit for the story shouldn't add credence to the story."

      That statement might apply in regards to other parts of the bible, but not this. Creation depicts events that happened well before humans existed. That alone gives it credence as that alone leaves only possibilities beyond our understanding as an explanation. The only other possibility is sheer coincidence.

      I've studied this through multiple translations, including the original Hebrew they were taken from. Arguments of translation can't dismiss this either.

      "Because genesis is so vague when it comes to each thing being "created"."

      Accurately listing 13 specific details, and 6 major eras, is not vague.

      If you're looking for it to specifically tell you step by step how God did each thing to be satisfied, then you're demanding more of it than can be expected from any ancient writing. They're never written for the purpose of proving themselves legitimate.

      You have to glean information from them by trying to understand everything about them. Their context. Who wrote it and when. From what perspective. The text. The grammar. All of it.

      If we were to take your 'vague' argument and apply it across the board, then we'd have dismiss practically everything we think we know as certain that was learned from some ancient document.

      You do understand the Qur'an is also based on the books of Moses don't you? If others have truly given the exact same arguments as me, based on another text that in many aspects is very similar, then that only adds credibility.

      So, just a few short years into the age that humanity has finally gained enough information about the earth's history to put together what appears to be a consistent explainable chain of events, numerous people independently begin to draw very similar conclusions from very similar texts that a creation account written thousands of years ago may in fact be accurately explaining these events? Though they happened millions and billions of years before human existence? Catch my meaning?

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      The "events" may have taken place before man, but so did many creation stories written by men. That does not give them credence. Again their vague nature destroys that.

      As far as ancient documents go everything that we learn about them is only one actual thing, they tell us what the ancient culture believed and how they lived and nothing else. Ancient cultures don't have any great "knowledge" to teach us about the work except in what they saw and believed at the time.

      Plagiarism doesn't add credibility, as far as the quran goes.

      Like I said. All vague.

      Believe what you like but you are neither a historian nor a scientist.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      To be a bit more specific about my argument, any child could take you along how they think something progresses without previous knowledge. Genesis does this same thing. Why it's a failure as such a ducument is why your connections don't actually work. Their "significant connections don't say anything about what was significant about the Earth's actual significant history. The major cataclysms that took place before man existed, the two major extinctions of nearly all life on Earth, how the moon was once part of Earth. We are only 400,000 years in the Earth's billion year history, how insignificant we are compared to that and you wanna call the vagueness of genesis "scientifically" accurate? That insults everyone's intelligence. I could go on but I am not at a computer right now, I am on an iPhone. Hard to type fast.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I'm not sure how exactly you figure the events described in Genesis are not significant. True, we are only about 400,000 years worth of the 4+ billion year history of earth, which would make sense considering humans didn't show up until the very end. Out of 31 verses, humans show up in verse 26.

      I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Yes, humans were the intended audience, so the events described relate to what humans are familiar with. The heavens, the earth, the air, the seas, the plants, the animals, us. All of which is very much significant.

      Why would it be necessary to describe a mass extinction that wiped out all these animals that lived and died millions of years before humans existed? Those mass extinctions were just some of the numerous events that led to the eventual animal life that that exists during our time.

      This is what I mean about you expecting more from this text than what's reasonable. This shows an obvious bias against the material as you don't treat it as you would anything else. You're dismissing it without first giving it due consideration.

      The events it does list are monumentally important. And in many cases one 'creation' proves to be a necessary ingredient for the next 'creation' to follow.

      Like light coming just before the establishment of the firmament, which is what people then called the dome of the sky. This required sunlight both in the establishment of the earth's water cycle (separating water above from below) and in the creation of oxygen through photosynthesis. This is also the same order it actually happened.

      Then came plant life right after land. Plant life required light as well, and oxygen, and a water cycle. This is also still the right order.

      Then came the sun/moon/stars which could only be seen from land once the combination of plant life on land and a water cycle and sunlight changed the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.

      Then came the animals which required light, water, oxygen, land, and plant life, not to mention the 24 hour days that didn't exist before the continents moved back up to the side of the planet. All still in order as how it actually happened.

      These are all monumentally significant events. And each prove to need the things that came before.

      Also, just FYI, I don't think anyone believes the moon was once part of the earth. Look up the 'giant impact' hypothesis. This is the most commonly accepted theory as to the moon's formation to my knowledge.

      I understand you're not just going to read this and drop your whole world view. I understand this just isn't reasonable or possible to you. But trying to claim a text that specifically says it's an account of the formation of the earth and manages to list 13 specific details and 6 major eras in the correct order in just 31 verses as vague is ludicrous. And claiming that the creations described aren't significant doesn't fly either.

      And yes, a kid could certainly take you along how they think something progresses without previous knowledge. But for a kid to say the heavens came first, then the earth, then oceans, then light, then air, then land, then plants, then visible stars, then animals, then humans, would be a bit much. To actually mention 'light' right before the things that would need light, which is everything else on the list, would be lucky at best considering people during those times knew nothing about photosynthesis.

      Or explaining that the sun/moon/stars were 'positioned' in the sky to serve a purpose during the same time frame between plant life on land and vertebrates on land when the continents actually moved thousands of miles to be positioned so that land inhabitants can actually use the sun/moon/stars for what's stated at the very least is a gigantic coincidence. Or the fact that the continents never again moved away from being positioned between the earth's poles.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      I'm sorry to tell you that I was once a christian and at one time I took the bible as seriously as you do. But it is a work of mythology and you can defend it till you are blue in the face and justify it any way you like, but that fact will still remain. It's a myth created for the bronze age. It doesn't apply to us nor does it apply to reality.

      When I believed the bible was true I used to defend it myself. But when you truly try to match it's information with scientifically gathered data and it doesn't match but the science rings true... I abandoned the Bible and your God years ago. The reason why are even bother arguing against it is because Christians keep insisting that we nonbelievers, scientists or different believers should convert or believe on Jesus or whatever, over and over again trying to impose your Christian rules on us nonchristians... You can totally believe that there is some sort of connection if you like.

      I hope you know though you just used my argument to defend the vagueness of the bible which totally contradicts your argument for matching Earth's prehistory with Genesis. It's too vague to connect so to say it coincides you would have to connect more than just vague moments which were observed and theorized well before the bible was written.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      The reason you're left clinging to this vagueness argument is because Genesis got it so right that's all that's left. If it hadn't, you'd be picking it apart by pointing out the obvious inconsistencies.

      Instead you're left giving credit to people thousands of years ago for correctly listing the order in which everything they knew was created by observing and theorizing. These same people that thought the world was flat and that the heavens revolved around it, correctly theorized the oceans came before the land? They correctly theorized creatures and birds came from the sea? Through theorizing they correctly separated animals by sauropsids and synapsids?

      I'm not here trying to convert people to Christianity. I'm trying to point out something that I would think would be of great interest to humans in general. I'm trying to point out how this ancient text, who's exact origin is unknown beyond it being from the same time/place as the birth of civilization, not only correctly describes the formation of the earth and all life on it, but tells a very specific story in its first 10 chapters that could very well explain just how the human race became what it is today.

      It explains who the 'gods' were that the Sumerians claim taught them civilization. It explains the sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology in both Egypt and the Indus Valley, two civilizations that began to thrive about the same time, independently of each other, each with their own language and who independently developed their own systems of writing. It explains the difference between those tribal humans who still exist to this day and who are content with living in harmony with nature and the humans that came from the civilizations around the Mediterranean who conquered and spread throughout the world through the centuries.

      I've discussed this with many very knowledgeable people, both believers and atheists, and while I find that plenty from both sides of the fence disagree with me, nobody can seem to tell me specifically where I'm wrong. Everything checks out. So instead I'm told I'm justifying it, or that I'm twisting around vague text to make it work. I've been accused of heresy and I've been called all kinds of colorful things. I've heard it all. What I've yet to hear is a better explanation.

      Usually, the conversation ends with some way of categorically denying the whole thing. Yours is 'vague text'. Above in this string of comments you'll also see one who uses the 'materialism' argument that categorically denies anything that's not physical, or the 'literal vs. metaphorical' argument that categorically dismisses everything because 'who could tell the difference?'.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      You really don't know your history, the Greeks never thought the world was flat for one....

      You know I could go on and on with all the things you are getting wrong here. You make a lot of assumptions not just about the Bible but history in general and it's laughable the not just vague connections as I mentioned, but the desperate attempts you make at defending all your baseless connections to the Bible you contradict yourself several times in order to do so. So desperate are you to defend your idea that no matter how wrong you are you will argue it to death. Do you feel it would be worth while for me to continue making a point with someone so closed minded as you to not accept my criticism of it?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Actually, the Greeks did believe the earth was flat until their classical period starting sometime during the 5th century BC. Just look at Homer's description of Achilles shield, which depicted a flat earth cosmography, for the most obvious and easily verifiable confirmation. Though I wasn't even talking about the Greeks. I was talking about the authors of the bible.

      The creation account is estimated as being written around 450 BC by scholars, but the Jewish culture orally passed on stories for many generations before they were ever written down. So yes, the predominant belief during the time the books of Moses were written, and well before, was that the earth was flat.

      I've discussed this with numerous people who know history and science and the bible better than I do that didn't see all the laughable-ness you seem to see at a glance, but refuse to state specifically. In fact, out of everything I've claimed, for my mention of these people believing the earth was flat to be the only thing you keyed in on strongly suggests you're probably overstating yourself just a bit.

      But, I could be mistaken. You say you could go on and on with all the things I'm getting wrong here. If that's the case, then by all means, please do. As I said before, I'm not doing this to convert people to Christianity. I'm pointing something out that I've verified to great extent for myself, and have since continued to test by discussing with people who are very knowledgeable in history/theology/science, and who strongly disagree with me, to verify my work.

      I am totally open to criticism. I can't be right about everything. There has to be flaws here. Way too much ground is covered here for me to be right about everything. Previous conversations have turned up things I had wrong at one time. The funny thing is the corrections often work better with my idea than what I had previously.

      "Do you feel it would be worth while for me to continue making a point with someone so closed minded as you to not accept my criticism of it?"

      You've yet to make a point. Calling the creation account 'vague' isn't a point. My pointing out that it specifically lists 13 details and 6 major eras in the correct order in only 31 verses is verifiable and flies right in the face of your 'point'.

      The only one in this conversation who's proven to be close-minded is you. You've completely dismissed everything without the least bit of consideration based solely on your opinion that the text is 'vague', you've been elusive when asked for specifics, and the one time you did provide something specific you were wrong. All the while you've called my knowledge of history into question and have described me as desperate, defensive, and contradictory.

      You spending more time talking about me than the actual topic is a tell-tale sign that you don't actually have anything of substance to dispute my claim. Now's your chance to prove my assessment of you thus far wrong. You know what to do, you apparently already have a whole list of things you just haven't bothered to share yet, so let's hear them.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      You are asking for specifics on a vague connection and calling me closed minded for not arguing that point with you because I think you would be too closed minded to consider the points.... All I can tell you is that I have read through your reactions to everyone else's comments. At no point do you even consider that you might be overly reaching a fictional connection to actual history. 13 connections? Laughable. But like I said, you believe what you want besides what everyone else says and defend it no matter what. Why I would want to argue with you? You gave me no reason to think any of the points I would make even exist... Or that you would consider any evidence to the contrary of your vague idea. Call me closed minded for not wanting to argue with a closed minded person, believe what you like.... Bye

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      You yourself said earlier that you used to defend the bible and specifically the creation account, noting that it was the other bits of Genesis that threw you off. Not creation. You obviously saw something there.

      The other things in Genesis you mentioned specifically as off-putting were "Giants and how long people lived and who begat who and so on...". What I'm attempting to show covers that as well. Like you, many dismiss Genesis, Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian mythology, and Greek/Roman mythology as nothing more than imaginative fiction. And while most acknowledge civilizations like the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and the Indus Valley culture did make significant leaps forward in craftsmanship and technological capability in a very short amount of time, there's simply nothing as far as an explanation. There's no natural progression turned up through archeological evidence to show how these new ways of doing things came about. They came about rather abruptly. Nobody knows how.

      What I'm trying to point out is that Genesis actually explains it. It explains that there were other humans around when Adam was created. It explains that these other humans were mortal and that they only lived 120 years, versus the lifespans of Adam and his descendants that spanned centuries. Just read the first 3 verses of Genesis 6, it's all right there....

      Gen 6: 1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      This is still before the flood and comes just one chapter after showing how long Adam and his descendents lived. This specifically addresses a difference, calling humans who only live to 120 years 'mortal', meaning that Adam and his people were something more. This bit is where Genesis is explaining the reasons for the flood. It explains that wickedness came about when the 'sons of God' (Adam's immortal descendents) had children with the 'daughters of humans' (mortals).

      Sumerian mythology describes in astonishing detail that they were taught civilization by immortal, human-like gods who physically walked on the earth and physically lived in the temples that we know actually existed at the center of their first cities. Cities that they claim existed before the great flood. Cities that to our knowledge were the first human cities to ever exist.

      Every civilization in this region of the world have ancient stories that talk about multiple immortal gods who were human in form, male and female. They all speak of these gods and mortal humans having children together. The Sumerians more specifically tell stories of a great flood that one man survived by building a boat and tell a story about the once universal language being confused into many.

      Think about it this way... if a small group of humans that lived for centuries actually existed at one time in this region somewhere around 6000 BC, what would you expect to see if any physical remains were wiped out in a flood? Wouldn't you expect to see them reflected in the mythology of the surrounding people? Wouldn't you expect to see abrupt, unexplained advances in cultures in that region if these beings were truly wise? Because that's exactly what we do see.

      Sumerian carvings depict their gods, the Annunaki, as roughly 1/3 larger than the average Sumerian. The book of Numbers tells the story of large men, who were described as descendents of the Nephilim, that existed long after the flood in Canaan. The only other mention of the Nephilim is right after the above 3 verses ....

      Gen 6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      Sumerian mythology also includes a king's list that was very well known in that region during that time as there have been numerous copies of it found. This list depicts pre-flood kings of those first cities living for extremely long lifetimes. Theirs says thousands of years, but this is most likely a difference in how the Cuneiform it was written in was translated. They're 1000's of years if using a base of 60, but much more in line with the lifespans given in Genesis if using a base of 10.

      Those large men in Canaan were immediately recognized by the people of Israel as descendents of a people that existed long before them and before the flood because they were very large in stature.

      I'm telling you, this all lines up. Understanding where Genesis fits in actual history clears up a lot of things that we don't understand and as of yet have no explanation for. There's way more to this than just creation, which you yourself admitted to once seeing as accurate.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      You can believe what you like, what I am telling you is that archeology has already researched this and come up with a different conclusion. There is no connection with Earth's prehistory and genesis of the Bible. The bible is the account of the beliefs of the people for when it was written and nothing more.

      You can talk in detail about what you think connects the bible to prehistory or history before it was written but it is a regional account.

      This is how the bible now reads to us in the scientific community and to all atheists:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s&fea...

      Why did I post this video? So I would have to waste anymore of my time with the same argument by someone like you that I have heard and disputed way too many times. If you were more of an open minded person it would be worth while, even if you still held your long ago dismissed myth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Why is it that nearly every video like this is done with a sarcastic narration with a british accent? I guess that's how you try to make something seem 'smarter'.

      You keep confusing me as someone close-minded simply because I wouldn't accept the arguments you refused to actually provide any detail for to back it up. I'm just supposed to accept it as a valid argument, though you've provided no substance whatsoever. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?

      What you and that video and many others seem to be missing is that the only thing science has dis-proven in regards to creation or the book of Genesis in general are the interpretations of what it says that were formed literally centuries ago by people who had a much more narrow understanding of the natural world. That is all. As I am trying to point out, it has not dis-proven Genesis itself.

      Simply reading it for what it actually says, and not what you've always been told it says, it's pretty clear. It more lines up with our modern scientific understanding than it ever did with traditional interpretation.

      The 'points' made in the video regarding the differences between chapter 1 and 2 are a perfect example. What in the actual book of Genesis makes you think they're both talking about the same event? Nothing. That's a traditional interpretation that you and many others can't seem to look past and understand for what it is.

      Genesis 1 and 2 are two different events. Clearly. Genesis 1 is talking about the entire planet and all life on it. Genesis 2 is talking about one particular location, complete with names of rivers and such so you can be even more certain. It's a much more regional account.

      The video also referenced Genesis 6, as did I. It pointed out the remark that God 'regretted' creating humans. Because, the verses right before talk about how the 'sons of God' started having children with mortal humans. Obviously, this was not how things should have gone if these new free-willed beings behaved as they were supposed to, but they didn't.

      Just look at the difference between the humans in Genesis 1 and Adam. The humans in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that they followed to the letter. Be fruitful, multiply, populate and subdue the earth, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what early humans did. You know in Genesis that it was accomplished because the last line in chapter 1 says that God saw ALL that He made and that it was GOOD. It was done exactly as He intended.

      Obviously, everything the humans in Genesis 1 were told to do was a much more challenging task than simply not eating from that one tree. Adam and Eve couldn't do that one simple thing. So how exactly do you think humans could have accomplished everything else asked of them, that took much more effort and required full-on obedience, yet couldn't follow that one simple rule?

      Simply dismissing me as close-minded and not worth listening to is just one way of many to refuse to see what's in plain site right in front of your face.

      In fact, just you providing that video along with this statement ...

      "So I would have to waste anymore of my time with the same argument by someone like you that I have heard and disputed way too many times."

      ... is the essence of close-mindedness because it's obvious nothing I've said has gotten through. You obviously haven't heard these same arguments before.

      And then you provide a link to a video that in no way addresses these arguments. You're still arguing with the traditional interpretations. Not me. Your mind is closed and you can't see the difference. See what I mean?

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Hello Art,

      thanks so much for posting the link to a most fitting video as a perfectly suited reply to a hub full of BS!

      I have tried to discover if he had any idea of what basic logic or rational thought has to consist of, but his mind is wide open to any BS of any kind, mystical, religious or plain irrational.

      He has no interest in science at all. His only focus is just BS story telling!

      I also noticed soon enough that his mental capacity is wasted on this brain dead religionoid who takes outdated myths so seriously, he must have lost his grip on reality totally by now!

      Franto in Toronto

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Hey f_hruz, it's good to hear from you again ... sort of.

      I'm glad to see you're still following along and sorry to see that reading comprehension is still a problem.

      "He has no interest in science at all."

      I've talked more about, and referred more often to, science than anyone else just in these comments alone. Not to mention the numerous references to scientific facts and theories and events and timelines that the hub you actually made that comment in is attached to.

      "thanks so much for posting the link to a most fitting video as a perfectly suited reply to a hub full of BS!"

      Fitting would mean it actually addressed any part of my claim. It doesn't.

      I would really appreciate it if you or Art or whoever would take the time to actually understand my claim so we can have a real conversation about it. I'm open to anything that addresses my claim specifically.

      I cover a lot of ground here. The entirety of human existence and the entirety of earth's history. You can't tell me you can't find something to pick apart with something relevant out of all of that if there's absolutely no truth to what I'm suggesting.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      "I cover a lot of ground here. The entirety of human existence and the entirety of earth's history. You can't tell me you can't find something to pick apart with something relevant out of all of that if there's absolutely no truth to what I'm suggesting."

      To do so would be a waste of our time if you are not going to consider the differences between evidence and myth/hearsay.

      From what I have read if the other comments and responses you din't and your mind accepts all silly notions, I am sure you probably even believe the Mayan 2012 idea to be a possible true prediction to the end times... And other such silliness.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "To do so would be a waste of our time if you are not going to consider the differences between evidence and myth/hearsay."

      I'm sorry you feel that way, but don't confuse the reason why you're retreating from your initial mission ("I was gonna rip this but ...") by trying to make it my fault. I've provided ample evidence to back up my claim where evidence is available.

      Unfortunately I can't provide any eye-witness testimony or video footage or sworn statements from the original authors. Where Genesis and anything else from ancient history is concerned, you kind of have to work with what you've got.

      You keep trying to paint me as some sort of irrational zealot that can't be reasoned with. While I have absolute faith in God, I do not have absolute faith in my 'theory'. Though I do, admittedly, grow more confident with every detractor that fails to poke holes in it. I'm open to being wrong. I welcome it. That's why I'm here and that's why I have these conversations.

      I do this to learn. If you can show me I've got something wrong, then you've helped me learn something I didn't know before.

      You said you could "go on and on with all the things [I'm] getting wrong here". Can you not see how I view that as a potential goldmine of stuff I didn't know before?

      I've called your bluff several times. Not to be presumptuous, but it's okay to simply say you don't know. Not being able to find anything doesn't mean you have to 'accept' what I'm saying.

      "I am sure you probably even believe the Mayan 2012 idea to be a possible true prediction to the end times... "

      For the record I'm more of the opinion that the Mayan calendar stops at Dec 2012 simply because they ran out of rock surface. That calendar would serve its purpose for many centuries to come. Plenty of time to carve a new one. Admittedly, a little simplistic.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Yes, you keep demonstrating here time and again, that your thinking processes are way more than a little simplistic by first of all starting a hub which claims without ANY good reason that some " ... God Created Evolution".

      Then you keep admitting on top of it all that you don't know a thing about science, have no clue how to even formulate basic scientific ideas or how to use your brain in an objective or critical fashion by saying ... "I have absolute faith in God".

      What god? The same guy who's convoluted ideas of reality you have problems coping with?

      There is virtually no sense or reason to take anything you say seriously after that much BS!

      You can keep promoting your hub till you turn blue ...

      I'm sure you will not learn a thing about reality from what you have been told already with a strange mind like yours, but hey, there is no law against irrationality!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Yes, you keep demonstrating here time and again, that your thinking processes are way more than a little simplistic by first of all starting a hub which claims without ANY good reason that some " ... God Created Evolution"."

      Without any good reason? This hub is my 'good reason'. The claim you refuse to address by instead calling my way of thinking into question.

      I am attempting to show that the same scientific evidence you use to decide with such certainty that there is no god also supports what I say. The same evidence supports both views.

      Only from my perspective, both the natural world AND Genesis support my view, as well as each other, where you only have one of the two to support yours. Everything else is conjecture and speculation on both sides of the fence. It all comes down to the difference between what you and I deem 'allowable'.

      "Then you keep admitting on top of it all that you don't know a thing about science, have no clue how to even formulate basic scientific ideas or how to use your brain in an objective or critical fashion by saying ... "I have absolute faith in God"."

      Have you ever heard of Ken Miller? Emma wrote a favorable article about him. He's a cell biologist, a Brown University Professor, and he often testifies as an expert in favor of evolution being taught in schools. He clearly knows something about science, yet he also has 'absolute faith in God' AND believes 'God created evolution', though he states it much more eloquently than I do ...

      “By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”

      - Ken Miller, "Finding Darwin's God"

      Clearly he's out of his mind by your standards, yet there are many in the scientific community and elsewhere, like Emma for instance, who respect him as a scientist. Somehow he's up to Brown University's standards, but not yours.

      You don't have to believe in God to discuss the relevant facts to my claim. You just have to respect my view enough to understand it, as I do yours. I can see how and why you believe what you believe, whether I agree or not. I can understand your perspective.

      Through your perspective, there are still many unanswered questions. Our scientific perspective has proven itself to be very useful, but it still leaves gaps that can't yet be explained.

      Kind of like Ptolemy's tracking of planetary paths across the night sky. Humans were able to use his work and build on it to find better understanding, but the planetary paths by his view were still erratic and complicated and not totally accurate because he still thought the earth was at the center of our planetary system. Just one key fact that threw off everything.

      My claim is that Genesis is actually describing the creation of the earth up to about 8000 BC or so, then tells the story of a new species of man being created who had free will.

      Kind of like how the planetary paths became much simpler when Copernicus simply considered first moving the sun to the center of our planetary system. Making this slight change in how Genesis is read lines up things we don't yet understand incredibly well, especially where the formation of civilization is concerned. It offers an explanation for those as of yet inexplicable leaps forward that humanity made in a short amount of time.

      And also like Copernicus, I don't have the resources to prove it. It's just an idea that appears to make a lot of sense based on what can be observed.

      So please, if you could, focus on proving my 'planetary paths' don't line up. There's plenty of evidence out there. Plenty of research being done. Unless I'm actually onto something, there's bound to be hard evidence of some kind out there that disproves what I'm claiming. I haven't found anything yet, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Ken Miller is a duality. He knows what science is and can apply scientific thought ... that's no reason to value his religious outlook anywhere near to the same degree!

      You, however, don't know what science consists of or how scientific thought differs from BS story telling, so you muddle everything up and never even see the difference with enough clarity to be able to apply structured thought, logic and critical analysis to get you out of your religious stink hole, or you wouldn't try to make such stupid claims ...

      "My claim is that Genesis is actually describing the creation of the earth up to about 8000 BC or so, then tells the story of a new species of man being created who had free will."

      You can claim what you like ... it only shows you are nuts!

      If you produced an interesting discussion for and against an argument like free will without any stupid bible quotes ... and invited comments for and against both sides, you'd be able to make some progress out of your silly dead-end mythology mind trap ... maybe!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      A duality, huh? You're missing the point. Ken Miller is one of many examples of members of the scientific community that as you say 'know what science is and can apply scientific thought', yet buy into the same 'mythology' I do. In other words, they've proven capable of thinking the way you keep insisting I'm unable, yet have not reached the same conclusion you insist I will if I just got my head straight.

      I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be a scientist. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of structured thought, logic, and critical analysis simply because you don't agree with my conclusion. If you'd ever get over your assumption that I'm a moron long enough to talk the actual facts of the case with me you'd find that my claim is the result of heavy research and obsessive analyzing and structured thought. It's the result of my logical mind trying to make sense out of what didn't make sense to me, including what I was taught as a christian.

      I have and will discuss free will again. It's a vital piece of the puzzle. However, this particular hub is about Genesis. More specifically, it's about the creation account in Genesis as part of my claim. This part is to establish Genesis as a legitimate source of information.

      Remove everything you think you know about it and all the crazy religious mumbo jumbo you associate with it, and just look at the first 11 chapters by themselves.

      Two different ancient documents, what scholars refer to as the Yahwist and Priestly source, were combined thousands of years ago to create these first 11 chapters of Genesis. Nobody knows who wrote them or how old they are. The creation account and the genealogies in chapters 5 and 10 come from the Priestly source, along with some of the flood. The story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood, and the Tower of Babel come from the Yahwist source.

      As I show here, the creation account accurately lists every element of existence relevant to humanity in the correct chronological order. When placed in the correct context, Genesis 2 through 11 tell a very specific story that matches up with how we know civilization began.

      The people we credit as being the inventors of civilization say they were taught and wrote about stories very similar to those told in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. These stories originate in the same place and time that civilization first began.

      You're welcome to criticize my way of thinking as soon as you find that I have something wrong. Find where exactly my flawed brain has led me to a bad conclusion. Credible scientists and thinkers all around the world agree with me that the God of the bible exists, so simply saying my claim can be denied entirely based on my belief in God is not sufficient.

      Either show me where I have something wrong, or give me a more credible explanation for the rapid advancement in humanity at the dawn of civilization.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Okay, you asked for it and I decided to give it to you....

      First your title, the first part says God Created Evolution, which is totally unsupported by your argument, any facts or any Bible verses, so it's just wishful thinking on your part based on your desire to reconcile science and religion. And isn't even touched on really in any of your arguments. (bad writing on your part so the title in itself is misleading since it has nothing to do with your argument)

      There is also nothing scientifically accurate about the Biblical creation story, scientific accuracy isn't based on interpretation of vague paragraphs describing the creation in the Bible and none of your arguments support this without making assumptions (leaps of faith which in itself is unscientific and for which you base your beliefs, in other words faith and science are contradictions to each other).

      "So, within the context of Genesis, the story of creation would presumably have been told to Adam (and perhaps his family) by God, and then retold throughout the generations until it was finally written down."

      This is an assumption, especially if God told Adam the creation story then he might have described events that are not in Genesis, such as geological and biological events and considering the whole tree story this contradicts your entire argument.

      "Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

      Verse 1 sums up everything that happened prior to the more detailed account to follow by simply saying God created the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’. The big bang that kicked off the formation of the ‘heavens’ is estimated to have happened roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and the earth first began to form about 4.567 billion years ago. So, beyond the first verse, the creation account begins at least 9 billion years along in the process with both the heavens and the earth already in existence."

      This is so vague that you would need to have faith to even make such a leap, this is an attempt to rationalize a ridiculous notion without evidence to validate this argument.

      " Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

      While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate, the second verse provides just enough detail to locate a starting point in Earth’s history."

      This contradicts your argument since if one were to imagine the creation of anything it would be without form because when one creates figures from clay the clay is formless so the idea of creation is vague... then it goes on to god moving over the surface of the waters but that would be false since at the time the earth was formless it was also extremely hot and had no surface water.... if you knew science and geology you'd know this.

      (you really need a science background to make the argument you are trying to make without looking... to put it as nice as possible... foolish)

      " Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

      Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on."

      This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events by you personally and since you would have to prove the existence of the observer or "creator" of these events you cannot make a claim that it even happened to be observed (faith contradicts science)... Night and Day are also human concepts of time, God never named them man did. Also night and day are defined differently depending on origins of culture, some cultures in ancient times considered a day to be from sunrise to next sunrise (24 hours) and the Jewish one was sunrise to sunset which explains the definition of a day being defined by light in the sky. Night is part of the day or a divider depending on your culture.

      "While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate" I could go on but this statement is one I want to get you with the most because it is an admission that your entire argument is nothing but wishful thinking in an attempt to reconcile religion and science which in every argument you make is not done without making assumptions or leaps of faith.

      So I ask you this, and I don't need to hear a long explanation from you because the longer you have to explain something the more you invalidate your argument since you should have covered all your defenses of it within the argument itself... Do you actually want us of the scientific community or the believers of science who do and do not have a belief in God to take your argument seriously considering the few points I have made? Do you want to convince us or are you trying to convince yourself that Genesis is Scientific in any way, shape, or form? So far you have failed to make a VALID connection between the Bible and any science. Like I said vague and filled with unscientific faith, and assumption not backed by any sort of scientific facts or evidence.... This gives me an idea for a blog and if you desire more you will be pleased to know that Part 2 of "My Atheism" will be partly based on everything that has gone on in your Hub, from the Hub itself to all your statements defending your Hub. If this displeases you then let me know I will base it on something else rather than it being a response type Hub to your Hub, I have other ideas that I figure I should touch on... also inspired by your failed attempt at reconciling Genesis (or any part or all of the Bible) with science.

      Thanks and Have a great day!

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Great reply, Art!

      I just wish he had gained enough insight in his silly ways of arguing to take down the first part of the title or try to substantiate the possibility of the existence of 'a god who created evolution'

      Franto in Toronto

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      artblack01,

      I appreciate you taking a closer look. I'm going to try to keep this as uncluttered as possible and still cover everything. First, the name. Maybe it's a bit misleading, but 'God created Evolution' is the main title of a series of articles I'm doing on the topic.

      It's to marry what are viewed by many as two opposing sides: science and God. I have two so far, both begin with that title, then a subtitle. It's going to take a few articles to get the whole idea across.

      "There is also nothing scientifically accurate about the Biblical creation story, scientific accuracy isn't based on interpretation of vague paragraphs describing the creation in the Bible "

      As I've said countless times, Genesis specifically describes the creation of the things a human would know about in the correct order: the heavens, the earth, the oceans, light, blue sky, land, plantlife on land, life on land through birds, mammals on land, humans.

      This is verifiable by comparing to our modern scientific understanding. Oceans came before what we now understand to be land. And they came before the oxygenated atmosphere. Plantlife of course came after land, but before vertebrates. Not only are each of these things important, and relevant to humans, but each is needed for what's to come next.

      The events described, when you understand it's described from a surface perspective, are actually described in order as they actually happened. It's accurate compared to our modern scientific understanding.

      "This is an assumption, especially if God told Adam the creation story then he might have described events that are not in Genesis, such as geological and biological events and considering the whole tree story this contradicts your entire argument."

      That's why I started off with the word 'presumably'. This was an attempt to give perspective, but in no way changes my claim. And why would God cover anything else? This is everything relevant to humanity. The intent of creation according to the bible was for humans to exist and do their thing. There was no need for those kinds of details. Like I said, it wasn't written for the sole intention of proving itself only to those humans would figure out way down the line how things came together.

      How wasn't important. Everything other than what was described was part of the 'how'. All those geological and biological events not mentioned played a role in the things that were specificallly mentioned being there.

      "This is so vague that you would need to have faith to even make such a leap, this is an attempt to rationalize a ridiculous notion without evidence to validate this argument." (your response to Gen 1:1)

      Have you ever read a book that establishes a setting. That's exactly what Genesis is doing. The description starts in verse 2 by stating where God was (point of view) and the state of the earth during that time (the setting). Before that it simply says, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That bit is simply not the focus.

      "This contradicts your argument since if one were to imagine the creation of anything it would be without form because when one creates figures from clay the clay is formless so the idea of creation is vague... then it goes on to god moving over the surface of the waters but that would be false since at the time the earth was formless it was also extremely hot and had no surface water.... if you knew science and geology you'd know this.

      (you really need a science background to make the argument you are trying to make without looking... to put it as nice as possible... foolish)"

      Do you have a science book? I didn't just make that up. This is well known. Late Hadean eon. I provided links. Did you check out any of the links? Especially before you started commenting on my knowledge of science and geology? That's why I provided links, because way fewer people actually know this stuff than I originally anticipated.

      The oceans formed just after the surface hardened. The rain aided the surface cooling and hardening. The cooler surface aided the condensation of water. This is the single most agreed-upon scenario to explain the earth during that time. The oceans formed first from the first atmosphere. Oceans had to be there before the water cycle and before the oxygenated atmosphere. The oceans formed before the sun could even reach the surface.

      "This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events"

      Again, I'm not just making this up and I provided links. You're partially right here. The earth would not have retained an atmosphere until it reached roughly 40% it's current size. So up until that point, yes, the sun shined on the proto-earth.

      Remember, as I said, verse 2 specifically gives us both the state of the earth as the setting as well as God's point of view. The oceans were there. The atmosphere blocking out the sun actually attributed to the cooling surface temperatures. The outgassing caused by a billion years of matter compacting and heating, trapped in the atmosphere, was significant. Enough water vapor alone to fill the entire planet with oceans was in the atmosphere before the surface cooled enough for it to condense. And that was just the water vapor.

      Again, I'm not making this up. For a long period of time the atmosphere was way too dense, and the sun's output was only 80 to 90% what it is today, sunlight did not get through.

      And yes this is based on observation. Not direct observation, of course, but observation. It's the understanding of knowing what elements were part of the proto-earth and the kinds of gasses that would create based on heat, pressure, etc. It's understanding gravity versus mass to undersand the atmosphere. It's knowing the core of the earth is molten and made of dense materials like iron, while the outer surfaces are lighter, rocky type materials. This is how we know the entire earth was molten very early on, because that best explains how the denser materials ended up at the core.

      Technically, it's still guessing, but a very educated guess. And not my guess. Science people guesses. Just look at the links I provided, or look into late Hadean / early Archean eons yourself. It's all there.

      ""While the original intention of the creation story was obviously not to prove itself accurate or legitimate" I could go on but this statement is one I want to get you with the most because it is an admission that your entire argument is nothing but wishful thinking..."

      No, I'm stating a fact here based on the material. This same statement could apply to nearly any ancient text.

      Again, I'm trying to convey perspective. Too many people just think of the whole bible as one big book written specifically for them. All bound and broken down into chapters and verses. Sometimes it helps to first put things into perspective. It's important to understand what you're reading to the best of your ability. One thing to understand is that while I'm using Genesis 1 to illustrate that it's scientifically accurate, it wasn't originally written to be proof. In other words, the author didn't write it down specifically to address your issues with it thousands of years later.

      "Do you actually want us of the scientific community or the believers of science who do and do not have a belief in God to take your argument seriously considering the few points I have made?"

      Yes, I do want you to take it seriously. You haven't made a good, valid point yet because you don't respect the material enough to give it your full attention.

      First, you have to get passed this idea that you're better than me. Your condescending remarks, coupled with your obvious ignorance of earth's history f

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hrez,

      "Great reply, Art!"

      This is a perfect example illustrating how this is not a 'logical' discussion for you. You have criticized my 'claim' (though not with any specific detail), you've criticized my way of thinking, yet Art gets an 'attaboy'. Did you not catch the glaring errors in his comments on earth's history, or did you not know either?

      Please don't tell me that after 16 posts over a 5 week time span you still don't even understand my claim to that level. How can you possibly criticize it when you don't? Please take the time to understand my claim, and the science it's based on, then let me have it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      artblack01,

      Just realized I cut off the end of my last statement. It should say....

      "Your condescending remarks, coupled with your obvious ignorance of earth's history from a scientific standpoint makes it clear that you're not exactly bringing your 'A' game. Because if you were you first would have informed yourself and verified your statements before making them."

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Why don't you even try to explain where that thing you call god came from and how it went about creating evolution - I'd like to know!

      What ever has been written in ANY books, can only have a human source ... no matter where the inspirations to these stories came from - they obviously can't be based on anything scientific since modern science only developed very recently.

      How much longer are you going to dance around with these jokes pretending it's more than plain BS?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      That's the whole point. Yes, modern science only developed recently, but it shows us what has always been. We're only just now able to see how right whoever wrote Genesis was. Nobody could have seen it before the late 20th century. We simply didn't know enough.

      And you're right that it was written by a human. That's the trick. Either it's a huge coincidence that creation is written in such a way that it matches up with actual events in history, or there's something we don't yet understand in play because it was written 3000 years before anyone human could have known, and that's just not possible.

      How much longer are you going to dance around addressing my claim directly? Have you read it? Have you read my other hub?

      I do explain how God went about creating evolution, by my reckoning. Short answer, it's the antithesis of free will.

      Think of the entirety of life, every individual organism, unwittingly carrying out a will outside of themselves. Like a colony of ants, or an organism made up of a colony of cells. Each individual ant/cell is totally unaware of it's place in the grand scheme of things.

      Life, as a collective whole, driven by a meta-will that is outside of the individual. God's will. All of life doing whatever it takes, growing legs and lungs, teeth and claws, skin and fur, eyes and ears, to adhere to God's command. To come from the sea. To become birds. To become us.

      Then he introduced free will through Adam, and we've been aware of and afraid of death ever since. We've aimed our powerful wills towards things we want for personal gain ever since. We've built civilizations and cars and tanks and bombs to ultimately get what we want. The will is a powerful thing. It creates and it destroys. And it finds ways to adapt to get what it wants.

      Life adapts to be what God wants. That's evolution. That's the explanation behind the fossil record. Evolution is life adhering to God's will.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      You seem to think that my science is wrong somehow, or my understanding of Earth's history is wrong? I have been studying Earth and Science for much longer than you and you are telling me I am wrong somehow???? Wow, that's like a preschooler telling his dad "Santa does too exist!"

      Sorry, but you have demonstrated everything I have said based on your rationalizing everything I argued and then telling me I got it wrong??? WOW! The Audacity of it all! Bold Assumptions of human understanding, bold statements of "observations" that were never made, a complete disregard for the facts and reality.

      Thanks. You've prove me correct about my assertions of your character.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Science is tested and confirmed, your idea is dismissed, not just by us but by the entire scientific community, whether religious or not. Even many of the scientists that ARE religious do not take the Bible as a literal history or even scientifically accurate history of the world. If anything you have said had any scientific basis it would be in a scientific, historical, archeological, anthropological text book and would be well known to myself. It is not.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "You seem to think that my science is wrong somehow, or my understanding of Earth's history is wrong? I have been studying Earth and Science for much longer than you and you are telling me I am wrong somehow???? Wow, that's like a preschooler telling his dad "Santa does too exist!""

      Have I somehow given you the impression I'm a child? Or are you some 50+ year old who's been obsessed with studying the earth and science since adolescence?

      From what I've seen so far, the impression I have of what you know is based in part on comments like these ....

      You - "The major cataclysms that took place before man existed, the two major extinctions of nearly all life on Earth, how the moon was once part of Earth."

      You - "You really don't know your history, the Greeks never thought the world was flat for one...."

      You're statement about the 'two major extinctions' may just be how you quantify 'major' as there were 5 mass extinctions considered by many to be in the major category, but I don't know of anyone who thinks the moon was once part of the earth. As for the other statement, the word 'never', as is often the case, makes that statement wrong.

      Now this is not to say I don't think you're knowledgeable. That's exactly why I'm attempting to engage you in this discussion. You obviously know enough to see what I'm talking about. I've gotten that much.

      Now, regarding this in particular ...

      Me - "Eventually, as the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed, the sun began to peak through to the surface for the first time since there was a surface to shine on. From a surface perspective, where before it was dark all the time, now there were both day and night. This was a significant moment in Earth’s history as the sun has continued to shine on the surface from that first moment on."

      You - "This statement contradicts completely science, since light from the sun existed and fell on earth even before the Earth's dust collected into the sphere that would be considered a planet. And before the Earth had atmosphere it had sun light and When the Atmosphere forming sunlight still shown to the earth because it would have been thin at first and this includes any water that formed while this was going on. To say much else would be assumption based on lack of actual observation of these events by you personally and since you would have to prove the existence of the observer or "creator" of these events you cannot make a claim that it even happened to be observed (faith contradicts science)..."

      Here you said my statement contradicts science completely. That is wrong. My inclusion of 'since there was a surface to shine on' means that does not include proto-earth or anything that came before there was an actual surface. If you remember, it starts with 'in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth', so it's not going to pick up midway through the earth still forming.

      I understand that sunlight was ever-present. The sun is part of the 'heavens', and therefore already created 'in the beginning'. But from the surface sunlight was not always present.

      And this is just as confirmed scientifically as the whole theory regarding how the earth formed, how the solar system formed, the collecting dust, the retention of the first atmosphere, all of it. They're all still theories and they're all just as widely accepted. To dismiss this as 'assumption based on lack of observation', yet include things like 'dust collecting into a sphere' just doesn't make sense as none of it was 'observed'.

      The dense atmosphere and the water vapor played a key role in the hardening of the surface layers. There wasn't a time that there was a surface that there wasn't water either hovering just above or on the surface. It all happened together. Throughout this process, for hundreds of millions of years, there would have been no sunlight.

      If you're as well informed and studied as you claim you should know that. And again, I provided links to back up this and everything else I refer to. I am not disregarding the facts or reality.

      The disconnect here is that you're disregarding my whole position. You've got pre-conceived ideas that are standing in the way of simply seeing what's there. I'm not making crazy bold claims. I'm simply reading what's there. I'm removing pre-conceived ideas I had and reading it for what it is and what it says.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Science is tested and confirmed, your idea is dismissed, not just by us but by the entire scientific community, whether religious or not. Even many of the scientists that ARE religious do not take the Bible as a literal history or even scientifically accurate history of the world. If anything you have said had any scientific basis it would be in a scientific, historical, archeological, anthropological text book and would be well known to myself. It is not."

      My claim is grounded in what's known scientifically. I'm not contradicting what's known. Most don't take early Genesis as literal history because most think Genesis says Adam was the first human. That's what you and I and everyone else have always been told. It doesn't. In fact, it makes much more sense if he's not the first human. It's much less cryptic and fits nicely in human history.

      I actually first posted this depiction of creation, though much more detailed, on my blog site in November of last year. This February I got a small 15 page publication titled 'Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective' published back in 1979 from my grandmother when I saw her for my birthday. She knows I'm all into this, disagrees with most of my claim, and admitted to not understanding a word of this publication she's had for years. She gave it to me because she thought I might find it interesting. I did. At that time I had just published this hub literally days before.

      It was published by a man named Hugh Ross who has a PhD in Astronomy. I've since looked him up and have seen that he is still known today as a 'creationist' who talks about grounding the bible in actual science. However, I don't know anything about him beyond that and this publication of his from 33 years ago.

      In it, he basically details Genesis exactly as I do, with a couple of key differences. The first being the formation of the continents because it's obvious that we did not know nearly as much about tectonic plates as we do now back in 1979, the other being that he considers early humans (homo habilis, erectus, sapien, etc.) as mammals during the first portion of day 6, and Adam as the 'modern human'.

      So, another guy with a PhD in astronomy made nearly identical observations as I did totally independently of me, in some cases word for word like in it's description of the point of view being 'from the surface'. We match up on the oceans, on light breaching the atmosphere and through oxygenation becoming translucent, on the water cycle (which I have since borrowed from), on plant life, the transition from a translucent to transparent atmosphere (he didn't cover the continents moving because, again, that wasn't known at the time), vertebrates on land, evolution through birds, and mammals.

      I've only known about this for a few weeks now, but I wouldn't be surprised if my view of creation isn't shared by way more people than you think. If you have a clear understanding of the eras of earth's history, and you allow yourself to read Genesis for what it actually says, it's plain as day.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Whatever you say. You know everything.

      And if you didn't get it that was sarcasm.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Oh, and a phd in astronomy is qualified to talk about evolution, his credentials at this point I find erroneous... But I am done. You believe what you want, I would rather believe what is fully backed by evidence and not statements of faith by someone with a questionable hearsay education in science.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/My-Atheis...

      Step by step you can add to this if you like with comments, and we can continue this discussion.

      All facts can be looked up by all here so to tell me I don't know science and to give a list of statements I have made that you view as inaccurate or wrong can also be looked up. You have yourself confirmed them in your Hub as true and then turn around and tell me they aren't true.

      Also you need to question the sources, even the ones claiming to be PhD and just because someone has a college education does not make them an expert, but you can give them credit of they can confirm what they say... etc. check out

      http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?ob=4&fe...

      and

      http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks?ob=4...

      This man sites his sources to death and tells you how to find the truth from the BS....

      Enjoyed debating with you, hope we can keep it friendly.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Right on, Art. I read your hub. There's some good discussion worthy stuff there that I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear I have something to say about.

      I'm finally nearing completion on a hub I hope to have published in the next day or two. I'd like to keep my focus there until it's done. I tend to not get nearly as much writing done when I get wrapped up in conversations via comments and forum discussions. Plus, I want to give your hub the attention it deserves.

      I do want to make one thing clear. Hugh Ross, the PhD I referred to, is not my source. And I'm not hanging my hat on his credentials. It more has to do with available information in 1979 versus now. He, being a part of the scientific community was more aware than the average person at the time about the state of scientific knowledge. Nowadays information is much more accessible.

      The key here is that someone came up with nearly identical conclusions as I did 33 years ago totally independently of me. If there's no truth to what I'm saying then that's a gigantic coincidence to say the least considering how 'vague' it all is.

      Also, believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with Potholer54's work. In fact I use a screenshot from one of his videos on my blog where it's illustrating migration paths. Though we disagree on some things, obviously, his videos often have some good information.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      I usually follow, guys like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nie, Edward O. Wilson, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, and Michio Kaku, none of whom have used the Bible as reference to anything nor whom have come to any conclusions other than the same that I have... it's a document of the beliefs of a particular group of people from a region during the bronze age. The people of that time would have been aware or had access of the known conclusions of the Greeks whom were in the same region. So take the knowledge of the Greeks who came up with many sciences still used today, now take some people who don't fully understand the meaning of it and subscribe a God to the unknown of that era. It's the same today, you can give credit to a God for giving us the scientific conclusions we have, write it down and then 2000 years from now people will say that's evidence that God did it and he came up with it first because perhaps after wars and erasures of texts we will not have much else to say it wasn't God. The fact is the Bible and God are man made things. We can come up with some words and then say that God said them... and create a religion around that. That doesn't prove the Bible is accurate or correct, it also doesn't prove that God exists or is responsible for it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "I usually follow, guys like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nie, Edward O. Wilson, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, and Michio Kaku, ... "

      Yeah, me too, in matters regarding physics, astrophysics, biology, astronomy, and general science. Though I prefer Beakman over Bill Nye personally. As I've said before, I don't disagree with them and my claim does not in any way contradict what they say.

      "none of whom have used the Bible as reference to anything nor whom have come to any conclusions other than the same that I have... it's a document of the beliefs of a particular group of people from a region during the bronze age."

      You're right, it's not their field of expertise.

      "The people of that time would have been aware or had access of the known conclusions of the Greeks whom were in the same region. So take the knowledge of the Greeks who came up with many sciences still used today, now take some people who don't fully understand the meaning of it and subscribe a God to the unknown of that era."

      What I'm pointing out to you is that the creation story matches earth's geological/biological/climatological history according to what we've only figured out in the past 100 years in many cases, with much of it only learned in the past decade or so. In other words, the Greeks had no idea either.

      And yes, the Greeks and the Israelites did both live close to one another and did interact. In fact, the Greeks were fascinated by the books of Moses, which is why some of the oldest surviving copies, like the Septuagint, are written in Greek.

      "The fact is the Bible and God are man made things."

      I shouldn't have to say, but God being man-made is by no means a 'fact'.

      "We can come up with some words and then say that God said them... and create a religion around that. That doesn't prove the Bible is accurate or correct, it also doesn't prove that God exists or is responsible for it."

      True, but good luck coming up with something that has such a strong impact on every western civilization it's ever come in contact with. Good luck writing something that continues to mean something to people from every walk of life on a very personal level. And good luck writing something, even with all the borrowed knowledge that you can get your hands on, that correctly describes something not yet known for another 3000 years or so.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      "What I'm pointing out to you is that the creation story matches earth's geological/biological/climatological history according to what we've only figured out in the past 100 years in many cases, with much of it only learned in the past decade or so. In other words, the Greeks had no idea either."

      I see nothing that could bring you to that conclusion, especially when you consider that your bible is a modern interpretation of a translation of an interpretated translation.

      "I shouldn't have to say, but God being man-made is by no means a 'fact'."

      It's not an accepted fact, especially by the religious, but it is a fact.

      "Good luck writing something that continues to mean something to people from every walk of life on a very personal level. And good luck writing something, even with all the borrowed knowledge that you can get your hands on, that correctly describes something not yet known for another 3000 years or so."

      It doesn't describe anything not yet know for 3000 years, as I pointed out the knowledge stated on the bible is incorrect and cannot be compared to science and is so vague you could say it describes anything, as far as it's influence and seeming popularity over western society, if you know your history it wouldn't be something to be proud of considering force and attempted genocide were involved in it's spreading over most of society. The only reason some native Americans are Christian is because they were forced to christianize, many have returned to their cultures religion. Many African Americans never knew what religion their people were a part of because of the slave trade, they were taught nothing else but the Christian god. Some who still had knowledge revolted and a bastardized version of their religion combined with Catholicism aka voodoo was created.... The spread of Christianity is not a pleasant nor honorable achievement. And unlike most other religions, Christians and Muslims look down upon and persecute all people not of their religion... Many do but not to the extent that these two go.

      Remember that if you want to use the bible for reasons of prophesy or accuracy you might want to use the original Hebrew version which is not the same as the one you are using... You must also consider that your argument has not convincing points, other Christians may agree wuth your points but not because they are true but because of faith, not evidence.

      I read your article and I have read the bible, many versions of it as well, and see nothing of knowledge not known at the time it was written nor of anything " scientifically" accurate. You make many assumption and make many excuses and connections for things that are not there. I couldn't make the connections you've made to be scientific nor accurate. Hence why we all appear to be ridiculing you over it. Many people give credit to Darwin for evolution, did you know someone in ancient Greece came up with the idea first? The idea of atheism is also from ancient Greece. Who invented human flight? It wasn't the wright brothers it was Leonardo divinci. His air plane design was tested recently and it flew farther and better than the wright brothers plane.... History is a wonderful thing.

      You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth. Poison cool aide.

      There are over 20 religions in popularity all over the world. All claim their god is real...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "I see nothing that could bring you to that conclusion"

      A direct comparison between actual history and what Genesis 1 says. Nothing more. Each creation specifically named in the same order it actually happened, and each necessary to what came after. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

      "It's not an accepted fact, especially by the religious, but it is a fact."

      I think you and I both know the definition of 'fact' and I think you know without me having to say how your statement is wrong, but I understand what you're implying.

      "It doesn't describe anything not yet know for 3000 years, as I pointed out the knowledge stated on the bible is incorrect and cannot be compared to science"

      I'll get more into this when I address your hub, but most of what you pointed out is resolved by simply acknowledging the point of view established in verse 2. This 'from the surface' perspective is not an assumption I made or something I imagined and inserted to make it work. This was stated specifically.

      "and is so vague you could say it describes anything"

      Again, this doesn't fly. It specifically says what it's describing. There's only one time the oceans formed. They formed before everything else mentioned. For ages sunlight didn't reach the surface. At one point as the oceans were forming it broke through. There's only one time the firmament (blue sky) as we know it today formed, and it happened after the oceans and after light reached the surface. Trying to say this is vague simply doesn't work.

      "as far as it's influence and seeming popularity over western society, if you know your history it wouldn't be something to be proud of considering force and attempted genocide were involved in it's spreading over most of society."

      If you know your history then you'll know that force and genocide are not solely associated with Christians or Muslims. That's a human thing. Humans have used all kinds of things to justify doing what they want to do and taking what they want to take, including the bible. However, many of the things we nowadays take for granted as a civilized society are a direct result of efforts made in the name of Christianity.

      Whatever the case, there's no denying the bible has had a profound influence on humanity.

      "Remember that if you want to use the bible for reasons of prophesy or accuracy you might want to use the original Hebrew version which is not the same as the one you are using"

      I don't use it when writing or talking to people because most people don't read Hebrew. But that doesn't mean I don't refer to it heavily. I do.

      An assumption you seem to be operating under, and that you mentioned in your hub, is that I’m doing this to try to convert the science-minded to Christianity. That is not my purpose. I started this for my own personal understanding.

      I have studied everything from astronomy and geology and biology and genetics and physics to history and pre-history to archaeology and paleontology to mythology (Sumarian/Akkadian/Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc.) to multiple translations of the bible, including the original Hebrew, including literary breakdowns of what each piece of the bible is and where it comes from.

      This has been a lifelong fascination for me. Not just some arbitrary attempt to 'witness' to non-believers by trying to tie in modern science.

      "You must also consider that your argument has not convincing points"

      Again, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I've had this conversation many times over. Though you refuse to see or acknowledge it, Genesis lists 13 specific details in order and 6 major eras in order.

      The only part that you don't agree with is that because you don't believe in a 'supernatural' element, it's impossible from your view for anyone from 3000 years ago to actually get creation right. To you it must be coincidence, or me arbitrarily tying known events to vague text, or anything other than what I'm claiming.

      I get it. I get that you're not just going to read this and totally change your whole world view so you can accept what I'm saying is right. You won't accept it, but you also won't provide anything that rules it out for certain. So this will ultimately just end with you dismissing it as vague text that a crazy believer claims describes creation.

      "Many people give credit to Darwin for evolution, did you know someone in ancient Greece came up with the idea first?"

      Did you know the Sumerians believed life came from the sea long before the Greeks even existed as a civilization?

      "You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth."

      I do. Anyone who spends more than a few days of Hub Pages will need to know that. I always take the human element into consideration. Always.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      ""You must also remember that all things written all things said and all things thought are man made things and that men don't always tell the truth."

      I do. Anyone who spends more than a few days of Hub Pages will need to know that. I always take the human element into consideration. Always."

      Self deception is also involved in this discussion.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      The only thing you have shown is an incredible amount of wishful thinking and a really big stretch in your interpretation but nothing solid.

      This was fun, I look forward to your response to my hub.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Self deception is also involved in this discussion."

      I actually agree with that. Calling the creation account 'vague' is self deception, for example. Just as the whole idea of determining there is no God based simply on the fact that we've determined all of the physical world has detectable natural causes is self deception in that it requires also justifying to oneself that the conscious human mind, the human spirit, laughing/humor, crying, pride, and vengeance all also have natural causal explanations without proof of it. Just the assumption that this all must have developed over many generations of interaction and nothing more. That's self deception.

      "The only thing you have shown is an incredible amount of wishful thinking and a really big stretch in your interpretation but nothing solid."

      Is it a big stretch to say that when it says 'God's spirit was on the surface of the waters' (v2), then right after He says, 'Let there be light' (v3), that He's saying this from a surface perspective?

      Is it a big stretch to say a 'firmament' is the atmosphere, though verse 20 confirms this when it says "fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"?

      Is it a stretch to say land means land? Or that vegetation and trees means plant life? Or that the creation of the animals mirrors how we scientifically categorize all land animals (sauropsids/synapsids) and is listed in the right order, and right between plant life and humans?

      It's a really big stretch to even suggest my ability to associate 13 key events in earth's history with each creation, specifically named, in order, and for each to be dependent on the one before, as nothing but wishful thinking.

      "This was fun, I look forward to your response to my hub."

      I've enjoyed this too. I hope to have my hub completed tonight so I can start addressing your hub tomorrow.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      You simply have no idea what you are dealing with or how to substantiate your claims with any reasonable facts!

      The absurdities you express to try and justify a non-existing, super natural entity you call god, as part of your irrational religious belief system you link to a book full of myths, not only stretches reasonable imagination to it's extreme, it clearly illustrates your inability to understand causality and any form of critical, logical thought as the basis of science!

      Look at your BS here ... "Just as the whole idea of determining there is no God based simply on the fact that we've determined all of the physical world has detectable natural causes is self deception ..."

      How can the obvious evidence that only misguided human minds clinging to god delusion, but ALL of NATURE - not just what your small brain calls the PHYSICAL world, but the entire OBJECTIVE REALITY of NATURE - never, ever demonstrated any requirement for such a man made god in anything nature has ever been or done, be self deception?

      That's why you have no leg to stand on when it comes to making sense ... and don't try your constant BS joke ... "Just because we can't see it, you can't conclude it's not there!"

      If you want to be taken seriously, provide clear evidence that nature can NOT exist or function as well as she does without any help from your god ... or shut up and move on!

      Franto in Toronto

      PS: Post your reply to Art's blog, if you have one that makes sense ...

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/My-Atheis

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Art and f_hruz,

      I didn't finish my hub tonight like I had hoped. I promise, once I get it published I will address your hub, Art.

      I would also like to get your thoughts on this hub I'm working on now, if I ever get it done. That should give you a much clearer understanding of how I can be so certain. This goes well beyond creation.

      f_hruz, I'd like to get your take as well. It gets into the onset of civilization in Mesopotamia, complete with all kinds of evidence that ties that "book full of myths" as you call it to actual human history.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      There is no self deception when it comes to the evidence science has provided, but you tell me is faith not by definition self deception. You can have faith in just about everything true or false, that does not make the thing you have faith in "the truth". Everything I believe in is backed by evidence and I only believe in things that have evidence for their truth and is therefore incapable of deceiving me. Creationism has no evidence what so ever for it being anything but fantasy.

      As far as your other questions, it's all about how you imagine them to be so whatever or however you'd like to see them, then that's fine, but that doesn't make them any less silly or ridiculous.

      I look forward to your hub.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Self deception also includes telling yourself that absolutely everything you believe to be fact is backed up by scientific evidence. If you really thought about it you'd know that simply isn't the case. There's way more you take on faith than you're acknowledging.

      For example, this hub illustrates how you can take the same evidence used to formulate the current scientific view of earth's formation and the evolution of life and use it to support creation according to Genesis. Evolution, for instance, is an unproven theory proposed to explain the evidence found in the fossil record. It's by no means proven, but offers a convincing explanation. Using that same evidence I'm offering an alternate theory, just as unproven, based on the same evidence.

      Both are an attempt to explain the fossil record, it's just that mine suggests God imbued all life with a will to live and procreate and populate the earth and an ultimate result to strive for, the other also suggests the drive to survive and procreate as a motivator, but doesn't offer an explanation as to where that comes from. Only that it's a natural drive that propelled numerous variations, of which the most successful lived to pass on their more beneficial traits.

      Science has not provided the blanket of provable evidence that you're suggesting.. So there's no way everything you believe is backed by evidence confirming it to be fact. You may believe other theories over mine, but they're still theories.

      Until every question is answered and every minute detail known, everyone will have to take something on faith. Faith is not just faith in God. And self deception is not solely the domain of the religious.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      If you only had some grasp of how greatly scientific thoughts, theories, and facts differ in value, substance and importance to understand nature and reality in contrast to your chatty BS story telling and blind faith in totally unscientific religious myth, you could start to see how full you are of crazy irrationality ... but you simply don't have anything of the sort, even close to being able to cope with questions of objectivity or a concrete understanding of reality ....

      Sure, there are more crazy people drawn to religion than to science who do not want to know the difference between fact and fiction ... you are the perfect example of one!

      There are many forms of story telling, many are for children, but irrationality has also many forms ... your's is clearly based on an inflated belief of the value of religious myth versus concrete scientific facts and a grasp of the power and value of reality in general and the evidence in existence globally today.

      Your god delusion has you clinging to nothing of substance, and your views are simply absurd to see evolution as nothing more than a theory ... it's also a FACT by now, just like the fact, that man made god of yours - who you say created evolution - exists only in your head!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Oh! I finally got it! It took you repeating yourself for 20 posts now, but I finally get it! You think I'm an idiot. I'm glad you were so diligent to drill that into my thick head. Now I'll have a whole book of f_hruz comments to read through when I'm feeling down to pick me back up and make me feel better about myself. Thanks.

      "... your's is clearly based on an inflated belief of the value of religious myth versus concrete scientific facts and a grasp of the power and value of reality in general and the evidence in existence globally today."

      Versus concrete scientific facts? I hope you've actually read my hub by now. I note numerous facts that support my claim. I don't ignore or dismiss or argue against scientific facts, I use them.

      "Your god delusion has you clinging to nothing of substance, and your views are simply absurd to see evolution as nothing more than a theory ... it's also a FACT by now, just like the fact, that man made god of yours - who you say created evolution - exists only in your head!"

      This could maybe explain some of our disconnect. You clearly don't have a grasp on what a 'fact' is. That explains a lot. So, based on this, it's obvious that your 'understanding of reality' is based on an irrational fantasy you've constructed for yourself where your particular materialism worldview has been proven.

      If you were to check with one of those people you're always talking about who are capable of scientific thought and logic and reason, you'd find out they agree with me. Evolution is still a theory. The big bang is still a theory. They're theories based on facts that support them, but are not facts themselves.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 5 years ago from New Mexico

      Clearly you are in total denial, headyvonnoggin.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Clear to everyone but me I guess.

      I finally finished my latest hub. It's here ... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Creat...

      I apologize. That took longer than I thought. But now that it's done I intend to finally address your hub, probably in sections. I'll get the first one to you as soon as it's possible.

      I look forward to this and hope to learn something from it. And be sure to let me know your thoughts on my latest. It starts to get more into the details about the dawn of civilization through to the beginning of the bronze age. That seems to be an area you're familiar with and I would be interested to hear what you think.

    • profile image

      John King IV 4 years ago

      I loved your article! Wow!!! It seems you have many, many, critics and dis-believers. Your article mixed traditional ancient creation account of the bible, with modern and "advanced" scientific accounts of the creation or beginnings and evolution of the universe. This is our present age: Violent divorce between the book of the middle ages with the modern literature of today.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate it. You're definitely right about the critics and dis-believers. I find it ironic that this ancient text, arguably the most well known text in human history, can be so obscured by the impressions people have of it that many can't simply examine it without some preconceived view slipping in and clouding their vision. It's become pretty clear to me that Genesis has simply been misunderstood for a very long time. Sooner or later I think more and more people are going to come around to the realization that there's a lot more to Genesis than we thought.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      You said: "According to DNA evidence, both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appear to have evolved from a species known as Homo Heidelbergensis, who also migrated great distances. Neanderthals first showed up in Europe about 400,000 years ago." You actually believe that crap? You think the Homo sapiens & Homo erectus came from the same species, yet we are soooo different? A Bonobo, gorilla or chimp and orangutan is your cousin, as well?

      Anyway, Genesis is like a book of layman terms without a concept of time versus the Scientific babble of today with a wanna-be fetish for exactitude... :D

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Yes, I do. I don't doubt the DNA evidence or the timeline. To me, it's all God's creation. How it works is how He works. He doesn't physically mold things with His hands (with one exception). He spoke it into existence. Life is compelled to do what was commanded of it. Be fruitful, multiply, come forth from the sea, become this and that. Thousands of generations of creatures beginning at the most basic level, progressively becoming what God willed them to become. We share DNA with the animal kingdom. We fit right into the mammal slot, from brain formation to skeletal make-up. That's where we come from. Physically, at least.

      It's our free will that really separates us from the animal kingdom. For thousands of years homo sapiens had much more in common with animals in that they migrated and lived harmoniously with nature. There are cultures still in existence today who live much the same way. They share possessions, they don't separate into classes, they don't treat women as inferior, they don't build cities or start wars, and they're generally not compelled to even wear clothing.

      It's when humans began getting selfish and acting of their own individual will that we stepped away from nature. We began circumventing it. We became creative. We started inventing things. We started claiming the land we lived on as ours. We began to behave outside of instinct. Outside of nature. That's the real difference.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Well, technically we are all atomically connected to the universe, but that doesn't mean that I believe that there was once walking whales or that a Raptor turned into a turkey, for example.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      So, I'm curious, how do you envision it all happening? Do you feel God created each species individually? Formed in the same way Adam was formed? Whenever I see someone making the micro vs.macro evolution argument I always wonder the same thing. If not by that method, how did it happen? Humans I understand because Genesis describes Adam being formed. I personally don't have an issue with humans being tied to the rest of the animal kingdom, but I understand why others don't see it that way. But animals on the other hand, macro-evolution from one species to another, I'm not sure what the issue is. How else would God do it?

      I think it's pretty clear that there were evolutionary changes along the way. DNA alone should close the case in my mind. A good example would be the gradual changes in the skull from synapsid reptiles to proto-mammals to mammals. There's absolutely no explanation scientifically for these changes because there was no way they were advantageous in any form or fashion early on. Like openings in the skull that started as nothing more than a divot for numerous generations and eventually became pathways for nerves and such. Traits specific to mammals and nothing else began to happen in a particular strain of reptiles that led to some of the most significant evolutionary changes to ever happen. Yet nothing about the theory of evolution offers an explanation. We just know it happened.

      In Genesis, the creation of mammals is described as God calling for the Earth to bring forth this and that species after its kind. What other material to use from 'the Earth' than the living organisms, in this case Synapsid reptiles, already roaming the Earth? Again, scientifically, no explanation. But God commanding that it happen would explain this seeming left-turn that this particular branch of reptiles took along the way.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      I suppose the concept of unity that is split and divided amongst endless dividends throughout the universe that is powered and fabricated by the thoughts of creation while feeling and experiencing all facets of a forever-changing material life that spawned from the infinity of imagination by way of divine tentacles that reaches, feels, and creates everything, as it is all about the experience from the inside out?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I can see that, conceptually, but how exactly does that result in physical existence? I get lost at the bit about the 'material life that spawned from the infinity of imagination by way of divine tentacles that ... creates everything'.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      The only way that doesn't result in a physical existence, is if the dead rock religion of nothingness is true... I've never seen a rock talk, have you?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I want to understand this, but I'm apparently not capable. Can you break this concept down for a layman?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      I'm out of time for today, especially for that type of request... However, during the mean time, please try to understand that the mind is a universe in itself, and incorporate that with a proportional understanding of your surroundings with the same infinity concepts of space that exists within your own imagination, and hopefully you can at least get past first base and be rounding second, by the time I return...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      As you were rounding second base, did you not notice that the very same caliber of people that ignore the game while only concentrating on what base you were on, are those very same folks that can't comprehend the parallel between the mind, universe and our existence, much like the same ones who show up for the game and merely concentrate on the concessions and the crowd?

      One must acknowledge the different levels of existence and accept the fact that we are all on our own separate grade levels, but by all means, try to have fun (if possible) during your multiple journeys within the fractals of this awesome reality we call life...

      Without the dogma dung, power of denial, science or historical tales and arguments from people with struggling cognitive functions, think of God Energy as the unity of everything split among endless dividends (both Good & Bad/Yin & Yang); cheers!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      Certainly well written and I understand what you are trying to do. Some of the comments others have made seem hostile and belligerent and that I don't think is warranted. Unfortunately I would have to make to many leaps to see that it's laid out as you say. The language clearly states days as describing a 24 hour period in time. The language also clearly states that birds were made at the same time as sea creatures and that creepy things came much later. The language is also clear about the sun and moon. (16 And God made two great lights) It clearly states that God MADE both the sun and moon at the same time after the earth was created and already had day and night. This language is clear. The language about a day is made clear on 31 when a day is described by an evening and morning and then the sixth day. The concept is good, it's just the language just doesn't support your claims.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all of one consciousness experiencing ourselves subjectively, there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're an imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." - Bill Hicks / Comedian

      I love that line. Reading your comment made me think of it, so I thought I'd share. Let me lay out my baseless abstract concept of existence if I pull back and try to see the "big picture". Maybe you can then tell me how similar/different it is from how you see things.

      An organism is defined as biologically alive when it exhibits all or most of the following functions; homeostasis, metabolism, growth, organization, response to stimuli, adaptation, and reproduction. The phenomena of life is an as of yet undetected/undefined energy that manifests in all levels of living organisms, from humans and animals, to plants, all the way down to single-celled organisms, as biological functions that show a clear drive to survive and thrive.

      Organisms as simple as cells will respond to potentially harmful stimuli by physically retracting from it. Your body will force you to breathe if you try to hold your breath. It'll sneeze, cough, gag, vomit, or do any number of other things to protect itself. These are not willful acts of volition. We don't generally choose to sneeze. If you willfully choose to cut yourself your body will heal the wound, in affect behaving in direct opposition to the willful mind inhabiting that very same body who decided to harm himself. When something is alive every fiber of that organism, down to the cells it is made up of, exhibits a will to live, to eat, to survive, to breed/multiply. While there are numerous different forms of life and species of animal and plant, they all share one universal essence. Life. Without this absolute propulsive tendency, life could never have evolved as it has, as a collective made up of individual organisms unaware of the part they play in the overall process.

      In this I see a kind of unity. A kind of universal energy that manifests itself to differing degrees depending on the level of capability of the physical organism; locomotion, cognitive thought. Vertebrates developed lungs and legs and made their way out of the sea, reptiles developed thick skin and teeth and laid hard coated eggs, mammals developed nurturing instincts and protect/nurse young, humans developed the ability to travel long distances, to sweat, to stand upright, to think, to form tools for hunting.

      I do see a unity in all things in nature. A kind of 'God Energy', as you put it, that governs the behavior of matter in the universe and propels life to be. The laws of nature. But I do not see this as having both good and bad qualities. After all, what really constitutes "good versus bad" in nature? It's in the capability of humans since the creation of Adam to behave outside of, or in opposition to, nature that I see anything even being capable of being "bad". I see existence as matter responding to the laws of nature, or behaving according to God's will absolutely, and the evolution of life as the physical manifestation of the essence of life propelled by God's absolute will' and shaped by the environment it inhabits. The will of all life and existence being of one singular constant source. God.

      With the introduction of Adam came the introduction of individual wills apart from that singular constant source. We are creators, in a sense. Rather than only being able to exist and behave in accordance to God's singular constant will, we are able to create our own behaviors born of our own wills. Numerous differing wills with differing wants and intentions. From the creation of Adam forward there are now things that are part of existence that are not 'of God', but rather are 'of us'. Good and bad. It is this gift, this "free will", that God gave us and wants us to have, that makes us both incredibly creative and incredibly destructive. We're like cells in a body with inherent malignant tendencies. We can and do behave in ways that serve our own selves' desires according to our own wills, which is often in opposition to nature/God. "Evil". I see Adam as the introduction of free will, which is what gives us the capability to create "evil", destructive behavior that is not of God's singular will. The dawn of human selfishness.

      This, to me, is why we must choose of our own free will to acknowledge God as the one true, singular, constant authority. That's how I see it, anyway. Call it a 'wild-ass' guess.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      I appreciate you reading this and giving it such thoughtful consideration. I don't mind the hostile comments so much, other than the fact that they are most often non-constructive and pointless, but they do give me a greater appreciation for civil discussions when they happen.

      I understand how and why you see it as you do, and I don't expect to convince you otherwise. Personally I have no doubt, and that's not just based on my faith, nor is it based solely on the creation account itself. Though it's proven to be a difficult challenge, speaking to both believers and non-believers, I feel compelled to share with others this reconciliation I have found between science and Genesis because it potentially offers insight into who we are and where we come from that transcends mere religious interests. I am not trying to advance some agenda to convince and convert non-believers to Christianity. This was never meant to be anything more than for my own personal understanding. But through this view I kept finding that it repeatedly offered explanations to many of the gaps in our understanding, that we struggle to this day to fill in, that at least in my mind were much more sound logically than many of the differing hypotheses being offered elsewhere. If I'm right then it wouldn't be right to not share it with others. If I'm delusional and completely off-base then I need to know that. Either way I felt it necessary to begin bouncing it off of others.

      I have no doubt because I see what I feel is overwhelming support for this view in how it remains consistent with the bible, known history, and scientific evidence. One answer that even found cohesion with the ancient mythologies of that region, that offered an explanation for the dawning of the first civilizations, and that even suggests a possible meaning behind life in general. This one small alteration to how pre-flood Genesis has always been read ties it all together into one cohesive whole. Either I've reached an unfathomable level of delusion, or I'm actually onto something.

      As for your objections to my view of the creation account, I'd like to offer a few things for you to consider.

      You are right that the language is clear. Though it does not specifically address the sun and moon until verse 16, it is clearly speaking of 'the heavens', light, and day and night, through the first 1/6th of the chapter. And if there's anything that has been clearly understood since the dawn of reason, it's that the sun provides the light of day. The 'heavens' have played a major role in human history. And whenever someone in the ancient texts of these eras refers to the 'heavens', they are speaking of the heavenly bodies (sun/moon/planets/stars) and not the empty space between them. If the first 5 verses didn't clearly speak in this language, day and night and light and the 'heavens', then your argument to me would carry much more weight. It should at the very least be counted as a gigantic coincidence that the first specific mention of the sun/moon/stars, and the further explanation of them being 'placed' in the sky in a particular way to serve particularly stated purposes, comes right between plant life first appearing on land and life 'coming forth' from the sea, which is the same era in Earth's history when the 'heavens' first became visible through the transition from a translucent to a transparent sky, as well as the same era that the entirety of the Earth's continents drifted from beneath the planet to between its poles.

      Personally, I think way too much is made of the 6 day thing on both sides of the proverbial 'aisle'. It is true that the same Hebrew word is used much like we use the word 'day' in English, meaning 24 hours/the light of day/an indeterminate amount of time; era/age. But what I think is more important to keep in mind here, whether you believe there's any validity to the creation account or not, is that this story was something passed along verbally for many generations. The construction of the story in how each section repeats an obvious pattern suggest to me, and many others, that this was most likely a song. If it were then this would greatly increase its chance of being accurately recited with little to no alteration over a significant amount of time. Nobody knows for certain who wrote it or how old it is. All we do know is that this creation account was not always the beginning of the book of Genesis as we know it today, but was rather an independent story that was at some point combined with other collections of stories to form the Genesis we know now.

      This story, whether you believe it to be divinely inspired or a completely fictional fabrication, was clearly something recited to its listeners to explain how existence as they knew it came to be. It explains how, and in what order, God created each thing humans in that age (and in all ages since) were familiar with; the 'heavens', the earth, the air/sky, the ground, the plants and animals, and of course humans. The intended listener had no way of comprehending what amount of time these events took, only that they were broken up by different ages or eras or days. Whatever the case, this was the ancient past. Up until the age of scientific discovery, whether 6 days or 5.54 billion years, how long it took was of little consequence. Just imagine trying to explain to a child now how the earth, the sun, the moon, the sky, the animals, came to be if that child was not familiar with the labels we give the various periods and was not yet able to comprehend what you mean something took so many millions or years. Would you not find yourself speaking about the end (or evening) of one age, like the age of the dinosaurs for instance, and the beginning (or morning) of the following age, or era?

      Basically, I see this more as a literary device and not so much something in which we can now assign modern scientific exactness. To dismiss everything else specifically stated based solely on this method in which the story separates the events would be unfortunate if there is truly as much potential insight to be gained as I believe there is.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      Thanks for taking the time to reply. The reason I enjoy conversing with you is your ability to thoroughly articulate your thoughts.

      Every language has ways of saying "a long time". If they did not have need for such words as billions or million or thousands way back when it's still easy to describe the passage of a long time using other words. "Many many many moons or seasons" is a much better description than a Day. If God gave people this story, I think he would have been able to figure out how to say "a long time". I think it's a little insulting to say God was dumbing it down.

      You have every right to voice your opinion without being insulted, you may convince some believers, but I don't think you will convince any non-believers. But hey, that's not your market. Thanks again for the dialogue, it's great exercise for my dyslexic brain to analyze text for meaning.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate that. I enjoy discussions with you as well. We've discussed multiple topics and you consistently display knowledge of the material and a well-thought perspective no matter what we find ourselves debating. You've mentioned before that you're dyslexic. Honestly I just keep forgetting. I'd never have guessed it otherwise as I'd consider you one of the stronger ones in the forums where comprehending what people write is concerned.

      I would like to clarify I'm not suggesting the creation account is in any way 'dumbed down'. I just simply don't think the timeline was relevant to the intent of the story beyond these events being separated into six different stages.

      Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I'm sure we'll meet again soon to argue about something else we completely disagree on, and I look forward to it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @HeadlyvonNoggin: Ha! Outside of the Yin & Yang concepts, otherworldly additions and genetic experiments, perhaps we do agree on a lot of things, except I'm way more terse, succinct, concise and/or more to the point than your overly elaborate self will ever be... LOL!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @Insane: You're concise? ha

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man: Yes, by definition, as it doesn't take me all day to make my point and I'm usually rather efficient with my dictions unless I'm in a creative ranting mode or feel like babbling aimlessly like many of y'all do in the religious & political forums around here... LOL!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @Insane: To be concise one must be able to state what one thinks in as few words as possible. You use less words than Headly, but your words are abstract to the point of them becoming incomprehensible.

      Example:

      "I suppose the concept of unity that is split and divided amongst endless dividends throughout the universe that is powered and fabricated by the thoughts of creation while feeling and experiencing all facets of a forever-changing material life that spawned from the infinity of imagination by way of divine tentacles that reaches, feels, and creates everything, as it is all about the experience from the inside out?"

      That's a lot of talk, but you've said nothing. To be concise you must cut to the chase.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man: It makes perfect sense to me, as I can't succumb to the ones who can't comprehend simple verbiage about the cosmic design of things... Perhaps I'm just too advanced for my own good, sorry...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      @Insane: Haha... Well, I have to agree that you're much more 'to the point' than I am. I'd call it 'blunt'. I think I've said before that your comments generally look like the first draft of my comments before I rewrite and remove the hostile tone.

      You've mentioned these 'otherworldly' and 'genetic experiment' components before. Is that by any chance based on the theories of Zecharia Sitchin?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      HeadlyvonNoggin: No, I'm not a fan of that character, and it has nothing to do with that.

      However, I'm surprised you don't recognize the harmony in Yin & Yang and the otherworldly additions obviously equal life on other planets and the genetic experiments is something that has been going on for a very long time.

      At any rate, when I get a chance (been busy with other sites lately), I'm thinking about writing about Giant Humanoids that once existed.

      If I do write that Hub soon, feel free to drop by...

      Hell, you can follow me if ya want, as I'm usually stubborn about that and only follow a select few people back, after they fan me, but I'd reciprocate your notion; ha!

      @Rad Man: You want to share a couple cases of beer or something?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @Insane: I don't think you were sorry. Cut to the chase. It's like me talking about Photoshop's masking layers with mentioning that I'm talk about Photoshop.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man: What do you want me to cut? I used to be a butcher and I also know a lot about cutting meat. Why don't you just start a Q & A session with me, right here, if you like, I don't care... I'm not sorry, just sorry for you that you didn't understand what I was conveying in that quoted message you posted...

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @Insane: I'm not sure where you come from, but where I am beer comes in bottle or cans. ;-D

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Rad Man, same here, except I'd buy it by the case or keg, if you were coming over, as we'd all need it, just to put up with you... :D

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      @Insane: Strangely, you're not the first person to tell me that. I'll have to do a little introspection as most of my so called friends are drunk before I even get there. :-(

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man: Well, I see that your Q & A session equals about as much meaning as the Kung Fu Monkey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlWCEOMxxFw

      Give that chimp a beer and visit my Hub about martial arts... LOL!

      Okay, excuse me HeadlyvonNoggin, as I was just adding a little flare into the Genesis mix of crazed creations...

    • profile image

      Rad Man 4 years ago

      Thanks for that. Every member of my family of 5 is at least a black belt, except me. My best defence is to run away.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      @Insane: That kung fu monkey is kickass. If I had a monkey, I wouldn't be the guy that successfully taught it to do something cool. I'd be the guy that got his face ripped off.

      @Rad Man: Most black belts I've seen would only really be able to use their skills if their assailant held a piece of wood up and kept it still. There's an art to running away. Maybe there should be belts for that too.

      If either of you ever make it to Texas, ping me.I'd have a beer with either of you. Rad Man, if that ever happens I'll be sure to spend at least the first half hour or so sober so we can get to the bottom of this 'drinking-required to hang out with you' thing.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      (For some reason HubPages says this was updated 2 days ago, but this thread is over a year old. Oh well, I already wrote it all out, so here you go...)

      Specific Criticisms:

      --9-10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota

      --11-13: Flowering plants, and therefore Fruit, did not appear until the Mesozoic Era.

      --14-19: "'From The Surface' point of view" is a special pleading meant to get around the order in which the text plainly says these things were created.

      500 million years ago, the days were significantly shorter than 24 hours, but that's not especially relevant.

      --20-23: It's really a stretch to even suggest these verses might refer to dinosaurs. Then, In talking about sauropsids and synapsids you skip right over the fact that the bible says BIRDS were created before any terrestrial animal.

      --24-25: You can't say "Knowing that life had already made its way onto land during Day 4," unless you really are disregarding the words of the bible and instead are taking paleontology as true where there's a blatant conflict, as there is here. It doesn't say proto-mammals either, it says CATTLE. And other, nonspecific things, but do we imagine this was ever meant to refer to anything other than the animals the bible writers were aware of in their modern era?

      --26-28: You don't really make much of an effort to reconcile the Genesis account with Hominid evolution. You just kind of quote the bible, then summarize the evolutionary position, and expect the parallel to hold. Leaving aside the fact that these verses indicate that Yahweh is another anthropomorphic immortal with magic powers, just like every other Bronze-Age Near-East pantheon, there's really not much in common. In Genesis, man is created in a day. In reality, humanity evolved over time. I don't see any resemblance between the two narratives other than at Point A there were no humans, and at Point B there were humans.

      --29-31: Skipping over that it plainly says every animal was vegetarian.

      General criticisms: Here, I fixed it for you: "Using a more complete picture of earth's history provided by modern science, it can now be seen that the creation account in the Book of Genesis is not accurate in any sense."

      What you have presented is a list of fanciful interpretations, hand-waving, and sidestepping. Genesis didn't *predict* any scientific discoveries--even if I grant all of the instances you say the bible was accurate, in none of those cases was the bible of any help to the scientists making those discoveries, nor was the bible thought to say anything remotely like you say it does until *after* science presented incontrovertible evidence. Nor is there any consensus among bible believers that it says what you say it does; I know for a fact there are others who'll call you an heretic.

      You accept the state of science as we know it, and that does you much credit--let me not understate that, and my criticisms are not meant to really be all that harsh. You're engaging in a massive effort to reconcile, to your own satisfaction, two things which you believe. In some places, the facts don't agree. In some places, no reconciliation is possible. In some places, you have to make assumptions about the text which are not warranted, and everywhere, you must claim that the text means something other than what it says that is at best only vaguely related.

      Ultimately, trying to retcon Genesis into known geologic history just isn't *helpful.* It never has and never will lead to any new discoveries. The facts on the ground do not support it without some very, very, very loose interpretations, so it really comes down to, why do you believe the bible in the first place, and what does it profit you to try and rescue its account from the mists of mythology?

      Is it not a simpler explanation to acknowledge that its writers knew little of natural history, and that this creation myth was the story they told to explain it? Nothing which did not exist in the Bronze Age is mentioned in Genesis, the origins of what they knew is not described accurately, and you have not made a convincing case to the contrary.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      To summarize, your arguments basically boil down to:

      Premise 1: The Bible is True.

      Premise 2: The Bible says X happened in a day. (Or insert whatever aspect a straight reading of the text would indicate in the absence of other knowledge.)

      Premise 3: The literal interpretation of X has been falsified by scientific discovery.

      Corollary to P3: The Bible does not say X happened in a day. It actually says X happened in the time frame currently known to be the case.

      Conclusion: The Bible is true.

      Premise 1 is assumed at the outset, without justification. An unstated major premise is a major error in and of itself.

      Premise 3 is only possible due to the advancements of science, in which religious content is at best neutral if not actively hostile to progress and discovery.

      Corollary 3 is a Special Pleading argument, another major error of reasoning.

      Literally every assertion for every verse follows this structure. You're arguing back to an assumed conclusion. This is an unsound argument.

      Is there a better article on your hub than this, that I should look at instead?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Yeah, the article itself is 18 months old. The change a couple of days ago was a typo I hadn't noticed previously.

      I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this. Particularly the bit about Ediacara biota, and that the earth's days were not quite 24 hours by Cambrian. Looks like they were closer to 21 hours at the time. Two things I did not know!

      Oh, I know for certain some consider me a heretic. As for predictions, assuming you're referring to my statements about possibly steering investigation, I was referring to the Gen2-11 portion of this and it's correspondence to human history. Here I'm simply re-evaluating creation set against the standard model. The creation account's intention or purpose is not to prove itself valid. It's simply an account, and it's told on a level relevant to humans and speaks of things humans would know. To be clear, finding reconciliation here isn't about convincing anyone it's right. It more has to do with showing you don't have to give up logic and reason to believe in God, and you don't have to dismiss these stories as metaphorical. Basically, they're not as blatantly wrong as some often like to let on.

      Re: Surface POV - This isn't special pleading. This is directly stated in v2. Besides, most know and understand the 'heavens' are the sun, the moon, and the stars, not the space in between, and if there's anything humans have figured out since the dawn of reason it's that the light of day comes from the sun. The day 4 thing is just an easy knit-pick.

      Re: Dinosaurs - I agree it's a stretch. I think I said in the article that I didn't think these were talking about dinosaurs, but that if there were a mention of dinosaurs anywhere in the bible, this is where it would be chronologically. To me the only things specifically talked about are things humans would know., so I doubt that's what it's referring to.

      Re: Birds/Sauropsids/Synapsids - I'm not skipping over it. Reading that to mean there were no terrestrial animals prior more has to do with the traditional interpretation bleeding in or be projected onto what it actually says. From the surface, as v2 specifies, for God to say "Let the waters bring forth.." is pretty clear. Besides, the mere fact that birds are mentioned, which are themselves terrestrial, why would the assumption be everything else here was strictly sea life? "Every living creature that moveth" isn't exactly saying 'fish only'. Waters 'bringing forth' isn't either.

      Re: Flowering/Fruit-bearing plants and Cattle - Keep in mind that a lot of this, like 'grass', 'great whales', and 'cattle' are english words attributed by english translators to hebrew words that didn't mean that specifically. Like the bit about 'great whales' and what the hebrew words actually mean in that context. The same goes for 'grass' which some translations say specifically, but the hebrew does not. But I think the more important thing here again has to do with a human perspective. What exists in the age of humans and known to humans is what's being explained. So in that age chronologically, what eventually became the fruit-bearing trees and such, that's when that began.

      It helps to be aware of how much you're projecting onto it, as that is natural for us to do, especially when reading. Our mind fills in a lot. For example, something that came up briefly during the DD interview is the assumed 'God's eye view' or 'God perspective' that we so often assume while reading this. We're looking for this to be an account from a God, from a 'super-human' perspective using magic and 'miracling' birds out of the water and humans out of dirt. And understandably. But nature reveals how things happen 'naturally'. And it's the 'natural' progression that's really important here. Like I said in another comment, God doesn't need to override His creation. Nature is His design. It's the 'natural tendencies', the ways in which matter and organisms behave, that is where God's design comes into play. Not magic.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Science simply provides context. It's as simple as that. The natural world we study through science today is the same natural world that existed in those stories then. I'm just filling in the details to better understand the backdrop that these stories are told against. 14 specific creations and 6 major eras in earth's history are correctly described in order. It sure would be a shame if Genesis were actually much more on point historically, but was never realized because so many had already made their minds up about it being useless mythology.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      It is always funny when I hear stuff spoken in a scientific exactitude like this happened 500 million years ago and this was like that 47 million years ago while this went extinct 65 million years ago. There is no other way around this display of ignorant pomp, other than simply declaring the glaring idiocies at hand. Dang, even the Coelacanth fish thingy was 'laughing under water' at these fools a long while back. I'd rather make jokes about their 'living fossils' than make fun of their 'walking whales' ... but that's another story.

      Hey, Method Man: Have you checked out the link to the Kung-Fu Monkey on this page? Yeah, Headly, I checked it again just to make sure the video still worked; ha!

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "14 specific creations and 6 major eras in earth's history are correctly described in order. "

      No, they're not, not even a little bit. You're engaging in an epic attempt to say that the text actually means something completely different than what it says. The only way you make it work is by piling on excuses and rearrangements, ignoring inconvenient contradictions and making things up out of whole cloth like this "surface point of view" nonsense. (Honestly, I literally cannot imagine how you get that from the text. Seriously, not even a little bit.)

      It's a good thing you said "finding reconciliation here isn't about convincing anyone it's right," because you've certainly failed to present a sound argument. I'm still waiting for you to point me to any--what article here has your strongest case to make?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Methodskeptic: Within your first paragraph, you just described the speciation concepts from the Theory of Evolution; congrats! LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, I'm pretty sure you already have your mind made up so that no matter how obvious something is you'll just say I'm making things up. Like, for instance, this .... " .... (v2) the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (v3) And God said, “Let there be light,”

      How more obvious could it get than that? Stating it directly isn't enough? Your conclusion is that I'm making it up? You "literally cannot imagine how (I) get that from the text"? First it specifically says where His spirit is, then it tells us what He says from there.

      Try https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/On-The-Ev...

      This one tracks the entirety of homo sapien human history from the beginning of Anatomical Modernity throughout our progression to Behavioral Modernity.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      You two argue all you want; I guess nobody wants to talk to me, how sad... :(

      LOL! Anyway, I hope y'all settle this soon, or else my Hub feed is going to start getting pissed. I tried to get the monkeys involved, but nobody listened. *sigh*

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm sorry IM, I plan on sweeping back through and responding to you. And I plan on reading your latest hub. I promise!!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      It's okay... I was just trying to play the role of an attention-hog, like some of the characters you often meet in the forum. Nobody has to play with me, I was just being silly.

      Oh, as for that Hub, it is nothing that relates to science or religion; it's just a bunch of people claiming to be online publishers on a bogus website. :)

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "First it specifically says where His spirit is, then it tells us what He says from there."

      And from that you extend "from there" to all the other places in the narrative, and you use that literary overreach to make excuses for the fact that the text as written plainly states that night and day existed before the sun and moon, that plants existed before the sun, etc.

      I've repeatedly asked you to point me to your strongest piece so that I'm not dismissive of things I haven't read, I've repeatedly asked you to present something that remotely resembles a sound argument. I'm going to conclude at this point, since you never have, that you have nothing better to go on.

      If you think you have these superior insights into science and the bible, drop me a line when you've revolutionized theology and won your Nobel Prize. Until then, ciao.

      Oh, and Insane: you're a complete moron. Talking to Headlyvonnoggin has been all right, he's a good guy even if his arguments are failures. You are a complete waste of time.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "I've repeatedly asked you to point me to your strongest piece so that I'm not dismissive of things I haven't read, I've repeatedly asked you to present something that remotely resembles a sound argument. I'm going to conclude at this point, since you never have, that you have nothing better to go on."

      ^ It's 4 posts above this one ^

      "And from that you extend "from there" to all the other places in the narrative, and you use that literary overreach to make excuses for the fact that the text as written plainly states that night and day existed before the sun and moon, that plants existed before the sun, etc."

      So it would be more logical to just assume the POV specifically stated changed soon after? Though there's absolutely nothing to even suggest it? It says it at the start and carrying that on through the rest is just illogical? It's the more logical conclusion to assume God must have moved somewhere other than the surface afterward?

      So it is just coincidence then that that one change reconciles the rest of it? Resolves the whole 'day 4' thing? Is it just coincidence that the day between plant life and animal life on land regarding the 'heavens' being placed just so in the sky lines up with both the transition to a transparent atmosphere AND the drifting of the continents back to between the poles?

      "If you think you have these superior insights into science and the bible, drop me a line when you've revolutionized theology and won your Nobel Prize. Until then, ciao."

      They're not superior. They simply consider all the information without excluding things arbitrarily.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Methodskeptic: I'm glad the feeling is mutual. You're the moron talking in circles while having your head wedged deep inside your backside. Your sphincter must really be getting a workout. Oh, and it is fairly obvious who is wasting time. Why don't you just log into this site and write a few hubs to showcase your ignorance, oops, I mean knowledge. By the way, I was just trying to lighten things up between y'alls debate, since it was going nowhere. But alas, you ultimately have the personality of a wet mop.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      The perspective given all through Genesis 1 is "Third Person Omniscient." The POV given in Genesis 1 is from when there is no surface to have a POV from. All throughout, it is simply a narration of events where the narrator has access to unlimited information including the thoughts and words of God. A true surface POV would display *limited* information, and if it said what you say it says it does it would read something like "And God said, let the firmament be cleared, and it was so, and were shown lights in the sky which God had placed there before the first day, the greater light for the day and the lesser light for the night, and the stars as well," or suchlike.

      Or how about some actually recognizable descriptions: "And God said let there be fish in the seas, and let some of the fish have legs instead of fins, and it was so. And God said let these creeping fish that I have made live upon the land, though they return to water to be born, and it was so. And so did god make every beast and creeping thing, shaping one from another and unto the next."

      But it doesn't, and this "POV" doesn't even "reconcile" the rest of it like you say it does, that's just the use to which you're trying to force out of it. "Let there be" are the words of Creation Ex Nihilo all through the text, except for where you need them to be the works of "We're Just Now Seeing It" in order to get around places where the text as written is blatantly inaccurate. Is it just coincidence that it resolves apparent contradiction? No it's not coincidence: nothing surprises me when it comes to the inventiveness of a believer trying to argue back to an assumed conclusion.

      It's obvious you're cherry-picking things which you think you can make fit the narrative. You invoke the Great Oxygen Catastrophe, but exclude the Huronian Glaciation because there's *nothing* in Genesis that accounts for the evidence we have of global glaciations in the distant past.

      "They simply consider all the information without excluding things arbitrarily."

      Science doesn't exclude things arbitrarily. It includes things which are empirically verifiable, have predictive or explanatory power, and have evidence to support them. Things which get excluded are excluded for sound and rational reasons.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about you. And you're not excluding these texts for sound/rational reasons. Your stated reasons are decidedly personal. What I'm presenting has evidence to support it, it's been predictive, and offers explanations. I know and understand what science does and does not include. We covered this already. And I illustrated the limitations based on sound reasoning and thus why alternative approaches are necessary in this regard. Meanwhile, you're simply illustrating further that your self-hogtied approach is working marvelously.

      As for the POV, it specifically says that this is God doing the creating, and specifically says God's spirit 'moved upon the face of the waters'. In the context of the story, God walked and talked with Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel, and Enoch. So, in the context of the story, it's understandable how this kind of information could be known to a human. And it does display *limited* information in that it only describes what would be visible from a human perspective.

      Your statements regarding 'Creation Ex Nihilo' more has to do with your assumptions based on that inaccurate concept of God you hold. The invisible cartoon magician. Unless something just 'miracled' into existence it wasn't God, because, clearly, that's how He works. Or, that's how He would work, if He existed, in your mind.

      The intention of the creation account is not to prove itself legitimate. It's simply a description of how the things humans know came about; the oceans, the air, the 'heavens', the land, the animals, etc. There are, of course, countless things that don't get mentioned. Glaciations, mass extinctions, a first and second atmosphere, etc. You're right in that 31 some odd verses didn't mention everything that happened over the course of 4.54 billion years. It just explains the origin of what exists in the human age that humans would know, and it describes each of them correctly. My mention of the Great Oxydation Catastrophe was to illustrate through evidence how/why we know both the oceans and light were present at this point because both played a significant role in what's described the following 'day', as both are crucial ingredients in aquatic photosynthesis. I'm not cherry-picking. I'm only following what the text says. And the specific things it talks about are not randomly cherry-picked, but are rather the primary changes most relevant to our age.

      Look, I know that in your mind there's no way this could actually be true, so there's no way anything I'm saying, any argument I make, could actually be valid. I get it. But you're now resorting to injecting your own assumptions about what it should say, in your mind, if it were true. You're projecting your own stuff onto it, then saying, "See, it doesn't say what I think it should."

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      I'm saying that it doesn't say what you say it says, that the only way it says that is by wild stretches of imagination which I see no reason to follow you on.

      You keep saying I've "hog-tied" myself but I really don't get what you mean unless you are suggesting that I should start giving consideration to spectral evidence, appeals to ignorance, and reading between the lines of a book which to a first approximation is entirely fictitious and regarding which none of its believers agree anyway? You keep saying your arguments are sound but everything you say is a tissue of fantasies.

      Look: if the bible were true and accurate, then its believers would enjoy a consensus about its context and meaning. The Word of God should produce nothing less.

      If intuition about gods was reliable, then believers would have a consensus about god. Since the myriad god-concepts contradict one another and differ wildly from person to person, at best all one could derive is that it's *almost always wrong.*

      If the bible were of any use in illuminating science, then there would be some useful predictions, verifiable details, something that would be recognizable apart from hindsight and radical departures from the text.

      Even if your entire argument were true on every point, at most you've shown the bible to be uselessly vague and outdated, and that just leaves me really wondering what the point is.

      I rather think the point is to resolve congnitive dissonance in your own mind between the science you know to be true and the holy book you were indoctrinated from a young age to believe is true. Certainty is an emotion of satisfaction, satisfaction which can come from reconciling a troubling mental contradiction. But the emotion of certainty is not truth. Truth is what you can show with facts, with evidence.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Right, the truth is the goal. So, in the case of the origin of the universe, for example, science cannot see beyond the singularity. The only way to know for certain is if we were somehow able to witness another big bang happen, which poses a logistical problem. So, what do we do? Physicists try to arrive at a mathematical model that can then make predictions elsewhere. Most of these models work with the idea of multiple universes. It's a hypothetical model where you then apply the math to see if it works.

      I'm doing something similar, only I'm not that good at math. I see significance in Genesis. So, I apply that hypothesis and test it against what we know. And I found something. A lot of something. So I test it. I have people evaluate it, poke at it, challenge it. And many have. The more it's challenged the more defined it gets. The more I find.

      Basically, you're here now telling me my approach isn't valid based solely on your certainty that there's no legitimacy to the bible. And you're telling me that it doesn't say what I say it says because the way you interpret it is way different. I have found a single story, a single thread, that manages to tell one cohesive tale without conflicting with science, history, or the rest of the bible. Like you said before, there's only one truth. All things would point back to it if it were true. Well, that's what I"m seeing.

      Intuition can be right about God, but we're not solely driven by intuition. First comes the intuition, then we get to thinking. We twist things up and make all kinds of changes along the way. That's what we do. We muck things up. That's what the story is telling. We were given control of our own will and we've been mucking things up ever since. We're learning. That's what this gives if true. Beyond offering explanations for things we haven't yet figured out, it also strongly suggests a plausible meaning of life. A purpose. Who we are, where we come from, why we're here. Free will. To make it possible for us to truly be us.

      So, while I'm fine with you not agreeing with me, I'm going to need something more specific than your interpretation of Genesis being different than mine. Specific reasons why this can't be right. Where I'm wrong. I'm charting roughly 2000 years of history in an age we actually know quite a bit about. I'm claiming a very specific story happened here in an already populated world that had a significant impact. There's plenty that could be picked apart if this were totally off base. If you think of something, please let me know. I'm not looking to make myself feel better about my cognitive dissonance, I'm putting my crazy idea out there to be scrutinized. I'm baring my mind and telling everyone that cares what I believe, what I don't believe, and why. I'm having the conversation that needs to be had and laying my cards out for all to see.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      It's like Aron said at the end of the interview: it would take quite a lot for me to be convinced of some form of Deism. It would take a lot more to convince me that unknowable Deus is "God" in any recognizable sense. It would take a whole lot more than that to get me to consider myself a Christian, and beyond that, it would take so much more for me to consider the Bible reliable.

      So any argument that attempts to show the bible is true is putting the cart before the horse on multiple levels, each more stupendous and unlikely than the last. You have taken it as a given that all of the above is true, and as a result, your entire argument is unsound, irrevocably so.

      Valid arguments flow naturally from their underlying premises, sound arguments have to both be valid and for those premises to be factual. In point of fact, you have as huge of an unstated and unproven major premise as it is possible to have, and you shift the blame onto me for being close-minded? Your argument requires the existence of God as a precondition. Absent that underlying assumption, it totally falls apart.

      As I interpret it--I'm actually trying to restate rather than rebut here--The thrust of your argument is that the bible isn't specific, it isn't complete, it leaves things out, it oversimplifies, it uses inaccurate and imprecise terminology available to the ancient people who wrote it. But despite those shortcomings, it should be considered an accurate *summary* in a few paragraphs couched in the language of myth.

      Even stating it as evenhandedly as I can, it just seems puerile. I really don't see what it adds to our scientific body of knowledge, its just not specific enough to lead to any useful avenues of new research. The specific things you say do correspond to this or that bit of text are so vague as to be recognizable only through 20/20 hindsight; the bible has never been of help to any scientist in making new discoveries or supporting any hypotheses beforehand.

      Even if your argument is 100% true, at best Genesis is a mildly interesting relic. And considering all the HUGE underlying assumptions it asks me to swallow, it's almost impossible for your argument to be anything than a non-starter.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I get what you're saying. But we only have to work with what we have to work with. Whether we like it or not there are components of our existence that are a kind of 'black box' that we're simply unable to peer into. The cause of the universe, for example. Whatever caused that singularity in the first place, by definition, is 'super-natural'. It's beyond the scope of the natural sciences. That question simply cannot be answered in any kind of objectively verifiable way.

      What I'm proposing does, ultimately, require viewing things as if God, and not just a God but a particular personal God, is real. Much in the same way that evaluating a multiverse scenario first requires viewing this hypothetical as real to then test against it. That too is a pretty fantastical explanation, but it's attempting to explain this 'just so' reality we know to be true, which in itself is fantastical. Whatever the explanation, it's going to be, you guessed it, fantastical.

      I get your issue with this. But think about it this way, the belief system of half the world's population is based on the books of Moses and the God it speaks of. Should that not garner at least enough respect for their viewpoint to give it serious consideration before telling half the world, our brothers and sisters in humanity, that they're completely wrong? Should we be so flippant about tossing out nearly 3000 years of history and everything they and their ancestors have to say? Because, while I understand why from your viewpoint there's no reason to pre-suppose such an entity, as I've attempted to illustrate here, there's no factual/verifiable reason that justifies simply dismissing their concept of God either.

      One thing that I could never accept about the way of thinking that you're posing here is that it completely dismisses the hugely significant impact that can clearly be seen in our human history. It just tosses all of that out as irrelevant. For example, as we both know, there are numerous ancient stories that we're aware of. Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian mythology, Greek and Roman mythology, the mythologies of the eastern Europeans (Thor, Odin), Hindu, etc. Stories that in a lot of ways are very similar. Yet the books of Moses stand alone as far as the wide-reaching impact they've had. They fascinated the Greeks, which is why the oldest surviving copies we have are in Greek. And the Romans eventually adopted Christianity as the only legal religion. The books of Moses form the basis for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and Mormonism) and have played a significant role in the entirety of Western history. That's nearly 4 billion people. Does none of this factor into the equation at all? Personally, I have a hard time tossing all of that out when looking for the truth in regards to humanity considering part of the truth is the human mind and human intuition. They're parts of the equation that are difficult to assign values to to properly represent in the equation, but parts that I argue very much deserve to be part of the equation. Part of the truth is our minds, what it is, how it came about, and what it's created. Well those very same human minds are what have gravitated to this throughout the centuries consistently. Does that mean nothing?

      To not accept for yourself is fine. To not consider this a viable option where your own viewpoint is concerned I have no issue. But when you vehemently tell others that their beliefs are childish baseless bedtime stories that only the gullible buy into, well, that's a different story. If it could be objectively proven false, that would be one thing. But it can't.

      This is the point I was trying to make earlier. This deserves at least a certain level of respect because half the population believes it, they frame their life around it. Ultimately we all have to cohabitate on this planet together. For you to basically just look over all we now know like, "Let's see... invisible cartoon magician... invisible cartoon magician... nope, don't see anything." is hugely disrespectful to half the world and the viewpoint they hold because you basically have no respect for it. That would be like me saying, "Let's see... crock-o-duck.... crock-o-duck .... nope, don't see one", and then use that as my reason why I'm not even going to take the time to look at and consider the mound of evidence we have to back up evolution.

      I am proposing a very real God based on how He's described and what we know about the natural world. I look at all the evidence in that context, taking the possibility seriously. If you're going to dismiss this for yourself, again, no issue. But if you're going to go around 'correcting' people who believe this, and there's no objectively verifiable way to do so, shouldn't you at least give it the due consideration it deserves before making that call?

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Your argument puts too much weight on relatively recent human cultural developments and way too little effort on the real roll of nature in the prehistoric development prior to the formation of any mystical human belief systems and religions, etc.

      The due consideration for a better understanding of an objective reality has to rest, not on a desire for easy, wishful answers from outdated human belief systems, no matter how popular they may have been years ago, but from the advances in human thought structures which place all deistic ideas outside the rational realm of reality because there is no evidence at all that natural forces which created our universe, and were instrumental in all stages of cosmic evolution, to the point of life having been formed on earth, long before any human ever lived in a cave, discovered the use of fire and the wheal, required a god or had any deity play any part in it other than as a mythological story created in the minds of some confused humans, no matter how numerous they may have been in the past.

      Nature is supreme! It has quite clearly demonstrated for the longest period of time now, that it has no use for your idea of a super natural god first creating nature so you can play around with words from an old book to make it fit a much more complex reality than you will ever have the ability to fully grasp, because of your constant desire to put the cart before the horse!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @f_hruz: I don't know who you are talking to; oh yeah, yourself. You are quick to claim nature is supreme, as that is a cop-out. Yeah, mother nature would be proud of you, as you speak of nature but forget the mother.

      What cultural development are you sure of? Life has ended and started over on this K-3 planet so many times, that it isn't even funny. I think High School let out a long time ago. I think you need a better understanding of the 'point of singularity' concepts you follow. You know, your religion that states that all matter in the universe equated to a pin dot upon the beginning of the space-time continuum. Perhaps you need to ask your mother nature about the magical primordial soup, as well. I'd love to hear about your big bang theory that spawned from nothing. I'd also enjoy hearing about your speciation concepts from a theory of evolution that doesn't even include the substrate of life. In fact, did you know that certain beetles blow hot vapor out of their bunghole? I suppose they evolved from uh, uh..?

      Yeah, saying nature is supreme is as innocent and clueless as saying the cosmos contains stars. Yep, only you and select few others have unraveled the properties of the universe; what a joke! LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz, good to see you again.

      How can you say I'm putting too much weight on recent human cultural developments and then say a better understanding rests on the very advances in human thought structures that arose in the age I'm speaking of? Actually, I have a two part hub series called 'On the evolution of the human mind and the origin of free will' that I'd very much like to get your input on. In it I trace the physical evolution of the human brain, the mind, and human behavior from anatomical to behavioral modernity. I think it should make clear why I put so much weight on these more recent developments.

      Nature works really well, doesn't it? And all the really convenient details that attributed to you and I being here now having this conversation are truly staggering considering this is the one and only naturally occurring universe we can observe. The 'just so' natural laws and the way matter behaves in the environment they create being 'just so' as to create stars and planetary systems. The 'just so' orbit of our 'just so' planet around our 'just so' sun with our 'just so' rotation/tilt, and our 'just so' moon. The really convenient natural behavioral tendencies of multiple components, like hydrogen cyanide and ammonia creating adenine nucleotides, the 'just right' and abundant clay, the chaining of these nucleotides, the bonding with lipids and the protection their 'natural behaviors' to form spherical structures provided.

      But we can't see beyond this universe, or beyond the big bang, to see how this all came to be. All we do know for sure is that whatever 'caused' the singularity is by definition super-natural. Whatever it is exists apart from and beyond this natural world that we can observe/measure. So, it would seem, nature is not supreme. It's simply a result. But of what? It's quite the elegant chain reaction playing out, isn't it? But because all we can do is speculate as far as what came 'before', we can't exactly say it didn't require a god? Because nature is the result, and we don't know the cause, we can't really say for certain what was required.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM, you and f_hruz both articulate your thoughts and feelings so well. I might just have to sit back and read along.

      Where should I start, hub wise, to get a better sense of your stance on life and reality? Like the bit about life ending and starting over.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      That's not generally something I'd want to do. Getting in long arguments with people about religions and various types of beliefs, is not something I really get off on. Well, I don't mind arguing, it is just that this type of argument has become futile to me. Anyway, that whole "I'm an atheist because nature is supreme" stuff just threw up a flag for me, and I had to make a few quick comments. I also don't respect people that are filled with ignorant ostentations that more or less claim that "they and select few others" have unraveled the properties of eternity and only their science & math heroes/preachers know the true inner-workings of the universe. Sometimes I get hit with so much robotic nonsense, that it makes my inner caveman want to just grab a bunch of extra beer and go to the strip club and pay for some overpriced hooker. Not much debate there, just primitive play... Ha!

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Do you have the ability to grasp that you are no super natural creation and did not emerge from 'nothing' even though you didn't exist less than 100 years ago?

      Can you understand, you came about through a perfectly natural process which evolved, along with all forms of life on earth, and else where, which use reproductive systems to do both, evolve further AND multiply in numbers WITHOUT any divine intervention of ANY kind - not now or ever - because NATURE determines, NOT only how the game is being plaid right NOW, while you try to learn how to think logically, being confused by religious BS, but before even your parents had a brain, and long after we can all grasp the dividing line between religious nonsense and clearly defined reason ...

      The very same analogy holds true for anything NATURE is or does!

      You maybe quite unique, but not the only one, the same is true for our cosmos, and quite likely for our universe ... at least it didn't require any god, just like our own birth obviously didn't ... AND you sure didn't come from 'nothing' ... nor did our universe!

      The word 'nothing' may exist in our language, just like the word 'god' ... but they DON'T exist in NATURE and NOTHING super natural exists inside your body, this solar system, this universe, or beyond ... god and nothing only exist in your own head as an ill defined idea because of your inability to understand that NATURE forms the foundation to our objective reality in all dimensions, here, now and beyond - in all directions ... if some humans like it or not!

      To say "A god must have created nature, because we don't know exactly how our universe first started ... " is about as silly an idea as can be ... that's what religious insanity is all about!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Physically, I totally agree. I agree our physical form evolved just as described. But there's a rather significant change that began roughly 5500 BC in the Ubaid period of Southern Mesopotamia that resulted in a fundamental behavioral change in the humans of that region that came just before a boom in inventions, craftsmanship, the discovery of mathematics and astronomy, and that led right up to the dawn of multiple civilizations, each having their own unique language.

      Before that humans behaved in much the same way the world over, even thousands of years after the discovery of agriculture and the emergence of multiple societies that lasted for hundreds and thousands of years, with some having populations in the tens of thousands at one point.

      Answer me this, do you subscribe to free will or determinism? Because if there is no 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' component of the self, like a soul, then free will isn't actually possible. If our behaviors are solely determined by our physical make-up then everything we do, every choice we make or action we perform, can only really be the product of our chemical/biological make-up simply behaving as it behaves. Because our minds work as they do, remembering past experiences, imagining potential outcomes, weighing risk, benefit, etc, these alternative 'choices' in any given situation only gives the illusion that there was a choice. But, ultimately, matter can only behave as it behaves.

      I agree there's no divine intervention where the natural world is concerned. Nature works just fine on its own since the moment it was first set in motion, by design. Afterall, how impressive of a creation would it be if God constantly had to intercede and override His own creation? We're the unpredictable, volatile element. We're the anomaly in this scenario, because unlike the rest of the natural world, our behavior is not 'natural'. We choose our own choices and actions through reason. We're very much unique in the known universe.

      This is exactly what the bible is describing. The cosmological formation of the universe, the geological formation of the earth, and the biological formation of life, simply became what God willed it to be. All the natural world behaving exactly according to God's will, including the humans at the end. And after all of that God deemed all He made "good". Then comes Adam in chapter 2 who was given one simple rule by this same creator of the universe, but unlike everything else in the natural world Adam was actually capable of behaving contrary to God's will, or of his own will. That's what was significant about Adam. He was the introduction of free will into a world where it didn't exist prior. And it caused a dramatic behavioral change.

      The rest of the bible is God actually having to intercede because, unlike the rest of the natural world, we humans with free will are unruly and constantly breaking His rules. The story of Genesis and beyond perfectly describes what we see in the evidence. This was the age when God had to interact and intercede. This is what the writers are talking about. True, humans in every age since have created all kinds of warped religious ideas around these stories, but that's what we humans do. We muck things up.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      "Answer me this, do you subscribe to free will or determinism? Because if there is no 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' component of the self, like a soul, then free will isn't actually possible. If our behaviors are solely determined by our physical make-up then everything we do, every choice we make or action we perform, can only really be the product of our chemical/biological make-up simply behaving as it behaves. Because our minds work as they do, remembering past experiences, imagining potential outcomes, weighing risk, benefit, etc, these alternative 'choices' in any given situation only gives the illusion that there was a choice. But, ultimately, matter can only behave as it behaves."

      Free will is a necessary illusion. The human mind is an spectacular thing and creating illusions for our own benefit is one of the wondrous thing it does. It can and does also create the illusion of a God, if you allow it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Okay, so, in a callous, indifferent evolutionary process, what makes the illusion necessary? Why do we care whether or not we are in control? What is the inherent need within us that would make it so necessary to be under the illusion that we're in control or that would make us feel better to think there is a god when there isn't?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Most of us are unhappy without control. We still make decisions, only, if all things equal, we would make the same decision every time. All that really matters is that we pass on our genes for evolution to work. An unhappy person is more likely to not find a mate or not even want one. Evolution doesn't care if your deluded or running a simulated God in your head, it just wants strong genetics. The illusion is necessary because it gives us hope and comfort. In other words evolution doesn't care about anything but survival of the fittest and in our case the smartest, so happy, strong deluded people are more likely to procreate, which is all evolution cares about.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Right, that's my question. Evolution doesn't care. We are a product of evolution. Yet we care? Why do we care to the point that we would have to delude ourselves to pacify ourselves to avoid being unhappy or depressed. These too, our emotions, are products of evolution, right? So, why do we care?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      I think I just answered that question.

      Why do you always attribute God to stuff you don't understand?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Why do people attribute a so-called 'singularity' from a damn-near proton-sized particle and call it "natural laws of the universe?" Anybody that has a functioning brain will laugh at the top 3 most asinine theories of the scientific community that deals with creation... LOL! To the poor hateful chap above, several comments up (F_Crud/Cruz/Hruz, whatever), you don't even understand your own religion of nothingness. Perhaps you need to educate your self. Some of y'all have more whacky beliefs than most modern religions of today - and that's sad!

      All I see here is "sky fairy" haters... Some folks base their belief on irrelevant objects of detestation...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad,

      Why do you always attribute what isn't yet understood or explained to being randomly mutated traits? So far, our happiness and/or our need to delude ourselves to retain happiness, and the will to live let's not forget, you attempt to explain away as a purely chemical determination totally outside of our control or power. You seem all too willing to reduce yourself and every other human down to being nothing more than a biological/chemical machine who only passively observes life rather than being willful participants, whether there's actual proof or not. Why is that?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      But it is understood, and you didn't answer my question? And I didn't say our thoughts are outside of the power of our minds. You see, I have striped away the simulation of God and the illusion of free will and I can see reality. We are taught from an early age to no entertain this idea because it's Satan's workings, but it's not as there is no such thing. I suspect you claim it's not understood so you won't have to try to understand it. It's right there in front of you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm not just attributing God to things I don't understand. I'm acknowledging the probability that what we are as humans is more likely to be the product of a deliberate creator than that of a totally random and chaotic process. I'm making a logical assessment.

      I'm not sure you're getting what I'm asking. You're speaking of hope and necessary illusion to give us hope and being unhappy without control. Attributing these characteristics to being the product of random mutation is no different than saying 'God did it'. No actual proof or evidence to back it up, just 'evolution did it'. But what I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't make sense for a biological machine to even need hope, or being unhappy at the thought of not having control, in what you're describing.

      And I didn't say thoughts are outside the power of our minds either. I said they're outside of our willful control, just as you're saying. Even you 'stripping away the simulations and illusions' cannot be your willful choice in what you're describing.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      There is nothing unique about us that would indicate we were created. We have back issues and are susceptible everything other mammals are typically vulnerable to. We are smart and creative as a result of our need to be with our very week slow bodies. We needed to communicate and hunt and the better ones at these things were also the smarter ones. Evolution explains it all with no need for a creator, why would you add one where it's not needed. Whales and dolphins are smart as well, they needed to be to survive. You are not making a logical assessment, you are making a leap of faith. We have mountains of evidence for human evolution and none for a God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      But you're only really arguing with your own assumptions about what would 'indicate we were created'. What are you looking for exactly? Why do you think humans would be completely different from animals? We all evolved from the same thing. We clearly are mammals as well. So why do you think that being true means there's no need for a god?

      "While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process." - http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-god...

      Proving evolution true does nothing to remove God from the equation, and waiting for 'physical' evidence for confirmation before you're willing to 'add' God is futile. That more has to do with a misunderstanding of who/what God is if He exists. We want to establish truth, right? That's the whole point to all of this. Yet right out of the gate you're limiting what you'll accept as 'true' to the purely physical/material. Whatever set this all in motion, the universe/stars/planets, the abiogensis and evolution of life, is something 'supernatural' by definition, because whatever 'caused' it is beyond the singularity, therefore beyond 'natural'. How do you know you're not leaving some pretty significant possibilities completely off the table by deeming anything non-physical inadmissible?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly, I know you are an avid believer in the theory of evolution, but I must ask you this: Why can't you see the bogus claims of speciation via that theory? Life spawns from a substrate that was created, whether I believe it is a joint effort (all as one) within one divinity or by what many religionists think is a big man with a gray beard waving a wand of magic. That last bit is beside the point, but the theory of evolution needs to stand within its own grounds and anybody that uses it for random creation beliefs, is a fool, more or less. The physical growing substrate is created during the same birth of thought...

      Anybody that has the ability to blink their eyes, should know that everything evolves and adapts, but speciation is an entirely different load of steaming dung - which is what most atheists use as a handbook guide to "fill in the gaps." Well, except for stuff like flying squirrels or certain beetles blowing a fire-like substance out of their bunghole, for yet another tiny example.

      I found a cool link that speaks about "debunking evolution," here: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

      Not that it had any influence on me, but it was refreshing to see somebody come out with some nonsense-debunking material that wasn't totally asinine. Any truly intelligent biologist can tell you, that evolution is just a process and doesn't actually create anything. Next up, primordial soup or shall we head right into the big bang of baloney?

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Why don't you ask yourself some significant questions about what nature is and how it all works without displaying any signs of divinity in action?

      Where is the rational utility for ideas like god and soul when there is no evidence they even exist in the real world?

      How do you think natural laws are being maintained without a god having a full time job of checking if nature didn't over look one of the laws on the way?

      Is nature really intelligent or does it only seem to the human mind as we are required to develop and apply it ourselves to understand how nature actually truly functions ?

      What's the problem with seeing nature "by definition" as the all inclusive foundation of an objective reality, which we humans can only ever hope to gain a limited, subjective reflection of without ever grasping the multidimensional aspect of this objective reality in it's totality, as presented to us continuously by nature?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Ha-ha! That reminded me of an image I seen on the web a long while back. It was a picture of two baby twins in the womb of their mother. One of the twins said, "Hey, brother! Do you think there's life after birth? Do you believe in mom?" The other twin said, "Nah, I don't believe these things, I'm an atheist. I mean, have you ever seen mom?" LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      I don't have an issue with 'macro-evolution'. In my mind you need look no further than the proto-species. Like proto-mammals that share both synapsid reptile and mammalian skeletal characteristics. Just in the course of a million years, organisms that mature from birth to breeding age in a year or less would mean a million or more generations. Combine that with improved locomotion leading to more and more lines geographically isolated from one another, after a while the differences could and would be rather significant. But then there's the Cambrian explosion, the rapid emergence of multi-celled organisms and the "relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record". That one, as Darwin himself admitted calling it one of the "main objections" that could be made against what he was proposing, that one's difficult to suss out from a pure adaptation/variation standpoint.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Don't tell me you believe in what they refer to as "walking whales," as well? Yeah, the Cambrian explosion is a popular dispute, but that is just one of the many difficulties this theory has. You have to be a really good storyteller to try and make it work as a complete theory.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      Without God and without a soul we can be nothing more than biological/chemical machines that don't actually have willful control of what we do, which diminishes everything throughout our history to being a causal chain reaction that we were mere passive observers of. I have asked myself those significant questions about what nature is and how it works. And I don't see all that life is as being the result of a callous, indifferent accident. Particularly in those things that make us most human. Like finding things funny, or crying, appreciating beauty, or getting goose bumps listening to a particularly moving piece of music. And what of what's often referred to as the 'human spirit'? That 'spirit' we can muster to rise to an occasion and defy the odds? Maybe I just have a hard time giving up choice to illusion and my 'humanness' to a burp in a causal ripple.

      The laws have no need to be maintained as even time bows to them. Within the dimension of time things change. The Laws don't. Much like God is described. If there is a creator of the universe then they exist apart from it. Including space-time. Just as described, God would be the same in every moment everywhere, just like the laws. So what 'causes' those laws?

      Nature isn't intelligent. Matter and energy simply behave as they do in accordance to the environment the laws create. So much so that simply observing the behavior of matter-energy we can define those 'unseeable' laws with mathematical precision and reconstruct the causal chain right back to that initial instant. The thinking isn't in nature. If anywhere, it's in whatever 'caused' it. The only other explanation, other than intelligence, is the possibility of their being an infinite number of universes, each slightly different, and we being lone observers in all of any existence as those in the one that's 'just right'.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      Regarding 'walking whales', that was a new one for me, so I had to look that one up. I'll definitely have to do some more reading on that one, but I'm fascinated by the claims of finding fossil remains of whales with limbs and their possible tie to hippos. Just the fact that they are warm-blooded and breathe air I accept that they most likely descended from land-dwelling ancestors. Ancestors who most likely would have had limbs at one point. But hey, I'm no expert.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      If you watch some of the walking whale videos, it will be more entertaining. It is much easier to publish nonsense than it is for them to provide videos showing their theories in motion. I've seen some hilarious vids in the past and, of course, there were several parodies mocking their claims, as well. Actually, I don't know which was more funny, the guys saying "look, we found a bump on this skeletal structure; this used to be a walking whale," or the people who made fun of their ancient fossils and so-called "evidence."

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      All forms of life have some degree of intellect and emotions ... humans are just a bit more developed, less reliant on, and less connected to nature, which makes some of us more inventive, rational and less instinctive ...

      To think that nature required some deity to create nature so it can drive evolution to the point where some irrational humans can dream up religious nonsense is pure insanity or requires at least a willful, self inflicted mental defect!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Speaking of defects, it could always be worse: http://thefreaky.net/freaky-people/frog-baby/

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      Think about that... "a willful, self inflicted mental defect". Willful. How do you account for 'willful' anything from your point of view? In what configuration must matter/energy be that it can achieve 'willful' behavior that acts in any way other than how matter/energy normally behaves, by 'nature'?

      You're exactly right that our more developed intellect and emotions, or our more pronounced ego, does in fact make us less connected to nature, including one another and even our own physical bodies. More rational and less instinctive. Like making us more aware of ourselves, or giving us a stronger sense of "I", like ... "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked" Gen3:7

      Considering we all share the same origin as the rest of the animal kingdom, this more enhanced ego had to come about at some point along the way. All the evidence suggests it happened in a very particular time and place. The Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) of southern Mesopotamia. And it demonstrably spread like wildfire from there, bringing with it a fundamental change to how humans live on this planet.

      It actually makes perfect sense. Just as science has made evident, all the matter in this universe behaves in predictable consistent ways. No influence required beyond whatever kicked it all off in the first place. Yet here, on this planet, there came about beings who don't behave according to 'natural instinct', but through reason. That in itself is significant. So, in the context of a creator, while everything else worked just as it should because it doesn't have the willful choice to behave otherwise, the emergence of beings who do make willful choices that determine behavior, that is when an all powerful God would have to get directly involved.

      Gen2-11 lines up both geographically and chronologically with the history of southern Mesopotamia quite well, down to the number of centuries between each event. The story it describes is the creator of the universe getting directly involved with creations of His that did not behave according to His will, but according to their own. Where this lines up in history, it would have been roughly 1000 years or so before writing. So it would make sense that if this were to actually happen that there be numerous ancient texts each describing very similar stories. Faint memories of an ancient age when God actually interacted with humanity to realize a desired end in an environment no longer solely determined by His singular will and everything behaving in accordance, but where beings were capable of behaving of their own volition, requiring God to interact directly to achieve a desired outcome.

      Besides, let's not be so quick to dismiss our Bronze Age ancestors as 'irrational'. These are the same people who gave us mathematics, astronomy, the written language, and civilization, among other things.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I think a lot of folks forget about the seemingly magical connectivity the cosmos has. If you blame everything on robotic, machine-like principles with no thought, then there would literally be talking rocks, but that is not the case. Look around... How many creatures in nature have the ability to destroy this planet besides us? For anyone to say the human race isn't special, is a fool. Hey, being a virus of the planet is still special, so don't waste your time concentrating on the finger that is doing the pointing or else you'll miss the point.

      Everything is atomically connected to the universe, just as we are obviously chemically connected to planet Earth and, unfortunately, most of us seem to be biologically connected to each other. Yeah, I can live without that last part; ha!

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      If you look at the following a bit closer, you should be able to catch your own totally unsubstantiated argument for any god or any other super natural, religious nonsense, providing any good reason to be considered credible ...

      "here, on this planet, there came about beings who don't behave - NOT TOTALLY - according to 'natural instinct', but - ONLY IN PART - through reason. That in itself is significant. - YES, the distinction is VERY IMPORTANT! - So, in the context of a creator, while everything else worked just as it should because it doesn't have the willful choice to behave otherwise, the emergence of beings who do make willful choices - SOME TIMES against their own SELF INTEREST! - that determine behavior, that is when an all powerful God would have to get directly involved."

      ONLY if you have NO understanding of HOW psychology functions without any gods ... and ONLY if other animals had no feelings or a basis for their own social and psychological behavioral development couldn't be so clearly demonstrated as a fact, that ALL life forms are of a perfectly natural origin ... AND no gods are at ALL EVER required - so quit being so insistent on the existence of your theoretically very poorly constructed god, all the time, just because you can look up a quote in your mystical dream book with a clearly absurd foundation!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Yes, I agree with all of that. We are still very much mammals with natural instincts. I'm not speaking in absolutes. I'm acknowledging a significant behavioral change that strongly suggests this is the time/place that our more pronounced modern human ego came about. In fact, the bit about how we sometimes behave contrary to our own self interest is very much significant.

      You're the one that seems to be making such absolute distinctions. In this context we are still very much mammalian, a product of the natural world, so it would make sense that other animals in the animal kingdom would share emotional and even mental similarities. I'm not sure why you think what I'm saying contradicts this. The only issues seems to be your concept of God if He does indeed exist and what would signify God's involvement. Holding a flawed concept of God, and then using that to say, "see, no gods required" would be the equivalent of me dismissing evolution by saying, "see, no crock-o-ducks exist and there are still monkeys". That doesn't mean evolution is false, that just means my grasp of the concept in general is flawed.

      A quote from the movie The Matrix that applies well here ....

      Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

      Thought that's a quote from a fictional character, what he says here rings very true. It's in the Ubaid culture forward when human behavior changed dramatically. While we do still indeed behave like mammals in many ways, especially in regards to sex drive, nurturing behaviors, peeing/pooping, eating, etc., we also have some pretty late developing characteristics that are very much un-mammal. We tend to live in direct contrast to nature. We tend to try to learn nature so we can then bend it to our will, rather than living harmoniously with it. We make materials that don't break down naturally, chemicals that harm the environment. We destroy and dramatically alter the landscape. And we spread out and take way more than we need. Any guesses as to when this all started?

      "... so quit being so insistent on the existence of your theoretically very poorly constructed god, all the time, just because you can look up a quote in your mystical dream book with a clearly absurd foundation!"

      That's just one of many. In that same passage it also talks about the ground being 'cursed', which lines right up with some dramatic climatological shifts in this region where the Sahara transformed back and forth from lush green lands to desert, and it also talks about women being 'under' men as a result, which is an actual characteristic of this behavioral change seen in humanity in this very same region and timeframe. So, maybe you should stop ignoring the facts and the blatantly obvious correlations just because you have some personal hang-ups about the source material it's pulled from.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      I have no desire to try and transform outdated mystical story books into more than they really are ... but you can keep on telling stories, missing constantly the clear line dividing irrational mythology from a rationally defined idea of reality our natural sciences are based on ... if it makes you so fulfilled.

      It simply lacks the bases to a fruitful discussion aimed at concrete discoveries, in my estimation!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Once science wanders outside of its limited domain (as it often does), it is about as clear-cut as a butter knife cutting into a bison.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_ruz,

      I'm not looking for fulfillment, I'm looking for answers. Let's not forget that before all the religious stuff the books of Moses were and are ancient texts of unknown origin that originate in the cradle of civilization. Written in the ages following the birth of civilization. Forget what all the humans throughout the ages have said about it and just look at its historical significance. These are stories that are known by most of the world, yet were written without much in the form of context. Now that we have a much clearer picture of the history of this region, can you not see the value in re-evaluating these texts within the context in which they were written?

      I mean, in those first 11 chapters it clearly describes a monumental development in humanity that we're only in recent years beginning to learn about. We're discovering actual remains of actual cultures described in those ancient stories, like the Hittites. Whether or not you buy into the 'God' aspect of it, this document is significant. It's stories are echoed throughout the region by the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians. The Sumerians were the ones that invented civilization.

      Genesis says there were beings that lived for centuries created right there in that region. And every civilization born of that region say there were numerous gods, male and female, who lived among them, and even bred with them, in their ancient past. Rather than giving credit to their incredibly inventive and world-changing ancestors, the Sumerians instead say it was these gods who gave them the 'gifts of civilization'. Some also spoke of that behavioral change, like the Greeks and the Romans.

      How are you so certain their mythology was totally irrational? The Sumerians, Egyptians, the Indus Valley Culture, the Akkadians, Hittites, Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, they all tell very similar stories and they all encircle the region where it all began, right there were Genesis specifically says these stories took place. So you've got a monumental change in human behavior that can be clearly seen in the evidence, you've got massive advances in technology and craftsmanship, you've got the dawn of multiple civilizations in a short amount of time each with their own unique language, you've got actual climatological happenings, and you've got every civilization from the age their written record begins all talking about numerous gods. And all of this lines right up to Genesis. And I don't mean vaguely. I mean it gives a specific timeline that matches right up with the archaeological record.

      I think there's plenty here for a fruitful discussion aimed at concrete discoveries. Wouldn't it be a shame if this all got overlooked because everyone had already made up their mind about Genesis and its value? Though those conclusions are based more on what humans have made of those texts since, and not the texts themselves. Humans who knew way less about the history of that region than we do now. There's way too much here for it to just be me telling stories.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      I agree. Science teaches us quite a bit, but it seems a lot of people are more than willing to extend science beyond its actual reach to say all that this existence is has already been explained, or eventually will be, by science. Meanwhile, that self-limiting mindset makes them blind to anything that doesn't fit in that box, no matter how obvious it may be. How can anyone expect to learn something new if they think they already know? That's how progress dies.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Again, you are claiming "God done it" to anything you don't understand and then claiming that anyone who says any different is self-limiting, when it's those who claim "God done it" who are limiting there own understanding of science. The proof is that you assume science can't explain everything.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      ::Whatever caused that singularity in the first place, by definition, is 'super-natural'. It's beyond the scope of the natural sciences. That question simply cannot be answered in any kind of objectively verifiable way.::

      Even so, the end result of "we don't know" is "we don't know." It makes no sense to posit an anthropomorphic immortal with magical powers to try and assuage the existential anxiety from a vexing question.

      ::What I'm proposing does, ultimately, require viewing things as if God, and not just a God but a particular personal God, is real. Much in the same way that evaluating a multiverse scenario first requires viewing this hypothetical as real to then test against it.::

      No. No, no, no. No. No, no, no, no, no. The difference is, that the scientists positing multiple universes and M-theory and superstring theory and all other sorts of cutting-edge questions is that they are working hammer and tongs to develop ways to *test* their ideas, and until those tests are devised and conducted they do not assert that their theories are fact. Your statement that hypotheses have to be accepted as real is absolutely, outrageously false. The notion of God is by definition untestable, unverifiable, and non-falsifiable and it is *those* embarrassments which put it outside of scientific consideration.

      ::But think about it this way, the belief system of half the world's population is based on the books of Moses and the God it speaks of. Should that not garner at least enough respect for their viewpoint to give it serious consideration before telling half the world, our brothers and sisters in humanity, that they're completely wrong?::

      Nope. Because according to the Jews, the Christians and Muslims are completely wrong. According to the Muslims, the Jews and Christians are completely wrong. According to the Christians, the Jews and Muslims are completely wrong. According to the Protestants, the Catholics are completely wrong. According to the Baptists, the Methodists are completely wrong. According to the Calvinist Baptists, the Arminian Baptists are completely wrong.

      I've said it before but you don't seem to have gotten it: faith, belief, and intuition are manifestly, obviously, embarrasingly unable to verify what is true from what is false. If this all were true, then the opinions and beliefs of the religious would CONVERGE on a single agreed-upon religion, as opinions which are true are sifted and beliefs which are in error are discarded. But there is no error-detection method, and it is no exaggeration to say that we have instead billions of individual conceptions of god, conceptions which are mutually incompatible in vast numbers. I cannot consider an explanation on which there is no agreement.

      Yet the books of Moses stand alone as far as the wide-reaching impact they've had. They fascinated the Greeks, which is why the oldest surviving copies we have are in Greek. And the Romans eventually adopted Christianity as the only legal religion. The books of Moses form the basis for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and Mormonism) and have played a significant role in the entirety of Western history.

      Think for a moment about the extant manuscripts we have of both the Old and New Testament: they invariably date from the Third Century and later. I.E., we have very little from before Christianity was ascendant. In point of fact, the Greeks were fascinated by all stripes of pagan belief, but what has been *preserved* was preserved by Christians. It's the mother of all selection biases. The Christians were in a position to keep what was important to them, and allow things which they didn't value to be lost to history. Incidentally, several things they conveniently lost were histories written by people alive and in a position to possibly corroborate the events of the gospels, but mysteriously those volumes no longer exist. But that's another debate.

      ::That's nearly 4 billion people. Does none of this factor into the equation at all?::

      Not in the slightest. Argument from Popularity, along with Argument from Ignorance, are both fallacious arguments. They are by definition unsound, so you should stop using them if you're going to assert that you have sound arguments. Yes, it means absolutely nothing, because what people are gravitating to are mutually contradictory and unable to separate truth from fantasy. The most you can say about this tendency toward belief is that it almost always leads you in wrong directions.

      ::But when you vehemently tell others that their beliefs are childish baseless bedtime stories that only the gullible buy into, well, that's a different story. If it could be objectively proven false, that would be one thing. But it can't.::

      Oh, I have little doubt that the account of Genesis 1 is materially false in every particular--it's your argument that's trying to extract it from the ash heap of pagan mythology and construct a convoluted and unconvincing argument as to why it's actually true, even though nothing in it actually says what you insist it says. It says seven days, but we know that's false, so you insist it doesn't mean days. It says plants were created before the sun, but we know that's false, so you insist it doesn't mean that. It says birds were created before beasts, but we know that's false, so you insist it doesn't mean that. It says the sea existed before the land, but we know that's false, so you insist it doesn't mean that.

      If you didn't have this presupposition that the bible must be true, you would not feel the need to waste time retconning it.

      I also didn't say that you had to be gullible to buy into it (although I'll go ahead and agree with that since you brought it up.) I said gullibility--the willingness to assert belief based on insufficient evidence--is a necessary component of salvation, under Christian theology. It is a despicable and revolting proposition.

      ::This deserves at least a certain level of respect because half the population believes it, they frame their life around it.::

      No it doesn't. It deserves respect proportional to how much it corresponds with reality and how useful it is in providing explanations, so, not much and not at all, respectively. I respect people, but beliefs are fair game for criticism in any language one may choose..

      ::I am proposing a very real God based on how He's described and what we know about the natural world. I look at all the evidence in that context, taking the possibility seriously.::

      No, you believe in a god, and you look at the natural world and all the evidence in light of that assumed conclusion. Any "correction" I would offer is only that you have not met the burden of proof for your assertions, and so I am not buying what you're selling. I have given it the consideration it deserves: what you have laid out to support your claims does not support it, in many cases what you have laid out to support your claims is materially false, you willfully indulge in logical fallacies even after having them pointed out to you, so I judge your claim to be likely false as well.

      The burden of proof is on you, as it is on the prosecution in a court of law, to demonstrate your case. It's not on me to *prove* you wrong, any more than the defense has to "prove" innocence. I, as a juror, find the Book of Genesis Not Guilty of accurately representing natural history. Given the prosecution's manifest biases and gross procedural errors, I rather strongly suspect the Book of Genesis is materially innocent of any accuracy, but that's my opinion based on what you've presented.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Let's retain some perspective here. Positing a grand multi-verse scenario is just as fantastical as anything else. The answer is going to be fantastical simply because the result, existence in and of itself, is fantastical. The universe really does exist, life really does exist, and intelligence and reason really did come about within it. Whether deliberately via a creator or from nothing, whether one universe or many, every scenario is an incredibly improbable possibility. Positing an intelligent/deliberate creator is not as out of bounds as you're trying to make it seem, specifically because part of the result IS intelligent beings. If we're to speculate about other universes, why not other intelligent beings, both of which we know to be possible because they exist here? The whole reason for these multi-verse scenarios is to try to explain the 'finely tuned' nature of this one and only observable universe. An intelligent creator is a viable alternative because the universe indeed is so finely tuned.

      Besides, even if any one of the many multi-verse hypotheses were to test true, you've still got the issue we've got explaining this one universe. Because each universe in that scenario still requires a singularity and for laws like Gravity to exist. While a multi-verse scenario may offer, beyond the finely tuned bit, an explanation as to where the singularity for this one universe came from, we still have the question of when and how the whole ball of wax was set into motion to begin with. A multi-verse scenario doesn't put that particular bit of the conundrum to rest.

      "Your statement that hypotheses have to be accepted as real is absolutely, outrageously false."

      I never said to assert what I'm positing as fact. What I"m saying is that just as those devising tests to attempt to confirm various multi-verse models, it has to be treated as a real, viable possibility. My hypothesis is testable as well. it's just difficult to see how if you're unwilling to treat it as a viable possibility right from the beginning.

      "faith, belief, and intuition are manifestly, obviously, embarrasingly unable to verify what is true from what is false."

      Right, yet you're using the lack of conformity as a reason for dismissal. I've stated before that I'm using nothing more than the texts themselves and the natural world. The human element, human interpretation in every age since, is what I remove. You seem to be using it to falsify.

      Personally, I give credence to human intuition simply because it has played a significant role in bringing us to where we are now. But I'm not using any of that to prove or disprove anything I'm putting forward. You, however, are using that very same inconsistency, an inconsistency that's expected according to my hypothesis I might add, as your reason for dismissing the validity of the text that 99.99% of those people have no more knowledge of than anybody else. So, you're basically using it in the very same way I am, just reaching the opposite result. While I find your complete dismissal of human intuition as short-sited and unwise, as intuition is also a product of evolution and of the mind and something we're still striving to 'figure out', ultimately it's not worth arguing. Not for this discussion.

      Regarding the burden of proof... I'm just trying to verify a hypothesis that the evidence fully supports. I'm not looking to 'prove' anything, just as the theory of evolution or the big bang doesn't 'prove' anything. They do, however, offer a viable explanation that lines up with the evidence. That's what I'm doing. I'm offering a viable explanation that lines up with what we know. And it does line up. Nothing in the evidence, at least that I've found thus far, contradicts it. It, in fact, offers explanations for things we still don't understand.

      To be clear, what I'm speaking of is in regards to Genesis 2-11, not creation specifically. I think it's pretty clear that what I'm pointing out regarding creation is much more on point than you'd like to admit or are willing to accept, but the crux of this is in how Genesis 2-11 line up with southern Mesopotamian history from roughly 5500-3500BC. Unlike the creation account, this portion gives a very specific geographic location and a very specific timeline, specifically numbering the years.

      Where the creation account is concerned, you're clearly using a very surface-level understanding of the english translated version. There's good reason the Jewish people who read this text in its native dialect see no conflict with the 4.54 billion year history of the earth. That alone should tell you something.

      "If you didn't have this presupposition that the bible must be true, you would not feel the need to waste time retconning it."

      If you didn't have this presupposition that the bible is false then you wouldn't be so flippantly dismissing something that is obviously much more on point than you're willing to acknowledge. At this point I'd be satisfied if you could actually repeat back to me the hypothesis I'm putting forward that you claim you've given due consideration.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      No, I'm just not dismissing God as a viable possibility. I'm not limiting where you and others are. You're taking a scientific mindset, which is totally necessary where practicing science is concerned, and you're applying it to trying to understand all of existence. You and I have talked enough, do you really think my mindset has hampered my ability to understand science? It's not that I assume science can't explain everything, it's that I recognize it currently doesn't and why. And I don't put my faith in science as eventually answering all questions regarding this existence. If it does it'll be long after you and I are gone, and that's just not acceptable to me to just wait and let everyone else figure it out at some point way later. I'm looking for explanations that work for me now with the information we have.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      And your attributing everything you don't understand to God. Not long ago the greatest minds we ever had thought the solar system couldn't be explained with math. Then along came someone who was able to explain the solar system with math and they no longer attributed the working of the solar system to be beyond our knowledge. It's not me who is limited, it's you because you are assuming something are unanswerable because of God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That's not what I said at all. Unanswered currently and unanswerable are two totally different things. Ultimately, since you and I most likely won't be around when and if these questions are answered, it all comes down to where you place your faith. I have plenty of reason to think there's more to existence than the purely physical, which is all science can account for. So I don't limit the possibilities.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      At least Rad Man is cool; he's just mad because people have to get drunk just to hang out with him.

      Personally, I couldn't be an atheist if I tried, then again, I have a much better memory than most others... Surely I'm joking, right? LOL!

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      ::Let's retain some perspective here. Positing a grand multi-verse scenario is just as fantastical as anything else. The answer is going to be fantastical simply because the result, existence in and of itself, is fantastical. The universe really does exist, life really does exist, and intelligence and reason really did come about within it. Whether deliberately via a creator or from nothing, whether one universe or many, every scenario is an incredibly improbable possibility. Positing an intelligent/deliberate creator is not as out of bounds as you're trying to make it seem, specifically because part of the result IS intelligent beings. If we're to speculate about other universes, why not other intelligent beings, both of which we know to be possible because they exist here? The whole reason for these multi-verse scenarios is to try to explain the 'finely tuned' nature of this one and only observable universe. An intelligent creator is a viable alternative because the universe indeed is so finely tuned.::

      What you're talking about, and what I've been trying to convey, is something in Bayesian reasoning called Prior Probability. When trying to explain a phenomenon, the cause one considers is based on past experience and known examples. Take for example, the origin of life, which is rightly an awesome if not fantastical subject. (Fantastical is tantamount to "fictional," cf. "fantasy") The prior probability of chemistry is rather high: we know that simple amino acids occur naturally, we know that polymerization occurs naturally, Autocatalysis occurs naturally, fatty acids behave in a certain way.

      On the other hand, the prior probability of a bodiless anthropomorphic immortal with magic powers is essentially zero: we have no definitive proof that any such being exists or ever has existed, so even considering the possibility smuggles in unwarranted assumptions, effectively the most stupendous unwarranted assumption it is possible to conceive, if you believe Anselm. The prior probability of "God" being an explanation is as near zero as makes no odds.

      All intelligent beings known to exist are human beings: Anthropoid Primate Eutherian Mammal Chordate Animals. The prior probability for an intelligent being which is not a mammal is very low. All known minds have brains; the prior probability for a mind without a brain is very low, because we have no examples of others. The prior probability of an immaterial being is so low that even the two words together are nearly an oxymoron.

      When examining an extraordinary event, the prior probability of a miracle is very low, because we have no verifiable examples of miracles in our experience. Is it possible? Conceivably. Does it warrant serious consideration? Not really.

      And that's really what you're talking about: that the accuracy of Genesis 1 (don't change the subject to Genesis 2-11, you made claims about Genesis 1 and that's the matter at hand) is miraculous: it is supposedly accurate to a degree impossible without divine revelation, and depicts events no writer could have witnessed or obtained information about. Is this an inaccurate restatement of your claim?

      Considering that your thesis requires you to twist the text around like a dizzy snake, the accusation that I'm using a very surface level understanding is risible. It's not surface level so much as you're warping it and I'm straightening it.

      I'm aware that the word translated "days" doesn't necessarily mean days, but until we discovered the true age of the earth, nobody troubled themselves to posit that it meant anything else. Until we discovered lots of things, nobody troubled themselves to radically reinterpret the text from the fact that science conclusively falsifies Genesis 1. Your entire thesis is that the falsification is premature, but your explanations toward that end don't hold water. The falsehood of Genesis is not a presupposition, it's based on the known facts of natural history, and Genesis is clearly a prescientific Bronze Age myth that only holds to your thesis by some truly stunning leaps of logic, by calling out the fire department to take any ambiguities in the text or original language and pry them open with hydraulic rescue tools. And you have the chutzpah to call this interpretation "obviously on point."

      You cheerfully ignore its failure to mention the Late Heavy Bombardment, you assert that the atmosphere became transparent at a time convenient for you even though the links you cite don't support that interpretation, you blithely skip over the Huronian Glaciation, you pretend that dry land didn't show up until the third day even though it had been there literally all along, you basically lie about there being any mention of the Cambrian Explosion, (the text goes directly from the creation of land to the creation of plants), you contradict the text on the fourth day that says that god made the sun, moon, and stars and that he then put them where he wanted. You pretend that the given order of animal creation, of in the sea, then the birds, then land animals the next day doesn't blatantly contradict known evolutionary history, and then you pretend that an evolutionary history that admits no clear distinction between humans and other apes is somehow consistent with humans made in the image of god from the moment of their first creation.

      Every step requires such agonizing doublethink that you expect the reader to simply adopt without question. You lay out the bible verses and then recite some chosen nugget of natural history, as though that were enough to establish commonality. You don't get to hold forth about the divergence between synapsids and diapsids when the bible text clearly says animals were created according "after their kind," which is not a concept that allows for evolution.

      I'm sorry, I really am, but I've read it several times and it's just baffling how you can make these assertions. Your arguments do not make sense at any point.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "All known minds have brains"

      Just think about that for a minute. How do we know about the minds we know about?

      "the prior probability for a mind without a brain is very low, because we have no examples of others"

      This right here is exactly what I'm talking about. Come on, you're smarter than this. You're obviously an intelligent guy, yet you use this kind of reasoning. Do you honestly not see a problem with this logic?

      But beside that point, let's take this example and play it your way... "the cause one considers is based on past experience and known examples". The cause of the mind in this example, based on past experience and known examples, is the brain. The brain is made of matter; neurons, chemicals, proteins, etc... The only way we even know there is a mental experience going on in that lump of matter is because we each experience it. By all outward appearances it's just firing neurons, blood carrying oxygen, etc. The blood and oxygen is obviously for biological purposes, but the actual thinking is carried out through electric pulses. It turns out those electric pulses carry information, physical light waves and sound waves and such, information that's then stored and recalled. Much like something we intelligent people have since done ourselves. So, given our brains are made of the same stuff as everything else, it operates on natural phenomena, and given we can't 'observe' the mental experience, who's to say there's not more going on that we don't know about because we don't experience it? What are the odds there's not more going on than just that?

      Regarding the invisible magician.. Again, think about it. You seem like a logical, critical thinking guy with a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals of science and cosmology, so ... do your statements really make any sense? "we have no definitive proof that any such being exists or ever has existed", "The prior probability of an immaterial being is so low that even the two words together are nearly an oxymoron", "When examining an extraordinary event, the prior probability of a miracle is very low, because we have no verifiable examples of miracles in our experience".

      How do we determine things via science? We establish facts via evidence, then theorize how that evidence came to be the way it is given known examples and prior experience, then test where possible, basically. Physical, material evidence. If we're talking about a God who created, or caused, the universe, why are you looking within that universe for definitive (physical/material) proof of the existence of a "bodiless anthropomorphic immortal with magic powers"? Wouldn't this being have to be a product of the universe to be detected this way? You're basically looking for a bodiless guy floating around in space? You're right, there's no definitive proof of that. You then refer to God as 'immaterial' in the very next paragraph, as in not-material. See the problem? And if you're looking for a 'miracle', or an 'extraordinary event', what would that evidence look like? How would you know? A miracle, by definition, is something supernatural. So what would the natural evidence look like that would verify an example of a supernatural event?

      I get what you're saying. You think there's no reason to posit a being like God, and you site these reasons. You say the only intelligent beings known are humans and that we have no other examples of intelligent minds other than our own. We can't 'see' a mind, so I guess we'd have to look for signs of intelligence in some other way. We didn't create our own intelligence, of course, it just happened. Biological material developed to store and pass on genetic information, then evolved to use physical/biological matter and natural phenomena to capture, store, and recall physical information, and then we evolved and gained intelligence and now we continue on the tradition to capture, store, and pass on information. All of this made possible through naturally occurring processes built over time by unintelligent stuff just behaving naturally and interacting with one another. So, yeah, there's no reason to posit there's any intelligence anywhere beyond us. No reason at all.

      Then, on top of all of that, you place the final touch... "any argument that attempts to show the bible is true is putting the cart before the horse". And there you have it. Hogtied. You've 'reasoned' yourself blind. You've got yourself a nice brick wall to hide behind as you lob your criticisms at believers, but the bricks are brittle and the wall poorly built. Well, color me "deeply unimpressed".

      "don't change the subject to Genesis 2-11, you made claims about Genesis 1 and that's the matter at hand"

      If we're talking about what I'm proposing, the accuracy of Genesis, then we're talking about 1-11. If you're going to take on my hypothesis, then take it on in its entirety. You've read, what, two hubs?

      Regarding just creation... "the accusation that I'm using a very surface level understanding is risible. It's not surface level so much as you're warping it and I'm straightening it."

      For someone who's all about the facts and whatnot, considering your criticisms of my interpretation of the text, and your 'straightening' of it, surely you've studied it in it's original language? Surely you've given due consideration to the source material, it's history, how it came to be in the form it is today up on the shelf? English translators, making that clunky transition from hebrew to english, making some assumptions along the way where necessary based on what they think it says. Considering my accusation is 'risible', surely this means you've done more than just read it a few times in english. Right? Well then you should be able to tell me more specifically how I'm twisting things around.

      I'd like to think that, but your statements make it clear that you're arguing against my claim with both some rather serious errors both with Genesis and with your information where earth's history is concerned. This is where I will now provide specific examples so that you can address what I'm saying specifically. Something I've asked of you many times.

      "you assert that the atmosphere became transparent at a time convenient for you",

      "you pretend that dry land didn't show up until the third day even though it had been there literally all along"

      First, the continents as we know them now have not been here all along.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_earth#Firs...

      Second, though oxygen-producing cyanobacteria formed in the oceans around 3.5 bya, by the Calymmian Period (1600 to 1400 mya) the atmosphere was still only 10% oxygen as the ozone layer finally begins to form. A crucial development for life to actually live on land. Before plant life on land the atmosphere was predominately carbon dioxide, which of course would cause much warmer 'green-house' conditions. Air temperature and pressure variation and a very humid condition would have prevented any break in the cloud cover. Add to that lots of volcanic activity in that age and you've got yourself a translucent atmosphere. I'm not pretending. It's physics.

      Again, it gives a point of view right from the start. That resolves everything else. It doesn't talk about what's going on beneath the sea, like the cambrian explosion. Just what was visible on land. Like 'the sea bringing forth that which hath life'. Late heavy bombardment, pre-oceans. The starting point in verse 2 is clearly after. Plus, that would kind of fall in the jurisdiction of the formation of the earth, like verse 1 says.

      You can choose to ignore this if you like. The real crux, as I said, is 2-11, simply because it's much more specific, and is dealing with much more recent history. If you're so certain there's no legitimacy to the bible then you should have no problem including this. When I speak of my claim, this is it. Chapters 1-11.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM, I like Rad too, and I've never even been drunk while talking to him.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Here is an example of an educated guy asking some very interesting questions about how to credibly extend the traditional norms of conventional science without going off the deep end into unfounded mysticism and irrational religiosity ...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      There you go, f_hruz! That's more like it! I have to say I'm kind of surprised that this link would come from you. You're usually one of the ones trying to shame me back into the box of stagnant thought. Maybe there's hope for you yet!

      I'm sure that because of the things I'm speaking of (God of the bible, spirituality), you assume that I must be stuck in a 'believer's mindset' where I can't critically analyze these things because I'm stifled by my faith. When in actuality I have questioned those traditional ideas. Then I asked questions of the godless scenario, the causal universe as we understand it today, just as this guy has, and have found things lacking there as well. Now I've reached some of my own conclusions using all the information available to me and this is where I've arrived thus far. A conclusion where that very same God actually fits really well.

      So how does what I'm saying lack credibility? Think about it this way. Think about our minds and how little we understand about it to this day. It's conscious. It stores and can recall memories of past experiences and past information gained through the senses. It can imagine and conceptualize. It wonders and analyzes. It can assess and reason and it's creative. It can experience emotion and pride and shame. It makes us who/what we are. Yet all these characteristics and capabilities came about in us naturally and seem to be products of natural elements and chemicals that exist elsewhere in the universe. So what makes us so certain that the only conscious intelligence, the only thing capable of reason and imagination and creativity and emotion in all the universe (or beyond), is the mind we experience? What are the odds that it's the only thing? It is only because we experience the mind first hand that we even know all of that is going on in there in the first place. By all outward appearances it's nothing more than chemical happenings and pulses of electricity. So what all else could really be going on out there that we're totally unaware of because we don't experience it first hand?

      This is the point I'm constantly trying to get across. When you place definite answers on things we don't yet definitely know, like saying with all certainty what nature does and does not require to work, you're stifling progress by limiting the possibilities.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      ::This right here is exactly what I'm talking about. Come on, you're smarter than this. You're obviously an intelligent guy, yet you use this kind of reasoning. Do you honestly not see a problem with this logic?::

      No, I don't. There's more to Bayes' Theorum than just prior probability, of course, but it's too big a subject to cover here. My point is that if you want me to consider a mind without a brain, a intelligent being that isn't a human, a "being" that isn't "material," then you would do very well to establish beforehand that such things DO exist. A quote jumped out at me from another podcast I listened to this week: "If Bigfoot were known to be a real animal, an investigation into the authenticity of the film* would make sense. If Bigfoot were known to NOT exist, then it would be logically moot to study the film at all; it MUST be a fake."

      If your argument was that the first civilization resulted from alien intervention, do you not see how your argument would be strengthened by a mutual agreement by both sides that aliens do exist? Then you could move on to whether aliens actually were involved in this individual case. Really, I'm hogtied because I want to know that dragons exist before I'll consider whether you have a dragon in your garage without skepticism? The mind boggles.

      I'm not claiming that God is known to not exist, but you must address this larger issue before you can posit divine intervention as a cause of anything, otherwise your explanation takes on the burden of proof to overcome the implausibility of of the cause itself. The degree to which your explanations fail to do so cannot possibly be overstated.

      ::So what would the natural evidence look like that would verify an example of a supernatural event?::

      You seem to advocate for a god whose body of evidence cannot be distinguished from a god that doesn't exist, but some extradordinary event which can be reliably confirmed to have ever happened in the first place would be a start. Your holy book is replete with dead people coming back to life, pillars of fire and smoke, rains of brimstone, people turning into salt, talking snakes and donkeys, water into wine, seas parting, divine plagues, and GOD SPEAKING TO PEOPLE DIRECTLY when he's not murdering them by the thousands. Any such occurrence taking place under circumstances that can actually be verified and studied would be grand, then we can talk about what would serve as an explanation. Like I said waaaaay above, it should be a trivial proposition for an omnipotent being to demonstrate its existence in even a limited degree.

      Forgive me for citing mainstream theology, but Christianity has always posited a God who is both outside the universe but also immanent within it. He takes actions, causes events, occasionally causes an eclipse here and there. These events should be observable. I call him an anthropomorphic immortal with magic powers because the god of the old testament is indistinguishable from any other bronze-age god, like the gods of Olympus or the animal-headed Egyptian deities. Because we do know to all intents and purposes that there's no such thing as anthropomorphic immortals with magic powers, I see no reason to grant him the dignitas of the rarified, ineffable conception he has been reduced to in recent centuries, and all arguments to the contrary only serve to cover up the fact that it's a pre-modern belief that is being clung to far longer than it deserves.

      ::Then, on top of all of that, you place the final touch... "any argument that attempts to show the bible is true is putting the cart before the horse". And there you have it. Hogtied. You've 'reasoned' yourself blind. You've got yourself a nice brick wall to hide behind::

      Your attempts to belittle me notwithstanding, it goes back to what I talked about above: I understand how to evaluate the burden of proof and I understand that you can't logically make an argument that relies on an assumed conclusion. Do you really not understand what Begging the Question is? I would *need* to have my brain tied in knots in order to accept the crackpot logic you've presented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

      :::"don't change the subject to Genesis 2-11, you made claims about Genesis 1 and that's the matter at hand":::

      ::If we're talking about what I'm proposing, the accuracy of Genesis, then we're talking about 1-11. If you're going to take on my hypothesis, then take it on in its entirety. You've read, what, two hubs?::

      I've skimmed some others--it's more of the same. Assumed conclusions, crackpot theories, ad hoc and post hoc explanations. I started at the beginning, so don't move the goalposts.

      :::"you pretend that dry land didn't show up until the third day even though it had been there literally all along":::

      ::First, the continents as we know them now have not been here all along.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_earth#Firs...

      Can you actually read? I didn't say the modern continents, I said dry land. There has never been a time at which the entire world was covered in water as depicted in Genesis, and where it says "let the dry land appear" is an event which never happened. This is a *specific example* of three things: Natural history shows the bible account to be false, you claiming that the bible text says something other than what it says, and a link provided by you which undermines rather than supports your claim.

      ::Air temperature and pressure variation and a very humid condition would have prevented any break in the cloud cover. Add to that lots of volcanic activity in that age and you've got yourself a translucent atmosphere. I'm not pretending. It's physics.::

      SPECIFICALLY, what you're making up out of whole cloth is that the atmosphere moved from opaque to "translucent" to "transparent" exactly when it needs to in order to support your account, and the links you provide do not provide evidence for those assertions. You're not an atmospheric scientist, so don't make authoritative claims about the atmosphere billions of years ago based on what you looked up on Wikipedia.

      ::Again, it gives a point of view right from the start. That resolves everything else.::

      Can we take it as read that I consider your "point of view" argument to be complete nonsense? One fleeting image in one verse and you extend it over billions of years worth of narrative, it's ridiculous, and most of Genesis is STILL WRONG even if I were to grant it. This is a specific example, since you asked, of a HUGE leap of logic. The fact that it's the linchpin of your whole ramshackle story is pretty telling. The only way you get around such gross errors is by seizing any ambiguity in the text or translation that you can possibly exploit to say it says what you want it to.

      ::Just what was visible on land. Like 'the sea bringing forth that which hath life'. Late heavy bombardment, pre-oceans. The starting point in verse 2 is clearly after. Plus, that would kind of fall in the jurisdiction of the formation of the earth, like verse 1 says.::

      And it just skips from "And the world was without form and void," and then jumps straight to "darkness was upon the face of the deep?" BOOM, the lunar formation impact, BOOM, the Late Heavy Bombardment (during which dry land existed), BOOM, the Huronian Glaciation (during which dry land existed) and billions of years' worth of other events--that's a awful lot to skip over with a single comma. Do you see how this could be construed as completely inane? Oh, speaking of the sea bringing forth life, (and it bears repeating since you've never once given a coherent answer) BIRDS on day 5, LAND ANIMALS on day 6. That is 100% wrong.

      ::The real crux, as I said, is 2-11, simply because it's much more specific, and is dealing with much more recent history.::

      Glad to see you acknowledging that Genesis 1 is nonspecific, which is at least part of my objection. As for the rest, I'll get to that when I can stomach ten times as much of your concoctions for ten times as many chapters. Right now one chapter's worth is as much as I can shovel.

      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      ::This is where I will now provide specific examples so that you can address what I'm saying specifically. Something I've asked of you many times.::

      One other thing: did I or did I not start off my very first post on this thread with a list of "specific examples?" Please reread.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I don't have time to read every detail here, but who said aliens and flying dragons don't exist? Hell, I thought everybody that was semi-awake knew that there is life on other planets along with the basic fire-breathing dragons and dinosaurs of the past, as that is nothing new... Good grief, what's the problem with some peoples' ability to be more terse? Is this much reading really required? Perhaps intuition is a thing of the past... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "After the meteorite bombardments and volcanic eruptions subsided, Earth finally cooled enough to permit the water vapor to condense into clouds and fall as rain. An almost continuous rain, fed by evaporation and volcanic outgassing, may have drenched the planet for some 10 million years. As the deluge persisted, ponds formed in shallow depressions and then grew into lakes. Eventually, the lakes merged to form an ocean. Many researchers now believe that the first permanent ocean was likely in place sometime between 4.3 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.

      The early sea may have covered the entire planet to an unknown depth as rain water collected everywhere on the nearly featureless landscape. Raised continents and deep ocean basins had not yet formed. These features would take shape after geological processes began altering the landscape." - http://science.howstuffworks.com/how-the-ocean-cam...

      First, I want to be clear I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm trying to make a point. I've had this conversation many times. And while I certainly understand the assumptions, understanding makes it no less frustrating. I'm asking for specific examples because that's really the only way to have an actual discussion. You've provided only two specific details where your objections aren't based solely on your interpretation of how the text reads; the bit about the continents and the bit about the atmosphere. Both of these objections I know to be false.

      For the bit about the atmosphere there's a good illustration on page 4 ... http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/fall0...

      "My point is that if you want me to consider a mind without a brain, a intelligent being that isn't a human, a "being" that isn't "material," then you would do very well to establish beforehand that such things DO exist."

      I'm demonstrating how these things can't be known by the standards you're requiring. And I'm explaining how and why based on the known conditions of the universe and the mind. Neither are material, which is all science deals in. I'm illustrating how you're boxing yourself in using something I know you know exists, yet doesn't exist according to the same conditions you require of me regarding God. If I were to say I don't believe you have a mind you wouldn't be able to prove you do in a way that would satisfy your requirements.

      "If Bigfoot were known to be a real animal, an investigation into the authenticity of the film* would make sense. If Bigfoot were known to NOT exist, then it would be logically moot to study the film at all; it MUST be a fake."

      It is neither known nor not-known whether or not God exists. So... that film might be worth a look. In fact, that's a good example. Say bigfoot did exist. You saw him. You know nobody's going to believe you, but lucky for you, you happen to have your handy dandy super 8 on you. But... nobody believes you. They think the film is fake, but don't feel it necessary to take the time to look into it because they KNOW bigfoot doesn't exist. What a frustrating predicament.

      "You seem to advocate for a god whose body of evidence cannot be distinguished from a god that doesn't exist, but some extradordinary event which can be reliably confirmed to have ever happened in the first place would be a start."

      How about a dramatic change in human behavior that forever altered how humanity lives and acts?

      "I've skimmed some others--it's more of the same. Assumed conclusions, crackpot theories, ad hoc and post hoc explanations. I started at the beginning, so don't move the goalposts."

      Eh, I skimmed Darwin's book, but it really wasn't worth the time because it was all BS anyway. Look, you're the one that chose to start with creation. You asked me to refer you to the one hub that best explained what I'm talking about and I did. "On the Evolution of the Human Mind and the Origin of Free Will - Part 2". Both, actually, but they're long, so I just referred you to the second one.

      Creation does establish the setting, right up to the introduction of agricultural practices (Gen1:29), but it's starting with Adam that things go all nuts. It's not until the introduction of free will that God would even need to do things like ... "dead people coming back to life, pillars of fire and smoke, rains of brimstone, people turning into salt, talking snakes and donkeys, water into wine, seas parting, divine plagues, and GOD SPEAKING TO PEOPLE DIRECTLY". See, because, unlike the rest of the natural world that conforms to His one will, from Adam on there were beings who behaved according to their own. So, to realize what He needed to realize, it took a little coaxing here and there. A little interaction. Sometimes He had to do things truly drastic. But once Jesus came along, He could step back. He would no longer influence free will by visibly standing over us, all you have to do is believe without seeing. Humble yourself, basically. Willfully. See, it all makes sense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Come on, IM, you know better than that. Don't you know we've already found everything that exists?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LOL! What, are you one of those new-age scientist people now? Just think, it is also raining diamonds on planet Neptune and Uranus right now, by what they say, yet we still battle with the notion of mining asteroids for profit - due to a not-so-cost-effective science.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting ideas. His hypothesis of formative causation, the extended mind, morphic fields & resonance - it's all very interesting and do NOT involve any gods ... but your religious crap goes way beyond what any thinking person can possible take seriously:

      " ... to realize what He needed to realize, it took a little coaxing here and there. A little interaction. Sometimes He had to do things truly drastic. But once Jesus came along, He could step back. He would no longer influence free will by visibly standing over us, all you have to do is believe without seeing. Humble yourself, basically. Willfully. See, it all makes sense."

      You have to be brain dead before you can see ANY sense in so much stupidity! Your god is the construct of a willfully defective mind ... unfortunately, you can't be helped to regain even a basic grasp of reality - I don't see any hope for you in the immediate future!

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Dang, I haven't even watched the video yet. Although, I can already see, that you must have to be a brain-dead moron to not understand the uniqueness of human consciousness. Oh, cool, retards praying for talking rocks; can't wait to listen to this hogwash via YouTube...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      After watching that silly YouTube video, I think I could write a Hub about it while listing this guy's 10 steps of scientific dogmas. The guy uses the same basic trending scientific theories while trying to find humor and reasoning in the madness of confusion. Within 5 minutes, I already couldn't wait for the mini-flick to be over. The guy doesn't even understand invisible wavelengths and the power of thoughts... His dinosaur big bang theory needs more skits than a stand-up comedian. Plus, he talks so slow it made my head hurt...

      Poor guy, the only thing he established is making science look even more stupid. Good grief, I'd hate to see the guy analyzing advanced technologies and ZPE data. I find it amusing how he thinks we are all machines, yet doesn't even realize his own "talking rock" religion. That character also makes fun of "constants" while dodging the entire essence of nature. He excludes the mind as being separate while saying the brain can sense, which is a contradiction and it was probably good that he brought that up toward the end of his stand-up comedy session... What a load!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      You're right. Really interesting stuff. The idea that the vibratory/oscillating nature of matter could resonate across space-time passing on a form of information that can cause newly adapted habits in behavior across alike forms, like a kind of cosmic memory, is definitely interesting. But if there's any truth to that then, I almost hate to say it, but that fits right in line with what I'm talking about. Think about it. From the moment we humans began to choose behavior via our own individually-minded reason, free of pure 'naturally' programmed instinct, that would mean that everything we do could have dramatic affects across all of the universe, or at least all of humanity. We're pumping memories into this thing with everything we do, forming new habits that grow more engrained as time elapses, willfully taking the wheel of that cosmic memory, so to speak. That would make our free wills a potentially volatile, destructive thing. Something, if there were say a deliberate designer behind this elaborate reality, something that designer would take a vested interest in. The element that behaves unlike anything else in the universe, via reason.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      Unless I just totally misunderstand your viewpoint, I would think you'd find this Rupert Sheldrake's ideas more of a departure from traditional fixed scientific concepts and veering more towards your realm. But, then again, you're a little difficult for me to peg and I find myself wrong more than I'm right.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Headly, I'm confused... Just what was his views? I tried to go back and watch it again, in case I missed something or took it the wrong way. I just X'ed it out after a few minutes, this time. I cannot stand that slow, mumbo jumbo babble and my brain about jumps out of my cranium while trying to wait on him to get the words out of his mouth. Maybe somebody could summarize it for me... Some of these people make me feel like I got ADD.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM, all I was reading about his ideas had to do with an extended mind and collective memory in the universe, but I wasn't getting a sense of how he was tying it back to science. I found this link of some show that featured him, which I should give you the head's up has a rather goofy production style, but includes a couple of clips of Rupert Sheldrake explaining his idea in a lecture. I wanted to better understand the mechanistic angle that was supposed to ground this in science and he explained just enough here that I think I can see what he's getting at.

      http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=80

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oh, okay... Well, what I find shocking is that they claim this way of thinking is new. Well, maybe for the scientific community, but it is far from some new idea. I didn't even think an evolving universe was hard to comprehend and that collective memory is just part of everything being atomically connected to the universe. The same type of stuff applies to quantum entanglement and all that jazz you find on new-age spiritual movements, divine consciousness, etc. I doubt if the scientific community as a whole, are really wanting to hear about any of that. It is not something that can easily be tied into stagnant laws, just saying...

      I still don't really get where he is trying to go with that nor does it all make sense. It is like he is taking ancient Buddhism beliefs and trying to make it work for science.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "all you have to do is believe without seeing. Humble yourself, basically. Willfully."

      I will NEVER worship a god for whom this is the standard. Just putting that out there.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      That's all fine and good, but you seem to be looking at it as something God needs to feed His ego or something. This is simply necessary. You need look no further than nature, and no further than our own human history, to see this. Nature works because everything consistently behaves in accordance to the constant, unchanging, singular laws of nature. Our own bodies work because trillions of cells adhere to the code, the 'law', of the body. Even humans work best collaborating in a group when there is clear leadership. But as we've learned leadership is a tricky thing. The entirety of our history highlights this. We basically rule now by committee, "we the people" via a committee of representatives, to ensure no one individual is too powerful, because power corrupts. Humans fail. No one is immune. History drives this point home absolutely.

      Humbling yourself is simply acknowledging you're not the beginning. You're simply a result in a much bigger thing and knowing your place in it. It's not that God requires you worship Him out of His own need, it's because He's the creator. He's the reason any of this exists. And the whole purpose was so that you and I could think for ourselves. But, just like the garden story illustrates, there has to be rules and we must acknowledge the authority of the one who sets them. If not there are consequences.

      Like the driving laws analogy. You and I and everyone else can decide of our own free will to drive anywhere we want using the road system. We're free to roam, to stay, whatever. But for that system to work and be available for millions and billions of individuals with individual wants, there must be laws. It's simply necessary. And we have to acknowledge the authority of those who establish those laws. If we don't we're fined. Eventually, if we continue to decide we know better and defy the laws and the authority that sets and enforces them, we'll be removed from the roads. Our license taken away. Or worse, our freedom if we keep driving after losing our license. All of this is necessary so the road system works. So people follow the rules so things work in harmony.

      It's the same thing. It's simply necessary. That's what the whole bible is talking about. Put no other before Him because anything else came after Him. No one else knows, or has the authority being the creator/architect of the whole thing, but God. Do that, love one another, don't kill each other or steal each other's stuff or lie, and it all works.

      If God were to be looming over your shoulder, visibly, would that not impact your ability to behave 'freely'? Would that not impact yours and everyone else's behavior? Like the parable Jesus told about the behavior of the servants when the master is away. Like any parent can tell you. Kids are going to behave differently when there are no parents/adults in the room than when there are. It's all about how we do when God's 'away'. It's belief. It's faith. It's willfully choosing to acknowledge the authority of something greater than ourselves and that that needs of all are just as important as the needs of the individual. Isn't it only really a 'free choice' this way?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      First one needs to be given the necessary information. Don't kill, steal or lie are good rules to follow, I like those rules, but one must be given the necessary information to follow a God. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not going to just take your word for it. This has nothing to do with my lack of wanting to be submissive. I have clients, leaders of governments and police and a wife that I listen to, but these are people I can see and there are consequences if I disrespect any of these people. No evidence exists for any God. Asking people to delude themselves to please a God they conjured up with that delusion is rather silly. No? Thanks, but I'd rather keep the conscious part of my mind in control of my thoughts.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Do I not seem consciously in control of my thoughts? In fact, from this point of view, God went through a whole lot of trouble just so you can and do have control of your thoughts. That's kind of the whole point.

      And we do have the information. It's all there. We both know the story. But understand, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. I'm simply defending the viewpoint. I'm showing that it has validity. You may not accept it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid viewpoint to hold. I'm simply sharing what I believe and why.

      You're not going to get objective confirmation. That would undermine the whole concept. The whole point is to turn inward and not focus outward. Outward/objective confirmation pulls your gaze the wrong way. Being connected, plugged in, is an inward thing.

      How do cells know to behave according to DNA? They just do it. How do animals follow their instincts? They just do it. And we just 'do' too, where the functions of the body and our instincts are concerned. But we, with our reasoning minds, we determine many of our own behaviors. Not instinctual behavior engrained over numerous generations to work in harmony with the world around us, but by individual reason in pursuit of individual needs. And sometimes in the pursuit of those needs we harm or get in the way of others trying to do the same. Because there are many of us a protocol must be established. Like in nature, there's a protocol. But we don't behave solely of those tried and true inherited behaviors. We willfully choose what we do. And our history illustrates our struggle to figure out how to co-exist. Governments, laws, armies, all of that is our struggle to simply exist with one another. Something humans did just fine without problem for tens of thousands of years.

      Acknowledging God is to acknowledge that the world is bigger than just you and yours. It's a mindfulness of yourself, your actions, and the bigger picture you play a role in. Turning inward, humbled, you can 'know' when you're crossing a line. We see it all the time in every kind of person. There are those who are mindful of others, and those who are focused on themselves. The selfish and the selfless. The ones who justify taking away from someone to provide for their own versus those who acknowledge their needs do not outweigh the needs of others. It's really just as simple as that. You still have your own mind, but you're mindful.

      I know organized religion has turned the whole idea into a whole other thing. But that's just another 'outward' thing. Religion is people. And just like in everything else there are those who's actions are determined by a selfless mindful mindset, and there are those whose actions were determined by selfish wants; power, greed, etc. It's distorted. It's all noise that distracts us away. Turns us against one another. Reason and free will are volatile things in this world that often causes us to act contrary to the natural world. We've proven it since the 4th millennium BC when the first governments were established, the first defensive walls built, the first militaries formed and organized. The 'necessity' that brought about those inventions came into being. We became discontent unlike before. That's when it all started.

      "Discontent is the first necessity of progress" - Thomas Edison

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      You could be a lot more mindful and rational after finally grasping how irrational your view of that non-existing god really is!

      When will you start to see how absurd you actually sound, wanting to constantly justify this god delusion of yours, while pretending to desire intellectual and cultural progress?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      Pretending? I do desire intellectual and cultural progress, legitimately. And I have some legitimate issues with a god-less viewpoint. Beyond my faith, beyond the spiritual experiences of my life, there are some serious logical issues with a purely causal universe with no deliberate creator.

      If you really stop and think about it, it's all absurd. All the matter in the universe at one time existing as a singularity of infinite mass, then expanding/inflating out, without collapsing back in on itself, to become the universe we know today. The exact right conditions and the exact right values of the natural laws that make it all possible. The exact right conditions of our sun and this planet, the tilt/rotation/orbit of the earth. The exact right conditions and the exact right 'behaviors' of various components working together in such a way as to bring about the abiogenesis of life. And not just that, but to be done in such a way as to establish a way to pass on information via DNA.

      No matter what, the explanation is going to be absurd. And while you can maybe try to explain these things away by positing a multi-universe scenario or whatever else, the fact is this is the one and only universe we can observe, and in this one and only universe we have found that it is 'just right' to allow us to be here as we are. Any explanation regarding how that singularity came to be or what 'causes' those laws or set them the way they are is just speculation. To my ears, suggesting it all came about without a deliberate creator is absurd. And refusing to see these things as such, or refusing to even acknowledge the possibility, I would argue is irrational.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      If your subconscious has convinced your conscious mind that a God exist and you have to do as it says then your conscious mind is not as conscious as it could be. Our subconscious minds have agendas and are constantly asking the ego (conscious) for attention and will go great lengths to get it.

      Again you are attributing what you don't understand to God. A lot of things could have gone differently in this universe that could have prevented us from being here, perhaps something else could have been here and isn't. But the point is we are here in-spite of the odds, if we weren't here we wouldn't be having this conversation. Inventing something that could have made it so as to explain it makes the whole scenario even more unlikely and bazar.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      But from your viewpoint we have no real say in the matter either way, right? It's just an illusion. We're just matter, so how can 'we' have any kind of say in what we do or do not accept? What are 'we' in that scenario at all? The brain is the brain and behaves only in the way it's determined to do so by it's genetic/biological makeup combined with life experience and information gathered. The subconscious mind is going to just go on wanting what the body wants, and the conscious mind is going to go on trying to find a realistic way to make it happen. How can matter decide to behave any differently and alter how how it behaves or what it does?

      And what do you think I don't understand? What have I said that's inaccurate? I'm talking about what is known and what isn't known isn't known by anybody. And according to what is known there is only one universe we can observe and know for certain exists, and there are literally countless things that could have happened differently and we wouldn't be here. Just as you said. Everything about it is unlikely and bizarre from our standpoint. Any idea posited to explain it is an invention. Do you fault those who posit a multi-verse or string or M-theory of doing the same? They're putting forth a hypothesis and then are trying to test it mathematically. I'm putting forth a hypothesis and am trying to test it in other ways. So what's the difference? Should I and everyone else just throw our hands up and acknowledge that we'll simply never know?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      "How can matter decide to behave any differently and alter how how it behaves or what it does?"

      This is the part that you don't understand so you attribute it to a God.

      For the record I think you are a very highly intelligent person. Actually I don't think, I know, as I've heard you speak and I've seen what you write. I have no doubt that you are much smarter than I, however that doesn't mean you are in any more control of you mind than I. From a scientific and psychological standpoint we must try to understand what we don't currently understand and attributing (what we don't understand) it to the supernatural is not productive. Attributing it to what we will understand is productive.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      It is always nice to see talking rocks featuring bags of chemicals firing neurons and brain synapses at such a rate, only a robot in today's world would envy. Is that your jargon, Rad Man? LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate you saying so, Rad Man, but don't sell yourself short. You're a highly intelligent individual, probably because you're so inquisitive by nature.

      But level of intelligence doesn't enter into the equation where control of the mind is concerned. It's an either or. Either there is nothing more to the mind than being the product of a purely physical brain where control is an illusion, or there is a component of who 'we' are that is not material and we really are in control. It's not a matter of not understanding yet. Matter is matter. That's why we're able to understand it so well. Because it's predictable. Predictable to the point that we can actually reconstruct how matter became matter mathematically. Like you've said many times, choice is only an illusion. That's because from your viewpoint there is nothing more to existence than the material/physical/observable, and if that's true then you're right. If we do indeed have any kind of control, then that alone opens the door to there being more to existence than just the material, because that violates the material laws.

      Science will continue to try to understand from a purely material/naturalistic mindset, and rightly so. That's the jurisdiction of science. But if there's one place we're most likely to find there's more than just the material at play, it's in the mind. It won't be physical/observable/provable through the material sciences. It'll just continue to be a gap in our scientific understanding. We are the observers. So we can have no sense of anything immaterial beyond ourselves because we don't experience existence as anything else. Within is the only place we could 'experience' or 'sense' something immaterial. Because we are observing from within these bodies and we're personally experiencing these minds that these physical brains create. Minds nobody else can see.

      The vast majority of humanity throughout the ages has instinctively believed we have a soul. Though the entirety of their conscious experience was made up of only what they could see/hear/feel/taste/smell, that belief that there's something unseeable that we 'feel' is practically absolute. The body has always seemed foreign to us. Something we have to learn second hand that does gross things and makes weird noises. Something that functions totally separately from our conscious selves. There is, it seems, two wills within us that makes us feel compelled to live. One of the physical body that heals, sneezes, coughs, vomits, gags to stay alive, then there's the mental will to avoid death to the point that it causes us to 'make up' living forever, hence the idea of a soul to the materialist. Then again, these two 'wills' are often at odds with one another in some way. The smoker who tries to suppress the body's coughing to continue to smoke, or even someone who has to literally kill the body, that will fight back, if they don't want to live. The body still does.

      If all of this is strictly material, to the point that the right combination of nucleotides, phosphates, and sugars can biologically grow and reproduce this bundle of grey and white carbon-based matter that exhibits a mechanical 'will' to live, and duplicate this billions of times over, then we are robots. But there's some truly significant gaps still left, just where you'd expect them to be if you, like me, suspect there's more than just the material at work. Namely the mind and 'life' itself. The two 'wills' within us.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      Talking rocks featuring bags of chemicals? Hahaha. I get what you're saying and I think we're both basically saying the same thing, but I love the way you put it. Mine is long winded and wordy, yours is witty and right to the point.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      Five paragraphs of vacuous, empty, groundless preaching in response to a simple statement of fact: there is no sound, rational reason to believe any of it. All this bleating about speed limits and laws and whatnot is all just so much contemptible nonsense without one thing: why should I believe it in the first place?

      You said "All you have to do is believe without seeing." I'm sorry, but I have nothing but scorn for that notion. Even if I *were* to be convinced of its existence, any god who demands that people shut off their brains and believe without evidence is unworthy of my worship. I had to try out several ways of saying this that did not make use of profuse profanity to convey the degree to which the very notion offends me.

      The very notion of "faith," of a belief assumed without reason, is one I spit upon.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, Methodskeptic, I commend you on your restraint, but I have no issue with profanity if you feel it's necessary. I have quite the mouth myself. I'm a Christian, but never claimed to be a good one, especially by the traditional standards.

      But let's make one thing clear, I'm not preaching. You came here to my hub and started making comments. So I'm explaining to you what I believe and why. And I'm doing so in the context through which you're speaking. I'm addressing each of your statements with what I believe on the topic and am attempting to explain why I believe it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply addressing your comments from my perspective.

      Your belief is just as baseless as mine. There's no sound, rational reason to believe your viewpoint either. It's all unbelievable. In our experience, in this finite universe, everything has a cause. Considering conscious reasoning intelligence exists at all makes the notion that a conscious reasoning intelligent creator a much more viable option than to just think this intricate universe just came about on its own and somehow resulted in conscious reasoning intelligent beings by pure chance.

      Besides, I didn't say God demands people shut off their brain. It says 'lean not on your own understanding'. It's easy to reason away God. Humanity by default believes in a higher power. Atheism only arises in those ages of reason, like ancient Greece/Rome, then again after the age of enlightenment in Europe through to today. Aside from those two ages, belief in a higher power, in a spiritual element to life, is absolute. We humans attempting to arrive at a reasoned conclusion is the equivalent of a single cell in your body attempting to completely comprehend not just the intricacies of that one body its a part of, but the scores of generations that led to that body even being there as well as the environment that shaped it. From a cell's limited perspective, if it were to choose its behavior based solely on it's reason, there's no way it would be able to properly perform the function it needs to perform to serve the purpose the rest of the body depends on. Each cell, out of trillions, trying to establish it's own reasoned explanation from its limited perspective and lifespan, would lead to catastrophe and the body would never work.

      Reason is a powerful thing, a very useful thing, but when individuals first demand a reasoned explanation then there's a problem. We happen to live in an age where it is possible to begin to get a glimpse of a reasoned explanation. Something not possible before the 20th century. There's nothing wrong with reason and using your brain. And God never demanded you turn it off. But if you're not just going to simply trust that you're here for a reason, that you came about through an intricate system that you had nothing to do with, a system that works just fine whether or not you understand it or not, and you're going to demand to understand, well, that's on you. You're the one making demands. And that's your choice to do so.

      A reasoned explanation can be attained, but you're not going to see it as long as you continue to imagine God as that invisible, immaterial, cosmic magician. It all makes plenty of sense, but you've hamstringed yourself from the start with a flawed hypothesis that doesn't match up, thus leading to flawed conclusions. And from that perspective, you're right, none of it makes any sense. God as you imagine Him makes no sense at all.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Hey, Headly, you obviously have some major conceptual problems with matter, energy and the many forms of natural interchange through fields and waves of radiation, etc.

      Why can't you see how loaded your terms of reference are when you talk about a "godless world" instead of creating a clearer understanding in that confused head of yours, that a world free of ALL religious BS is quite obviously by far a more rational place, much better suited for intellectual and cultural progress, than a world full of religious retards who have no understanding of being a product of a perfectly natural process in a multidimensional reality in which nothing super natural exists ... no matter how little you know about the highly divers nature of the many forms of matter and their specific qualities!

      It sounds like you want that god in your head to frame your illusion in a good light so you can keep reading your bible with great devotion and ask interesting questions only to pretend to have some power to grow out of your religious mental dead-end.

      Stop barking up the wrong tree and get a better insight into what nature really is so you can start to grasp your limited perception of it all. Try to discover which way you have to turn to get more meaningful answers by making better use of your own head instead of banging it against this god delusion wall of yours!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, f_hruz, you could help with that by showing me where exactly my conceptual problems with matter/energy lie? If there's something I don't understand about matter and energy, if there's something I've said that makes it so obvious to you that I just don't understand, then please correct me. That's why I have these discussions. I don't and can't know it all. I learn most when speaking to people who don't agree with me. I know you don't agree with me. That much has been made clear. But you've yet to give me anything of substance to illustrate that I'm wrong. I can't do anything with simply being told I'm wrong because no matter what I think there's always going to be someone to tell me that.

      Besides, let's really think about that "world free of ALL religious BS". Let's say the tide finally turned and the default belief system of every human alive was that there is no God watching over us, no larger meaning to life or existence, and nothing but nothingness beyond the veil of death. Just think about that for a minute. Think about humanity, the delicate balance of society and how quickly it falls into chaos at the first sign of order failing. We see it time and time again where things descend into chaos, looting, fighting, rape, murder. Just like that Rolling Stones song says, war/rape/murder, is just a shot away. That's very true. Look at what happened in the Super Dome during the floods in Louisiana. The savage clans running a muck in Africa. Hell, just look at the 4th millennium BC throughout the middle east and Egypt. That era is archaeologically noted as being one of the most violent in human history.

      As soon as civilizations came about so did organized warfare, armies, defensive walls, and violent acts of war depicted in art work. The world that Genesis describes during the times of Abraham and Moses, where strangers arriving in a strange city could be brutally attacked, that is real. In that age before society was painfully forged through war and struggle, before the boundary lines on the map were established and the laws that governed the land set and enforced by those in power, it was chaos. Those who were neither in power through pure strength/might, nor enslaved by those in power and thus lived under their protection, were out in the open and are no longer reflected in today's population because they simply didn't survive. Much like the story Genesis is describing, the Israelites taking land by force, wiping out whole groups of people, enslaving the original inhabitants, while it all sounds very barbaric to our modern ears, that's simply what was necessary to survive in that environment.

      It's a nice idea to think that you could just remove the whole God/religion concept and end up with a better humanity. In the case of those of us who are warm, well fed, and comfortable, those of us who are intellectually invested in understanding the world around us, then yes, I can kind of see that. But that's not all humanity is. As soon as there's hardship and suffering, religion and God is something people turn to. Prayer gives hope in times of crisis. Whether you think it's rational or not. Just take a minute and really think about this idealistic reality you envision without God and religion. I'm not sure I'm the one under delusion here.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I will say this: Organized religions across the world definitely causes too many wars, conflict, strife, ignorance, and hatred amongst others. But, that is the typical playground fight individuals must graduate from while temporarily dwelling in their Elementary School level of Life.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{But let's make one thing clear, I'm not preaching...}}

      I've since clarified my objection: I am opposed to the very notion of faith, of believing without sound evidence. I would need to shut off my brain in order to lower myself to God's standards. I cannot honestly convert hope into substance, or the unseen into evidence (Hebrews 11:1). I cannot divest myself of my own understanding.

      In reply you gave me five paragraphs of baseless assertions about how I need to be ruled, how I need to humble myself, how I need to obey the law, how I should put god first, and you compare God's nonsensical invisibility to absentee parenting, which is amusing enough since it nicely illustrates that God is a deeply irresponsible creator on your model.

      When I make an objection and you respond with multiple paragraphs of baseless assertions that don't address my point, I call it preaching. You gave me a little sermon that could easily be read aloud in church, full of empty platitudes and admonishments.

      {{Considering conscious reasoning intelligence exists at all makes the notion that a conscious reasoning intelligent creator a much more viable option than to just think this intricate universe just came about on its own and somehow resulted in conscious reasoning intelligent beings by pure chance.}}

      So rather than believe in something unexplained, you'd rather replace it with something inexplicable. You'd rather replace the improbabilities of evolution with the most impossibly enormous presumption the human mind can possibly conceive. You don't want to consider how consciousness could begin to exist, so you simply assert that it never had to begin to exist. That's a really bad line of reasoning, sorry.

      (And come on, you know evolution, you should know that the "by pure chance" description is a lie.)

      Sorry, I will stick with parsimony: we know that evolution exists, we know that nerve cells exist, we know that brains exist from every degree of complexity from nematode worms up to humans, with increasing cognition at every step of the way, so it's no trouble whatsoever to consider that intelligence is an evolvable trait. Given what we can see in the animal kingdom any other explanation is nonsensical, you have to deny the variety and gradation of brains and intelligence in every species. Remember, we're not special. Every aspect of the human mind is also possessed by other animals in various degrees.

      I find your "God" explanation to be an infinitely more preposterous excuse for human ignorance, quite literally the ultimate improbability. *Any* explanation which looks instead to known elements of our universe is by definition more plausible, because those things we know are real.

      {{Humanity by default believes in a higher power.}}

      You can bring it up as many times as you want, you're still wrong. Humanity's supposed "default" belief manifestly CANNOT produce new information, it CANNOT distinguish truth from falsehood, and it CANNOT be relied upon. EVERYONE disagrees with EVERYONE ELSE. It's an utterly worthless and unreliable tool. I'd DEFINITELY need to turn off my brain to believe that garbage.

      {{Atheism only arises in those ages of reason, like ancient Greece/Rome, then again after the age of enlightenment in Europe through to today.}}

      Should kind of tell you something there.

      {{Aside from those two ages, belief in a higher power, in a spiritual element to life, is absolute.}}

      You're actually *appealing* to benighted ignorance as support? The mind boggles.

      {{We humans attempting to arrive at a reasoned conclusion is the equivalent of a single cell--}}

      A metaphor which is completely invalid in all of its particulars. Moving right along.

      {{And God never demanded you turn it off.}}

      Wait for it...

      {{But if you're not just going to simply trust--}}

      What you describe as "simply trust" IS itself the abandonment of reason. Trust in the sense you're describing is dishonestly saying you believe in something you don't know. I "trust" what I can *verify*, to know what's true and be able to rely on it. You say I don't have to do this thing, then in the same breath you insist I must do that exact thing only in different words.

      {{A reasoned explanation can be attained, but you're not going to see it as long as you continue to imagine God as that invisible, immaterial, cosmic magician.}}

      What you describe are the works of an invisible, immaterial, absentee parenting, and perversely demanding cosmic magician. I just simply see no reason to call a spade anything but a goddamn shovel. He magically creates universes, he magically creates minds, he magically grants free will, he magically tinkers with evolution, every aspect of the cosmos you personally don't understand or find awe-inspiring, you slap this God explanation on it as though that explains anything or gives you any new knowledge.

      {{It all makes plenty of sense, but you've hamstringed yourself from the start with a flawed hypothesis}}

      Harry Potter makes sense, but it's still fictional and doesn't have one big toe dipped in reality. The Stargate franchise makes sense but it depicts events that never happened. Spider-man goes to real places and witnesses real events but it's all fictional. So do tell. Tell me how I've hamstringed myself, and what my flawed hypothesis is. I want to know how you know this is actually real. My basic beliefs are that the universe exists and that we can learn things from it. That I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. That truth must be demonstrable. That pretending to certainty that cannot be verified is dishonest. That anything we claim to know must be learned somehow, we have to gain that information, I simply want to know how it's done and you keep giving me terrible reasons.

      {{God as you imagine Him makes no sense at all.}}

      I *don't* imagine him. This intuition of yours has produced billions of variations, so I can only evaluate what YOU present, and what you have given me I would have to turn my brain off to believe.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oh, look, it's that anonymous person posting more stuff while claiming to not "waste time" with such nonsense or people like me. LOL! I'm sure I'd laugh harder if I actually read Method Man's drivel, but since this is not my Hub, I have the right to skim through the comments at times, and not read everything. Oh, and Method Man also made a remark about you (I actually read that one), Headly, recently typing 5 paragraphs of vacuous crap. Well, where do we begin to count his... Method Moron needs to go get a life or enlighten the masses, whichever comes first...

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      Honestly, your argument about brains was dispensed with by Charles Darwin in "Origin of Species" itself:

      "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

      "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. "

      Replace the word "eye" with "brain" and the argument is exactly the same.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Charles Darwin was a hopeless romantic when concerning biology. His storybook tale is entertaining, to say the least. Everything evolves and adapts; duh! Now we got some moron comparing eyeballs to brains... Oh, dear, where does the insanity end...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "I am opposed to the very notion of faith, of believing without sound evidence."

      "I *don't* imagine him."

      Though I'm sure you're not going to like this and you'll object without consideration, these two statements highlight a deficiency in your ability to self-evaluate.

      First, it is not possible that you do not have faith in something. Your concept of reality, created by your mind throughout life experience, is not complete. No one's is. So for you to be a functioning participant in reality/society at all means you have established beliefs in filling out that concept. Some things not known by you, some things not known by anyone. Some things told to you by people you trust. Beliefs that you have the utmost faith in because you do not even recognize them as possible points of flaw. You do not recognize or critically analyze that which you take as 'given'.

      As for an example, you believe existence as is can and did come about on its own. That is a belief without sound evidence. It all began with a singularity of unknown origin, with built in fundamental laws of unknown origin. You don't say "I don't know". You say you do and what I'm talking about isn't it. That's faith in what you believe. Nobody yet understands life or what 'causes' it, yet you believe it's simply a product of a physical body and the biological material it's made of...

      Life, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:

      "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN THE ORGANISM."

      We just know how biological material physically does what it does. We don't know what 'compels' it. Life is the equivalent of a rock rolling up hill. It's not gravity that makes life do what it does. So, what is it?

      Second, when you read something, anything, your mind inputs its own stuff in between the lines. You fill in the gaps yourself. For example, it's clear through your interpretation of how you read Genesis that you have in mind a particular concept of God that you apply to the story you're reading. It's inevitable. It's how the mind works. You're just reading words, and your mind is filling in the rest. It's important to recognize that. To recognize yourself in the equation, because everything you hear/see/read first passes through your perception, which as you've noted, is fallible.

      "When I make an objection and you respond with multiple paragraphs of baseless assertions that don't address my point, I call it preaching."

      This is another tale of lobbing criticisms, then hiding behind your materialist wall. How else am I supposed to address these statements regarding an immaterial, existing apart from this universe/space-time, God, but through this type of explanation? As for baseless assertions, I base it on examples seen in nature and in human history, both of which, according to the story, are products of this creator. The only baseless part is the bit about God actually existing and being the creator of all of this. You can make that assumption long enough to formulate your criticisms of this idea, but refuse to do the same when I respond in kind. You're setting yourself up for what you call 'preaching'. I don't call it that, but to each his own. Whatever you call it, it's self-inflicted.

      "Given what we can see in the animal kingdom any other explanation is nonsensical, you have to deny the variety and gradation of brains and intelligence in every species. Remember, we're not special. Every aspect of the human mind is also possessed by other animals in various degrees."

      I'm not denying that. If you read my 'Evolution of the mind, part 1' hub you'd see I cover that in great detail. Remember, I accept evolution. It's only the manner in which your conceptual idea of God creates that you see flaw and assert that I'm proposing 'guidance' of evolution or whatever. This is another example of you injecting your own stuff into what I'm saying. This is where your own stuff enters into the equation, yet is not recognized as such. Instead, it's seen as flaws in my explanation. You're only really arguing with yourself here.

      In my view it makes perfect sense that we are physically the product of evolution. Brains don't just grow on trees. And God doesn't just mold stuff, or 'miracle' stuff, into existence. Existence, by design, results in these things. It becomes what He wills it to. It's in how the laws are set, how matter 'naturally' behaves within the environment, and how events are sequenced through interaction of different components along the way. That is the design.

      What makes humans unique, or 'special', is reason. And if you don't recognize that by simply looking at the chasm that exists between us and the rest of the animal kingdom then you're not looking very hard. Reason, combined with a more pronounced ego, makes us unique. That creates free will. Not 'magic'. This can and probably did come about through purely 'physical' causes. But it's whatever life is, whatever compels us to be, that's the spring that the mind and body came up from. And I don't just mean the physical processing of light/sound/smells/etc, not the physical storing of this information (memory), and not even the 'thinking' involved in conceptualizing and imagining. These are all products of a physical brain dealing with physical information that are evident to varying degrees throughout the animal kingdom. Whatever it is that makes us 'us', all life has. It's only the body's physical capability to enable the will/desire of this 'life' that animates us that draws the line of distinction.

      "*Any* explanation which looks instead to known elements of our universe is by definition more plausible, because those things we know are real."

      I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm looking to known elements of our universe. And just like many other hypotheses regarding what's beyond the scope of science, like the origin of that singularity and those fundamental laws, I'm proposing possible explanations based on what can be seen. If everyone were to approach things like you do we'd still have no idea that gravity is anything more than stuff falling to the ground. The same way you view life now. As Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

      "Humanity's supposed "default" belief manifestly CANNOT produce new information, it CANNOT distinguish truth from falsehood, and it CANNOT be relied upon. EVERYONE disagrees with EVERYONE ELSE. It's an utterly worthless and unreliable tool. I'd DEFINITELY need to turn off my brain to believe that garbage."

      Science is a product of the mind. The knowledge you now hold to be truth was established by the mind. The mind you're claiming you have to turn off is susceptible to all those same things. That 'default belief' is a product of the very same mind we're trying to understand. A mind so different, so 'un-seeable' via the natural sciences, that the mind and things born of the mind warrant a whole other branch of science. How you 'reason' to yourself that the mind cannot be 'relied upon' is beyond me. I mean, I get what you're saying as far as how it can reach inaccurate conclusions. But you're so willing to toss out anything and everything born of this mind up to this point as if it's useless information. Do you not see how that information could be informative in our quest to understand it? A quest to understand born of that same mind. Driven by that mind. The same mind that compels you to have this discussion and that determines what you will and will not accept. It's all the same thing. It's all part of the equation. It's just not 'material'.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      I don't often defend organized religion, but while plenty of blame does indeed lie at the feet of religion, the same can be said for just about any human-made institution. Religious institutions equal humans. The problem with organized religions is that they're ideologies based on the idea that they are somehow an authority on what is 'true' or 'right'. When they are just as human as everyone else. They have no more information than any of the rest of us. And while ideas in and of themselves are fine, when you've established yourself as an authority and a resource regarding what's 'true' then it's kind of hard to accept new ideas that conflict. And as organized religions have illustrated, they're not very quick to adjust to new knowledge.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      The government of democracy doesn't equal humans nor does it represent the majority; the same applies for silly-ass organized religions. Which one likes money better, would be the more appropriate question. "They" may as well not exist when comparing to "them" and "those" with "everything" else. I don't need anything that is considered an organized thought or process because I am my own vessel and it is not my problem if somebody is in first grade, kindergarten, or has mad spiritual diversity while not realizing the primary source. Separate journeys, yes, so be it, but some people like to stay in the gray or in the trending thoughts as they may, but if you have actually been there before, folks will always spout off aimlessly while looking like a fool to the ones that know.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      A democratic government is still made up of humans. That's who likes money better. The humans who currently make up the components of the government (or religious institution). And the ones they replaced, and the ones replaced before them. And so on. Much in the same way cells are perpetuated generation after generation. Man-made institutions are still a group of humans willfully choosing to participate and carry on the established 'ways' passed on by prior generations. Humans are a habitual animal and our habits can and often do span multiple individual lifetimes. Habits perpetually passed on by generation after generation who accept and carry on whatever the 'norm' is that they come to know throughout life experience. That's why critical thinking is so important. Questioning those things that are taken as 'givens' to the vast majority who simply accept without question. Otherwise many 'bad' habits continue on unchecked. Those that first speak up about it are criticized, or worse in some cases. But eventually, as long as the scrutiny and the conversations continue, the tide shifts and better understanding is achieved.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Organized institutions are much more stagnant than free cells of insanity. There is no link between a group and an individual. A group of individuals that form a joined, mainstream thought or belief are no longer disjoined individuals outside the group, and vice versa. Habits? LOL! That is Darwin dogma...

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Headley, I am quite impressed how hard Methodskeptic and Rad Man have tried to help you understand that your way of thinking is basically not very refined at all, but you keep refusing any help, no matter how clearly they point out your mistaken logic and convoluted points of view.

      What do you know about collective consciousness, what are you contributing to it and why are you not drawing more insight from it so you can advance your dialectical reasoning abilities?

      To see some god's mystical powers over and above the totality of nature's self organizing capacity is simply silly, when you can see it working in any fungus, beehive or flock of birds without god's doing!

      Maybe you just want to keep being stuck in that mental dead end you are in because you can't see yourself being free from religion?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      This comment field has entered the realm of utter hilarity... What's next, some scientific retard comes in here trying to prove the multiverse theory with mathmagics? LOL!

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      I'll get to the rest of it later, but I'll hit this for now.

      {{What makes humans unique, or 'special', is reason. And if you don't recognize that by simply looking at the chasm that exists between us and the rest of the animal kingdom then you're not looking very hard. Reason, combined with a more pronounced ego, makes us unique. That creates free will. }}

      I can only counter, if you think a chasm exists between us and the animal kingdom, you aren't looking very hard. Every aspect of our highly specialized brains exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Problem-solving, foresight, memory, self-perception, warfare, jealousy, altruism, language, culture, and volition. I don't exactly know what you mean by "reason" unless it's once again an assumed conclusion, some "je ne sais quoi" that by definition no other animal could possess, which you then use to try and show no other animal does possess.

      To say that we are unique, that we're god's special children, because no other animal can do what we do as well as we can, is as nonsensical to me as an eagle claiming that its ability to spot a rabbit from two miles away is a special gift reflecting god's ability to see everything, everywhere, ignoring the fact that many other animals see as well as they need to, despite a supposed "chasm" between them and the next most acute set of eyeballs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm simply looking at behavior. Like I said before, and like I illustrated in detail in my 'Evolution of the Mind, pt1' hub, the human mind clearly evolved from non-human, even non-mammalian, predecessors. In that hub I trace the evolution of the brain from the 'reptilian brain', or basal ganglia, the base of our brain that very much resembles reptilian brains, and the behaviors and functions attributed to that portion of the brain that are also in common with reptiles. Then, through to the evolution of the Paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the behaviors and functions associated with it that are common amongst all mammals, but not in reptiles. Then, of course, the Neomammalian (prefrontal cortex) complex, with behaviors and functions attributed to only 'later' evolved mammals. The neocortex is roughly 90% of the cerebral cortex in humans. So, I agree all these other things are in animals to varying degrees.

      Bare with me on this bit because it's more God stuff. From my perspective the creation of mammals began with the branch off to proto-mammals from synapsid reptiles, and then humans began with the the branch away from other mammals as far back as the first bipeds or earlier. From the moment 'we' first began to take on this 'form/likeness'. Like.. "Let us make humans in our form..likeness ..". Then, homo species as early as Habilis exhibited a trait important in the task of 'filling/subduing' the earth with their capability to travel long distances and their behavioral tendency to migrate. Then, of course, comes 'having dominion' over the fish/fowl/every living thing that moveth'. While it may also be the case with our cousins, the Neanderthal of Europe, Homo Sapiens in particular have been the dominant species on every continent on the planet that they inhabited. They pushed the Neanderthal out of existence and played a large roll in wiping out the megafauna population, the previous dominant species. Just as it says in Genesis is just as they did.

      The 'chasm' I speak of has to do with behavior. Other than just studying a physical brain, the other side of the coin is the 'output'. The behavior. There's a reason we're the dominant species though we're not the fastest or biggest. Though we don't have the teeth or the claws. First Homo Habilis remains show them to be part of the regular diet of dinofelis, then comes Neanderthal who did little else other than make dionfelis and any other large formidable mammal part of their regular diet. But Neanderthal didn't spend as long as an adolescent learning, and didn't have the prefrontal lobes we have thanks to our taller foreheads. After dominating Europe for tens of thousands of years, Neanderthal proved to be no match for Homo Sapien. Like Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien traveled long and far, dominating every land and every animal they encountered. Then, starting in Mesopotamia, they began building civilizations and forming armies and from there spread over the world again just as homo sapiens did earlier, only this time they were wiping out the earlier inhabitant Homo Sapiens and wiping them out. The 'savages' or the 'primal' people. Within the same species you have two global dominations, one through one set of behavioral traits, one through another. One very much like other animals in the animal kingdom, migrating, foraging for food, living in 'packs', the other very much unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. Living very much contrary to the natural world rather than in harmony with it.

      We determine our behavior and our motivations in much more complex ways due to a more capable brain. If existence is as you see it, and there is nothing beyond the strictly 'material', then our behavior is truly mechanistic and the choices we make are not actually 'choices' at all. Or, if it's how I see it, then there's something more to the life/will/volition that emanates from within and compels and propels all of us and every other living thing. But in the case of humans, because of our more capable brains, our behavior is more heavily dominated by logical reasoning than instinct, and is more equipped to imagine and conceptualize more elaborate 'plans' to fulfill motivations.

      But along the way something happened. Though the brain hasn't physically changed in structure for nearly 200,000 years, behavior changed, motivations changed. Indigenous humans are just as capable as 'civilized' humans in every way physically, yet don't behave at all as we do. They behave much like the rest of the natural world and very much like Homo Sapiens have for 200 millennia. They're economical, content with just having the few things they need. We, on the other hand, we behave more like a virus than a mammal. We spread and use up resources and grow significantly in population and spread some more and use up more resources, and grow in population, and so on. And, also unlike any other, we don't so much adapt to the environment as we do alter it to our needs. Not always. Not for the tens of thousands of years of Homo Sapien existence and not for the hundreds of millions of years of various species of the Homo genus. Just really recently, and really specific in location and time. And, like a virus, spread quickly.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz, what physical evidence is there that convinces you, or even allows you to conceive of, something like collective consciousness? Something more than just what some guy named Jung wrote in a book a long time ago? Something others since 'subscribe to' or 'buy in to' without any real hard evidence of its existence?

      For the record, I'm totally on board with the idea of a collective consciousness. In my viewpoint, a collective consciousness would be just the kind of knowledge base needed to wield something like free will. And the gathering of all this 'data' would mean this existence is serving a very useful purpose. But I know, that's just crazy, right?

      "To see some god's mystical powers over and above the totality of nature's self organizing capacity is simply silly, when you can see it working in any fungus, beehive or flock of birds without god's doing!"

      Mystical powers? What exactly would that look like if it were there? Don't you have to know what you're looking for to positively or negatively prove something is or isn't happening by god's doing? So, how do you account for 'mystical' via the 'physical' sciences? Besides, God being the creator, made the matter, set the laws that govern it. The way it 'behaves', the way it interacts, that's where the design is. The 'givens' of science. Like gravity. Don't know the cause or why it does what it does, it just does. Or the 'given' that the difference between living and dead organic matter is the internally emitting will manifested in behaviors from the cellular level up of homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction. Don't know why, other than that's just how things work. Or, that's just 'chemistry', or 'biology'. That's just how these things behave when they're alive. When they're dead they don't. Makes perfect sense from my perspective. From yours?

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{First, it is not possible that you do not have faith in something.}}

      Them's fightin' words.

      {{Your concept of reality, created by your mind throughout life experience, is not complete. No one's is. So for you to be a functioning participant in reality/society at all means you have established beliefs in filling out that concept. Some things not known by you, some things not known by anyone. Some things told to you by people you trust. Beliefs that you have the utmost faith in because you do not even recognize them as possible points of flaw. You do not recognize or critically analyze that which you take as 'given'.}}

      Yes, there are givens when it comes to epistemology. Whether you call them "axioms" or "properly basic belief" or what-have-you, yes, you have to start somewhere. But do not make the gross error of conflating that with "faith." Faith means something more than that. Faith is an assertion of conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all falsification. Faith is treating hopes as substantive, faith is treating the unseen as evidence. Faith is trust without verification. As Mark Twain put it, "faith is believin' what you know ain't so." That's what I am talking about when I say I disdain the very notion of faith. It doesn't mean that I don't have certain axioms. I listed them in the very post you were quoting.

      "you believe existence as is can and did come about on its own" and "[Life is] simply a product of a physical body and the biological material it's made of" are not among them.

      The gross mistake in your argument is conflating "belief" and "faith." Yes, I believe those things, but it is on the basis of the available evidence. No, the evidence is not complete. There are discoveries yet to be made. And, as a statement of absolute fact, to date, no mystery ever investigated or process ever discovered has each and every single time in the history of science, 100% turned out to be natural processes, not superatural. People have tested Vitalism to see if there is any unseen force that motivates life and every answer ever found has been "chemistry." People have spent billions of dollars to pry off the face of the universal pocket-watch and have a look at its mechanisms, and every answer ever found has been "physics." People have done experiments on the mind to tease out how reason and volition works and the answer has always been "brains." (and, incidentally, we've discovered that a vastly smaller proportion of human behavior is governed by reason and not by uncontrolled instincts and subconscious drives than was ever suspected, so that's another reason my reaction to the whole "humans are special" argument is "don't flatter yourself, bub.")

      So, you are wrong to say it is not based on sound evidence, when all current evidence indicates exactly that, and there's no expectation that the arc of discovery is suddenly going to veer off into the mists of supernaturalism. But all scientific conclusions are always tentative, always merely to the best of our knowledge, so I will change my mind on these things the second GOOD evidence is presented, which you manifestly do not have.

      Also, don't confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical materialism. I'll let you look those up on your own time.

      {{I mean, I get what you're saying as far as how it can reach inaccurate conclusions. But you're so willing to toss out anything and everything born of this mind up to this point as if it's useless information.}}

      If its reliability is so demonstrably abysmal as we see from all the world's various and ever-splintering religions, yes, I absolutely and correctly dismiss anything which comes from the "sensus divinitatis" as false until otherwise verified. And if it were otherwise verified, then A) you didn't need the sensus divinitatis in the first place and B) it's still untrustworthy because it gives wrong answers 99.99999999999_% of the time. Even beyond the S.D., the human brain seems to be quite good at generating wrongheaded ideas and inaccurate guesses--we didn't start draining the swamp of myth and superstition until we discovered the principles of formal logic and the scientific method--THOSE are the tools which can tell you for certain whether something is true or false; everything before that is fumbling in the dark, and you are telling me to turn off the lights so I can see better.

      {{Do you not see how that information could be informative in our quest to understand it? A quest to understand born of that same mind. Driven by that mind. The same mind that compels you to have this discussion and that determines what you will and will not accept. It's all the same thing. It's all part of the equation. It's just not 'material'.}}

      Considering that every time I have suggested that God and his works might be amenable to investigation, you have hand-waved away the very notion? No. I do not see how that information could be informative in the very slightest. If we were to accept your arguments, all research into paleoanthropology, abiogenesis, neurology, and cosmology would grind to a halt and we wouldn't ever find another scrap of new information. Even if the Fine-Tuning Argument turns out to be true (even though it's fallacious and unsound) then we'll find out WHEN WE GET THERE. In the meantime appealing to the inexplicable when faced with the unexplained and thinking that you've gotten anywhere is absolutely DEMENTED.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      Quick check that might be causing some confusion. You said:

      {{And God doesn't just mold stuff, or 'miracle' stuff, into existence. Existence, by design, results in these things. It becomes what He wills it to. It's in how the laws are set, how matter 'naturally' behaves within the environment, and how events are sequenced through interaction of different components along the way. That is the design.}}

      Are you saying that he fine-tuned the universe to such an ineffable degree so that all cosmic development, physical laws, chemical interactions all fell just so, not just a universe that could give rise to life and ultimately beings capable of free will (at which time I assume the fine-tuned determinism was wrecked, but that might have been the intention), but that inevitably would do so at the chosen time and place? That things become what he wills them to because of very sensitive decisions made in the initial conditions, and that is how his will is manifested?

      Or does God ever take actions within the universe in real time?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "That things become what he wills them to because of very sensitive decisions made in the initial conditions, and that is how his will is manifested?.. Or does God ever take actions within the universe in real time?"

      Yes, that's a good way to put it. God, being outside of time/space, would 'interact' with existence in much the same way a programmer would work on a program, setting particular functions to work certain ways and in a certain sequence. We, being part of and within existence, experience the 'program' only when it's in runtime. Where time is linear and perpetually marching forward. So, to our perspective, whatever He does, that's just how it works and that's how it always has been.

      But God did, according to the story, take action in real time in one specific case. And the only reason He'd have to do so in this context would be because there was an element introduced into the program that behaved in unpredictable ways, contrary to how everything else worked. Free will means we can 'create'. We're creators who create our own actions and decisions. Unlike the rest of the universe that just 'naturally' does what He wills, we do not. We make our own decisions for our own reasons.

      See, that's what I think the stories of Genesis and the rest is describing. The period of time in our history where He did actually have to interact. He first introduced a volatile element, then had to make some tweaks to account for this rogue element to still ensure the intended functionality of the program. The stories are the remnants, the distant echoed memories of an ancient age, nearly a millennia before writing, when a God made HIs presence known and impacted the course of history.

      A clue to this would be that Abraham/Isaac story. Why would an omniscient being have to 'test' Abraham? Wouldn't God already know what Abraham would do? Well, not exactly. Even if God can see past/present/future all at once, if Abraham never makes the decision, God really wouldn't know. So, God had to create the situation so Abraham would then 'make' his decision. Once the decision exists, God knows. If it's never created, then it's not part of existence. It's not part of the timeline. The same goes for the flood. Why else would an omniscient being 'regret' something? It was what those with free will 'chose' to do. In this case they contaminated the humans He created. That's why He 'regretted' putting them (us) here. The same with the Babel story. An omniscient God sees what these 'children of men' are doing, then decides, based on how they're behaving, to make a change. To disperse them and spread them out all around the world.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "Faith means something more than that. Faith is an assertion of conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all falsification. Faith is treating hopes as substantive, faith is treating the unseen as evidence. Faith is trust without verification."

      Faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.... a strongly held belief or theory.

      I know you wish to disassociate yourself from the idea of 'faith', but it doesn't just apply one way and not the other. Basically, we are here. We do in fact exist. And our existence must be accounted for in some way. Your faith, your complete trust or confidence, is in the unproven idea that we can and do exist without having been deliberately created. It's your default state unless, or until, something contrary is demonstrated. You believe that it's possible that this intricate, elaborate universe can and most likely did come about all on its own, with no deliberate design or intent behind it. You trust this belief as being the more likely, the more plausible, explanation for what is not known for certain. In spite of the evidence how unlikely and improbable it is that so many things would have to be just so, and happen just so, for it all to work, and despite the fact that this is the one and only occurrence we know of for sure of an existence. In your mind, your faith still lies in the idea that existence as is does not require a creator. That is a strongly held belief. That is trust without verification. It's an assertion of conviction, assumed without reason and defended against all falsification. Like it or not, there are indeed two sides of this coin.

      "no mystery ever investigated or process ever discovered has each and every single time in the history of science, 100% turned out to be natural processes, not superatural. People have tested Vitalism to see if there is any unseen force that motivates life and every answer ever found has been "chemistry." People have spent billions of dollars to pry off the face of the universal pocket-watch and have a look at its mechanisms, and every answer ever found has been "physics." People have done experiments on the mind to tease out how reason and volition works and the answer has always been "brains.""

      Right, the natural sciences have never detected any 'supernatural' cause. Every single time a mystery was solved by science, it was because a 'natural' cause could be traced. So, in the case of something 'supernatural', or 'immaterial', there would simply be nothing to see. It would just be stuff 'behaving' in a certain way that makes this all work. That behavior, just a given. That 'living' element that emanates from within a living body and compels it to willfully act to provide for its needs to continue to function, 'biology'. Don't know what causes it to do that. Just a given'. By your standards the mental experience that we all know so well doesn't exist. If we're to limit all that's possible to what can be detected through material sciences, then there's no account for the mind. Outwardly, it's just biological matter doing stuff. No detectable mind/unseen force. But without being able to actually experience it because it 'is' you, there'd be no way of knowing what was really being accomplished by those firing neurons and whatnot. By the way you're talking, there'd be no reason to even speculate anything more than just firing neurons and changes in oxygenated blood flow was going on. That's just how it behaves, probably to operate the biological happenings of the body. Yet, because we experience it, we actually know there is more. A lot more.

      "But all scientific conclusions are always tentative, always merely to the best of our knowledge, so I will change my mind on these things the second GOOD evidence is presented, which you manifestly do not have."

      Again, blanket statements regarding whether or not my evidence is 'good' doesn't help at all. Tell me what qualifies my evidence as not 'good'? On what do you base your conclusion? On what grounds do you toss out everything I'm bringing up? Prove you have good reason and that you're not just dismissing it based on a strongly held belief. I can illustrate in detail how a specific timeline marked with specifically described events given in the Genesis account line up chronologically and geographically to actual events over the same specified timeline. Side by side they match right up. Over 2000 years worth. And not only that, but a distinct behavioral change can be seen to have actually happened in that same place and time. An expected result if what's being described is true. And we have the birth of civilizations, each with their own language. Also an expected result in the context of the story. And, the ancestors of those who actually lived then all say there were all these gods around in their ancient past. Another expected result. You don't have to accept it, but if you're going to deem what I'm presenting as not 'good', I'd like to know on what grounds you categorically dismiss the whole concept.

      "If we were to accept your arguments, all research into paleoanthropology, abiogenesis, neurology, and cosmology would grind to a halt and we wouldn't ever find another scrap of new information."

      That's not true at all. That's just an argument based in ignorance. It's simply a matter of understanding what jurisdiction science can and cannot cover. If anything, it could steer investigation. Guide hypotheses that can then be tested. Maybe there's something there, maybe there's not. But there are real affects that can really be seen here. There are real civilizations that rose and fell. Real climate shifts. If there's any truth to this then it's part of 'our' truth because these are events at the very foundation of modern humanity's existence. These events shaped us. It's part of the whole truth. And if the goal is truth then it would be folly to dismiss this without having good reason to do so.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{Your faith, your complete trust or confidence, is in the unproven idea that we can and do exist without having been deliberately created.}}

      I just explained to you how this is a TENTATIVE belief based on the current available evidence. I also said very early on that I will become a theist the moment good evidence is presented.

      Either you retract this statement and grant me

      The sincerity of my own stated positions, or this conversation is over. I can't hold coherent discourse with someone so dishonest as to distort my explicit statements, and who continually pretends to know my beliefs better than I myself do.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Methodskeptic, I think he is lost case.

      If he really wanted to learn anything at all about truth, he would have reached the point of looking for it some place else than this silly mystery book of his, the bible ... and grasped the fact by now that no gods could have created anything at all, since they were all a product of human invention ... or ants, birds, dogs and dolphins would have some gods as well, but it's quite obvious, all of nature has no use for any gods, so maybe he should have a talk with a good psychologist to find out what's wrong with his brain to constantly insist on super natural BS to satisfy his view of reality ... :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "I just explained to you how this is a TENTATIVE belief based on the current available evidence. I also said very early on that I will become a theist the moment good evidence is presented."

      How did what I say not correctly reflect what you said? I specifically said, "It's your default state unless, or until, something contrary is demonstrated." So, tentative. Right?

      I haven't said anything that you haven't demonstrated during the course of this discussion. I can only go by what you say, and this is what you've said. As we've covered, there's nothing in the 'current available evidence' that corroborates absolutely either viewpoint. Faith, according to the Oxford dictionary, is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". It's a strongly held belief or theory without the benefit of sufficient proof. Unless 'good evidence' is presented, unless you're convinced otherwise, this is what you believe. You have no doubt that existence as is can very well have come about without being deliberately created. You'll, in fact, have to be convinced otherwise. And you have stood your ground, defending this belief, all throughout this discussion. You've categorically dismissed everything I've put forward, not based on any specific evidence that contradicts, but based on the viewpoint that you hold. You would have to be convinced we're the product of deliberate creation. If that were truly as 'tentative' as you state, you wouldn't be so quick to generally dismiss everything I've stated as ridiculous and nonsensical. You have not demonstrated even being open to the idea. It hasn't even been worth serious consideration up to this point. When pressed for specific reasons, I've yet to be given anything that suggests your dismissing what I'm saying based on anything more than personally held beliefs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "If he really wanted to learn anything at all about truth, he would have reached the point of looking for it some place else than this silly mystery book of his, the bible"

      Come on, f_hruz, has it not been blatantly obvious to this point that I have looked elsewhere? We've talked about evolution, cosmology, archaeology, biology, quantum physics and beyond, just in our back and forths. I've written entire hubs tracing the standard scientific models of both the geological/biological formation of the earth in great detail (this hub), as well as both the physical and behavioral evolution of the human mind. I think it should be clear to this point that I'm looking at everything to try to arrive at the truth regarding 'everything'. The only difference here is that you have formed a viewpoint based on your assumption that the writers of the bible were lying or delusional. So, you're basing your conclusions on something you don't know to be true. Plus, you keep postulating that nothing in nature has any use/need for a God, though there's no explanation for what compels and propels life to be, or what first set the universe in motion to begin with. So, you're inserting certainty where there is none and reaching conclusions based on those assertions. I'm not closing any doors. I'm putting forth an idea based on the idea that God is real and the texts of the bible are describing events that actually happened, and I'm basing what I'm postulating on actual evidence that backs up what I'm saying.

      If we're going to get a psychologist involved to find out what's wrong, maybe we should both go.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I think all of y'all are nuts!

      I remember getting potty trained, too, does that count?

      Human beings are the most varied variable on the planet; for the ones that can't see that, obviously need to get out more!

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      First of all, if a conclusion is tentative, then the trust in it is not “complete.” The “confidence” in it is proportional to the evidence, it’s not total confidence. So, by my definition or yours, I disavow that I have “faith” in what you claim I do.

      Dictionary definitions can be conversational traps, because dictionaries describe how words are used, they do not prescribe definitions by which words should be used. In this instance, it’s leading you into an equivocation fallacy, to conflate the confidence borne of real evidence, with the confidence borne of conviction. You’re using this equivocation about the definition of faith as the basis of a “tu quoque” argument, to argue that I’m rejecting your arguments because of a supposedly faith-based presupposed certainty in naturalism.

      Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing I claim to an absolute degree of certainty is that the universe exists and we can interact with and learn from it—that is absolutely the most parsimonious assertion I can make, the bare minimum that keeps one from sinking into the absurdity of solipsism. So, if you want to say I have faith in non-solipsism, okay, fine, but that’s where it stops: at the absolute bare minimum, the level at which we *necessarily* have to invest confidence, we have no choice on that count. Remember, there is a world of difference between *Methodological* Naturalism, and *Philosophical* naturalism. The former is a tool (the only tool which in the history of humanity has ever reliably been able to detect truth from falsehood). Only the latter is a metaphysical claim, one which I do not claim to an absolute degree of certainty.

      That’s why I’m always careful to specify the use of the word “faith” to distinguish it from other levels of belief and knowledge. “Knowledge” is generally defined as “true”, “justified” belief, and so rightly earns high trust and confidence. Is it your assertion that all knowledge is faith and all faith is knowledge? The mind boggles. I don’t think so: Faith is an assertion of certainty that goes beyond the available, verifiable evidence. It’s belief that doesn’t ask for justification. Faith often requires one to deny evidence in contradiction of one’s views.

      However, it is illogical to state that just because contradiction is offered, that faith is the reason. Genuinely weak evidence can be discounted. Assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Arguments which depend on logical fallacies need not be given the time of day. Arguments which can only be true if one assumes facts not in evidence can be tabled until such time as their underpinnings are verified.

      And put simply, everything you have presented regarding the veracity of Genesis trespasses onto one or more of those categories. In total, your entire approach is wrongheaded. To read Genesis and make predictions about things which are already known is only an exercise in confirmation bias. The people who actually made those discoveries in geology, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, and sociology needed no input from the bible, nor did they receive any benefit for it. On the contrary, the Bible has consistently been used to deny scientific progress in these fields.

      Your approach requires you to distort the bible to fit the facts in order to rescue it from obsolescence. You have to ignore that it clearly gets the order of creation wrong as written. You have to ignore that it says Adam was alone and argue that he was not. You have to posit supernatural causes for cultural change that are completely unnecessary and unproveable. You have to explain away a flood that never happened. You have to presume unnaturally long lifespans in order to make your chronology work when there’s no evidence humans ever have or possibly could live that long. (Do you have any idea what centuries of life would do to your teeth?) And then you claim that it corresponds “specifically” when you can’t narrow it down to within a thousand years. That’s the opposite of specificity.

      If you really wanted to demonstrate the truth of the bible, you’d make predictions about something which is *not* known, and go out to the Near East and discover new information that supports your prediction. Making post hoc analyses about stuff we already know only proves that you’re willing to make adjustments in what you think it says based on stuff discovered independently. I too would make a prediction that you will find things in the historical record to support your interpretations of the bible, but suffice it to say my hypothesis in that would be different than yours.

      And, lastly, the reason your argument isn’t getting any traction is that it’s in support of a book that has already been falsified to a degree which I find convincing (though not to a degree of “complete trust or confindence, so don’t even think about it.) The book of Exodus describes momentous events not captured in any extrabiblical history nor leaving any trace in the archaeological record, neither of which is reasonably possible if true. Not one single event in the gospels is corroborated in any contemporary extrabiblical record, which is not possible if they were true. I could go on and on with the thousands of things wrong with the bible.

      So for this particular baseball game, Mighty Casey has struck out, gone home, and is sitting in the bathtub with a glass of whisky wondering where it all went wrong, and you’re still in the stands cheering about how great the first inning was, when I don’t really think Team Bible did all that well even then.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{Plus, you keep postulating that nothing in nature has any use/need for a God, though there's no explanation for what compels and propels life to be, or what first set the universe in motion to begin with.}}

      You really, REALLY need to look up what an "Argument from Ignorance" is, and why they are so weak. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Re: Argument from Ignorance

      You're acting like I'm postulating a God out of pure imagination. What I'm pointing out is that these 'gaps' are to be expected based on how that particular God was described in texts written thousands of years ago before the knowledge that makes those 'gaps' so apparent was even known. These texts made the distinction long ago between the physical body and the spiritual soul. They made the distinction regarding God's different perception as far as time goes and His ability to be in all places at once, which is consistent with Him being the creator of the universe. Things that only really make sense now, yet were written long before that made any sense at all.

      Again, you don't have to accept any of it. But for you to come here and tell me that my beliefs or my ideas are ridiculous or laughable or unimpressive, I'm going to need better, more specific reasons. Just dismissing them based on your personal leanings does nothing as I've clearly addressed why I lean the way I do and reject leaning the way you do. I show over and over again how the God described fits just right according to all we now know, and how Genesis fits in our history better than it's often given credit for. There's all kinds of reasons to believe, that in no way qualify as 'arguments from ignorance', that back up what I'm saying. Invoking 'arguments from ignorance' is nothing more than a tactic to justify dismissing all of this and not having to give it due consideration. It's a cop-out, really. If it works for you to tell yourself that's what I'm doing, I'm fine with that, but if you're going to insist on continuing to argue with me about it, I'm going to continue to point it out.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Re: Faith, some more

      The way in which you react and respond to what I'm proposing makes it apparent that this is a faith thing. And, just like in the case of many christians, that faith is so absolute that it hinders the ability to recognize it as such. The viewpoint in and of itself would be debatable regarding whether or not it's faith or whether it's as you describe it. But your reaction to what I'm saying, and your reasoning for your conclusions, takes anything but faith off the table. In the end, however, it doesn't really matter, and the whole 'faith' discussion in general is pointless. It's like trying to have a rational conversation with a young earth creationist. They're not open to self-assessment and they're not open to the possibility of being wrong. You claim you are, yet your responses clearly illustrate otherwise.

      "Remember, there is a world of difference between *Methodological* Naturalism, and *Philosophical* naturalism. The former is a tool (the only tool which in the history of humanity has ever reliably been able to detect truth from falsehood). Only the latter is a metaphysical claim, one which I do not claim to an absolute degree of certainty."

      I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that. So, admitting that, can you maybe see why the allowance of possibilities beyond the strictly material would be relevant? Or the simple fact that there may very well be things at play here that don't strictly fit within the realm of the physical sciences that you in the next breath will claim to be the only thing you'll consider? Can you see how that standpoint could very easily 'hamstring' you from ever really getting the whole picture? I mean, I get that you can't just willy-nilly shoe-horn every conceivable imagined possibility into the mix, which is what you often try to make what I'm saying out to be, but that's clearly not what I'm doing. I'm postulating a God based strictly on how He's described in the source material, and I'm showing how well that description still fits, and how it makes even more sense now, based on modern knowledge. And I'm grounding that idea using modern knowledge. Showing how it all still fits, and even offers explanations where we still lack explanation.

      "Is it your assertion that all knowledge is faith and all faith is knowledge?"

      No, I'm making the distinction, pointing out the line where one ends and the other begins. And I'm explaining why.

      "Faith is an assertion of certainty that goes beyond the available, verifiable evidence. It’s belief that doesn’t ask for justification. Faith often requires one to deny evidence in contradiction of one’s views."

      Which is exactly what you've been doing at every turn with everything I've put forward. You've denied evidence BECAUSE it contradicts with your views, and for no other reason.

      As for 'not asking for justification' ... There's only one observable universe. And in this one observable universe there is a series of events too numerous to count along with an exactness in the nature of the behavior of matter in the conditions created by the laws of this one universe that make life as we know it possible. So many factors, in fact, that we're left with postulating the possibility of there being an infinite number of universes in an attempt to explain it because it goes against all logic for it to be this way in this one and only universe by pure chance. Yet this is your default stance, without justification.

      "If you really wanted to demonstrate the truth of the bible, you’d make predictions about something which is *not* known, and go out to the Near East and discover new information that supports your prediction."

      Right, because that's a totally reasonable possibility. I wouldn't know the first thing to do even if I could get over to the Near East. I'd rather leave that to the experts. There's only so much I can do. But if you were to piece something together that offers explanations that could prove important to our understanding of who we are, would you not feel an obligation to share it? To put it out there into the hands of those who are in a position to verify if they so deem the possibility worth the trouble?

      "And, lastly, the reason your argument isn’t getting any traction is that it’s in support of a book that has already been falsified to a degree which I find convincing"

      I know. I know what you're speaking of. That's part of the reason I find this so important. Nearly every attempt to confirm or falsify these biblical accounts start from the age of Jesus and attempt to construct a timeline going backwards based on the OT. Meaning you'd have to have a complete unbroken history all the way back to Adam with no gaps. Placing these events as I have, using a template of Genesis laid over history, reveals these events to be a good 1500 years earlier than most are looking. Like the exodus, for example. This places that event near the beginning of recorded Egyptian history, if not prior. And the Egyptians are noted to have glossed over times of defeat or of internal turmoil in their historical recordings, so it would make sense that they wouldn't write about Moses and the Israelites getting away from them. That's not exactly something they'd be proud of. But, like Aron pointed out on the show, there is a story that resembles the Red Sea story regarding the water being pulled away from the dry bed below from Egypt, and it's dating of roughly 2600 BC is much more in line with the timeline. It could be that this story was inspired by an actual event, yet described in a way that glorified Egypt.

      Again, I'm fine with you not accepting any of this. But don't just think this isn't something that I've researched heavily and don't just think I'm trying to justify my beliefs. Those assumptions are going to hinder your ability to ever really see what I'm seeing because you think you already know what I must be doing.

      "Not one single event in the gospels is corroborated in any contemporary extrabiblical record, which is not possible if they were true."

      I suggest you look into the book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan. This is a non-Christian (he's actually Muslim) historical account of the real Jesus as a person who actually did live during that time actually did get crucified by the Romans. Something reserved only for those who were deemed serious trouble-makers and who were put on display like that for a reason. This account is taken purely from non-biblical historical accounts.

      That whole 'confirmation bias' thing goes both ways as well.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      God has always been a patch over the unknown.

      We didn't know what caused lightning, then we discovered static electricity.

      We didn't know what caused volcanism--when Pompeii was destroyed the Romans didn't even have a word for "volcano"--then we discovered the structure of the earth.

      We didn't know what caused earthquakes, then we discovered plate tectonics.

      We didn't know what the stars and planets were, then we invented telescopes.

      We didn't know how different kinds of life originated, then we discovered evolution.

      We didn't know why people got sick, then we invented microscopes.

      At every turn, people didn't know things, turned to God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, until science was developed which started knocking down the unknowns one by one. Now, you're down to "we don't know how the universe started," and "we don't know how life works." Well, guess what: they're working on it.

      Can you not see how "we don't know ____, therefore we need God as an explanation" is a weak argument? Historically, it always fails sooner or later.

      Neil Degrasse Tyson said it quite artfully: Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand ... If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."

      You can believe whatever you want for whatever reasons you want--but this is your argument, you're the one trying to sell me on it, and I'm telling you, I don't buy it. Not because of my own beliefs, but because I know bad reasoning when I see it. This particular one is an actual logical fallacy, one of many you ought to educate yourself about, and as such it can be dismissed out of hand because the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Notice how the more that is understood the more powerful God needs to become?

      The explanation for why does God not need to have been created becomes because he is outside time and space and therefore time is meaningless to him so he can be everywhere all at the same time.

      But when we study time or more specifically the lack of time say for instance in a black hole we come to understand that when time stops nothing moves and without time God would not have had the time to create the universe.

      Then the argument becomes... God creates his own time and space outside ours. But if that's the case we are back to him living within time and needing to have been created.

      Not long ago it was thought the earth was the centre of the universe and the universe consisted of our galaxy. Then it was thought that it can only be God that holds our solar system together, then the math was invented that explains that. Now you are trying to attribute, thought and the creation of the universe to God because you don't understand it.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "So, admitting that, can you maybe see why the allowance of possibilities beyond the strictly material would be relevant?"

      Can you demonstrate them? I can't rule out the supernatural to an absolute certainty, but if you want me to seriously consider it, I'll need some way to verify whether it's true or false.

      "Or the simple fact that there may very well be things at play here that don't strictly fit within the realm of the physical sciences that you in the next breath will claim to be the only thing you'll consider? Can you see how that standpoint could very easily 'hamstring' you from ever really getting the whole picture?"

      No, because by their nature, causes beyond the material cannot be investigated, cannot be proved, cannot be falsified. As Richard Feynman put it, "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." If you want to call that attitude hamstringing or hog-tying or whatever ad hominem attack you come up with next, I can't stop you. I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, so immaterial explanations that one can never be certain of don't meet my standards. Sorry.

      {{I get that you can't just willy-nilly shoe-horn every conceivable imagined possibility into the mix, which is what you often try to make what I'm saying out to be, but that's clearly not what I'm doing.}}

      I didn't say you were. I'm just saying I'm fully confident that you'd be able to conceivable imagine any possibility required to help your theory hang together. There's no fact or contradiction which you would allow to falsify it.

      I will say, that if I were to lower my standards of evidence to your level, then I would be in a position of having to accept multiple competing and contradictory truth claims beyond just yours, but I'm regrettably allergic to absurdity.

      {{"Faith is an assertion of certainty that goes beyond the available, verifiable evidence. It’s belief that doesn’t ask for justification. Faith often requires one to deny evidence in contradiction of one’s views."

      Which is exactly what you've been doing at every turn with everything I've put forward. You've denied evidence BECAUSE it contradicts with your views, and for no other reason.}}

      If I were arguing from a position of faith, then I would dismiss your arguments out of hand. But you can't say that because I dismiss your arguments out of hand, therefore I'm arguing from a position of faith. That's another fallacy, called Affirming the Consequent. (Broadly speaking, this is the core flaw with your entire historical approach.) In actuality, I dismiss your arguments because your evidence is not nearly as strong as you think it is. It's transparently riddled with actual, serious logical fallacies when you're not just repeating hoary old creationist arguments that have been Previously Refuted A Thousand Times [PRATT] just in slightly different terms. You're offering me a tunafish sandwich and claiming it's sashimi, and when I don't bite, you claim it's because I don't like sashimi. Yes, if I didn't like sashimi I wouldn't bite, but that's not the case, it just isn't sashimi. I actually love sashimi, and I would eat it with gusto if there were any, but I'm regrettably allergic to tunafish.

      {{As for 'not asking for justification' ... There's only one observable universe. And in this one observable universe there is a series of events too numerous to count along with an exactness in the nature of the behavior of matter in the conditions created by the laws of this one universe that make life as we know it possible. So many factors, in fact, that we're left with postulating the possibility of there being an infinite number of universes in an attempt to explain it because it goes against all logic for it to be this way in this one and only universe by pure chance. Yet this is your default stance, without justification.}}

      PRATT. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#...

      {{Nearly every attempt to confirm or falsify these biblical accounts start from the age of Jesus and attempt to construct a timeline going backwards based on the OT.}}

      Not even remotely true. The Exodus account is a profoundly improbable silence not just of Egyptian embarrassment, but there ever having been a record of Hebrew slaves in any number at all in Egypt. No neighboring kingdoms recording any such calamity to Egypt. No archaeological evidence of their nomadic period in Sinai. No archaeological evidence of the conquest of Canaan.

      When it comes to Jesus, contemporary historians who were in a position to corroborate momentous events that make no mention. We know a lot about Herod and the rulership of first-century Palestine, but there's no historical record of any census or slaughter of innocents, no Wise Men prophesying Herod's downfall, no star in the east, no triumphal entry to Jerusalem, no cleansing of the Temple, no tradition of releasing prisoners for Passover, no darkness over all the world, no earthquake, no zombies getting up and walking into Jerusalem. Not even a rumor of an itinerant rabbi from Galilee with an overinflated reputation, during a time when miracle workers were thick on the ground and multiple historians keenly interested in recording their exploits.

      Is it really plausible that none of these momentous events left no trace in the physical or historical record if they actually ever happened? I think not.

      Reza Aslan's book may be a bestseller, but it's getting mixed reviews from scholars:

      http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/0...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review...

      http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391

      Notwithstanding his arguments, there's still no actual contemporary extrabiblical account of anyone recognizable as Jesus actually being alive at that time, getting noticed, getting executed, and several noteworthy absences from sources which were in a position to report on such matters.

      Timelines? Don't even need them. But I would need evidence that humans can or ever have lived as long as you say before I consider your account to be remotely plausible.

      {{But don't just think this isn't something that I've researched heavily and don't just think I'm trying to justify my beliefs. Those assumptions are going to hinder your ability to ever really see what I'm seeing because you think you already know what I must be doing.}}

      If your beliefs are a necessary presupposition for your argument to hold together, then I'm not accusing you of deliberately using motivated reasoning, I'm just connecting the dots. You have constructed something which does rather neatly support what you already believe. But as an outsider, I'm not as inclined as you to follow your line of reasoning. Ultimately, I've read Genesis 1-11 several times during the course of the conversation, and I can follow what you're saying, but I can't help but notice that it relies on too many dismissals of contradiction, too much reliance on ambiguities, too many ad hoc excuses, and an ostensible "dramatic change in human behavior that forever altered how humanity lives and acts" which doesn't really cry out for a supernatural explanation and even if it did, is just another unconvincing God-of-the-gaps argument which 0% compelling just because it's an appeal to ignorance.

      You're not as familiar as you need to be with many different fallacies, you're not as familiar as you need to be with overall philosophy of science, you're not as familiar as you need to be with historical scientific methodology.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "At every turn, people didn't know things, turned to God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, until science was developed which started knocking down the unknowns one by one."

      Again, if you or anyone else thinks that scientific conclusions can have anything to say about whether or not God was involved either doesn't understand God, or science, or either. Nothing's changed. The distinction between physical and spiritual has already been made. The desires of the physical body versus that of the spiritual soul. You know the bible, right? Then you should know...

      Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      Job 12:7-9 - “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

      We peer into living things only to find a sophisticated system of storing and passing on information. We find the universe to be mathematically exact. Math in and of itself, not being something we created, but merely discovered. Then, of course, we find that our minds, also capable of storing and recalling information, is another sophisticated system still beyond our comprehension.

      Science in no way has ruled out God. It has only defined Him further. And there are plenty who understand science just fine, yet not only see no conflict, but actually see that science supports a deliberate creator ...

      Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

      "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

      "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God." - Einstein

      Here's a quote from Ken Miller, a respected cell biologist and Christian ...

      “By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”

      - Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'

      And then there's Russell Stannard, a retired high energy particle physicist who worked at CERN who "currently holds the position of Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Open University. In 1986, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’. He was awarded the OBE for ‘contributions to physics, the Open University, and the popularisation of science’ (1998) and the Bragg Medal and Prize of the Institute of Physics for ‘distinguished contributions to the teaching of physics’ (1999)."

      All your statements illustrate is a total lack of understanding of God as He's described. It's not just me that sees cohesion between science and God, and it clearly has nothing to do with your level of understanding of science.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      It's not that it 'becomes because He is outside time and space'. It was written that way a long time ago. It's always been that way. We just didn't understand that until roughly 1915 or so.

      As for time, or the lack thereof, why would God, being the creator of the universe/time/space, be impacted by what He created? Time only exists within this universe and only those who are products of this universe, like you and me, are subject to it.

      We still don't know what holds the solar system together. I mean, we know it's gravity, which we understand the effects of mathematically, but don't understand what causes it. And, if you'll recall, it was a devout Christian who proved the earth was not the center of the universe. Then it was another Christian, a Catholic Priest/Physicist in fact, who first proposed the theory that would later come to be known as the big bang. These people clearly were not hindered by their beliefs.

      And FYI, we didn't 'invent' math. How could the universe conform to something for billions of years before we 'invented' it? Math was discovered, not invented.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      arrgh, my grammar is terrible today. That's what I get for dipping in and out of writing midsentence while I'm at work.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      Einstein was a professed agnostic in a time when that label meant one disavowed the ability of human minds to address the question of god's existence, so you pulling that quote in an attempt to shore up your own position is extremely dishonest. Einstein repeatedly expressed annoyance at religious apologists who quote-mined him for their own purposes.

      Miller I freely acknowledge is an evangelical Christian, but again, you're quote-mining the scientific community at large. Overall, the higher educational level you look at, the more religious beliefs drop off. The higher level of academic achievement, the less reported religious belief is found. The lowest levels of all are found in the upper reaches of biologists and physicists which should tell you something.

      The point is not whether some scientists have the capacity to compartmentalize their religious beliefs and their scientific expertise--the human capacity for doublethink is nearly limitless.

      The point is that you held up human ignorance as a reason to believe in god, and to date every single instance of such that has ever been investigated has been found to not require god. Sure, some people will always see the presence of god in such things, but that's because god is unfalsifiable and unverifiable, and shall ever be. It's not a reason *to* believe in god.

      I live about ninety minutes away from Fermilab, I have personally spoken to high-energy physicists who work at that location and CERN at various times of year. I'm here to tell you, they're not hunting for god in all those numbers--and at the same time, a more intellectually humble bunch I've never seen. They know exactly what they don't know and to how many significant figures they don't know it. But they have no need of god as a hypothesis for the origin of the universe, they're too busy finding out actual facts.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Introduced, invented... whatever. It depends on what one reads.

      It is not written in the bible that God is outside space and time. Peter 3:8 says, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This simple states that God is not limited by time as we are. You've interpreted that to mean he is outside space-time, but if one is to understand time one would understand what happens or doesn't or can't happen without time. It seems to keep the concept of God alive one has to keep increasing the powers of God as we increase our knowledge of the universe. The irony of believing in a God with all that power who's only desire is to have us believe in and worship him, but he just can't find a way to reach us. Even prayer has been shown to work no more than a placebo. The irony.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      And, incidentally, it's precisely because I have educated myself and talked to experts that I have the opinions that I do on the origin of the universe, and if the people I look to as authorities, with decades of experience, education, and the highest possible standards for certainty don't have complete trust and confidence in any one set of answers, then you don't get to say I do either.

      They don't say anything is true until they're 99.9999% sure that it's valid. "These bible verses vaguely resemble such-and-such period of the early Bronze Age" is pretty weak sauce.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "Can you demonstrate them? I can't rule out the supernatural to an absolute certainty, but if you want me to seriously consider it, I'll need some way to verify whether it's true or false."

      Demonstrate them how? How am I to demonstrate something supernatural in a way that's objectively verifiable by your 'natural' requirements? This is the whole point I've been trying to make. It's entirely possible to 'find some way to verify', but the distinction between the material and the immaterial must be understood to then move toward 'finding some [other] way', acknowledging the particulars of the case at hand. The fact is that the God you're arguing against the existence of was described very specifically, and those specific descriptions make it apparent why a demonstration by your requirements is ruled out as a possibility. Again, the distinction was made long ago between physical and spiritual.

      You admit you "do not claim to an absolute degree of certainty" from your viewpoint philosophical naturalism. That alone opens wide a pretty significant door of possibilities. I mean, I understand the inability to objectively/demonstrably falsify the supernatural opens up for the possibility of inaccurate conclusions, and I get your objections based on that where forming your worldview is concerned. I can't be satisfied by that knowing full well that 'methodological naturalism' cannot account for the mind, which is a pretty significant piece of the puzzle. It's the one and only thing we each experience first hand yet know full well is unobservable. Considering the one and only material thing we each experience has a lot more going on than outward appearances would suggest means the likelihood of it being the only thing unobservable, yet truly existing, unlikely at best. I personally have no issue with your stance, unless you're arguing against what I'm saying based on that. Then I feel compelled to point out these gaps because this is one of my primary issues with the atheist/godless viewpoint and why I could never consider it, which played a role in where I am today.

      Re: Argument from Fine Tuning being PRATT .. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#

      The 'fine tuning' argument being refuted due to the size of the universe doesn't apply here as my claim has nothing to do with whether or not life could exist elsewhere in this universe. It's that it exists at all in this universe, whether once or more. And the other, regarding the constants of the universe, well I think it speaks for itself ... "Even if it is clear that the current equations with different constants cannot produce life, completely different equations (and constants) might still be life-producing." There's absolutely no knowing that one way or the other, so we're still left with dealing with what we do in fact know. And as far as the multi-verse, "if there is such a multiverse then there is no need for the God" makes no sense. Whether one universe or many, all had to be set in motion at some point, which goes back to the original question. And how this results in 'no need for a God' just boggles me. An even more elaborate explanation means no need for deliberate creator?

      "Notwithstanding his arguments, there's still no actual contemporary extrabiblical account of anyone recognizable as Jesus actually being alive at that time, getting noticed, getting executed, and several noteworthy absences from sources which were in a position to report on such matters."

      Did you not notice in the links you provided that not a single one denounced the claims that Jesus was an actual person who actually was crucified by the Romans? In fact, the first specifically says this ... "The strongest element of his case is the fact of the crucifixion. The fact that Jesus was executed as “King of the Jews”...". Though neither view Jesus as the son of God as Christians claim, both Jews and Muslims acknowledge Jesus as an actual historical figure.

      As for the stories of Jesus, that is part of what I hope to accomplish. I started with the books of Moses for a reason. Because, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the bible, nobody knows for certain how old the books of Moses are or who wrote them. But we do know that the text as we have it today has not been changed from it's oldest known surviving copies. The new testament stuff had a lot of prying hands playing with it, especially in the choosing of what to include and bits and pieces that appear to have been added in later. My hope is that clarify at the beginning will bring clarity here as well.

      For example, the virgin birth. I know the controversy here as far as the translation goes. As far as I can tell it would make way more sense if Jesus were not immaculately conceived. I know this will get me in trouble with a lot of believers, but it seems to me what was most significant about what Jesus accomplished is that no other human could do what he did. If he were immaculately conceived, then he would not truly be human on the same playing field. And especially in the context I read it, God still fathered Jesus, just not in that way. He did so by actively interacting with the Jewish people, giving them specific laws that controlled breeding and even food intake. In this way God 'fathered' Jesus in a world where free will ruled through His interactions with those whose line Jesus would ultimately come from.

      "If your beliefs are a necessary presupposition for your argument to hold together, then I'm not accusing you of deliberately using motivated reasoning, I'm just connecting the dots."

      God being real as described is the only presupposition because that little tidbit has an impact on the rest of it. What I"m putting forward is only possible if He's real. So, for argument sake, presupposing His existence is indeed required for it to make sense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Re: Einstein - Here's another one ... "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

      And here's the rest of the one I included the first time ... "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

      It's widely documented that while Einstein did not believe in a personal God, and in fact found the whole idea childish, he said he believed in the "pantheistic" God as described by Baruch Spinoza.

      As for believers in the scientific community you should look at recent polls on the topic. That trend is quickly changing. The high percentage of atheists in the scientific community in decades past had more to do with the cultural issues regarding science/religion and less to do with aptitude. Those coming form non-religious backgrounds were simply more prone to go into scientific fields. However, nowadays the split is much closer to 50/50, much like the world's population in general.

      I'm not holding up human ignorance as a reason to believe in God. I'm simply showing that God as described fits really well regarding what we know and what we do not in this modern age. And that's not meant to be a reason to believe. It's simply illustrating how there's no reason, based on scientific knowledge, to reach the opposing conclusion either.

      Of course those working at CERN and in the scientific fields in general don't hypothesize a God. That's methodological naturalism, which I agree is a necessary standpoint where the practice of science is concerned. In fact, the majority of the forefathers of science and its methods were themselves believers who made that distinction long ago, yet found no reason to dismiss their beliefs. And that carries on today with scientists who are at the same time believers in God and see no contradiction. Compartmentalization my be true for some believers, but certainly not all.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      I interpret "God created the heavens and the earth" to mean He exists outside of space-time. But that verse in Peter, which I believe is quoting Psalms (or maybe Proverbs?) where it says much the same thing, is pretty directly stating that God's perception of time is different than ours. And He's also described as being everywhere at once ...

      Psalms 139: 7-10 - Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.

      Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the Lord are in every place, watching the evil and the good.

      Both of these only since the early 1900's make sense and remain consistent with that first verse where it says He's the creator. What can/can't happen with/without time only applies to those who are 'of' this universe. Why would God be restricted by something He created if He exists apart from it?

      "It seems to keep the concept of God alive one has to keep increasing the powers of God as we increase our knowledge of the universe."

      Only human interpretation and understanding increases. What I'm referring to was written thousands of years ago and hasn't changed at all. As for the 'irony', it's not ironic at all. It illustrates the purpose as being free will and the primary theme throughout the entirety of the bible has to do with human behavior being in contrast to God's will. Anyone who understands the natural world via science, or understands human history in general, should understand the need/requirement of a consistent and qualified authority. Especially in regards to rogue behavior, which science has overwhelmingly shown to be significant if true.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      If it were as vague as you say then I'd be inclined to agree. But that's not true at all. That behavioral change actually happened, and actually matches up with what's described. Specifically in regards to a heightened sense of self (realizing their naked), the subjugation of women, which psychologically can be shown to be a 'natural' result of a more pronounced ego, and the exceedingly violent turn human behavior took matches up with other stories told during Abraham's time/Moses' time and beyond.

      Add to that the first signs of this behavioral change happening in an archaeological period (Ubaid) located in the same specified location and lasting the same specified number of centuries. Not to mention the first signs of this behavioral change coming in the form of a city unlike any that existed prior to it (Eridu), which lines up with the city Genesis says Cain built. Plus, this period, again according to the archaeological record, came to an abrupt end, and was directly related to a flood, at least in Ur. AND, both Genesis and the Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians claimed there was a devastating flood, and both agree Uruk was established not long after. Historically, the real Uruk was established roughly 200 years after that 'abrupt end' of the Ubaid. Then, of course, you've got that climatological event that actually did cause massive human migrations and actually did come just a handful of centuries before, not 1 but at least 4, civilizations sprang up in this same general region, each with their own language. Numerous events all lining up along the same timeline and resulting in exactly what's described, demonstrably.

      There's nothing vague about any of that, so vague dismissals as you've put forth thus far don't hold water.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Hasen't changed over time? Really? The heavens were thought to be in the stars and the stars were thought to be able to fall. The universe was thought to be a few thousand years old and made in a week.

      So he's outside space and time and yet everywhere inside our space and time, but can't seem to get all people to worship him and we can not find a single bit of evidence for him.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      "I will say, that if I were to lower my standards of evidence to your level, then I would be in a position of having to accept multiple competing and contradictory truth claims beyond just yours, but I'm regrettably allergic to absurdity."

      Many religious types seem to be visibly immune to absurdity, Headly foremost among them. Never the less, the educational value of some of the contributions here are notably impressive, even if unfortunately lost on his substantive misguided form of reasoning.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      Again, only fallible human interpretation changes.

      Yep, that about sums it up. From our perspective He is consistent and unchanged by time and He is in every moment everywhere. There's no evidence for Him because that would mean He's a product OF the universe and not the creator. And He can't seem to get all people to worship Him because He deliberately gave them the choice. So, it's working. It's just that you're not going to get a 100% acceptance if there's a choice. Anything else and it's not a choice. Makes total sense and is right in line with what the story says.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      Thank you? Or were you referring to everyone but me?

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Headly, it's not a choice if he doesn't make himself available. Show up and say are you with me or against me. That's a choice. Believing and worshiping an invisible undetectable sky daddy is not a choice, it's gullibility.

      Why would he not allow us to make an informed choice? Why would he care about our worship? To me the whole story stinks of manipulation. The manipulators would want us to worship and follow the commands and that's the story told. The manipulators would tell you he's invisible and always watching and that's the story told. The manipulators would dangle a carrot and show a whip and that's just what the story told. But why would a God as mighty as you say need blink worship without allowing us to make an informed decision?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Or, we could take a page from all we've learned from the natural world and all we know through our own human history and recognize the simple fact that individual will and the capability to behave of your own volition is a hugely unique thing in this universe that, just like everything else, would require laws to work. Laws that a willful creature would have to 'willfully' choose.

      He requires faith. Seek and ye shall find. You have to willfully choose to do so. To seek Him out. By the way it's written, creation in itself is reason enough to know He exists. Visibly standing over you and I assure you you wouldn't be behaving so 'freely'. Jesus explained it in the Servants of the House when the master is away parable. Any parent can tell you children are going to behave one way when there are adults/parents in the room and when there are not.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Behaviour is not the same as believing in God. Some of the most religious people known do some of the worst things. That's why faith is meaningless. If your good your good. No faith or worship needed. There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring faith. It only makes sense from the standpoint of someone wanting people to behave a certain way. Always watching and judging so we don't do anything wrong when no one is looking, just like Santa. Here are the rules, they are from an always watching and judging eye in the sky that won't reveal himself because he wants the choice real, but it's not real if he says he's always able to see and hear what you do is it. Faith is only important because they told people they are being watched, but couldn't prove it. And they made faith the most important issue, over being good. Makes no sense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad Man,

      You're right that there are a lot of religious people who do horrible things and there are a lot of really good people who are non-religious. That's a human thing. If you're looking to fallible humanity for confirmation, you're not going to get it. The whole point of the whole story is that we've been jacking things up from the very beginning. Humans are the single worst barometer where 'seeing' God is concerned. We're the one thing you shouldn't look at as we're the one thing that doesn't directly reflect His will.

      And yes, to the one actually making the decisions, each decision is a choice made in the moment by that individual, despite God's 'knowing'. And I don't think faith is meaningless at all. Faith, when it's sincere and not a badge you where on your sleeve for appearances, shifts your focus where it needs to be, inward. You're not looking for outward, objective confirmation. You're not looking to trust with your eyes and ears, but your heart. Your spirit/soul.

      Yes, I think religion can and has been used as a tactic to control the behavior of the masses. That's more people being people. But there's a core truth to all of this that speaks to people of every walk of life in every age no matter how much humanity's twisted things.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{I can't be satisfied by that knowing full well that 'methodological naturalism' cannot account for the mind, which is a pretty significant piece of the puzzle. It's the one and only thing we each experience first hand yet know full well is unobservable.}}

      Wrong again. As I said before, you're not up to date on research being done in neurobiology. Minds are *difficult* to observe, as they're protected by thick layers of bone and blood and brains are notoriously sensitive to being poked and prodded.

      However, the current state of research does not indicate a distinction between "Mind" and "Brain." Change the hormone levels, you alter mood. Give people certain inputs to "prime" them for certain things, you alter their decision making process. Stimulate the right part of the temporal lobe and you can even induce religious experience. The list goes on and on.

      Did you know that in patients where the corpus callosum is severed, the two halves of the brain can even hold different opinions? The left side can speak for itself, but if they block that hemisphere's ear and vision and ask the right side, "raise your hand if you don't believe in God," the right side raises its hand even though the left side, which controls speech, avows its belief in god.

      Of course there is much research to do, but the claim that naturalism cannot account for the mind is pure bollocks. Wishful thinking on your part in order to shore up your belief in dualism.

      {{It's entirely possible to 'find some way to verify', but the distinction between the material and the immaterial must be understood to then move toward 'finding some [other] way'}}

      When you find "some other way," get back to me.

      {{The fact is that the God you're arguing against the existence of was described very specifically, and those specific descriptions make it apparent why a demonstration by your requirements is ruled out as a possibility.}}

      No, the fact is that god is described with such non-specificity just in Christianity that we have hundreds of thousands of god-concepts, none of which agree, tens of thousands of different denominations, none of which would exist if there were any objective truth available about the nature, commands, and desires of god. Don't base your arguments on blatantly false assertions.

      To the degree that descriptions of god do posit a being who is undetectable, I find it rather more likely that such aspects are excuses being given by believers who are utterly unable to actually back up their grandiose pronouncements. The alternative is a god who is perversely, maliciously reclusive, unwilling to actually participate with his creations in any observable way, which totally contradicts the notion that we would know anything about him in the first place.

      Going back to the very subject of this original post, whether the tale is told from a "surface perspective" or not, nobody but god was around to witness it. So who told the story? Whoever first put quill to papyrus to write down "in the beginning," how did he know what to say?

      The problem gets worse in the New Testament, when the narrative shifts to blatantly requiring belief in something you can't verify. It's clear from Paul's epistles that he was addressing raging controversies in the early Christian communities. The church fathers in Jerusalem (presumably the ones best able to cite what came straight from the horse's mouth) evidently couldn't stand him. But seriously--how did any of these people know anything? They wrote down works that eventually made it into the bible, but how did they verify they were actually speaking the truth?

      Far from being silent on the matter, science does actually have something very telling that explains all this. Did you know there's a region of the brain responsible for modeling other people's opinions? We can watch it on brain scans. Give someone for example, a moral question, and ask them "what would your mother think?" or "What would The Pope think", or "what would your spouse think" and an area lights up that helps us guage other people's thoughts and reactions. Ask someone "what do you think" and a separate area lights up for their own opinions.

      Care to venture a guess which lights up when you ask someone "what does god think?" Even on loaded questions where god's will is commonly invoked in public discourse, people don't perceive god's opinions as those of a separate being, they project their own opinions onto god, as though they have the truth, they have the insight. One more nail in the coffin of the Sensus Divinitatis, they give wildly different answers, as one would expect on controversial issues, which would not be the case if they did have any accurate perception of god's opinions. god is our own perceptions, our own desires, our own beliefs, personified and externalized. We know this because when we watch people thinking about god, they're really thinking about themselves.

      And that certainly explains the diversity of god-belief in the world today, and why nobody can agree on anything. It makes your pronouncements about god's specific attributes rather unimpressive, as they're clearly just your opinion.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

      I'm not quoting Einstein in support of my views. I'm not particularly impressed with Einstein's views on God. I'm saying it's extremely dishonest for you to try and cherry-pick what he said to shore up what you are saying, when it's clear that he's not on your side of this debate. When I say "quote-mining" please understand I'm describing a practice which is extremely dishonest and offensive and you should not do it if you want to make any headway.

      Nor, for that matter, do I appreciate Einstein's dismissal of atheism as a rebellious impulse, as you went out of your way to point out. For me, it was purely a process of reasoning. I wasn't traumatized by being in religion; I wasn't traumatized by leaving it. I haven't lost a single friend or had a family member distance themselves from my being an atheist.

      I'm also not, as Einstein objected to, asserting that there is no god. I don't think that there is a god, but that's tentative based on the lack of good evidence. (Your argument: I should stop demanding good evidence and accept bad evidence, in a nutshell.) First and foremost, I'm responding to your proposals, evaluating what you've presented and replying with my reasons why it's not at all compelling. You rely on appeals to ignorance and logical fallacies, and those aren't ever going to convince me.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      I'm very familiar, and fascinated by, the latest research in neuroscience. And I'm not objecting to what you're saying here as the brain's activity obviously reflects what the person is thinking. The brain is being used. Stored information is being recalled, scenarios are being imagined, ideas conceptualized. In my view the physical brain and body is what enables our spiritual/non-physical selves to participate and interact with the physical world, so I'm not objecting to the physical activity happening in the brain in correlation to what that person is thinking.

      But the fact remains, if we did not each experience the mind there'd be nothing about the activity of a functioning brain that would even suggest something as dynamic as the mental experience is going on in there. The only reason we can even associate happenings in the mind to physical activity in the brain is because we can associate based on our own experience. If we didn't experience the mind ourselves we'd have no idea what that brain activity was actually accomplishing. Study will continue to make connections and figure things out where the brain is concerned, but the whole reason we can even do that is because we actually experience the mind and can therefore associate physical activity to mental activity. Our experience is the only reason we know it's there.

      As for the wildly differing perceptions of the bible, people's perceptions of anything and everything are going to be wildly different. Perception is a difficult thing. Two people can look at the same thing and come away with wildly different conclusions. Religious views based on these ancient texts, where the setting and context and culture are ancient and alien to us, are understandably diverse. That's why I first ground the stories in the context in which they're taking place. Only recently do we even have enough information to be able to do so. Most ideas formed and stringently held, like religious doctrines, were formed without the benefit of context and therefore fully born of fallible human perception.

      Unlike most, I don't project perfection onto the texts of the bible. It's a man-made thing and I recognize that. The whole story of the bible is talking about how people have their own minds. So I don't think God 'puppeted' writers to ensure total perfection. God inspires. I've experienced it for myself and I 'project' my own experience as being a human onto the human writers and characters in the bible. And that includes those who edited it and decided what texts to include and not to include (and possibly added to it) later. I think the bible has accomplished exactly what it needs to, but I recognize that it has its very human flaws.

      And I don't project perfection on to what the apostles wrote. I've experienced the holy spirit and can attest that it doesn't make one 'perfect'. It doesn't take over. I'm still in control and therefore prone to being totally human and fallible. And I read Jesus himself as being a human. The whole point to Jesus is that he did what no other human did in never once veering from God's will, never sinning. And that wouldn't be nearly as significant if he wasn't totally human. I don't think he had a 'heightened' knowledge of the universe or anything of that nature. He was on par with every other human living in that day and age, which is what makes what he accomplished meaningful. The fact that he didn't have an advantage, yet managed to live a perfect life.

      As for the 'surface perspective', those early chapters describe God walking and talking with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch. Then, later, after the 'mixing' of humans and Adam's kin, when the lifespans were no longer centuries long, and in accordance with God saying His 'spirit would not contend with humans forever' once the intermingling began (Gen6), these fallible humans with free will that behaved contrary to God's will could not even be in direct contact with God. When Moses asked to see God, God actually had to 'shield' Moses explaining that it would destroy him. Or the whole thing with the Tabernacle and people having to have ropes tied to them because if they didn't enter cleansed and pure they would die being in His presence. There's a very specific narrative being told here that shows that God could interact with Adam and the rest initially because they were made by His own hands, apart from natural evolution, with the 'breath of life' breathed directly into them by God Himself. Later the dynamic changed because the environment changed and humans changed. So, early on, you have direct interaction, then, later, you have indirect interaction. And it makes that distinction as well. There's a very real separation between spiritual and physical, soul and body. Like all the stuff about the desires of the flesh being in contrast. That duality we all know so well between the wants of the body (the id) and the conscious self (the ego).

      This is why I focus on the oldest books. The ones that speak of that age where it says God directly interacted. The ones of unknown origin that originate in the cradle of civilization where it all began. And I read it set in the proper historical context and according to the context of the story being told. It's very 'meta' like that, in that it itself is a product of the story being told by it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      "And, incidentally, it's precisely because I have educated myself and talked to experts that I have the opinions that I do on the origin of the universe"

      "At every turn, people didn't know things, turned to God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, until science was developed which started knocking down the unknowns one by one."

      I 'quote-mined' to make a point about your statements, like the two above, that are speaking as if level of knowledge or understanding of science in any way leads automatically towards your viewpoint versus mine. I'm showing that your insistence about my viewpoint being the product of not understanding this or that isn't valid. These are people who clearly do understand and make notable contributions to science, yet still, even with all that understanding, see no issue with postulating an intelligent creator. Whether they be Christian or whether they see things as Einstein/Spinoza did.

      The inclusion of Einstein's quotes about atheism were not directed at you personally, but more in response to your reply regarding his documented viewpoint being that he 'disavowed the ability of human minds to address the question of god's existence', and the other regarding his statement about atheists using his quotes to support their views was in response to your statement that he "repeatedly expressed annoyance at religious apologists who quote-mined him for their own purposes".

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Maybe some of y'all need to study cybernetics and come to grips with the ancient notion of cyborgs, then re-evaluate your findings. I think, from at least that standpoint, some of the confused ones will be able to tell the difference between mind, brain, humans, spirit, fabrication, soul, and robots. I refuse to believe I'm a bag of chemicals firing neurons and brain synapses as if a talking rock got kicked in the ass by the magical primordial soup of asininity via some haphazard chance or retardation of randomness.

      I think some folks may as well put their brain in a blender, because they would at the very least make a high-cholesterol concoction of ignorance in liquid form.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Headly, are you taking this absurd story so seriously that you really want to actually say, you believe in a god having created some guy named Adam, and made him a grown woman from his rib called Eve, etc?

      Such religious nonsense, and your faith in the rest of all your absurd mystical stories clearly disqualifies you from grasping that you don't have any claim to possessing enough reasoning ability to see through any of your own unending BS ... it's tiresome to have to read so much nonsense coming from you about your non-existing god all the time!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      What's absurd about it? The Sahara transformed into desert for the last time around 3900 BC. This actually did cause massive human migrations in all directions towards river banks. This event is directly attributed to the dawning of civilizations in Sumer (3500), Egypt (3400), and the Indus Valley (3300). Each with their own unique language and writing system. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

      After the Babel story, Abraham was born just a couple of centuries later. According to the story and the ages given, the descending ages each generation from the flood to Abraham meant some of these 'long living' beings were still around by the time Abraham died. If the above event is what the Babel story is talking about, then this places Abraham's lifetime right in the middle of that 4th millennium BC, at the dawning of those civilizations. It even says that Abraham's father was from Ur, which is a Sumerian city. This also means these events happened roughly 800 or more years before writing. By the time the people of these civilizations began to write down the stories that had been orally past down throughout the generations, each and every one of those civilizations, as well as every other civilization in the area (Greece, Rome) claim there were immortal gods, male and female, that existed in their ancient past and who actually interacted with them and in some cases had children by them. Every one of them. And the Sumerians, the first to invent civilization and writing and who were the world's first mathematicians and astronomers, not only say these gods existed, but that they are the ones that taught them all the things they did.

      So, what makes you so sure it's absurd? All the people from that region of the world tell very similar stories about numerous immortal beings that used to be there in a previous age. This is where civilization and the written language was born. Where mathematics and astronomy were first employed. And it is from this place and time that there is a demonstrable change in human behavior that has since covered the planet. It transformed humanity. And it all started right there. I know it sounds absurd. I agree. That's crazy. Now, next, tell me why it's absurd. I can't find a single reason why this can't be true.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      I know, I seriously don't get it. To be so opposed to the idea that there's something more to existence than just material/mechanical stuff that you'd be willing to diminish everything that makes you who you are down to being a biological robot simply going through the determined motions as cause/effect plays out is beyond me. There's clearly more to who we are than that. While I understand the need for this purely naturalistic viewpoint where scientific endeavors are concerned, why you'd adopt that as a philosophy just doesn't make sense to me. I think materialism has truly become the dogma of the 21st century, and the followers are growing and for the most part deliberately blind to the obvious. Personally, I think it has more to do with repressed feelings towards the oppression of religious institutions throughout the centuries than anything else. Not to say it isn't warranted, but don't boil yourself down to being nothing more than a burp in a cosmic ripple in the process.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Headly: Are you confused? I'm not a talking rock and, if anything, I'd be on your side on this one albeit your bible worship is what corkscrews your own ass! I remember stuff before my current life vessel. I know things that would send me to the nut house. I know how wrong some things simply are, in such a way, that even I can't explain in words other than the obvious learning from the inside-out that most beings must go through, over and over again. Always remember the grade system, the levels, and that any 4th grader stuck in this K-3 planet must endure such ignorance. Believe it or not, I'm not crazy and there is life on other planets and we are all apart of this thing we call God; duh!

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      Yes, Headly is mightily confused!

      He just can't grasp that the natural world is not just as mindless as his head full of rocks ... and that objective reality is not confined to his limited understanding, but contains a lot of concrete things he has no clue about and no mental skills to even faintly relate to intellectually.

      You must be mentally deranged to belief the Adam and Eve story. Do you really think some god talked to him to make him a woman called Eve for his pleasure from a rib of his?

      Try to fit this guy into a realistic time line, please! Was he a cave dweller from the neolithic, stone, bronze or iron age? Your idea of a god who created this Adam character is as much a joke as all of your super natural fantasies ... time you read some thing a bit better and went past your old fairy tail story book to gain a fresh perspective on reality!

      Don't you see that you must have obviously lost what ever little healthy brain power you may have been born with? How else can you possibly try to advance such mindless religious arguments?

      What a wast of human potential!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      To be fair f hruz a mindless head full of rocks is not what I'd call headily. Do I think his brain should be put to better use? Yes. Do I agree with him? No, but most people never give any of this nonsense any thought what so ever, he has gone a long way of protecting the illusion his subconscious is running from his conscious mind. As we both know most never give it a thought at all. As for what Insane says I haven't read a single comment of his from a while back when he said my friends need to drink heavily just to take to me, so I can't comment on that. But smart Headly is (my best Yoda impression).

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man: You admitted that people had to get drunk just to hang out with you. Read that, dear monkey.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      f_hruz,

      I did fit him in a realistic timeline. Roughly 5500 BC. Humans were already 3000 or so years into the agricultural revolution, but still behaving in much the same way as hunter-gatherers for tens of thousands of years prior. Adam came just before the beginning of the Ubaid culture when humans first began to do something never before done in all of human history, separate into classes. We know this because it's during this period that the first ever city-states were built with a temple in the middle where the 'ruling class' operated from and coordinated the efforts of the working class. From that point on in that region if placed in that time, the rest of Genesis mirrors exactly what happened, which also happens to coincide with the dawn of mathematics/astronomy/writing/civilization.

      I have no reason to doubt the Adam/Eve story. In fact, knowing what we know now about genetic material and information it makes sense that Eve could actually have come from Adam's rib.

      I'm not sure you're using your brain to full capacity. The fact is there's more to who we are than what the current natural/material outlook can fully explain and I think you recognize that. After all you obviously see enough beyond our current grasp to consider things like a collective consciousness or a collective memory, so you must see that there's more to life than just the mechanistic evolved nature of these bodies for you to consider these.

      So what makes my explanations so absurd? Explanations we know to be true sound plenty absurd. This existence is absurd. So the explanation is going to be absurd no matter what it is. You might do well to keep your mind open and not decide on your own accord to toss out explanations when you have no concrete reason to do so. I know you think I'm a dunce, but that's not a good enough reason. Give me sound reason why what I'm saying can't be true.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for that, Rad Man. I think, more than anything, f_hruz just enjoys finding new and interesting ways of saying what he thinks of me, which is the part I enjoy most. There are plenty of people who have told me I'm a moron, but few who can do it so eloquently, which I can always appreciate.

      As for Insane Mundane, he's a good guy. I do recall the statement you made about yourself way back regarding friends having to be drunk to hang out with you, so I know he's referring back to something you said and I don't think meant it to be insulting. Insane's kind of the non-atheist version of ATM, certain of his viewpoint and can tend to come off as condescending to those he disagrees with. He's more a stream of consciousness writer who sounds a lot like me when I initially type up a response before deleting and rewriting something more ... calm.

      By the way, I keep meaning to say how much I love your (somewhat) new profile pic. I'm assuming that's you as a kid? That pic is perfect. That kid just looks like he's always up to something and very much resembles the mental image I have of you.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Wether I said it or not as a joke doesn't mean anyone else has the right to say it. It just sounded insulting and not funny at all to me. I have had conversations with Insane in the past so I kind of know what he's about. If he was in fact intending to be funny and wasn't then it's my error for not catching it.

      I've had conversations with f_hruz before as well and agree with just about everything he says, but I don't think there is a need for those insults. IMHO.

      That being said aside from the insults f_hruz is correct which make you of course wrong. LOL

      Thanks, that was me when I was a kid. I had just come in from playing in the dirt and my mom said "don't move, I need to take picture of this". That of course was back when children played outside unsupervised.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Rad Man - Memory loss can be problematic, maybe you need to try and supplement your diet with some substances that may enhance your cognitive function? I also operate a health & fitness blog, but I'm not going to recommend any products for you, since you have made it so clear that you don't read my comments anyway; ha-ha!

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{But the fact remains, if we did not each experience the mind there'd be nothing about the activity of a functioning brain that would even suggest something as dynamic as the mental experience is going on in there.}}

      There is nothing about the naturalistic view of the mind which precludes the kind of experiences you're describing, I never thought or said anything of the kind. I'm having the experience of my mind sitting here and choosing these words. Do you really think the experiential mind is so magical that it justifies belief in the supernatural on its face? You're just asserting that brains can't have minds without magic?

      And you're continually appealing to our ignorance about the brain's inner workings to support your dualistic ideas. I could just as well say that there's nothing about the activity of my Playstation's electronics that would even suggest something as dynamic as my game of Mass Effect 3. In both instances, what we can observe about it is limited by the microscopic scale at which events occur, the fleeting speed at which the state of both systems change, and the inability to directly interact with either system without destroying its inner workings in the process. But we're trying, and the neuroscience of reverse engineering the brain is in its infancy. I wholly reject your argument from ignorance no matter how many times you repeat it. Your argument of the mind "using" the brain has been tried before, and it simply doesn't work. The experiential mind is changed when the brain is impacted, whether by injury, chemicals, or transcranial stimulation.

      I'll give you another example that I think will illustrate this. I have a niece who is profoundly mentally impaired from a genetic condition. My sister is absolutely convinced she was normal in whatever pre-existence she had, and will be normal again in heaven. To which I say, how smart will she actually be at that time? What will her beliefs be? What will her interests be--her condition carries several autistic-like obsessions, so will she still love jigsaw puzzles and playing cards? On what basis will she make decisions in the afterlife? How will she raise the children you think she will then be able to have? (My sister's a Mormon--go figure. My niece's condition is invariably fatal in the second generation, so she can't have kids in the here and now.) There's nothing *THERE* apart from her mind as it exists right now, in her brain, with the capacities defined by her genetics.

      The same is true of anyone. When someone's frontal lobes are damaged, they don't rail against their lack of self control: their inner life is changed. They do what they want, they make decisions, but what they want and how they make judgments is altered. They're a different person in every discernible sense, there's no "real him" inside trying to play a Mozart waltz on a broken piano--the player and the piano are one.

      {{As for the wildly differing perceptions of the bible, people's perceptions of anything and everything are going to be wildly different. Perception is a difficult thing. Two people can look at the same thing and come away with wildly different conclusions.}}

      If that is the case, then that thing is not evidence of either or anything, that's my objection.

      {{As for the 'surface perspective', those early chapters describe God walking and talking with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch.}}

      No, stop. Remember which hub we're on. Genesis Chapter One: all the things you believe which describe events happening millions of years ago. The person who actually wrote the words in question: HOW DID HE KNOW? Who told him? And how? Verbally? Telepathically? A bodiless immaterial transcendent being projecting either sounds or thoughts sound like "magical powers" to me, I don't see why you criticize me for that assessment.

      {{Then, later, after the 'mixing' of humans and Adam's kin, when the lifespans were no longer centuries long}}

      I'm just going to stop you right here. The crux of your argument is that the chronology of the bible matches up with the archaeological record, a chronology which you base on the successive lifespans of the named characters. That is the SINE QUA NON of your whole pseudohistorical narrative.

      Your argument is based on something which to the best of our knowledge is biologically 100% IMPOSSIBLE. If that is actual fact, then your narrative, your whole theory, must necessarily be false, no matter how well you think anything else lines up before, during, or after. So, please, give me the evidence that human beings ever have or are biologically capable of living for centuries. If you have it, put your cards on the table. If not, say so, and admit that your entire theory hinges on prior acceptance as fact that which is preposterously improbable. I'm not interested in whatever magical excuses let you think it's possible, I want verifiable evidence that it has ever actually happened at all.

      Because if you're right, then everything we know about human biology is wrong, and it's going to take more than some vague and foggy correspondences that can only be recognized dimly and after-the-fact to overthrow all of biological science.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm not appealing to ignorance regarding the mind. This is a fact that actually defines humanity and its struggles. The inability to see and understand the mind of others. This isn't some little known thing. This is the crux of the problems of our existence. Our inability to understand the minds of others, based solely on their capability to convey thoughts way more complex than words can express. This is the crux of the judicial system. Intellectual property. Could we scan George R.R. Martin's brain with whatever technology is available and glean the end of Game of Thrones? If you were to put me in that same scan our two brains, activity wise, though I've only watched the first 3 seasons of the show and haven't read any of the books, would be indiscernible regarding whether or not they contain the detail of that story or not.

      The fact is, all we're able to accomplish through neuroscience is and will always to some degree be based on the subjective mental experience that we then use to associate because there's nothing about a physically functioning brain on its own that in any way indicates what's really going on. And if we didn't have that experience in the first place, if the brain were not something we experience first-hand, but rather was something we 'found' in nature, then there'd be nothing about its physical functions that would give any indication of the mental experience we each know so well. This is the one and only example we each experience first-hand that we know for a fact has more going on than outward appearances would suggest. But, science wise, we're blind to it. It's not that its "magical". It's that it is proof-positive something that we experience to be more than it appears to be from the outside. It's an example of something going on in actual reality beyond science's capability to detect/observe it. No magic, just something non-material. Hence, existence does in fact consist of more than just the material.

      I'm not disagreeing that physical defects, damage, drugs, can impact the function of the brain. Just because you state with certainty that there's not anything more to your niece, soul-wise, than her damaged brain doesn't make it so. You can choose to believe, to put your faith in, the scientists of the future determining that all we are and all we do is nothing more than the mechanistic functions of a purely material brain and nothing more, but that's your thing. If you want so bad to be a robot with no control over your behavior and your actions, to each his own.

      Genesis 1, according to the story it's a part of, could easily have been conveyed by the one being who was there to witness and capable to recount these events to those He walked and talked with according to later chapters.

      According to the story Adam/Eve were created separate from the naturally evolved humans. Trying to ground that in what we know about biology is missing the point. Humans didn't live longer. It says that too. It says the days of humans are limited to 120 years. Those who lived longer were not purely/naturally evolved humans. It's apples and oranges. What would the evidence look like? Well, how about a dramatic behavioral change? How about the fact that the people who actually lived then passed on to their descendants stories about how these gods taught them what they knew. They didn't take credit for being the most inventive humans in all of history, they claimed they were taught. Multiple civilizations spoke of them and treated them as actual history.

      But, maybe, considering it appears this behavioral change was passed on genetically, by procreation, according to the story. Then maybe there is something verifiable in the genetic code. Maybe there's something to 'see' if one knows to look. Maybe we should all admit there's still a lot we don't 'know' and stop ignoring the ample evidence that there's clearly something to this because we already have our minds made up about what's what and what's possible. These are the seeds that sow ignorance.

      And no, if I'm right this in no way changes what we know about human biology. These beings introduced something into an already established line. They were a drop in a really big bucket in the grand scheme of things. If you think me being right means everything we know is wrong, then it is simply your grasp of what I'm saying that's wrong. Human interpretation of text. It's an iffy thing. Especially if you have no respect for the text you're reading. Your grasp ends up being simplistic and your conclusion dismissive. But, given context, like the evidence gives context to what I"m saying, and like how our modern knowledge provides historical context to the stories of Genesis, you're no longer depending solely on human interpretation. It's still plays a part, like in neuroscience, but just because there's that fallible element doesn't mean you toss it all out as useless. That's just silly.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I'm surprised that nobody brings up invisible stuff involving the brain like keen senses that can "feel" certain stares or can "read" certain thoughts through the airwaves. It is well established that these "chemical brains" our soul-haters describe, often reach into areas that, of course, can't be explained by science, but use a medium that is untapped by educated idiots. Oh, no, then the quantum stuff comes into play, as if these people would even accept that boogy-boogy science of quantum mechanics due to it sounding more religious than a Muslim at an anti-swine campaign. Geez! What will it take for certain folks to realize that we ain't talking rocks?

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      "What would the evidence look like? Well, how about a dramatic behavioral change?"

      This supposed "dramatic behavioral change" is laughable as evidence of the supernatural.

      Something that happened thousands of years ago which no one can investigate, which needs no supernatural explanation, and frankly is probably not as sudden and dramatic as you want it to be? That you keep coming back to this is deeply unimpressive.

      So, you have no actual evidence that human beings of any kind can live for centuries other than your Bronze Age book of bedtime stories written thousands of years after the events you say they describe. You have no evidence that any "Adam" ever existed except the aforementioned collection of myth.

      You clearly don't know what an Argument From Ignorance is or why it renders your arguments worthless.

      I'm done. You have utterly failed to address the criticisms I have for your proposals, and as often as not your responses indicate you're not even understanding the objections. Not once have you put forward one scintilla of actual evidence, and it is clear you cannot. Not once have you put forward a sound argument, and it is clear that your argument depends on fallacies, formal errors of reasoning which you do not acknowledge or seem to comprehend. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just hogtied mentally that I can't countenance believing on such a horribly inadequate basis.

      It's been fun but your failure to back up your assertions has reached its end.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{I'm surprised that nobody brings up invisible stuff involving the brain like keen senses that can "feel" certain stares or can "read" certain thoughts through the airwaves}}

      Because those effects always fail under double blind trials? Seriously, there's a Million Dollar Challenge that anyone can win if the can show that under controlled conditions.

      Peace, I'm out.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Methodskeptic: You need double blind trials for things YOU can't do or experience, evidently. It is a shame, really, when basic quantum mechanics is way ahead of your archaic beliefs that you have displayed here, much less the obvious things you ignore that even the "girl next door" or the "pizza delivery guy" already knows. LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Again with the supernatural. Open your eyes, MS. WE are evidence of the supernatural. 'Natural' is evidence of the supernatural. Whatever came before the big bang is exactly that... supernatural. And whatever that was led to us being here. Led to existence happening at all. Face it, we're on the same plain, arguing back and forth about which wildly preposterous origin story to subscribe to, the old one or the new one. Was it deliberate or did it just happen? Did somebody cook this omelet or did it just 'get cooked'?

      I appreciate the discussion. I get your objections, but I just can't for myself accept these canned arguments as anything more than justification for why it's "logical" to ignore the obvious.

      Don't be surprised if this idea keeps coming back to mind. Archaeological digs in southern Mesopotamia can finally get back underway in Iraq for the first time in a long time, and further insights into the Gobekli Tepe site in Turkey, a site that's boggling minds in the archaeological world yet makes perfect sense in this context, are certainly on the horizon. Stay tuned.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I'm still waiting on this "double blind" study that proves we are all talking rocks... LOL! No wonder a lot of atheistic people hate quantum physics...

    • David Hennessey profile image

      David Hennessey 3 years ago from Proctor, Minnesota

      It seems to me that you are attempting to use a logical method improperly, you have a thesis and an antithesis and are attempting to establish your synthesis which you suppose must be more correct or accurate than either of the original theses.

      I understand this particularly well since it is the most common form of analysis used in almost every Bible Study, faith and works, perfect example.

      Thesis: We are saved by grace.

      Antithesis: We are saved by works.

      Synthesis: We are saved by the faith our works reveal.

      Most spiritual teaching is based on this concept, honest teachers admit that their goal is NOT to present an idea which they want their student to accept but to present two seemingly irreconcilable truths and each student will be required to use their own powers of reasoning and insight to reach their unique solution. A good master wants to teach a student to think, not teach them WHAT t0 think. The good teacher doesn't give them the correct answer but teaches them to ask the questions correctly, this seems to be your difficulty.

      Thesis: The Bible is scientifically correct.

      Antithesis: Science is correct.

      Synthesis: A new version of both science and the Bible.

      Your error is glaring, in order for this method to have ANY success, both the thesis and antithesis must be equally and independently valid or the synthesis will be hogwash.

      Here's an equally successful synthesis:

      Thesis: The sun is a planet.

      Antithesis: The sun is a star.

      Synthesis: The sun is the only known star-planet in the universe.

      Your attempt is yeoman-like, I urge you to follow it wherever it leads you but having walked that path through EXACTLY the same logic trap, get through this phase as quickly as you can,you cannot meld a falsehood with the truth and come out with a half-truth that is better than the original truth. Science is correct, the Bible is NOT scientific or true, there is no synthesis that preserves the truth, you lead yourself farther from the truth by demanding that the truth be wedded to a myth.

      You are engaging with the right people to straighten your religion-addled brain so I have great confidence in your future unlike some who say you are hopeless, if you were hopeless, you'd be talking to the snake handlers and healers or the Magic Bean Crowd, you are in the right company and seem to be engaging intelligently with some rookie errors, keep up the search, it's worth it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      David,

      Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you're making a couple of errors yourself. The primary error being that you're injecting certainty where there is none. Like your assumption that these two viewpoints are opposing one another, or your assumption that the bible is not true. Until we know for certain, I think it's a mistake to take anything off the table by defining prematurely what is and isn't possible.

      The primary reason I focus so intently on the books of Moses, and particularly on Genesis, is because we do not know its origin. While I could see glaring errors in the traditional ideas of Adam being the first human and originating in Mesopotamia instead of Africa, a global flood, etc, there was still something about these stories that wouldn't allow me to just let them go. And it wasn't a faith thing. I would probably just be a deist if I found no relevance in the Bible. It was the fact that they originated in the 'cradle of civilization' and that they have obviously had a significant impact on a great deal of human history in general. And it was also how specific these stories were. Yes, the stories seemed mythological in theme, but not in how specific they were in breaking down particular bloodlines, even giving ages that allow you build a very specific timeline. And they tell all these stories about civilizations, some of which we've only just learned in the past 100 years or so really existed, like the Sumerians and the HIttites.

      I don't know if you've read any of my hubs beyond this one, but it goes well beyond this. The most significant stuff is the ties between Genesis 2-11 and a specific timeframe of ancient Mesopotamia where there are actual events that line up with the timeline of Genesis down to the number of centuries in between. The thing is, if true, these events happened roughly 1500 years earlier than anyone is looking. And along with these actual events lining up with the story, there's a significant behavioral change that resulted directly from these events. A behavioral change that forever altered how humans lived from that point forward, and that closely resembles what's described in the 'fall' of Adam and Eve.

      As for this creation account, I have stayed very much on point with scientific knowledge and found cohesion beyond what I expected to. This depiction correctly describes the geological formation of the earth and the biological emergence of life from a very specific point of view. Not from a Gods-eye-view like many assume when they read it, but from the very perspective the text itself specifies in verse 2. From the surface. There's simply too much here that it gets right to just dismiss it all on the assumption that we've already ruled these ancient texts out.

      I know we modern folk like to think of bronze age humans as less-enlightened, ignorant precursors of ourselves, especially in regards to biblical texts. But in actuality it's these people who gave us civilization, mathematics, astronomy, writing, laws, and on and on. They started how we still live today. We still use the Sumerian's base-60 system to track time. These people were far from ignorant.

      And wouldn't it be a shame if there were actual legitimacy in these texts that could help us better understand such a defining piece of our history that we completely miss because we're so certain that we've already figured out this whole bible thing to be a farce and therefore never reassessed it with modern eyes? Until there's certainty, it's not logical to define ahead of time what the answer can't be.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I agree, Go did create evolution. The Hebrew word Tov translated as good really means functional and not good. God looked at his creations and said they were functional, which means they did what they were created to do.

      The Hebrew word Ra translated as evil really means dysfunctional and not evil.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I also understand how you are using the Bible. The Jewish Bible was completed in 450 BC and the Bible is part of Jewish history and taught in the schools.

      The information in the Bible whether people believe in it or not, is parallel with science.

      It's in the bible so should be accepted as information from a time that it should not have been known. It seems the hotheads who have attacked you just don't get it. It is lack of education and the inability to put together ideas.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      HeadlyvonNoggin you say you read the Hebrew bible, so you are implying you speak Hebrew. Well, so do I.

      I am using phonetics so if you speak Hebrew you'll know what I am saying.

      Please answer me.

      Ma shelomkha

      Ma nishma?

      Nitra’e bekarov!

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      As to the issue of light on Earth, science maintains our solar system was filled with a cloud of gas, dust and debris. As the Earth cooled and its gravitational field strengthened, it attracted meteorites and other objects that bombarded the earth for over 500 million years (known as the Hadean Era).38 Thus, although the Sun ignited before the Earth formed, the early Earth would have been surrounded by a thick, dense mixture of cosmic gases and debris that blocked the sunlight for many millions of years.

      Does this conflict with the Bible? No. The Bible tells us the earth was dark and formless as God prepared to begin His creative activity on Earth. On the first “day,” God separated light from darkness and caused daylight to appear. On the fourth “day,” God caused the Sun, Moon and stars to appear in the sky. This agrees perfectly with the scientific view of the early Earth. Initially, the atmosphere would have been opaque and blocked all sunlight. Over time, the atmosphere would have become translucent, allowing some sunlight to penetrate the darkness (the first “day”). Later, the atmosphere would have become transparent, revealing the heavenly bodies in the sky (the fourth “day”).

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      "And 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."

      then…

      "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

      Two things Deborah.

      1. It doesn't say God caused the Sun and moon to appear in the sky. It specifically says "God made two great lights". According to this story this was the time these "lights" were made.

      2. These lights were made after the earth was inhabited with grass, herbs, and fruit trees?

      Perhaps you are not wearing your critical thinking cap? Even if we decide that the sun and moon were just not yet visible, we would need a visible sun to have fruit trees, we'd also need bees, but that's another issue isn't it?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Deborah,

      Thank you for sharing your insights. Just your comment about the Hebrew words translated as 'good' and 'bad' are hugely relevant to this project I'm working on. To be clear, I do not speak or read Hebrew. I can tell the first line you gave is a greeting, the second is asking how I am, and the third says you'll see me soon. To give you a bit of insight, I basically have a very specific hypothesis regarding the story these first few chapters are actually telling that's pretty significantly different than the traditional way it's interpreted. So, in attempting to prove/disprove it, I have reviewed each word and phrase within these first 11 chapters in multiple translations, and have researched each word and phrase in its original Hebrew meanings to see whether or not it conflicts with my hypothesis.

      As for the creation account in reference to light/the sun, your description matches up with mine exactly. You're now the third person I've come across who's basically reached this same conclusion independently of me, which in my mind is further confirmation that it's on point.

      In fact, with your ability to read Hebrew, I'd love to get your input on the rest of this project. The bulk of it has to do with chapters 2-11, Adam/Eve through to the Babel story. The basic jist of my hypothesis is that the creation of Adam/Eve and the creation of humans in Gen1 are two separate events. That Adam/Eve were not the first humans, but were actually the first beings created capable of behaving of their own will, contrary to God's. That's why I find your comment about the words translated as 'good' and 'bad' so interesting because following the creation of the Gen1 humans God deemed all He created 'good'. So, in the context of this hypothesis, humans would have already populated the planet by the time Adam/Eve were created, and Adam/Eve would be the first beings capable of 'evil', or 'dysfunctional'.

      Anyway, if you get a chance I'd love to hear your thoughts. All the hubs with the 'God Created Evolution' title are relevant to this. From what I can tell there is no conflict between the Hebrew text and this interpretation. It in fact makes way more sense, not just in the context of these stories, but throughout the rest of the Torah and even into the NT.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I have on my thinking cap and I am going by the Hebrew Bible, better get your thinking cap

      Christians say that the Bible teaches the Earth was created before the Sun, stars and other planets. They also state there was light on Earth before the Sun was created. This is tied to the events of the fourth creation “day” (Genesis 1:14-19):

      14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning–the fourth day. (NIV)

      Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth “day.” Most creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for “made” (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered “God had made” rather than “God made.” This indicates God “had made” the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth “day.”8

      This view of the fourth “day” has much support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day...9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: “[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …”10

      So, when were the Sun, Moon and stars created? Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha’ erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence.11 This indicates the heavenly bodies–the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets–were created “in the beginning” prior to the six creation “days.”

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Hey Rad,

      Deborah may be able to confirm or refute the validity of this, but keep in mind that the way you're reading this is very much an 'english/latin' thing. Because it says this in the 'day 4' portion, we english speakers tend to think of it as meaning this is when the sun/moon/stars were created chronologically. But in Hebrew, it is not at all uncommon for this statement to be made like this but not mean this is 'when'. It just means that now that it's addressing these objects specifically, it's simply making a statement that these two were created by God. Verse one says God created the 'heavens' in the beginning, and the 'heavens' in that age were the sun/moon/stars.

      As for the grass/herbs/fruit trees, a visible sun is not required. In fact, in the earth's actual history, the sun would was not visible for millions of years after plant life grew on land. In fact, its the plant life on land being in direct contact with the atmosphere that aided in changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Yes, I said:

      How are you

      What’s new

      see you later

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Ha, you guys really do a lot of stretching to make this work out. Fruit trees without bees and anything to eat the fruit to fertilize the seeds.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      From reading the following verses when God created mankind he created them both male and female. Not someone with both genitalia but people connected side by side.

      Remember God created them male and female before he created Eve.

      God was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist.

      Genesis 5:1

      This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

      God created them male and female and called their name Adam

      Genesis 5:2

      Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

      The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

      In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

      Genesis 2:20

      And 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 for him.

      *Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side.

      If God had taken only a rib from Adam, he would not have said “she is flesh of my flesh," he would have said, "she is bone of my bone." 


    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Radman, Scripture doesn't tell us when bees were created. Wind also carries pollen. I am sure God knew how to sustain that which he created.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad,

      You realize there were many ways fertilization happened along the way, with things evolving different ways of doing things in accordance to what was available in the environment. Whether or not there were bees, which the text does not specify, is difficult to say.

      But, if you think about it, there'd have to be seed-baring fruit trees in existence before bees could evolve to do their thing.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      David Hennessey you are not using correct premises

      Here's faulty premises and a faulty conclusion

      Premise 1:David Hennessey has read some of the English Bible

      Premise 2 David doesn't fell the Bible is scientific

      Conclusion: Therefore the Bible isn't scientific

      Logical premises and conclusion

      Premise 1:David Hennessey has read some of the English Bible

      Premise 2 David doesn't fell the Bible is scientific

      Conclusion: He needs better reading material and he needs an open mind because he has a lot to learn

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      Think about it. There would have to be something eating the fruit for the tree to evolve. Otherwise the fruit would simply fall under it's own tree unfirtilized. Even if it were able to pollinate it's own flowers it would have no way transporting the seeds to new places.

      This is what you guys do. Maybe this or maybe that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Rad,

      This is completely irrelevant to the creation account as it does not talk about insects. And 'maybe this or maybe that' is the cornerstone to science. It's what anybody does when trying to figure out how/why something works. The fact is plant life was on land long before animal life. This isn't only what Genesis says, this is fact. Animal life is not one and the same as insect life. In actuality, both plant life and insects came about on land at roughly the same time, toward the beginning of the Silurian Period (443.7 to 416 mya).

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Rad,

      Did the bees evolve with the flowers? It is a good thing they paralleled, eh? LOL!

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      This speaks of the seed in its self so no pollen is needed. Seeds just dropped by the parent plant and some blew a little further away. Why would the seed need to be fertilized?

      End of plant discussion

      Genesis 1

      11 And 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.

      12 And 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. (or worked the way it was suppose to)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Dear gentle readers: This entire planet represents Genesis; duh! It is like the ultimate growing substrate for lunatics, as it doesn't get much better than that. LOL!

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I am posting this again to explain where I stand on this. I believe God created mankind not just two people and not one million either. I believe He created the male and female side by side. Somehow they were able to multiply. But God separated them, maybe through evolution, but not at first, the evolution of man and woman as separate beings came after the initial separation.

      What I posted before

      From reading the following verses when God created mankind he created them both male and female. Not someone with both genitalia but people connected side by side.

      Remember God created them male and female before he created Eve.

      Before Eve when God spoke of the female, He was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist.

      Genesis 5:1

      This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

      God created them male and female and called their name Adam

      Genesis 5:2

      Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

      The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

      In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

      Genesis 2:20

      And 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 for him.

      *Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side.

      If God had taken only a rib from Adam, he would not have said “she is flesh of my flesh," he would only have said, "she is bone of my bone." 


    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Genesis 2:24. Here is something most interesting. God seems to interrupt the ancient history, as given by Moses, and steps forth, as it were, in His own person, to address humanity directly and impressively in the words, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife." Some have attributed these words to Adam, who was speaking in the previous verse, or to Moses, but Yahshua ( Jesus) speaks of them as God's own language, in Matthew 19:4, 5, saying " And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh?" Metaphorically the same as when they were created. Many commandments are promulgated in masculine terms, though meant equally for both sexes, but in this instance the case is different: One man and one woman stand before the Almighty, on the very occasion of their differentiation into two sexes, and God enunciates a law as lying between those two just formed, which indicates for all time the duty of husband to wife, not of wife to husband. And then, in the Hebrew original expression, "for this cause ought the man," the word for "man" is not the generic term meaning "man-kind," it is ish, "husband," corresponding to isha, "wife, in the expression "his wife" of this verse. When man and woman marry, there must be created a line of cleavage, on the part of one or both, between parent, or parents, and children. This Scriptural marriage law declares that the line of cleavage shall separate the husband from his parents rather than the wife from her parents.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      @Deborah: Welcome to the world wide web of Kabbalah; ha! Nobody actually cares about your metaphysical babble, just saying.... LOL!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      "Why would the seed need to be fertilized?" You're killing me.

      LOL. Why do fruit make us poop?

      An apple falls from a tree and the wind blows it elsewhere? Where is slowly decomposes and the seeds go into the ground to make a new fruit tree?

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      It's not metaphysical, it's Bible. And people do care about my opinion.

      Why are you so full of hate? Doesn't anyone love you? I can see why not

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Seeds germinate without being fertilized.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Well HeadlyvonNoggin I'm leaving I can't stand the rudeness, stupidity and hate here. Please delete my stuff

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      LMAO!

    • profile image

      Rad Man 3 years ago

      LMAO! I'm with Insane this time.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Come on Rad, we're talking about plant life that predates animal life. Do you really think apples were apples then? Just think about this. I know you know better. Everything changed and evolved dramatically. Some found ways to reproduce within their environment, others did not. You're speaking as if fruit trees as we know them now have always been that way and that the interplay between insects and fruit trees has always been as it is today. There's still much we don't know, or that we are left merely speculating about, because we're talking about how things were 300-400 million years ago.

      Besides, what you're arguing isn't specific to the creation account. We're talking about known history here. These things really did happen. Plant life really did appear long before animal life on land, and managed to thrive just fine. There's only 31 verses to the creation account, where it's describing to humans how the things that humans are familiar with came about. And it does so accurately.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      As much as I have enjoyed your particular brand of jaggedness, I have to ask .... If it's as you say it is, if we're all of the same collective consciousness divided into individuals, then what good does it do to ridicule and laugh at those who are essentially a part of you? In the context you speak of, is this not a very real scenario of cutting off your own nose to spite your face?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Deborah,

      I hope we can continue this conversation because I'm intrigued by some of your statements. Feel free to just ignore the others if you don't want to engage in those discussions because I think your input has value in this discussion. If you feel others are being rude or hateful, then just let their statements reflect that to others who read along.

      What I find interesting is that you agree that there is cohesiveness between what we now know about the history of the earth through science and the description of creation through Genesis, yet in the way you read the creation of humans you seem to depart from known science.

      With your acknowledgement of the transition of the atmosphere and the various stages of the Earth throughout history, consider this as well. The creation of humans in Genesis 1 continues to stay right in line with what's known scientifically. If I'm understanding correctly, you acknowledge that the humans created male/female came before the creation of Eve, so you agree there were humans who existed apart from/before her, right? Think about those specific commands given to these Gen1 humans by God. 'Be fruitful and multiply', 'fill/subdue the earth', 'establish dominance in the animal kingdom'. These are all things that naturally evolved humans actually did leading up to the age in which the Adam/Eve story of Genesis is set. Humans really did populate the entirety of the planet, adapting to various climates and conditions along the way, and really did become the dominant species. So, if seen in that context, these humans God deemed 'good' right along with the rest of creation accomplished His will without fail. Things that took numerous generations to carry out they did, without question or defiance in any way. So, they 'functioned' as desired.

      Then comes the story of Adam/Eve, and from that point forward the entire theme of the story has everything to do with these two, and their descendants, often behaving contrary to God's will. If Adam/Eve, in just one generation, were not able to obey the one rule God made, then how could they be expected to carry out these commands given by God that took numerous generations and be deemed 'Tov'?

      In my thinking, the creation of Eve as a 'companion' had more to do with the fact that Adam lived such a long life. I think of Eve's creation as a companion as being a partner that is equal to Adam. Someone who will live alongside him and not just die like everything else. In fact, it's said that only after they ate from the forbidden tree would they die. And only after did Eve have to bare the pains of child birth. Procreation of this line wasn't necessary for them until then. The perpetuation of life is only necessary because of death.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Not really... I don't have to readily accept the brick-packed Kabbalah babble, now do I? That is a bunch of Kabbalah hooey, and I have the right to laugh at it if I so desire. LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      IM,

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to accept anyone's 'babble' and if we didn't have the right to laugh at 'hooey' then I just wouldn't want to go on living. This is just something that occurred to me about your particular point of view while reading through this most recent exchange. It seems almost contradictory the more I think about it. I mean, genetically/physically we know we're all connected. But even beyond that, you and I both seem to hold the view of consciousness itself being something interconnected between all living things. Yet, your whole approach seems to be the total opposite of your philosophy. You've got this deep intellectual viewpoint juxtaposed with this 'you guys are all morons' demeanor. Not that I'm complaining or criticizing. I just find it more interesting than anything. You're an enigma, Insane.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      This has nothing to do with Kabbalah. It is the Jewish belief (I am Jewish). It is in the Jewish Bible and translated almost the same in the English Bible. It is right there to read and understand. You’re thinking it does not go along with science, yet we are all still a bit male and female today. We all have the X and Y Chromosomes (I am also a nurse) Most believe God took a rib and made Eve, why is it so hard to believe man and woman was joined at the side? There were only a few humans created and their job was to multiply, but died out to a new separated species. Science is finding more and more humans they didn’t know about, and are aware there are more to find.

      by Rabbi Yisroel Shaw

      The Rashba, a 13th century commentator, explains that when the Talmud says that at first Hashem thought about creating two and then created one, it means that the creation of Man was carefully planned out to be executed in the most effective way. Hashem carefully planned out whether to create the male and female entities as one (that is, having one creature with both male and female attributes) or as two (having one creature with male attributes, and another with female attributes). It does not mean that He changed His mind, but rather that His creation was done with forethought and thorough consideration. Why, then, did He later end up making two humans? The Rashba offers two answers:

      (1) The two that were eventually created were not the same two of His original plan. Originally, Hashem, in His Divine deliberation, decided not to create two types of beings and instead He created one being, which included both Man and Woman in one body.

      (2) Alternatively, Hashem originally considered creating Man and Woman from the start as two individual entities (of the same species), but in the end He decided that both Man and Woman should come from one body.

      The reason for this decision was so that Man and Woman would feel eternally bonded to each other. When they would come together as man and wife, they would feel as though they were always intended to be together as one, for that is how they were originally created. Again, Hashem never changed His mind, so to speak. Rather, His infinite wisdom pondered all of the possible ways of creating the human being before deciding to do it in one particular way.

      The Vilna Gaon, an 18th century Torah giant, offers another explanation.

      Hashem created them as one body to begin with, and not two bodies, as a step towards creating them as two. Man and Woman, as husband and wife in every generation would feel an eternal bond with each other, as though they were created at the beginning of time as one.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Genesis 5:1

      God created them male and female and called their name Adam

      Genesis 5:2

      Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

      The Hebrew word translated as “rib” is “tsela” but really means “side” In Jeremiah the word tsela is used meaning side

      In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      By Ariela Pelaia

      There are two versions of Creation that appear in the biblical book of Genesis.

      This presented ancient rabbis with a problem because they believed that the Torah was the Word of God and therefore it was not possible for the text to contradict itself. As a result, they came up with an explanation to reconcile the apparent contradition

      In the first account, which appears in Genesis 1:26-27 and is known as the Priestly version, God creates unnamed male and female beings at the end of the creation process:

      “’He took one of his ribs (mi-tzalotav)’… [‘One of his ribs’ means] one of his sides, as you read [in an analogy from the similar use of the same word elsewhere], ‘And for the other side wall (tzel’a) of the Tabernacle’ (Exodus 26:20).”

      What the rabbis mean here is that the phrase used to describe woman's creation from man's rib – mi-tzalotav – actually means an entire side of his body because the word “tzel’a” is used in the book of Exodus to refer to one side of the holy Tabernacle. A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where R. Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] separated him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”

      In this way the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation. Some feminist scholars also contend that the creature solved another problem for patriarchal rabbinical society: it ruled out the possibility that man and woman were created equally in Genesis 1.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Deborah,

      I'm not sure I understand why it's meaningful or purposeful whether or not Adam/Eve were joined. I have no issue with whether or not it was his rib or his side. You're right that we're all a bit of both. It's determined by a single chromosome which sex you become. I think God made a creation, that He first 'tested' by bringing the animals to Adam to see what he'd call them. The act of giving a name in itself was Adam creating something of his own will. Something that was not 'of God', but was 'of Adam'. Then he took from this creation to make a companion. But when in the garden it was Eve who was talking to the 'serpent', then after eating the fruit, gave it to Adam. It wasn't that they were both 'beguiled' by the 'serpent'. It was Eve. If they were joined at the side, physically, would it not have involved them both?

      GEN 2:22 - And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

      And because God made Eve from Adam, she was basically a part of the same creation. It was Adam, not God, that named her Eve. That's what I think when I consider what you're saying in reference to Gen 5:1-2. They were 'one flesh' in the sense that they were made from the same physical form and together made future generations. But I don't think this requires they still be physically joined. Just one of the same at one point and still companions.

      Like you pointed out, these ancient texts, and how to properly interpret them, was a mystery even to ancient Rabbis. Even in the post-exile age interpreting and properly understanding the law was a challenge because these stories were ancient even to them. There's not much in the way of context to flesh out these stories being told, so our minds fill in the gaps in wildly different ways, seeing largely different possibilities in how it's interpreted. This is why context is so important. Science provides us context. It helps describe the setting in which the stories are taking place. And if properly placed in history, it can help us better understand these stories and the impact the events of these stories had on the world around them.

      Through this lens, there is no conflict between the two creation accounts in Genesis because they are two separate events. There are the naturally evolved humans who have existed for 100,000 years and who have populated the world since around 20000 years ago, then there's Adam/Eve and their descendants. I believe Adam/Eve were created around 5500 BC and I believe they were unlike any other being on the Earth at that time. Unlike the naturally evolved humans who populated the landscape at that time who only lived mortal lifespans, I believe Adam/Eve really did live for centuries. And I believe we can see the impact these beings had on humanity in our human history. Historically, scientifically, even mythologically.

      Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      I read your sons of God hub. You're right that there is a definite distinction made here. But I do not think they were the offspring of the serpent/Eve. I think they were the humans created in Genesis 1, who unlike Adam/Eve and their bloodline, continued to behave just as humans had for hundreds of thousands of years. They did not wear clothes for functional reasons. They did not exhibit behaviors typical of a 'modern' human that signifies such a prominent individual ego. They were selfless, tribe-minded, males and females were equal, there was no social or class stratification, and there was little to no violence. They lived in harmony with the natural world very much much like the rest of the animal kingdom. It's only after the introduction of free will into the world through Adam/Eve/Noah/Shem/Ham/Japheth that we begin to see the emergence of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations, wars and armies, laws and cities, and everything else. Humans no longer living in harmony with nature or anything else.

      I think the flood was because God had introduced a volatile element into His creation that, unlike everything else, behaved according to its own will and not His. That's what I think the beginning of Genesis 6 is talking about. After Cain was banished, it says he built a city, then talks of his family through seven generations. Then Genesis 6 begins with explaining that the 'sons of God' began mating with the daughters of humans when human increased in number in the land. I think they increased in number because Cain built a city. And it makes the distinction that, unlike Adam and his descendants in Genesis 5 who lived for centuries, they only live 120 years. It is because the beings were acting of their own will and not God's that God then 'regretted' putting humans here. That's why I think the flood was necessary. This free will, free of His will, had been introduced into humanity and they became wicked.

      Even Satan did not have free will, like it says in Job. Satan had to have God's permission to do what he did to Job. Only humans have this. Only humans behave contrary to God's will, unlike any other creation in this universe. It's these descendants of Adam and Eve who I think were the sons of God. It's only humans who are referred to as 'sons' by God throughout both the old and new testament. They're never specifically said to be angels. I think the 'sons of God' were those who did not interbreed, initially. Then I think it was those of the lines God chose; Abraham's descendants. Personally, from my Christian perspective, I think the entirety of the old testament, the Mitzvah laws for the Jewish people, what to eat and who to breed and not breed with, was God working within the confines of free will to create the 'son of God'. Because we're all capable of behaving contrary to the creator's will, God created one capable of doing what no one until him was able to do. Live an entire life without ever conflicting with God's will. Without ever sinning. The ultimate untainted sacrifice for all of mankind.

      When placed in the setting of actual history, this is how it reads to me.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      You have missed every point I have made. Read the story of creation again

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Deborah,

      "The information in the Bible whether people believe in it or not, is parallel with science."

      "I believe He created the male and female side by side. Somehow they were able to multiply. But God separated them, maybe through evolution, but not at first, the evolution of man and woman as separate beings came after the initial separation."

      "There were only a few humans created and their job was to multiply, but died out to a new separated species. Science is finding more and more humans they didn’t know about, and are aware there are more to find."

      This view is not parallel with science. Humans are mammals, and mammals procreate through sexual intercourse between males and females since long before they had taken human, or even mammalian, form. Now if this were looked at in the view of the full process of evolution, including all precursors to what eventually became humans, all the way back to single-celled and the first multi-celled creatures, then I can see how that works because that is ultimately the truth. But there's nothing to support the idea that these beings were physically tethered to one another while in the age of having a human form. For one thing this would make natural child birth very difficult, if not impossible, much less the act of copulation itself. And if this were true of humans across the board until the separation then not only would this be found in all human remains that predate, but would also be consistently so in all precursor species that humans evolved from.

      I think there's some merit to your statements in regards to males and females basically being split-aparts of one another, made whole again when brought together. But I do not see how any of this merit is gained or lost based on whether or not humans were physically connected at one time. It just doesn't seem relevant to me, and because it is also inconsistent with science, seems erroneous and unneeded.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      why not review the Hindu myths of creation? you take great liberties in trying to make your point. so much so its like you have rewritten the bible.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      I appreciate you reading and sharing your thoughts. One issue with reviewing the Hindu creation myth would be knowing which one to go with. The one that says 'being' came into existence via a cosmic/golden egg according to the Rigveda, the one that says all things were made of the mangled remains of Purusha, a supernatural man, who was sacrificed by the gods like it says in the Purusha Sukta, or the one that says Vishnu, in the shape of a boar, plunged into the cosmic waters and brought forth the earth like it says in the Puranas?

      I did consider multiple other creation myths, including all we know about how old they are and where they originate. There's really only one that's based in the same region/timeframe where civilization first sprang up, that tells such a specific chronology of each element of this planet, and that's the Genesis account.

      I can understand how you could see what I've done here as taking liberties, but I by no means rewrote, or changed, anything. All I did was I took the source texts itself, in its oldest known form, clearing away all pre-conceived ideas I or anyone else held as to what it was describing, and simply held it up against the actual geological and biological formation of this planet as we now understand it to see if there was anything there. Personally, I didn't expect to find what I did because, basically, if some nobody schlub like myself can piece something like this together, then it would have already been done. I didn't change a word. In fact I painstakingly matched up each piece of this interpretation with the original Hebrew, phrase by phrase and word for word, to ensure it didn't conflict. Then I published it so that it could be reviewed by others and exposed to be total drivel if that's what it is. And while I've found plenty of people who don't agree with it, I've yet to have one person who can say for certain that this is wrong for any concrete reason.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      What is NOT written in the bible, what is missing is more telling then what actually is written. What is there is inconsistent and if you wished you could take these points of inconsistency and run w them. You ignor many facets for whatever reason., such as and God said let "us" make man in "our" own image. then he makes man in "HIS" own image. nOT BY THE WAY "HER" IMAGE. it goes from plural and being more then one "God" to his being only one AND IT SEEMS "IT" HAS BALLS. The dating of life on earth just doesnt jive w the creation story and thaTS A BIG PROBLEM. THE CREATION STORY OF THE BIBLE HAS MAN AT FIRST SEEKING TO HAVE SEX W OTHER ANIMALS THEN "gOD"REALIZES OH OH. THE CREATION STORY reminds me of how when i was young kid i set up my first aquarium. it took about a week for me "GOD"to get it all right. actually man and all more complex creatures are in fact a symbiotic conglomeration of creatures. why doesnt the bible explain this important concept of complex life forms?

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      You have obviously spent a good deal of time trying to do what few people would care to do, that is justifying religion by way of modern science. Under your wing days become eons of vast time. The Hindu religion which probably predates the bible has a must better grip on the vast time frame of the making of the universe and solar system. You dont mess with the inconsistences of the story. No mention is made of the important movements of the heavens in relation to the seasons. Important life forms are rolled into the creepy category while great whales are used as iconic life forms. Man was made in "Gods" image yet undergoesungodly transformations from animal to God like human beings. Man is told he is the master of earth yet we are our own worst enemy and continually are falling prey to"lesser life forms". can it be that animals came from the water hole because that's where most go to drink and eat? You may have shown that there are similarities but it really doesnt go much farther then that.I'd say your related to the kind of mind that wrote such myths in the first place.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      I think it's important to try to understand the creation account as an ancient document from an ancient culture. To try to understand its purpose, its proper context. The creation account in particular is its own thing, meaning it was edited together with the rest of Genesis sometime later. This particular piece, because of its structure, is thought by some to maybe be a song. It's a story likely told (or sang) around the fire for generations. It most likely existed as an oral tradition long before it was committed to written form. There's no telling how old it really is.

      We modern folk try to apply our modern reasonings to it assuming that if it's 'God's word' then it should just be 'right'. So we set in our minds what we should demand of it, what would make it 'right'. What's 'missing' that we think should be there if it were 'right'. It's simply a telling of how each thing humans would be familiar with came into being. The sky, the ground, the sea, the animals, us. And when read from a human point of view, it's incredibly accurate to how it all really played out.

      The seas really did come first. Then the earth's water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere, then land. Once there's land, which is where humans would ultimately dwell, it first says plant life came first, then animals from the sea, the mammals, then humans. All correct. But what I think is really significant is it pauses between plant life on land and the emergence of animal life on land to talk about the positioning of the sun/moon/stars in the sky. Because it actually is between those two events, plant life on land and animal life on land, that something truly significant happened. Not only did plant life on land help speed up the process of changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, where you'd actually be able to see the sun/moon/stars rather than just light and dark, but this is also when the entirety of the earth's continental land mass actually moved from beneath the earth to the sides, between the poles. So, not only did the sun/moon/stars become visible, but they also became 'positioned' as they are today because the majority of land mass was now positioned so that there would be 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, rather than 6 months.

      If the stories are true and the God who created all of this actually interacted with these people as they, for whatever reason, claimed, then it's possible these people had a knowledge of how creation played out. I employ you to read my other 'God created evolution' hubs. It goes much further than just the creation account. I may be completely off-base, but what this story appears to be describing may have actually happened. And if it did then it's an important part of what made us humans who we are. It's an important part of our history. I think it's important to examine all possibilities and not be so quick to dismiss anything until we know for sure.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi, What you are now saying in this response and the claim you make in your title God created Evolution:Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate; is it seems to me actually two different things. It's only seems accurate when all the stuff that doesnt jive is left out, and curiously enough that is how you formed your argument. I do believe it is science that is informing the bible creation story much more rather then the other way around in terms of important factual details in your case. The errors are not even given a second thought by you such as God created cattle. Actually it was civilized man who created cattle as cattle are domesticated not wild. So if the use or translation of this word is correct it is a silly error. To start off with I have big issues with the Genesis story right from the start. First you must accept the concept of "God" as it appears in Genesis and the trouble is like cattle it appears to me this "God" was created by civilized man NOT the other way around. This is why "God" is NOT refered to as an "it" but rather curiously enough as a HE. I for one dont believe in "God" but I dont rule out the possibility of such entities until it is proven absolutely otherwise but in any case I certainly would bet if "it" is the great creator of everything it probably doesnt need to be male or to look like a human man for that matter. This is the ancient human mind at work that you refer to in your response. If by some chance "God" does exist your hub doesnt really prove "it" created evolution. It may have created life with the ability to evolve but the actual evolution of species seems to have been played out without any thought of it being "GOOD" and seems counter to the Genesis story of static ready made species appearing at the dawn of creation. Your hub is very intelligently written but I think it fails to leave the gravity of religious thinking attempting to turn the tables on real science which oddly enough you now holy embrace. Yes I agree that the first bibles are interesting reading especially because they are so ancient but they could not shake off the shackles of ignorance that binded them and so it is fascinating but also horribly dated and well kind of silly in its pretence. I cannot even figure out from Genesis just how many "Gods" they are writting about as it says let us make man in "our" own image as if "God" was having a conversation with other "Gods" Can it be the people who wrote the bible or who first invented these stories actually thought they were the 'Gods"? It's very possible they were sitting around a fire either drinking or smoking some pretty strong stuff.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      Because this is such an ancient document, it's imperative to understand the differences that come from a clunky translation from ancient Hebrew to English. Like referring to God as 'He'. In the ancient text He is only ever referred to as YAHWEH or Elohim. 'He' is a later addition. Just as 'cattle' is a later addition. The original Hebrew doesn't say 'cattle'. The closest translation is probably closer to 'beast'.

      The creation account isn't intended to prove itself through details. It's simply explaining how each thing came about and that God made it happen. What it manages to do is list, not just random facts about the earth's history, but it accurately describes major eras in the proper order. The formation of the earth's water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere was a major era. And two of the key components that made it possible are two elements specifically named in the verses before; the seas(v2) and light(v3). The next major development was land, then of course life. And just as is described, plant life was the dominant species for its era, then came moving life from the seas and birds that were dominant for a major era. Then come the mammals. What's particularly interesting here is that specific mention of birds also makes it apparent that there's a line of distinction here that is recognized scientifically today; syropsids (reptiles and birds), and synapsids (mammals and humans). And just like plant life before, then reptiles and birds, the mammals then had their era peaking with megafauna like giant cats and mammoths. Then came humans. First they were food for giant mammals, but then, over time, they became the new dominant species.

      The 'us' is a difficult bit. When it says humans were to be created in 'our image and likeness' I think its speaking of the original storytellers. If you read my other 'God created evolution' hubs you'll see this is a whole project, of which creation is just a piece. What I think it's saying is that the earth was created first and populated with humans, then came Adam and Eve. And unlike naturally evolved humans (the Gen1 humans) Adam and Eve were not mortal, but lived much longer lives. I think they were the introduction of free will into the world as it describes them as breaking the one rule given to them by the creator who spoke everything else into existence. He made humans in the same image as these (Adam/Eve), the same likeness. And in Genesis 6 it says the 'sons of God' (descendants of Adam) found the 'daughters of humans' (naturally evolved humans) beautiful and began to procreate with them. This is when it says God 'regretted putting humans on the earth'. Then He sent the flood. A regional flood that would only be intended for the small group born of this intermingling.

      This is a much larger story and it lines up with science and history and the rest of the bible and even alternate mythologies incredibly well. I understand your objections based on this anthropomorphic deity seeming more likely to be the imaginings of a more primitive people, but I think there's much more to the story here. There's little we know about those first civilizations like Sumer and Egypt. We just know they were incredibly advanced unlike anyone who came before. This offers an explanation. It's these stories in Genesis that set it all in motion. A behavioral change, an expected result if what I'm proposing is true, can actually be seen in the evidence. And every civilization of that region (Sumer/Akkad/Babylon, Egypt, the Indus Valley(India), Hittites, Greeks, Romans, etc) they all speak of these immortal beings in their ancient past, male and female, who were moody and unpredictable, and who sometimes mated with and had children by humans. And in the case of Sumer in particular, the first of all the civilizations, they specifically say they were taught 'civilization' by these gods.

      When laid against the proper context of modern knowledge through scientific inquiry, the bible tells a very different, very relevant, very cohesive story. Again, maybe I'm totally off-base, but there's a lot of ducks that line right up when viewed through this lens, from every angle you come at it. So it's something I employ others to consider and pick at. It could be pure poppy-cock, or it could be an important key to what made us humans who/what we are.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi, To be honest and meaning no disrespect I think to fully understand Genesis in its proper context and at it's most enlightening one must study Jewish thought on the subject not Christian based concepts derived from them. My understanding is great Jewish thinkers like Maimonides understand the stories are "Godly" inspired works but not actually words of "God". Historically Christians thinkers have been totally carried away, like the Muslims even to this day that these are literally the spoken words of "God" then get into defending them as such when in fact the people responsible for these stories may not have intend it that way at all. I can agree that years of translations from the original Jewish script has gone far to distort accurate meanings this is why only enlightened Rabbis or Hebrew Scholars are in any position to discuss the matter with any real clarity. Apparently religious Jews are much less concerned then Christians with how the Genesis story jives with modern science in minute details and are more concerned with the morals laid down by divine inspiration and the "God" they give credit to for such inspirational thoughts. I dont trust many Christian thinkers on the subject because they make what seems to me horrible excuses to justify their arguments. One site claims the time spans of creation were framed as days because humans at that time were too stupid to comprehend vast stretches of time. Yet the Hindu thinkers had no such problems with expressing vast time spans during the creation. Science now knows that Homo Sapiens had fully developed brains well over 10,000 years ago and were capable of fairly complex thoughts. Yet some christians would have us believe that humans were all basically cave men just a few thousand years ago. Many people today cannot read but we dont judge human intelligence by the dumbest but by the smartest minds of the times and Im guessing there were some very smart people around even 5,000 years ago capable of putting some pretty serious theories together. In fact the Genesis story is very simplified and leaves much room for reading in unwritten details. The problem with religious people making claims is that historically the last thing they were interested in was scientific like verification and instead used brute power to squash opposing views. This let them free to wreck havoc on any "subversive views" and create the "truth" in a most ungodly manner. Religion like science can be a double edged sword, but it is religion that can be a very dull sword whereas science seeks the ultimate "truth" and over time accepts nothing less. Religion CANNOT make this claim, if it does it just being deceptive.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      I agree with you and do look to what the great Jewish thinkers say. They're the closest to these stories in a cultural sense and speak the language natively. But I also recognize that the Torah, and especially the books of Moses, were a mystery even to at least the post-exile Jewish people. This is why there were people in Jesus' day and before, Pharisees, who were dedicated to deciphering and properly understanding the Torah. Those first 11 chapters of Genesis are the oldest of all the books in the bible, with the possible exception of Job. They were ancient times even to them.

      I agree and do not view the bible as the inerrant word of God. I believe its stories are inspired by God and events that involved God. And if there's any legitimacy to what its saying then we should now, given our modern knowledge of our history, pinpoint the events its speaking of. I believe science is the best approach we've yet to find to establish objective truth, but I do not believe the natural sciences are adequate to understanding the entirety of existence. Science deals purely in the material. The distinction was made long ago in these ancient texts between physical/material and spiritual. If the stories are true, if the God they describe is real, then a universe and a planet and an animal kingdom that appears to have formed on its own is exactly what you should expect to see.

      You're right that the Homo sapien brain was fully developed. They've been at least the same shape and size for more than 100,000 years. I have studied and even wrote an extensive article on the evolution and emergence of the modern human mind. That's a key part to what I'm pointing out here. Just when exactly the most significant of changes happened and where. If these stories happened as I'm claiming, in the same time and place as I'm specifying, then they explain the significant advances and changes in behavior that happened in our history.

      Here's the article I referred to about the evolution of the human mind if you're interested ...

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Human...

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/On-The-Ev...

      I'm using science as a tool to establish the proper context and setting and I'm not deeming anything immaterial out of the question. I'm considering this a real possibility. These ancient texts have had a significant impact on the vast majority of our human history. And no matter the power of those who may seek to advance it, nothing has the staying power of 5000 years if there's not something significant about it. These texts have remained relevant in every age since they were first written. I believe this is because there's real truth to them and I think they may actually be describing when and how the modern human world was first set in motion.

    • profile image

      Methodskeptic 3 years ago

      {{{As for the grass/herbs/fruit trees, a visible sun is not required. In fact, in the earth's actual history, the sun would was not visible for millions of years after plant life grew on land. In fact, its the plant life on land being in direct contact with the atmosphere that aided in changing the atmosphere from translucent to transparent.}}}

      This statement isn't actually true. I know you need it to be for your imaginary genesis timeline to hold together, but as I said months ago, you don't actually have any sources to support your assertions about opacity and translucency and transparency. It's just a story you're making up to support the conclusion you assumed at the outset.

      {{{So, in attempting to prove/disprove it, I have reviewed each word and phrase within these first 11 chapters in multiple translations, and have researched each word and phrase in its original Hebrew meanings to see whether or not it conflicts with my hypothesis.}}}

      And any apparent or obvious contradictions you'll cavalierly distort or disregard, as you have already done at every stage, because you've already decided it's true, and you're doing nothing but gathering whatever confirmation bias you can scrape together.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Methodskeptic,

      Do you have anything more than your word that my statement isn't true? You go from making that statement to then criticizing me for making stuff up to try to justify my Genesis timeline, rather than referring then to what it is that makes you certain that I'm just making this up.

      "In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions." - http://www.palaeos.org/Hadean#Formation_of_the_oce...

      It's not hard to find the transition from an opaque to a translucent atmosphere. The beginning of the Archaen eon as the oceans were first forming the atmosphere was most definitely opaque. Between everything spewed into the atmosphere by outgassing and volcanic activity, combined with an abundant level of trapped water vapor, cut off all light to the surface. So, when in the bible it says 'let there be light', this is an incredibly on-point statement. Not just because this was the first time sunlight was allowed to reach the surface since the planet had a surface, but also because light played such a major role in everything else that came later.

      The largest chunk of our earth's history has to do with the formation of the oxygenated atmosphere we have today. This took billions of years. The sun's brightness over much of that time was only about 70% what it is today and the atmosphere for much of that was drastically different than what we know today. I suggest studying the evolution of our atmosphere as its a fascinating thing in its own right, apart from this. Just the transition from a reducing to an oxidizing atmosphere is crazy. The delicate balance that allowed dangerous gases like ammonia and methane to escape, but retain water vapor, due to a delicate balance between the size of the planet and it's gravitational pull, its distance from the sun, the temperature of each stratosphere over time, combined with the mass of the molecules of these elements and its escape velocity is what determined what escaped into space and what didn't. And the formation of each subsequent stratosphere and the various components that make up the atmosphere we know today, like an ozone layer, incredible. Each thing happening in a very particular order to allow for life to flourish.

      Even after the passing of the earth's (technically 2nd) atmosphere there was quite a bit of Co2, which of course is a green house gas, and causes very humid conditions. Over time, changes in conditions, stabilization of the air temperature and pressure, consumption of carbon dioxide by plants, and a decrease in volcanic activity, all would have contributed to a breaking in cloud cover and dense, humid conditions near the surface. Combine with that the fact that the sun wasn't as bright, but getting brighter, plus the fact that all the continental land mass of the planet during that time went completely beneath the planet and back up again between the poles, means what's described during 'day 4' is very much on point with what an observer would see if they were standing on that land mass where humans would eventually live.

      But I think the bigger point here is the full progression of everything mentioned. We get bogged down in the details of this and that, but the overall arc of the story is very telling. Specifically in the order in which things are mentioned, and which things in particular were mentioned. Just the fact that these bronze age writers made a distinction between 'light' and 'the sun' is significant. They had already said the 'heavens' were created, which of course in bronze age language IS the sun/moon/stars, but then they specifically say 'light'. Light was a major factor in all the things that followed, though a visible sun was not yet necessary. Defused light through a thick atmosphere still allows for photosynthesis and for playing a pivotal role in the earth's water cycle, but would only visibly be 'light' defused in the atmosphere during the day and 'dark' at night. Then it talks about, not land or animals or trees, but the atmosphere, or the "firmament". This WAS the next major development. And not just a 'firmament', but it goes on to say the water from above was separated from the water below (ie. the earth's water cycle). And, like light before it, the atmosphere/water cycle was pivotal to all that followed. As was land, which came next. And it really was in that order. First the seas, then the atmosphere, then land. Then the emergence of life on land, which was of course facilitated by all that came before, the seas, light, the atmosphere, and land.

      Maybe it's just my imagination, but I see a lot more here than you'd think someone with a bronze age level of knowledge would even be able to guess at.

    • profile image

      tt 3 years ago

      HeadlyvonNoggin - I am stoked that you have gotten such passionate comments from people that do not accept your views! I concur that as I read through much of the comments, I am amazed I did not see one single well-articulated point of contention. For a group claiming your views are illegitimate, it would seem that they might have qualified several specific points of fallacy rather than just name-calling. It is amazing to me that how the more we learn about science, the more we see the accuracy of the Bible.

      Thank you-

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, tt, I appreciate that. It's not often that I get a positive/supportive response, as you've seen, so it's encouraging when it happens.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      To be honest even if I find your claims a bit far fetched in that your title states God Created Evolution based on the "facts" you have, it is only one example of ancient experiences being either misrepresented or worse used by religious people to further their cause. I would suggest that even if some great creator does exits it would not fit neatly into humans traditional religious ideas of what God is or what it's intentions are as far as humans are concerned. for religious Jews God is a great mystery. This is as honest an interpretation as one can find. any less or more interpretation of God is a form of deceptionby illusion. If I had a choice wether to live in a universe with a loving creator or one without that would make me pretty powerfulbut I value "truth" over blind faith. In short your hub falls short of PROVING that God created evolution or wethera God exists at all.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, gconeyhiden, for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      To be clear, this is not about furthering any sort of religious cause. I myself, while I am a Christian, I do not consider myself a religious person or a "church-goer". This is about reaccessing these ancient texts in the light of modern knowledge. Ultimately its about finding real truth, and I feel I have good reason to think there's much more historical relevance to these texts than they're often given credit for.

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      Huh1 Children Please! Stop Fighting!

      Put aside your differences and Agree to Disagree.

      Everyone seems to be attacking the Huber with their oversensitive defensive comments and personal views.

      No one has posted any real constructive arguments For or Against this Hub.

      Headlyvonnoggin, it would help those of us who really want to learn - even if the conclusion is still disagreeable - but at least we're able to see where your arguments stem from - if you could clear the backlog of negative comments.

      I think it's your title that got every so wound up, and certainly, it's your title that caused me to comment (I have further comments to make).

      You did a great job in standing up to the bullies.

      Thank You!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thanks Cruella.

      I generally don't like to delete comments because I like everyone to have their say, and for anyone reading along to have all the information. But, then again, I never expected to have 350+ comments either. I might have to consider trying to thin it out a bit, removing the repetitive/argumentative stuff, and maybe trying to boil it down to just the more relevant bits of actual discussion.

      Personally, I don't mind, and completely understand, the emotionally charged responses. I guess some of it could be seen as bullying, but I just see that as the natural result of being bullied. Perhaps by churches or family members who were heavy handed religiously. But, in my mind, that's to be expected and has to be allowed for. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going and on track because I think it's an important thing to hash out. I just want to show that the atheist view does not have the intellectual, or even factual, high ground. That the only difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is a difference in subjective philosophy.

      I look forward to reading your further comments.

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      God Created Evolution - mmm!!!

      In the Nature/Nurture Debate - What Came FirstThe Chicken Or The Egg?

      The question/debate is 'not' the authenticity of biblical events, the debate is more the inaccurate 'style' of reporting 'The Good News'.

      The Holy Bible (THB) - The Genesis Creation Story has a complete disregard for the Process of Evolution and misses out quite large chunks of Historical Data - the Age of The Earth, the Age of The Universe, the Age of humanity, the Age of 'pre-history', the Age of The Matriarchs, the Age of 'Goddesses', 'The Land of The Giants - (these are the periods that resonate with me - there's probably more accounts of life that THB has completely missed out).

      THB writers concern themselves with one particular period - the Age of the Patriarchs.

      Not only do the bible writers miss out important factors, they insult the human intelligence and offend professors of other Academic and Non-Academic Disciplines by simplifying the info into terms of 'God Created…….in 6 Days…' - as if it were The Whole Truth. By contrast, Science, History and Mythology prove that THB's account of 'The Truth' is not The Whole Story.

      This is further complicated by the fact that there are those that belong to the same institutionalised faculties that agree/disagree/contradict their 'Order'.

      Eg: 1 - There are Scientists who are Christians.

      There are Christians who are Satanists.

      There are specialist IT (information technology) Consultants that don't posses modern gadgets and gismo's.

      Eg: 2 - I always find it strange when I see a priest who smokes or an overweight doctor.

      Us humans get very disgruntled when we feel we are not loved, appreciated and listened to.

      We get even more defensive when 'our side' of the story has been not been portrayed truthfully/correctly or has been misrepresented, mistreated or disrespected in some way, shape or form.

      Comments made by previous Huber's took an aggressive tone because you didn't bring anything new to the table.

      It 'appears' is if the Hub was written to try and prove the links between Science and Religion. But like I said the dispute is not the lack of evidence that prove the links between Science and Religion, the dispute is what came first Science or Religion?

      You did not define 'who' or 'what' is God, or what the term 'God' means to you.

      'Evolution' suggests a Natural Forcefield of Events, 'Creation' suggests 'an invention' - the control of Nature.

      You drew no distinctions between the two and therefore did not clarify those parts of 'The Creation Story' which evidence shows 'Evolved', and those parts of 'The Creation Story' which 'you' believe to be Created by God - 'your' god.

      All you've really done is announce your beliefs in the Christian ethos, feature what many scholars, experts and 'ologists' already know and source material already available to those who keenly look, listen and learn with 'both' ears and eyes.

      Basically all you've done is just state 'the obvious'.

      It's no different to bible writers telling The Creation Story from an outside perspective.

      You've not even bothered to show the relevance of your 'accuracies' to today's culture.

      We live in a world which evolves, involves, revolves and resolves itself around a vibrational Process of Seasons - i.e. the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - time, space, energy - past, present, future - Good, bad, ugly (or) indifferent - birth, life, death - life, death, life - the head, the body (or) torso, the 'bottom' half - part blood, part water, part matter.

      The actor Yul Brynner who plays the lead role as The King of Siam in the 1951 film 'The King And I' always said etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

      We live in a world that allows us to kill 'our' brother in an instant fit of rage, but once killed this world does not allow us put 'humpty dumpty' together again. Our brother remains dead. We cannot in an instantaneous, spontaneous and suddenness, turn back the hands of time in an emotive 'adrenalin rush' of shock, horror, calm, reflection, joy, love and laughter - we cannot bring that person 'Back To Life, Back To Reality, Back To The Here And Now' (Soul II Soul 1989).

      Surely a powerful God would Create a world where the trillions of prayer requests - Good, bad or ugly - is simply a matter of clicking/ticking the Mark 'All' button/box - regardless of the consequences - as we see in the 2003 American Religious Comedy Film 'Bruce Almighty'. If things get outta hand, God can fix it in an instant - much the same as the 'imaginary play' of a child who has dolls, teddy bears, cars (matchbox size and pedal power), toy soldiers and train sets.

      If God Created Evolution - why would God allow children to exercise their 'free-will' knowing humanity could be extinct in the next millennium - because of a lack wisdom?

      That makes no sense to me.

      'Evolution' is a Scientific way to explain the Disciplinary Laws of Nature - the birth of 'ALL' life form.

      'God Created….' is just a simple way to cut across Science and explain the arrival of 'human life'.

      The arguments are that in the Law of Physics you can't do that. You can't just arrive at the birth of humanity. Humans would not exist if were not for Evolution.

      Religion is formed of a subterranean culture that levies on behalf of the ruler of Church and State to exercise control over the masses. History shows that this was the duty of ''the ruling class' or the king/queen, now it's a confederation of peoples.

      Online Users are subjected to the subterranean culture of control via 'registration' - divulging personal details 'to an unknown god' called 'cyber space' - clicking the button/ticking the box that states that you understand/agree to/are bound by 'the small print'/the 'terms and conditions' - when sometimes there are things we'd prefer to keep locked and hidden away in the deep recesses of the mind - we just wouldn't talk about them or release the words into the air because 'Walls Have Ears' and there is a Law of 'come-uppance' (Karma - the Law of Come Backs).

      THB writers address the issues and get away with the errors by recording singular incidences.

      The 6 Days of Creation is explained as - 2 PETER 3: 8 ……….WITH GOD, A DAY 'IS LIKE' A THOUSAND YEARS AND A THOUSAND YEARS 'IS LIKE' A DAY (NIV).

      All of 'the Ages' I mention above are explained as - GENESIS 1 /JOHN 1 - IN THE BEGINNING (NIV).

      Evolution is explained as - GENESIS 1: 2 - FORMLESS, EMPTY AND DARK (NIV). How else would you describe Evolution - unseen Forces of Nature?

      As a writer you use the descriptions available to you, in the present-day language, knowledge and style you are accustomed to.

      In terms of Numbers and Digits, we understand the concept of the more noughts there are on a lottery win, the bigger the win, the more enriching we think our life will be. Bible writers simplified this concept by saying '6/7 Days…..'.

      In the meantime, History supports the Science view - the inhabitants and habitations of The Earth/The Universe - past and present - Evolution 'could be' older than 'infinity', whilst THB and it's Creation Story only goes as far back as the evidence of History will allow.

      As we have seen in many 'war games' i.e. world wars/civil wars and battles' etc, high profile notoriety cases and also the cases presented before Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown (two really great Reality TV Shows based on the Court Proceedings of American Arbitration in the Small Claims Court) - as we can see by all of these cases, if the law of the land did not seek to protect aspects of humanity, some people would think it ok to take 'the law' into their own hands and kill their neighbour.

      My conclusion is that Man Created God - the results of an Evolved mind.

      God was Created from the figments of human imagination, because humans are in a constant and permanent deprived and depraved condition of greed, need, want, sexual and sensual gratification and self-glorification - the same emotional wreck, bully, form, likeness and image of God - who demands that we worship him only - cos if we don't fear him and do as we're told, God'll have temper tantrums and banish us from the Kingdom - etc.

      Thank You!

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      Hi Headlyvonnoggin,

      I do commend you for always trying to address the individual and their comments and for giving everyone an opportunity to read previous comments and see what went on before.

      I find that there’s nothing worse than joining a conversation in mid stream and repeating the views of previous comments - but you must draw the line somewhere.

      My Overall Conclusion to your Hub, is that whilst I Agree with you on some level, it must be said that I don't Agree with the body of your Hub 'God Created Evolution'.

      ‘God’ Could ‘Never’ Have ‘Created’ ‘Evolution’.

      Evolution is Real whilst God is a dictatorship.

      Evolution brings forth life, whilst God ‘invented’ life (heaven).

      Evolution does not destroy life it changes lives - i.e. the theories on the Evolution of man:

      (a) from monkey to man

      (b) from sea creatures to mermaids to human;

      (c) the land of the ’giants’ - Goliath (the David and Goliath story recorded in THB).

      Then there’s the Evolution of solids:

      (a) the formation of crystals, gem stones/precious stones and sand - the results of broken rocks;

      (b) the formation of glaciers - which - Evolution is about to change again as many glaciers are melting and falling into the sea.

      Evolution changes lives, but god destroys lives (hell).

      Evolution serves The Whole Truth/The Whole Story, - A Whole Community & Host of Beings, whilst God serves himself and made himself Whole (Holy), under the disguise of serving humanity.

      As part of my ‘Overall Conclusion’ I must state that although my religious education, knowledge and up-bringing is limited to one source - the ‘umbrella’ of Christianity, as a mature Student of Life, Christianity is the one that makes sense to me.

      The Holy Bible - The Good Book - for me this is not just a book that serves Christians and the Christian community, this is a book that serves 'all' of humanity regardless of the beliefs - but of course - it helps if you believe in the ethos of what you read.

      For me THB is the only religious artefact to read.

      It is a wealthy source of information and incorporates edifices from other religious practices.

      Thank You!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Cruella,

      I think you're right in that Genesis only really focuses on what's most relevant to the human age, so there's quite a bit it simply doesn't mention. I think what is described is for a particular purpose. To convey the more relevant aspects of the story. The creation account, for example, its purpose is not to prove itself through the detail it gives. It's simply describing how this God these stories are speaking of is the creator of the heavens and the Earth. So it describes this God creating all the primary components of this Earth that humans, the intended audience, would be familiar with; the seas, the land, the atmosphere, the animals, etc. The primary point of the story, I think, is just to show that this planet and everything on it is the result of God simply willing it to be and it becoming. Like, for example, the 'days' thing. I just don't think the point of the telling had anything to do with how long it took, but rather had more to do with showing it happened in six phases. Beyond that, as you pointed out, the focus is on the patriarchs. It's the particular things the authors focus in on that guide me in how I read and interpret this. It clearly doesn't cover everything, so what it does cover is what's most relevant to the overall story it's conveying.

      The title I chose is very much in line with how I view God. I think the way in which the natural world works as we've become aware through science IS the method in which God works. He doesn't manually mold things with physical hands and He doesn't just miracle, or 'poof', things into existence. I think He simply created an environment governed by laws, then introduced matter/energy into that environment, which 'naturally' took the form of what He willed it be. His will is carried out in the interplay between matter/energy and those fundamental laws. I think the primary focus of these early stories in Genesis, and really throughout all the rest of the bible, is the distinction between the natural world, which behaves exactly according to God's will, and beings who have a 'free' will and do not behave exactly according to God's will.

      Evolution doesn't work if living things aren't compelled to survive, thrive, and procreate. I think it's God's will, His command that life come forth, that compels it. Life was indeed shaped through evolving to survive and procreate in its environment, but without being compelled to do so none of that would have happened. Through science we see a natural world that seems to have formed itself. In my view, what we see is exactly what you should expect to see.

      Humans weren't always in a "constant and permanent deprived and depraved condition of greed, need, want ,sexual and sensual gratification and self-glorification". In fact, we can actually see in the historical/archaeological record where and when, exactly, these behaviors first surfaced. And it turns out this actually happened in the very same region and timeframe in which those early stories of Genesis are set. In fact, I think it's the introduction of Adam, the first of God's creation capable of behaving according to his own individual will apart from God's, and the intermingling that happened between descendants of Adam/Eve and naturally evolved humans (Gen6:1-3) that resulted in the behavior you're talking about. Then, after the (regional) flood, God dispersed the descendants of Noah into an already populated world, each carrying with them a 'free will' that then propagated throughout the world.

      This series, the "God created evolution" series of hubs I've done and will do more of in the future, goes far beyond the creation account. But the creation account is an important part of it as it sets the foundation.

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      Hi Headly,

      There are 4 Points I’d like to make:

      1. You’re right - The Creation Story is only one aspect of life and only one aspect of focus in The Holy Bible (THB).

      2. Yes! For Evolution to work it does depend on many sources and forms of life to ‘jolly things along’ , change and move with the flow. For me - as an adult - Evolution is the best explanation to give, as it explains 'Law' as well as ‘Order’. ‘God Created' …..is for the less imaginative.

      3. Whilst Genesis 1 & 2 sets the stage - sets the scene for man to walk on and take centre stage throughout THB, on top of everything else I mentioned previously, us humans we’re not very imaginative and can’t see past the end of our noses. Occasionally those ‘Bearing Gifts & Talents' might come into the limelight and revolutionise our societies. For a long time The Earth was deemed ‘flat' until someone came along and said ‘Duh! - It’s Round’!

      4. Generally speaking it is argued that Evolution is for the sceptics and atheists. I think it’s more the other way around. Evolution is for the ‘faithful’ - those who have a 'deep' respect for Law And Order - i.e. Those who believe in and nurture The Laws of Nature - Nature being of the Highest Order in the structure of The Universe ((TU). 'God Created’….is for the ‘faithless’ - those that can't/don't/won’t accept that Law And Order is all we have. Law and Order is all there is to life. They want so much more for/from/of life. Religion offers much, God offers more via religion.

      Thank You!

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      I want to thank you Cruella for saving this kids time on this almost absurd subject. it is quite evident to anyone reading the hub w any knowledge of science that so many details are left out of earths history the writer's only real intention is to reveal how the story of Genesis in its simplicity jives with a very abbreviated version of earth history that is supported by science. I guess this is the new Christian way of accepting the science it used to reject. over time we will surely see more acceptance of science by religion because there is really no other alternative that makes sense. Noggin did you ever hear of the term unintelligent design in nature. i think science is a way of collecting relevent data that over time stands up. it is a humans way of getting at the truth.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      by the way the regional flood was more likely aworld event brought on by the end of the last ice age. it did alot more then just float a big boat.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Cruella and gconeyhiden,

      When it comes to better understanding the natural world and how it works, I agree, simply dismissing it all as something "God created" leaves you ignorant of, and unable to fully appreciate, the natural world's workings and intricacies. I have always been fascinated by this planet and what we've learned through scientific inquiry and often found myself at odds with the religious people in my life on many points. But I also do not see a fully adequate explanation of all that this life, and this reality, is through a purely material viewpoint. I think it's possible that we sometimes take it too far the other way by 'faithfully' assuming purely physical/material explanations will always suffice. As if this one method/approach we've clumsily put together, and have found success through, could ever actually apply to all that reality is.

      Kind of like what you said, "Occasionally those ‘Bearing Gifts & Talents' might come into the limelight and revolutionise our societies. For a long time The Earth was deemed ‘flat' until someone came along and said ‘Duh! - It’s Round’!" We humans tend to get stuck on an idea. We find some success with a particular approach or viewpoint and we stick with it, sometimes blindly. We develop a kind of faith in a method or ideal that's proven successful in the past. And that way of looking at things tends to ultimately do the same thing as when one assumes "God created". It leads to one set way of thinking and looking at things, closing the mind to other possibilities and explanations. Your assessment that 'evolution is for the faithful' rings true to me, but not in the way you mean.

      Materialism, in my mind, is the new dogma of the 21st century. Rupert Sheldrake in his "The Science Delusion" TEDTalks said it well...

      "The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a very wide spread belief in our society. It's the kind of belief system of people who say, "I don't believe in God, I believe in science." It's a belief system which has now been spread throughout the entire world. But there's a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry, based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or a worldview. And, unfortunately, the worldview aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry, which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor. Since the late 19th century science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system, or worldview, which is essentially that of materialism, philosophical materialism."

      Intelligence is a 'natural product' in this universe. It's not something we understand fully, as the brain is something we don't fully understand, but what we do know is that this bundle of matter in our heads, the way in which it's configured, in some way results in producing intelligence and reason. And it's something that exists in spite of us. It's not of our doing. It's something we discovered. So I don't understand why it's deemed 'out of bounds', inadmissible, or even inappropriate, to suggest intelligence could have been involved in the formation of this reality we all share. I get that we've progressed beyond the more traditional ideas of a God, who in our modern view is often the equivalent of an invisible cartoon magician, but I think it's a bit premature to toss out the baby along with the bathwater where this concept is concerned.

      Mathematics. Is it really possible that something we humans (who came along so late in the process) contrived, can so adequately retrofit and make sense out of all this universe is? Or is it really that mathematics is something else that exists beyond and in spite of us? Something we discovered rather than being something we invented? The same goes for genetic information. This is a system that in many ways resembles things we intelligent beings have created. It's a means that makes possible the retention and passing on of information. It's what takes what would otherwise be a purely random/chaotic process and makes it progressive and accumulative. It's a form of accumulated knowledge. Much like what we use and benefit from today. Accumulated knowledge. Something that is 'intelligently' created that shares qualities with 'natural' processes we see at work.

      I'm simply trying to find real truth. And I'm trying to be mindful of the lessons of our past in doing so. I know we modern humans tend to look down our noses at our ancestors of the past as not being as informed and knowledgeable as we are. While we do have a much better grasp of the natural world, I do not find it justifiable to assume all they thought, all their reason and intuition arrived at through their observations, is completely obsolete as far as having any value. I think there tends to be a natural ebb and flow to these kinds of things, and I think we'll ultimately find, as is often the case, the actual truth lies somewhere there in the middle.

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      Hi Headly, Hi Gc,

      I think I've said enough now.

      In sticking with the Hub Title - 'God Created Evolution: Genesis Creation Story Is Scientifically Accurate', I shall leave you guys to take the discussion to the next level - Noah & 'The Flood' (Genesis 5-9), whilst I think about how to start my own Hub.

      Headly, I maybe outta my depth here but I don't think Mathematics is real. I've got nothing to back up my statement with - except to say that if clothing and shoe sizes vary from country to country, region to region - then to me - and I stress - to me - this is an indication that Mathematics is not real. It's a formula invented by man. I mean, a 15ft bridge is a 15ft bridge - (yes, sorry - I'm still an imperialist). A 15ft bridge doesn't change its sizing because it's built on another side of town. So I don't' think Mathematics is part of The Natural Order of things - (unless someone can enlighten me on that score).

      The worldview of Science is cultural. We live in an era where Science - the Material world is all around us, but there was a time in History where the religious view was the only view to be heard.

      The conflicts in Science is natural. As we probe further and further into the unknown there will always be conflict - conflict within ourselves and conflict within the order/disciplines of Science - the stuff that sci-fi movies are made of. This is the stuff of love, peace and war.

      Love, peace and war - the stuff that was always carried out in the name of God.

      Thank You!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Cruella,

      Well, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you want to get into the 'next level' of the story, check out my other 'God Created Evolution' hubs. They cover the Adam and Eve story, Cain and Abel, and others. All through the flood through to the tower of Babel, and even into Abraham's time. It goes well beyond just the creation account.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi again, there is some truth to your statements about how some people view science but nothing is perfect. Compared to religion which historically dealt w opposing viewpoints by seeking to wipe them from the face of the earth usually by the most inhuman violent means, the study of nature through science in comparison is quite tame and results not in bloodshed but lively discussion. I find it very unfortunate that much of cutting edge science today is directed to the military efforts of nations, such is mans shortcomings when it comes to good and peaceful relations between humans. I imagine if "God" was pissed off w humans in Noahs time enough to want to rid the world of all people good and bad and all life too except for a few chosen few what would "God" be thinking now in this day and age. Im going to check out a few of your other Genesis hubs so i can comment on them, but generally speaking and w all due respect i think there is perhaps better use you can put your intelligence and considerable creative efforts into that would be more fruitful. humans i admit seem to have a propensity for creating donuts but a chocolate donut as good as it is wont save your life if your drowning. i recently came across a christian commentary on intelligent design and reef cleaning stations. the writer went on to say intelligent design must be at work because otherwise the predatory fish would just gobble up the smaller cleaner fish feasting on its parasites. this commentator was showing just how little knowledge of parasites they possessed. In short i think there is a real downside to mixing religionw science other then perhaps its ethical use.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      hi again, I have read some more of your hubs and have discovered some more untruths or distortions. first off you claim to being not very religious but your writings proves otherwise. the newest tack by intellectual christians is to promote their faith by whatever means and so now disassociation of the faith is mingled w science in an obvious attempt to get their religious views accepted as science. The result is unfortunately religious pseudo-science not science. you carefully ignore the inconsistent parts or just give explainations that gloss over the troubling inconsistent parts. I am similiar to you in regards to my intense interest in science. i also study comparative religionbecause its so much a part of human history and culture, but since im REALLY unreligious i have no interest in confusing the two by mixing them into a "stew". actually i have considered forming a new age ONE "religion" w.o the need for "God"that would do away w all the rest and maybe finally bring peace and stability to the world but im also wary of tom cruze. far too often religious christians remind me of drug addicts that scoff at rehab. its all the other drugs that are hell. its like they want you to stand in front of a fun house mirror w a bag over your head w tiny slits cut in it. hmmm havent i seen that somewhere? Texas is known for being a very bible toting state yet they find ways of executing people w IQs of an 8 yr old. Im not suggesting you would support such a thing but just trying to demonstrate the failure of religion. as an artist i take great pride in being a non conformist and this is one reason why i dont like BIG RELIGION and fear it. religious views are not worthy of scientific discussion outside of sunday school or theology class because it will just dumb us downby watering real science down. your religious-scientfic exercise is very much akin to this. real science trumps religion and if your exercise was bound by true scientific method im guessing it would ruin your attempted obfuscation of "reality". think about it...what has religion given us but fantastic stories. since big religion was invented man has continued to destroy fellow man at even greater pace and was often the actual cause of such strife. Christianity is NOT innocent in this. mans moral and ethical failures are attributed to the devil and his evil influence.what a profound explanation as to whats wrong w the world. the devil did it. in comparision science offered extraction of dangerous parasites discovered in the human brain as opposed to religious exorcisms of imaged devils. you just cannot compare the two in terms of knowledge systems. in short real science is our way into the future, religion our connectionto our past imaginations.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      Religion is a man-made institution. What humans have said about what/who God is and what they've done in the name of Him is the most fallible part of the equation. I am not religious. I am a Christian, but I don't associate with any specific denomination or attend a church. This is not some tactic to achieve some religious agenda. I know and recognize there's a lot of blame at the feet of religion. But I also recognize that religion, just like anything else, is simply humans being humans.

      I'm just looking for truth. And to do so I use the most accurate information available. I too am interested in the various religions for much the same reason. It's a case study in and of itself of human history, psychology, and culture. And I study those ancient civilizations that first set the modern world in motion, as well as the geological and biological history of this planet. I'm just utterly fascinated by life and I want to figure it all out. How it all works. I began at Genesis because it's an ancient text of unknown age and authorship that originates in the cradle of civilization, and it's had an obvious and significant impact on the entirety of Western Civilization's history. With the level of knowledge now known about this age and region, if there's any legitimacy to these ancient texts then we should be able to see it. I invite you to point out the 'inconsistent parts' I 'carefully ignore'. That's why I do what I do. If this is wrong, if this is totally off-base, I want to know about it.

      What I see are ancient stories, well-known in the ancient world, that describe events that actually set the modern world in motion. I see a biblical story describing beings who were created, not as the first humans that existed, but as the first beings capable of behaving contrary to God's will, being introduced into an already populated world through Adam and Eve. A capability that then passed on to all those 'of Eve'. When these descendants began interbreeding with naturally evolved humans, us, they introduced free will into the naturally evolved human line. There is a dramatic change in human behavior that came just before the emergence of multiple advanced civilizations. Sumer/Akkad/Babylon, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Greece, Rome. And all of these have ancient stories describing ancient gods who lived immortal long lives, who were male and female, human in form, who were moody and unpredictable and who interbred with humans. I think these stories could very well be based on ancient beings as described in Genesis who existed in their distant past, roughly 1000 years before writing. Faint memories of a truly fantastical beginning to modern civilization. The earliest of those were the Sumerians whose stories directly claim that they were taught the ways of civilization by these gods. The very same gods that Genesis says were worshipped by the people in the land Abraham's father was from, Ur, which is a Sumerian city.

      I thought for sure this crazy idea simply couldn't be true. But it all lines up across the board and I've yet to find a good reason to dismiss it. Free will makes sense to me. If I try to really consider the atheist/materialist viewpoint it just falls apart for me. It just ultimately means that everything that's happened or will ever happen was set in motion roughly 14 billion years ago and will simply continue to play out like the dying waves of a ripple. If there is no non-physical/spiritual element of the self, if there is no soul, then our wills cannot actually be free as we are nothing more than matter and our behaviors are bound to the laws of physics. Which means that everything in human history, from the most deprived actions to the most important achievements, were not actually willfully made decisions, but rather were determined long ago when the dominoes were first tipped. All of it as much in humanity's control as a waterfall is in control of where it flows.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      hi, It seems to me you are very religious person but that you dont go so much for what i term "BIG RELIGION". The fact that you call yourself a Christian and readily read and start off scientific enquiry into world history by reading Genesis is very revealing about your thought process. Religious works like Genesis are a combination of creative invention, propaganda and history. The fact that you are very willing to dispose of the Genesis time frame as almost irrelevent means you go around your first imposing hurtle. Where do you address the real time frame and sequence of perhaps the most important event in earths history, the formation of our moon. Apparently there is now enough evidence to conclude that the moon was formed from the earth. this was after the primordial earth was formed, so it APPEARS "God" didnt create the HEAVENS in total in a moment of unrivaled unlimited power. our moon is but a result of a tremendous meteore impact and it appears that unrefutable data is at hand. to give you an idea of how ingrained religious thought is in the minds of humans one only need to look at the expression, oh my God. Even I who has never seen compelling proof that indeed God exists, or even more that God gives a damn about us, will let out with an... oH my God if i see something horrible happening. this is an unconscious, ingrained,brainwashed effect. within a second even i envoke the name of God to seek help and intervene. Genesis says in effect that God gave man earth and that in effect man was to be master of the earth. during the black death in europe almost 50% of the population died at the hands of unseen parasites and microbes. God went on vacation. it will not be Gods first or last vacation in human history. Humans as a species may yet prove to be a flash in the pan. we as a species have to go a long way yet to match the survival longevity of those we supposedly are masters of. As a species we are composed as much or more of symbionic microorganisms then our own cells. the whole humancentric tone of the Genesis story is wrong it seems.well as you already said "God" created science, but my question is did your "God" create science fiction rather then science .I ask you, if humans had NO FEAR at the dawn of human civilization would the creation myths have been created the same way? do you really think so. now science has collected enough datato suggest that life can arisew.o. outside intervention. it seems life can happen naturally.it also seems that matter can and does appear seemingly from "nothing". you are not so much explaining how factual Genesis is but your showing us your internal gear box and providing an explaination of how the idea of "God and Genesis work for you in context of the science you know. Well at least i give you credit for saying evolution does exist.it took me hours of conversation w a Christian friend of mine to get him to admit he was in fact an animal.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      When I say I'm not 'religious' I'm referring to organized religion. A man-made institution based on man-made interpretations. I personally have no issue with having ideas. Ideas can change and evolve as you progress. But religious institutions are built on ideologies that form their foundation and are therefore not malleable, but rather are stagnant and cannot change without weakening the ideological foundation. I am not religious, but I would say that I am spiritual.

      I'm not sure what you mean about my willingness to 'dispose of the Genesis time frame'. I actually use the time frame established in Genesis to form this concept around. Using the ages given in the lineage lists in Genesis 5 and 11 I first built a template timeline to then place against actual history to see if there's cohesion. And it's the cohesion I do see where that specific timeline actually matches up with the actual history of the region that led me to writing about my findings and discussing it with others. The timeline given in Genesis is, in my mind, an important piece to this whole thing.

      As for the formation of the moon, this happened before the formation of the earth's oceans. So in the context of what's described in the Genesis creation account, this would have happened along with the formation of the heavens and the earth in verse 1. Verse two actually begins the creation account, and at the beginning of its description the heavens and earth have already been formed and the earth's oceans already exist. So, according to the geological model the moon would have already been there.

      While you are correct that our human reign over the earth is but a fraction of the time other species have dominated the planet, our now being the dominant species is significant. We managed to do so without the teeth and claws, but rather through our intellect. The rise of homo sapiens is an incredible thing. Roughly 70,000 years ago homo sapiens were nearly wiped out, most likely due to the Toba volcanic eruption. Homo sapiens were reduced to less than 10,000 mating pairs according to genetic study. But out of those survivors of north-central Africa came the entirety of the human race. By roughly 20,000 years ago homo sapiens had not only populated every continent on the planet, including north/south America because of their ability to cross the Bering land bridge, but they had also managed to push both the neanderthal and all the world's megafauna (wooly mammoths, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats) out of existence. So in just 50,000 years we went from less than 10,000 mating pairs in Africa to worldwide domination.

      In my mind a big part of life is in regards to how we choose to live in the face of the adversity this existence pits us against. Like diseases and viruses and everything else. To me this is all about forging free will. And what better place to forge something like free will than an environment like this? it's the dangers in life and the inevitability of death that makes life urgent and it's the possibility of failure and harm that makes our actions and decisions crucial. There's a saying that says, "Calm waters do not make good captains." It's the challenges and dangers in life that shape who we are. Have you ever seen a tree grow in an environment where it's not exposed to the winds and the environmental conditions? it just grows straight and flimsy. It's the wind pushing and breaking its limbs that gives a tree its shape and its strength.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      hi again, your able to defend your ideas because they are so vague. Religion thrives on such vagueness of knowledge, real scientific investigation seeks to destroy such vagueness when possible w irrefutable data. This whole exercise you have w Genesis is more religious then scientific. So what, it just so happens it took your all powerful"God" not a day to create the heavens as Genesis describes but oddly enough a time frame described by science NOT GENESIS. This may not seem all that important to you but it relates to the nature of "God". In Genesis many important figures are described as being hundreds of years old. They were not average mortals but mythical heroes and they supposedly lived many human generations to heighten the supernatural effect of the story. This is the special effects of mythology at work. Religion is chock full of these special effects. In other words Genesis describes a "God" that fits into their preconceived notions of what they want an all powerful humancentric "God"to be. A "God" that takes unimaginable amounts of time, more time then most humans can easily comprehend obviously didnt "DO IT" for them. If science couldnt tell time you would have no trouble w "God" creating everything in short order because religion unlike science has a ready explaination for everything. By the way the Mt. Toba explosion as far as I know is NOT universally accepted as a done deal as far as the human bottleneck is concerned. Your ideas are given a scientific like framework laid over an ancient text that was edited then translated over and over. Then you claim an accuracy that only exists in your mind."God" does exist merely because you need it to exist. Other life doesnt exist in the universe not because it doesnt (WHO KNOWS) but because it upsets your apple cart. Your just picking bits and pieces of scientific data if they seem to prove useful to your argument and ignore the more troubling aspects. Oh your religious alright..the NEW BREED.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      In summation of my responses to vonNoggin ideas (1) he is dealing w no exact translation of Genesis (2) if its not mentioned in Genesis it's NOT important even if it did happen (3) Humans are only one of many intelligent species on earth, some it seems can demonstrate the free will vonNoggin only credits to humans. Gorillas and chimps CAN speak when taught sign language and can create weird combinations as the writer does. A gorilla even picked her future mate by video w much thought as almost a human would.. Whales have been observed saving lost baby whales of other species from predators. Octopus have proven they can problem solve. Squid and cuttle fish demonstrate amazing intelligence. If humans dont destroy the planet first there is no reason given time other species cannot continue to evolve their intelligence to the next level. So the superiority of human intelligence is limited as is the rest of the biological community, even more so if you go back thousands of years before humans started asking all the right questions religion had NO answers for. Humans as smart as they are might still destroy civilization as we now know it. We may not only be the smartest species on earth, we maybe also the dumbest. (4) dispite all the writers says he doesnt give any proof whatsoever that "God" in fact played an important hand in the developement of mankind. (5) his idea that "God" created science, evolution, the universe and everything in it including all our ideas is w.o any scientific merit. First religion gave us "God" and dispite this great gift we lived in mostly ignorance for thousands of years. Now the writers aim is to show NOT prove that "God" gave us science not the devil or superstition or at the very least a way to discover 'God". right now this is way outside the realm of science. Science chugs along fine w.o talk of "God".We think therefore we are with "God" thats it in a nutshell. Is that kind of talk NOT found in church these days.

      As for me I'm off to another universe.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      Vague? I'm not sure how much you've read to this point, but to describe my ideas as 'vague' isn't exactly accurate. They're actually quite the opposite. It's a very specific idea that traces a very specific span of time in a very specific place, siting very specific evidence that shows the impact of these events can actually be seen. The creation account is just a small part of it.

      I believe I acknowledged the Toba volcanic eruption as 'possibly' being the cause, but in the context of what I'm speaking of the cause is irrelevant. What is relevant is that bottle-neck. Also, life existing elsewhere does not 'upset my apple cart'. There certainly could be life elsewhere. And if there is it still wouldn't change any of this.

      Again, as I've asked before, please give me specifics as far as this scientific data that I'm ignoring due to it being 'troubling'.

      (1) I'm dealing with the original Hebrew text as closely as possible

      (2) If I'm detailing how the Genesis narrative fits the actual history of the earth then of course I'm only going to be talking about what's in Genesis.

      (3) As far as I can tell there has been no demonstration of free will. Humans, like all other animals in the animal kingdom, for tens of thousands of years, were incredibly consistent across the globe, in behavior, in lifestyle. Though there are certainly differences in relation to environment and such, a cow is pretty much a cow where ever you may encounter one, a bear is a bear, a duck is a duck. You know what to expect. Well, for most of human history a human was a human. When that changed, it happened in a very specific place and time. When we stopped living in harmony with nature and began to instead destroy it, cut it back, bend it to our will. Even today, if you look at indigenous cultures, unless prompted to change because of interactions with 'civilized humans', indigenous tribal cultures are pretty much what you'd expect them to be behavior wise. They're physically the same, same brains, same capabilities, only they're not as fundamentally discontent as we are. So they behave differently.

      (4) Regarding 'proof' that God played an important hand in humanity's development, I'm not sure you've read much of my stuff just yet. I think you'd be surprised and encourage you to read on.

      (5) I never said God created science or any of our ideas. In fact a major piece of this whole concept is that what we do really is of our making. It's free will that I believe led to us building civilizations, inventing writing, adopting mathematics and astronomy, etc.

      I encourage science to 'chug along'. I'm simply pointing out some possibilities that line up surprisingly well with the evidence that could very well lead to better understanding, that could steer investigation, if there's truth to it. The difference is you seem to have already made up your mind, prematurely, about what is and isn't possible. You've closed your mind and are apparently suggesting I do the same.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      God created evolution, Genesis creation story is scientifically accurate.

      Sure it is. what is missing did happen apparently but is left out from your piece because it runs contrary to your effort or maybe it didnt happen. If you dwell on the important inconsistences it shows that Genesis creation story is in fact incomplete. Never mind. Genesis is well, Genesis. Dismiss this fact if you will. If you were more honest instead of making your title a statement of fact it should have been a question. You do use evidence from science to correlate w Genesis but do not actually use science to prove your statement. Much of Genesis was derived from previous sources and it probably had more then one author. The heavens are made like the ceiling of a disco club. In millions of years or a day who really cares, if you over look this and that its all there. Sure it is. yeah I made up my mind..your title is meant to decieve people, to get them to believe what you want them to believe.You set too high a bar for yourself then you do a limbo number. "God" created evolution. Again not a question but a statement. Your in the habit of making outragous statements w.o blinking an eye. No I dont appreciate arguments veiled in science to aid in making dubious religious statements as fact when the actual result is not determined by scientific means just personal opinion bolstered by some interesting correlations that rely on vagueness as much as anything. If that means Im close minded hey that really hurts coming from you of all people.. I also may be more honest then you. What make Genesis so compelling to me isnt the creation story so much but that it just maybe the first evidence of collective guilt being expressed by a "civilized people" no less in a monumental work.This is my own humble uninformed opinion. I do believe this ran contrary to the typical propaganda of the times. The stories of Genesis are full of details that do not jive w reality. So in short Im very critical of your method due to its overall vagueness and your unabashed over the top statements as proven fact. You very well maybe right in your assumptions, but you sure as hell dont prove it to anyone w a critical mind. To you "God" informed the ancients of the secrets of the universe. Why then would" he" just leave out so many important details. This in a nut shell is the difference between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge. Religious knowledge nowadays relies on science of all things to prove its points. well well.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      Incomplete according to what standard? What important details are left out? It's speaking of things relevant to humans. Familiar to the human audience it's intended for. The elements familiar to every human reader whose come across it in the past 3000+ years. It describes each of these elements and in what order they came about. The heavens, the earth, the oceans, daylight, the atmosphere, land, plants, animals, us. For only being 31 verses it manages to correctly describe six major eras in earth's history. The primary events that shaped the world as humans are familiar with it.

      So you'd be fine with all of this if I had simply appended a question mark at the end of the title? I'm making a claim and I'm inviting anyone and everyone to weigh in. While I've got hundreds of comments on this one hub alone speaking much like you are, not a single one has raised a legitimate objection. Just personal feelings. Which is fine. But don't you think that if this were nothing more than one of the first examples of human propaganda dreamed up by bronze age people with very little understanding of the natural world as we have now that it would be simple to refute? If it wasn't so on point we wouldn't have so much to talk about. I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

      I'm simply trying to point out its accuracy. No the author or authors clearly didn't have an in depth understanding of the natural world. They still describe things in terms they understand. But what they describe is insightfully accurate. Whether or not you buy into the God aspect of it, the creation account and subsequent 11 chapters are much more on point than they're given credit for. With Gen2-11 accurately describing a span of over 2000 years of southern Mesopotamian history. It's only a matter of time before this is more widely recognized. This texts offer relevant insights into arguably the most pivotal events in our human history. I understand your knee-jerk reaction to reject it, but your rejections seem to be coming more from an ill will towards religion than anything. Which is warranted considering religion's heavy-handedness over the centuries. But if you're going to reject something that holds the potential to enlighten us about our past, then you should do so with factually-based objections. It shouldn't be hard to do if what I'm saying is completely false.

      And let's not forget the vast majority of science's forefathers were themselves Christians. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Kelvin. They saw scientific inquiry as the study of God's creation. And the early forefathers of the church used much the same approach. St Augustine, for example, whose seen as an important voice to both Catholics and Protestants said way back in the 4th century that biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. The belief was that God reveals His nature to us both through the 'book of scripture' as well as the 'book of nature'. Science is not the sole domain of the non-believer. Science is the study of the natural/material world. God, a soul, anything spiritual, was designated by those same texts long ago to be something other than physical/material. Long before it was understood that such a designation would be so relevant.

      So please, I invite you to show me these details in Genesis that don't jive. Give me some substance to refute this if you're so certain. Because it's when people inject certainty where it doesn't belong that learning stops. Religion has done it in the past by speaking as if they know something the rest of humanity does not. Now atheists do the same through materialism. Injecting certainly about what can and can't be true with no solid reason to do so. It's the same mistakes of the past being repeated, only under a different banner.

    • profile image

      Cruella Dville 3 years ago

      Hi Headly,

      I's reading John Hennessay's response to your Hub - the one that speaks of you having a Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis - I think he may have a valid point - the point being that from the perspective of thesis - he's on your side. Hennassay was also trying to encourage you to keep up your 'Good Works' by whatever 'Faith' has lead you to write this Hub. Hennessey is also able to see how a combination of thesis and counteract thesis would lead you to your conclusion - which form the basis and title of your Hub. I wouldn't put it quite so eloquently. There's just something unsavoury and odd about this particular Hub of yours - (I've not read your others) - something so unsavoury that it's got everyone ranting, raving and pointing the finger at you.

      It's almost like you've tried to deploy a bit of reverse psychology (Science).

      Did you write the Hub to enlighten and enrich the lives and minds of others about The Truth or did write the Hub to heighten your own anxieties and awkwardness towards The Truth?

      You claim to be a Christian, but when the heat is on, you take a defeatist and defensive attitude and declare you're only human - a human in search of Truth - all in the same breath - (i.e.the same Hub).

      JC himself said (I've paraphrased it - i.e. it's not the exact bible quotation, so the order maybe wrong) - JC said 'I Am the way, the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father except through the son”. So Traditional Christianity already has the truth, so what more truth is there for you to search for - unless - you don't actually believe that Christianity is the truth?

      I think your sitting pretty on the fence and hiding behind Christianity.

      You like what Science has to offer, you like what Christianity has to offer, you like what History has to offer but you also like what other world views are saying.

      It’s not that long ago since God Created Evolution: The Genesis Creation Story Is Scientifically Accurate’ would have branded your views as religious heresy, or, would have earned you a place in the madhouse by the Scientists.

      Today we have Hubs that can be used as an outlet for nonsense.

      Infact I agree with GConey that THB is a book of "Creative Invention, Propaganda and History”. It continues to be so throughout many generations because it benefits the hierarchy of the ruling class or it benefits the rulers of this world. Each generation of rulers modifies the bible to suit themselves or updates it to represent the signs changing times and gives it a different name - i.e. The Bishops Bible, The Duoay Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Gideons Bible, The King James Bible, The King James Authorised Version Bible, The Tyndale Bible, The Wycliffe Bible etc, etc - and those are only the English bibles. That means there could be many more bibles with variations of The Creation Story written in other languages that never get considered.

      King James VI - King of England and Ireland who later became King James I of the Union of England and Scotland (1566-1625) - who commissioned the printing of the KJV/KJAV bibles in 1603 respectively - since King James represents a growing line of 'monarchy' succession there's been little or no reason to alter the bible's state of existence. At the top end of the scale its all designed to control the masses and keep the monarchy in riches - or at the very least - the lower end of the scale - if the masses can't be controlled then a certain section of society 'will be controlled', and whoever rules the roost will benefit from immense servitude and loyalty from those controlled by this edict.

      Again I agree with GConey that your Hub should have posed a question rather than imposed a statement. I can only assume you got the desired results - which was to demand attention. I also make GConey right when he says you need to more honest. I think you need to be more honest with yourself and get down from that fence.

      It's a tough world out there when you 'don't belong'- a bit like 'the ugly duckling’ syndrome. However the ugly duckling did learn and grow and came to the eventual realisation that he wasn't a duck after all, just a misplaced swan - a lost soul - a lost soul that came to an ultimate conclusion and acknowledged himself and his place in the world by acknowledging The Truth - a lost soul that found its true calling - a lost soul that ensued its own nature. The ugly duckling was never a duck to begin with. The ugly duckling was in fact a beautiful swan. The ugly duckling was a swan in denial.

      If you truly believed in the Accuracy of THB - or the Accuracy of The Genesis Creation Story and that God Created Evolution, you would not be writing a Hub - you would be challenging and championing the Faculties of Academic Disciplines - as these are the ones with the real powers of persuasion, the sovereignty to change, control and influence rationale - whether it's believed or not is irrelevant.

      That is exactly where we are today.

      KJV/KJAV bibles with old english and middle english text are more popular than modern english bibles because Church and State have convinced the masses that those bibles are more authentic than modern english bibles. People forget that whatever bible you use - it’s a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation that is based on an interpretation of the original scriptures - ‘IF' indeed 'an original' ever existed- for which there is no proof of that either.

      Thank You!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Hi Cruella,

      I understand that from your point of view what I'm saying can't possibly be true, so the mind naturally searches for reasoning behind what I'm doing here. I get it. So you make assumptions about me and try to understand why I would say these things. Though this is the first time it's been suggested I'm doing it for attention. If you knew me, you'd know how funny that is.

      Initially I didn't talk to anybody about any of this, much less write and publish hubs about it. I've just been fascinated by life and science and the natural world and history for as long as I can remember. I just want to figure out how and why things work. It's not even something I consciously set out to do. I just do it. But I never talked to anyone about it, never shared my thoughts. This was for me. My own personal understanding.

      But once one particular piece of the puzzle fell into place all these other things began to snap into place as well. All of the sudden I had this concept that lined up with everything I knew about science and ancient history and even the bible that seemed to me to be incredibly consistent. So I began to test it. Based on this as a hypothesis I set out to break it. To find proof that this isn't right. But all I kept finding was more data that supports it. Through this hypothesis I found that not only do all the dots seem to line up evidence wise, no matter what direction I go, but this hypothesis consistently offers more reasonable explanations to many of those still unanswered questions about the most formative phases of human history. And it was making predictions. Things I had no idea about when I first put it together. Things I found while trying to prove this false.

      That's when I began to share it. That's why I write about it. I can find no fault with it. What I do find is a more reasoned explanation for the onset of modern humanity and civilization than anything I've read that's been posed. This isn't a religious endeavor for me. As I've said, I'm not a religious person. This is about sharing something I feel is important, not just to the religious, but to the entirety of humanity. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I seriously doubt it at this point, but I always keep my mind open.

      I know people throughout the years have used the bible for personal gain, to remain in power, to control the masses, etc. I'm not arguing that. I don't trust human input as it's the most fallible element in the equation. That includes religious institutions in general. I stick to the facts. I treat the text as an ancient text of unknown age and authorship written in an ancient language from an ancient culture that we are far removed from. I don't doubt God, but I do doubt the human interpretation of Him. So I'm looking for the truth. I believe I've found spiritual truth. This is apart from that. I want to know and understand how, and why, everything works as it does. That's what drives me. According to my beliefs I will one day be given the answers. The problem is I don't want them just given to me. I want to figure it all out for myself. I can't help myself.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi, you sould read your responses to my objections. So much for false pretenses. So your NOT religious are you? The fact that you make a pseudo scientific exercise out of all this ending with such statements not questions clearly reveals your motives, Im just trying to destroy the illusion that you arrived at any conclusion by any real scientific method. When I get back to you here I will list my objections to your non scientific method. Oh by the way, I bet many of the Christian scientists you mention were scared to death of the Church and it's ill informed ways of dealing with ideas that were not adopted by their power structure. This is why Darwins work took years to reach the public. HE WAS SCARED of his fellow Christians.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      I'm back. Again, if you or anybody else thinks that Pseudo-scientific conclusions can have anything to say about whether or not God was involved either doesnt understand God, science or neither. That's your quote but I added the pre-fix pseudo to make it more relevent. Another wonderful "quote" of yours goes something like, I have hundreds of comments and not one has made any valid critical points to refute my position or something like that. Wow, your a tough nut to crack alright. As I prepare myself to confront the impregnable heady fortress of solitude I shave my head and tuck a small glowing green rock into my crotch in case this gets ugly beyond reason. So you say you want to know by what standard is this Genesis story incomplete? What important details have been left out. Let me start off by saying even if I do throw some substantial crap into your well oiled gears I dont really expect you to conceed I made any sense at all. I however do hold out some hope for your more unbiased readers. OK..Well to start off with the first 9 billion years or so not dignified by any real facts of timeline or detail. Fortunately the people who created the Genesis stories created it like a roll, it seems to repete itself as it unwinds so like a good illusion it's not easy pinning anything down in terms of it's detail, It's as "God" says, GOOD and gooey. This is exceptionally true of the first 9 billion years or so. In the beginning Genesis had little to offer. Then you make the statement that the Genesis stories were"obviously" NOT made to be accurate or legitimate. Really? I have serious doubts about the truth of this statement. Funny how you make my points for me. Question is which parts of Genesis are not accurate. But right here you admit to Genesis special effects in play. But then dispite this revealing confession you go on to play footloose with your interpretations but before you do you state that the second verse gives just enough detail to provide the creation story with a starting point. IN OTHER WORDS ITS VAGUE and lacking great detail. You seem to be admitting that fact with your statement. You go on explaining that for your hypothesis to work the reader must understand that the spirit of God on the waters means God is now viewing earth from its surface the way a mere mortal would. Really. How convenient for the story to work that way. Seems expediency is key to your understanding the seemingly endless contradictions offered up in Genesis. I do not think any serious case can be made that a day in Genesis was in fact a regular day. It seems to go out of it's way and actually explains more clearly then almost anything else that a day is made up of an evening and a morning. It says this every time a day is finished in Genesis. It even goes on to explain that the days and nights were meant to be signs, to keep the seasons and the years. They knew perfectly well what a day was when the Genesis stories were created. In Genesis as in other creation myths the idea that God had the power to create the universe in just days was surely intentional. Strangly enough some people still believe this is in fact true even today. So dont doubt that people believed it way back

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Hahaha... the green rock in your crotch comment paints a picture that can't be unseen. So, first off, thanks for that.

      Without actually going to look at it, I believe my quote regarding Genesis was that its author's purpose was not to prove itself legitimate or accurate to skeptics. As in, the purpose of the writing was not so the author could prove they knew history beyond what humanity could have possibly known. The point was simply to show that God created all of it, and it breaks it out to show in what order each element that humans are familiar with were created.

      So, where that first 9 billion years or so are concerned, not really relevant to humans, especially of the bronze age. These were just the 'heavens', which it says were created 'in the beginning'. The detailed portion of the account doesn't start until verse 2, giving a specific description of the earth at that point. It wouldn't do much good to explain anything beyond the heavens as most bronze age people thought it was just a tin dome anyway. This text was written by humans from a human perspective. What's significant is that each thing they mention really did come in that order. So I don't mean to give the impression that this is a direct quote from God, or written by God. According to the story told after, God interacted directly with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch, etc. So, the idea here is that while the authors of Genesis didn't necessarily have to have an in depth knowledge of creation, it is possible, if God really did interact with their ancestors, that they could know things that humans of that age would not have known otherwise. Like the order each element they were familiar with was created.

      While there are quite a few verses throughout the bible you could certainly make a case for as being 'vague', I'm not sure Gen1:2 is one of them ...

      Gen1:2 - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

      Just in this bit it tells us the earth was empty, covered in oceans, and shrouded in darkness. That's pretty specific. So specific in fact that if there had never been an age of the earth that didn't match what it says then this conversation would be over. Yet, there really is an age when the earth was just like that. Not only that, but this age does in fact come before light reached the surface, before the atmosphere and water cycle, before land, plants, animals, etc. So both in what it specifically describes, and chronologically, it's accurate according to the standard scientific model.

      And I'm not sure the 'surface' point of view is a matter of 'convenience'. I mean, does it not directly say, "God was hovering over the waters" right before the line, "And God said, 'Let there be light'"? So, verse two says this is where God's spirit is, then verse three says he said, "Let there be light." Does that seem pretty direct to you? How else should this be read?

      As for the days, again, this is from a bronze age human perspective. The word they use for 'day' also means 'age' or 'era'. It can be a 24 hour day, the 12 hours or so of daylight during a day, or an age of time. Or it could be that this does mean a day, but not consecutive days. Each age would begin with an evening and a morning. But the key here is that the authors and readers probably didn't understand the actual timeline. It's simply told in a way that makes sense to humans from any age. They're talking about the ancient past. Even we, in english, use 'day' the same way. It could mean an actual day, or a span of time in the past.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      So God says let there be vegetation and fruiting trees and thats it? So heady you have NO problem w this verse as it is written? What about the insects for christ sakes. So what God created evolution without understanding what he created? Not mentioning insects here is a very important oversight. Then God created cattle and the beasts and all creepy things. I do believe this mistake is intentional given the man's dominion motif. Obviously wild beast were around long before humans first domesticated animals but this story comes from a time when farming and domestication are changing the face of the world and allowing for the birth of civilizations. Genesis is clearly rooted in the birth of agriculture and farming more so then the creation of the earth. In another verse God creates the sun and moon at the same time it seems but gives no indication of how different in nature they are but instead refers to them as a great light for day and a lesser light for night. God also creates the stars without any indication he knows that sun are stars. This kind of thing may somehow satisfy your personal search for what you call truth. So you ask me with great bravado..what you mean if I put a question mark after my statements then everything would be alright? Not that it matters to you, but asking the questions rather then making very bold statements is just a much more intellectually honest way to go. As you yourself said...according to my beliefs I will one daybe given the answers. The problem is I dont wantthem just given to me. I want to figure it out all by yourself for yourself. Given this rational how is it you insist on making bold statements not really supported by facts. The weight of your arguments support questions much more so then statements of facts. Funny how you claim to be unreligious because your technique is very religious in nature and NOT up to statements of fact. Just because you have the balls to make bold statements as facts doesnt prove anything other then you have the balls to make such statements. Proving your statements isanother story. By the way I never said that the Genesis story is worthless bunk as you seemed to suggest. See this is why I'm not crazy over religion and its views. Religion is constantly sacrificing truth and the meaning and value of language. Genesis is full of contradictions. Does a bear shit in the woods?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      First off ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vjEnkQdaHM

      "bold statements not really supported by facts"

      You and your question marks. I'm making a claim. A claim that I invite people to refute/criticize/critically analyze. How many claims do you know of are posed as a question?

      So because insects aren't mentioned all the rest of this mess isn't worth the trouble? It's all wrong or it would have said insects? Nevermind the very direct line accurately describing the earth nearly 4 billion years before humans existed, it didn't mention insects, so....

      To be clear, I'm not a religious person and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity or anything else. I find this hugely relevant information about our human history in general. If this is accurate, or even half accurate, then Genesis is much more in line with history than most give it credit for or seem to realize. If this is accurate then what it's describing are the events that set the modern human world into motion. The creation account is just a small part of this. The meat of this claim has to do with Genesis 2-11. These events, using a timeline built from the ages given, accurately lines up with a 2000 year culture that lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, a flood in 4000BC that really did apparently bring an abrupt end to that 2000 year old culture, a climate change that really did disperse large numbers of people in all directions and really did happen roughly a century later, just in time for multiple burgeoning civilizations, each with their own unique language, to be there during the Abraham portion of the story.

      This claim isn't religiously motivated. This claim is all about better understanding who we are and where we come from.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Headly, It is safe to say that you were overly ambitious in your claims for this hubs title. You should take a page from Socrates. Your last response doesnt at all prove your statements of GOD CREATED EVOLUTION or GENESIS is scientifically accurate. In truth its accuracy is quite limited due to its simplistic nature and language. I have no intention in trying to undermine whats important about Genesis, Im just not going to swallow extremely subjective perspectives that dont jive w your titles and the bold claims they make. We might agree on maybe 70% but then you go off and show little respect for scientific methods and how they arrive at there conclusions. What is wrong w asking the questions you yourself admit to not even knowingthe answers to? what sense does that make. Every time you respond you diminish somewhat from your orig. intention of your titles. Well if I didnt know what chasing a greased pig in slop feels like I sure do now. Sure, sure there is "history" in Genesis but that is NOT the issue. I really have NO idea and only can wonder and try and keep up w the latest discoveries about the true nature of the universe and this is why I rather ask questions, because I value the truth more then statements that parade as the truth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      The title really bothers you doesn't it? The main title, "God Created Evolution" is the title I gave to the overall project. That in itself is not a claim I'm making and looking to prove. It's just a catchy title that I feel conveys my overall purpose in all of this, and that's to show that science and God are not mutually exclusive. That you don't have to let go of one to accept the other. That's all.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi again, OK I appreciate your willingness under pressure to make such a disclaimer. I know its not easy to be a "Christian" who's also into science. See I consider myself truly a non-religious person because if you asked me my faith I'd probably say art, even though my parents were conformist Jews. My "belief" is that the knowledge of how symbiotic relationships work in nature should serve to guide humanity in finding a proper balance in our lives and how we as a species should relate to nature. It's very possible in the future this type of philosophy will take the place of certain aspects of traditional religion. I'm kind of hoping it does. take care, nuff said.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      See, you and I really aren't so different. I agree with your "belief". In my view nature is a much more accurate reflection of God than anything humans have ever come up with, including religion. Given humans are the only things in all of existence capable of behaving contrary to God's will/natural law, we are the least accurate reflection. I see accuracy in the biblical accounts that appear to be telling the story of how modern humanity came into being. It marries up right along with the key events that shaped us and brought about civilization. It's the moment in history when humans stopped living in harmony with nature and began to "own" land and "own" slaves. It's when militaries were born. The story told at the beginning of the bible, when read against the context of the history of that region as we now understand it, explains this to be the result of a God who created everything in the universe introducing 'free will' into the world. A will capable of behaving contrary to 'mother nature'/instinct/predisposition/natural law/God. A will more acutely self-aware, that develops an ego, and begins to see the world around them not as something they're a part of, but something foreign that they are disconnected from.

    • gconeyhiden profile image

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

      Hi, This statement minus its reference to me should serve as your hubs introduction because it places your hub in its proper light , I do believe.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I know this is not my conversation, but I must make this remark about "gconeyhiden."

      Your username is appalling unless it has God-given evolutionary justification.

      If you are a true G (gangsta/gangster) that is hiding your last coney (beef hot dog topped with an all-meat beanless chili with diced or chopped white onions along with an ample amount of yellow mustard), then perhaps your username "gconeyhiden" is righteous.

      Other than that, you are just blowing hot air towards the next sales pitch for a lone Coney Island Hot Dog that never sold! LMAO!

      I'm sure that statement made perfect sense to at least somebody out there. You're welcome! :))

    • profile image

      JRfromMilton 3 years ago

      I appreciate your effort to bring both science and Christianity together! I am a firm believer in both and feel that the two support one another if some traditional Bible interpretations are questioned. There is a new book called To Adam about Adam (author Jim Frederick) that also discusses the similarities between the Bible and science. He applies what is known in the science world to the Bible without adding anything to the science. Like you, he shows that the order of the Genesis 1 creations are similar to what scientists believe. Keep the conversations going!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      gconeyhiden,

      A say something similar in my "God Created Evolution: Reconciling Science and God - A Project Overview" hub where I introduce the overall idea and link to the individual write-ups on each part. If what I'm pointing out is true, then it appears to be true that 'God created evolution'. That's a simple title that makes it apparent that this concept is about reconciling God and science, not picking or defending a side.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, JRfromMilton, for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I read a little bit of Frederick's book on Amazon and can definitely see some similarities. I'm interested in going through it to see where we're the same and where we differ, but his explanation about the author only being able to tell the creation story from a perspective a human could contemplate is definitely on the right track in my mind.

      Check out some of my other 'God Created Evolution' hubs that delve into Genesis 2-11 as well. That's where things get really interesting. The creation account just sets the stage.

    • profile image

      Add Your Comment... 3 years ago

      Add Your Comment…

    • profile image

      Bino 3 years ago

      Loved the article!

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      I have a couple of points to add to your excellent article Headly, which I think you'll find very interesting.

      The Hebrew verb 'to create' - 'bara' - is only used three times in Genesis 1 and 5 times in the entire Bible. In Genesis 1 it is first used for 'God created (bara) the Heavens and the Earth which we have understood to mean a creation ex nihilo, something that could not have arisen naturally. However in the following days when more 'acts of creation' are being produced, bara is never used again until man and woman. Clearly we aren't supposed to take the next few days to mean ex nihilo:

      Genesis 1:3 'Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light'

      Here 'let there be' is one word- 'hayah', a verb. Strong's concordance defines it as something that 'comes to pass' and adds that this is always used emphatically, not as an auxiliary additional point. Interestingly it is used in Genesis just before this, such as in Genesis 1:2 'And the Earth was (hayah) without form and void', in this use of hayah we can see a repetition emerging. And the Earth was (hayah)... "Let there be (hayah) light"' Imagine if we swapped the English translation of 'let there be', so given since God was speaking with what it may have sounded like to the Hebrews, 'And God said "There was light"'

      Hayah is used after this throughout the first chapter of Genesis, clearly being used to designate not something created by deliberate intention but something that simply came to pass. But it is used for most of the 'acts of creation' given, so I'll give them all here using brackets for every use of hayah.

      I won't use the occasions where it doesn't specify creations, like in Genesis 1:5 'called night (and there was) evening (and there was) morning'. I will comment on the verses where hayah isn't the creation verb later.

      Genesis 1:3 '(Let there be) light (and there was) light'

      Genesis 1:6 'And God said "(Let there be) an expanse the midst"'

      Genesis 1:6 'Let the midst of the waters (become) separate

      Genesis 1:14 'said God (let there be) lights in the expanse'

      So from hayah alone we know that these 4 events were things to come to pass. Let's examine the remainder.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      From the beginning of Genesis 1 to the end I will list all the creation verbs and then analyse them.

      Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created (bara) Heaven and Earth'

      Genesis 1:4 'God saw that the light was good, and he separated (vai•yav•del) the light from the darkness.'

      Genesis 1:6 'And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate (badal) water from water.”'

      Genesis 1:7 'So God made (way•ya•‘aś) the vault and separated (vai•yav•del) the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.'

      Genesis 1:9 'And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered (yiq•qā•wū) to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.'

      Genesis 1:11 'Then God said, “Let the land produce (taḏ•šê) vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

      Genesis 1:16 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.'

      Genesis 1:17 'God set them (way•yit•tên) in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth'

      Genesis 1:20 'And God said, “Let the water bring forth abundantly (yiš•rə•ṣū) living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”'

      Genesis 1:21 'So God created (way•yiḇ•rā) 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.'

      Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

      Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

      Genesis 1:26 'Then God said, “Let us make (na•‘ă•śeh) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”'

      Genesis 1:27 'So God created (way•yiḇ•rā) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created (bara) them; male and female he created (bara) them.'

      A count of 14 creation verbs not including hayah and its variants may lead to scepticism about whether Genesis isn’t actually talking spontaneous creation (which would of course be unfavourable for your surface perspective theory), but I think a closer read reveals a lexis adamantly pointing towards your theory. I’ll go through them once again, clustering my points.

      First we notice that several of these verses are using creation verbs in the past tense, referring to something that used hayah or another morpheme to indicate that it ‘came to be’ rather than being created already and then attributing that creation to God. We do this all the time today as well, owing our creation (birth) to God for starting the process but not meaning He literally intervened.

      The word for ‘separated’ is used in three places, twice using way•yaḇ•dêl as a variant of the root ‘badal’- 914 in Strong’s Correspondence. Notice in all three uses of this verb, they come after a previous verb, in 1:4 and 1:6 this is ‘hayah’ again, so it’s referring back to ‘hayah’, came to pass, as the actual description and the ‘separation’ here is the consequence. In 1:3 Light comes to be (hayah) and the effect of this is that light was separated (vai•yav•del), not that He separated it Himself.

      Again in Genesis 1:6 we have a previous act of creation (hayah) followed by the verb badal meaning to separate water from water, the consequence of the action. By the formation of a vault, naturally comes a separation. My theory here is supported by way•ya•‘aś in Genesis 1:7 which attributes the creation of the vault to God, which is nothing more than a recap of what has just happened- otherwise we would have to take it as a ‘second creation’ which is obviously not necessary.

      Other examples of past tense creation verbs occur as well. One example that caught my attention was the thrice repeated way-ya-‘aś (Genesis 1:7, 1:16 and 1:25) which imparts some very interesting information.

      We already covered way-ya-‘aś in Genesis 1:7 since it followed 1:6 as a consequence- but what does this mean for its next few uses?

      Genesis 1:16 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.’

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      (First, I should clarify that some versions may read ‘asah’ though they are given the same number in Strong’s Concordance so it is a variant or shortening of way-ya-‘aś. This will be very important later.) This was a part of your theory that troubled me to begin with since it seemed strange to repeat the creation of heaven (Genesis 1:1) so much later. However if way-ya-‘aś follows the trend set by 1:7 then we should have no problem of this being a reference back to 1:1, a kind of ‘Remember when I made the heavens? This is what they were for.’ It’s also important to note that the original Hebrew has no additional verb for ‘made’ in ‘He also made the stars’ and would be more accurately translated as ‘God made (call back to 1:1) two great lights… also the stars.’

      Genesis 1:25 confirms my theory of way-ya-‘aś since it is literally used to repeat 1:24 (although that has its own creation verb that needs to be discussed).

      Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

      Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

      We now need to deal with the problem of grounding the beginning of the creation of life in Genesis 1:20 which uses ‘yiš•rə•ṣū’ (“Let the water bring forth abundantly (yiš•rə•ṣū) living creatures”). And it turns out to be simple enough.

      Yiš•rə•ṣū shares a concordance entry (is the variant of) the far more commonly used haš•šō•rêṣ and, indeed, yiš•rə•ṣū is only used this one time in 1:20. Haš•šō•rêṣ is never used to describe an actual creation, like bara is, only to describe the action of ‘creeping things’, including 4 times in Leviticus. So its use here can only be to describe the movement, the ‘teeming’, of the abundant life of the water as it is brought forth during the Cambrian explosion. It becomes a dynamic verb or perhaps an adverb.

      Next, the use of ‘asah’ returns in a very exciting way! I worried at first over way•yiḇ•rā which is used twice, first in Genesis 1:21 and again in 1:27. My worry was because 1:21 referred to creation of Sea Creatures and 1:27 to the creation of Man in God’s image and since your theory has Adam and Eve as special creations, this might make sea creatures special creations as well. When I found out that ‘na•‘ă•śeh’ of 1:26 is a variant of ‘asah’ from before and thus just another occurrence of our old friend way-ya-‘aś we find a very different meaning.

      First Genesis 1:26 which reads:

      Genesis 1:26 'Then God said, “Let us make (na•‘ă•śeh) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”'

      Now has to read in light of way-ya-‘aś, used everywhere else to mean in reference to something that had come to pass. And indeed we find this in Genesis 1:26:

      Genesis 1:25 'God made (way-ya-‘aś) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'

      Which of course then means we have to read back to 1:24 where it describes the land producing living creatures, again reminding us of our need to define ‘towse’. Now with the definition of yiš•rə•ṣū as a description rather than an action and na•‘ă•śeh as way-ya-‘aś, we need to visit the implications on Genesis 1:27. I’m not too sure if this supports or opposes your present theory since the na•‘ă•śeh in 1:26 where God makes Man in his image is also synonymous with way-ya-‘aś and so wouldn’t necessarily be a special ‘new’ creation. I’ll leave you to decide how to best incorporate it into your theory, but if I made a suggestion it would be that in 1:27 they use the word ‘bara’ again which was used in 1:1 to describe creation ex nihilo. I understand this then to mean that Man in the image of God was the ‘telos’ of Creation, God did create (bara) Man out of nothing because Man was the final goal, so to speak. Aquinas’ analogy of an archer seems to fit here.

      Finally we are left with a few last verbs unaccounted for. A final dusting for this very long analysis! The first is needed to justify the conclusions I just made, the definition of ‘towse’ from 1:24. You’re a sharp one so maybe you’ve already noticed it but towse from 1:24 is very, very similar to tadse from 1:11. Curious, I checked the concordance and sure enough they are simply variant spellings.

      Of great interest here is that they both describe the land producing things:

      Genesis 1:11 'Then God said, “Let the land produce (taḏ•šê) vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.’

      Genesis 1:24 'And God said, “Let the land produce (tō•w•ṣê) living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.'

      Now as you theorised about the land producing vegetation because the conditions were right and had to be right, and the authors would know this, I think the verb taḏ•šê in 1:11 sets a good precedence for 1:24, that the conditions were right at this time for animal life to begin on the land.

      Finally, finally, the last two verses- Genesis 1:9 and 1:17 are left. 1:9 I find to be ambiguous as the ‘waters gathering into one place’ doesn’t seem like an act of creation so much as a movement. I know that this might attract attack on the premise, but if we remember that this has to contend with the creation of life and humans (originally thought to be spontaneous creation) and they have been shown lexically to be meant as developments over time, then I don’t see why we can’t interpret this to simply mean the waters gathered into one place.

      1:17 is quite funny and is another example of the past tense. God made the Sun and Moon in 1:16, although we remember that this is another use of the call back language to 1:1 and so 1:17 is actually no more than describing where they were. Of course they couldn’t have at some time been somewhere else and nowhere in the text do we find indication of such a belief.

      Extra notes: Definitions of ‘seed’ and ‘fruit’, like ‘cattle’ having much broader meanings in Hebrew, cattle for instance made up a large portion of those said to be on Noah’s ark but obviously there would still have only been two cows. The word for seed in Genesis 1:12 which I saw someone else giving you trouble for literally means ‘with descendants’ or which has the ability to produce children. Of course vegetation has always been able to do this and so there is no conflict.

    • profile image

      Rad Man 2 years ago

      Hey, Headly. I was just pushed to read a little about White Hole Cosmology. A creationist theory that the earth is actually near or at the centre of the universe and was in the beginning inside a black hole and everything outside the solar system was aging much much fast giving us an old universe in 6000 earth years. What make you right and they wrong? It seems they have taken a different approach, that don't change the bible they change reality to conform to the bible. You alter the bible to conform to reality. Thoughts?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I don't alter the bible. I just strip away pre-conceived ideas about what it says and read what it actually says against reality. There'd be nothing for me to say if it didn't match up so well. It's not like I could twist Alice in Wonderland to make it seem accurate. The accuracy has to be there for me to even have a leg to stand on. And clearly I do.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 2 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Headly, this is fascinating and likely entirely wrong. I don't mean that in a bad way. Three or four years ago, I might have agreed with it all. But we all keep learning -- some more than others. I see some commenters, here, who seemed to have taken a break from learning (their arrogance is thick).

      I find your dialog on the topic refreshing.

      In my own research, I discovered what might be called the "mechanics of creation." Powerful stuff -- bending and breaking physical law at will. One key thing I learned from it is that "resting" or "allowing," as in God's 7th day, is what gave us time. This is where persistence is added to the template or blueprint that was the first "6 days." So, from my own viewpoint, Genesis 1 was all about planning, not building.

      And now, I have to take all that I've learned and put it on hold, because now I'm finding out that I've been wrong, too -- at least partially. Genesis and the other 4 books of the Pentateuch were written in code by Kabbalists. So, just about everyone has it all wrong (including me).

      You say you strip away pre-conceived ideas. I love it. But there might be many layers to strip away. I've had to rethink my own "beliefs" many times. It's getting more and more fun being found to be wrong, because it feeds a growing hunger to learn more.

      If you're interested, the following short film is a real mind-blast. It's by the same people who wrote the Bible in code -- Kabbalists (not the New Age wannabees, but the authentic wisdom).

      http://perceivingreality.com

      Thanks for writing such an entertaining and enlightening article. And thanks for your cool-headed response to the know-it-alls with fangs. Nicely done.

      God is love. And your kindliness approaches that quality very nicely. Keep up the good work.

    • profile image

      Joy 7 months ago

      As a pastors kid, I find this article very offensive. It seems to me like your trying to combine creation and evolution. The earth is only roughly about 6000 years old.....NOT billions of years old. You also mentioned in a comment that you dont alter the bible...you just strip pre-concieved ideas about what it says. If you dont know..the bible was written by people from back then. Technically your altering the bible taking parts from it. Also, are you saying that creation and evolution have lots in common?? Because if you are...thats really funny!! Creation and evolution are like total opposites. Not impressed by this article....seriously found it offensive!!!!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 7 months ago from Texas

      Well I'm sorry to hear that, but physical evidence doesn't lie. 6000 years is the amount of time, roughly, that the bible chronicles, but that does not mean that's the entirety of the Earth's history. The idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is born of the idea that creation happened in 6 days, which isn't true.

      Let me ask you this, in the creation account, doesn't God command life to populate the Earth through "being fruitful and multiplying"? Would that not take many generations to accomplish? And doesn't it take months for just one generation to come to term? So could this be accomplished during the course of day 4 or 5?

      Just because some guys centuries ago translated the Hebrew text to say that each of these periods were 'days', that doesn't mean that's true. All the other clues indicate otherwise. We just have to recognize them. The word translated as 'day' is the same word they'd use to describe long periods of time, which is the much more likely conclusion.

      I'm not meaning to offend anyone. I just want to challenge old ideas. Humans are the fallible element in this scenario, and a lot of what you and I were taught growing up are interpretations made by humans. It's our duty to use the brains God gave us and to not just swallow what other humans tell us is true.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 7 months ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Well said, Headly. Being a PK has no bearing on logic or spiritual righteousness. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist Minister. Only one of his 3 children agreed with his viewpoint on the Bible.

      Christ said that the path to salvation is narrow and difficult. Biblical literalists seem to forget this when they declare that the Bible was meant to be "easy" to interpret. Oops!

      My book, "Watered Down Christianity," points out a number of things today's Christians seem to be missing. Foremost is the art of humility -- the ability to say, "I don't know everything and I can learn something new."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 7 months ago from Texas

      Hey lone77star, long time no see. Anyone who says the Bible was meant to be "easy", I'm not sure where they'd get that from. And I find it very disappointing that organized religion tends to be so against re-evaluating things in the light of new knowledge, especially since one of its most influential forefathers, St. Augustine, specifically said how important it is.

      "The interpretation of biblical passages should be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge". - St. Augustine

      I'm not sure what a "PK" is.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      Let me add another idea. God, The Ideal, is good and does Not have negative human emotions. The God of the Old Testament (OT) is vengeful, wrathful, violent, killer, warrior. All stories depicting God/Ideal as violent or with negative emotions are blasphemy. Thus most OT stories about God are just plain wrong. We need to get away from OT/Bronze Age thinking and have a Good God, as described by Jesus. What do you think?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I think there's a danger there of formulating an ideal of what we might wish for God to be while losing who He actually is only really to appease ourselves. I don't see the God of the OT as being any different than the God of the NT. The situation changed, not God. Throughout the OT God was dealing with an element that He did not control. Everything in the natural world acts exactly according to God's will, but when He introduced free will into the world through Adam/Eve He introduced an element He did not have control of. We may find some of his actions as violent or negative, but this was simply what was necessary in that context. To realize Jesus, God had to be firm. He could not control, only influence behavior and actions. Once Jesus was created He could then step back. God basically had to create Jesus through his interactions with humanity though He had no control over their actions. The OT God used anything and everything to control human behavior to realize the outcome He (we) needed. He gave commandments, He threatened, He plagued, He struck people down in sight of others. This was all in the interest of influencing behavior to realize the birth of Jesus. Once that happened humanity then had a savior.

      It's not that the OT God was vengeful or wrathful. He's a force of nature. Like gravity. Gravity doesn't do what it does out of revenge or wrath. It just is what it is. God is the same way. Our free will makes us 'unnatural'. We're like matter that doesn't behave according to natural law. Once we die, if we are not saved through Jesus, then we cannot move through to the other side because we are in an unnatural state. We are something that behaves not in accordance to God's will like everything else in the natural world, but of our own will.

    Click to Rate This Article