In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/white_ad.html
(The mythological, biblical) Jehovah god formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis Chapter 2)
Now, the length of a biblical "day" can be whatever one chooses it to be, and one can apply that to the rest of the biblical creation mythology, but not to the creation of the mud-man. If one is a biblical scholar, one is obliged to add up the biblical "begats" to arrive at somewhere near the 3,928 years before the Son of Jehovah arrived on this planet in some sort of mysterious transference of divine DNA to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
On the evidence-based, scientific side of things, however:
The skull, detailed in the first of two papers in Nature, is set to rewrite our understanding of where A. anamensis fits between primitive hominins that lived more than 4 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... p/11444130
Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
https://religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pop ... -creation/
Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?
Early One Friday Morning
Moderator: Moderators
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Early One Friday Morning
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]
Since evolution makes no claims about HOW the first life forms came to be, only that they did by some means (at which point evolution can do its thing) I suppose he could make that claim without having to toss his bible.
However, evolution certainly destroys the idea that the first life form was a human being, and we'd have to ask the Pope if he's OK with "creation" of life being some single-cell organism without lungs or nostrils to breathe life into.
He might change his mind in that case (or take the stance that his favorite god did the creating, and evolution is just the mechanism he/she/it chose to allow it to diversify).
Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?
Since evolution makes no claims about HOW the first life forms came to be, only that they did by some means (at which point evolution can do its thing) I suppose he could make that claim without having to toss his bible.
However, evolution certainly destroys the idea that the first life form was a human being, and we'd have to ask the Pope if he's OK with "creation" of life being some single-cell organism without lungs or nostrils to breathe life into.
He might change his mind in that case (or take the stance that his favorite god did the creating, and evolution is just the mechanism he/she/it chose to allow it to diversify).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: Early One Friday Morning
Post #3If His Holiness WAS okay with the single-cell organism thing, he would HAVE to bin his Bible, because his Bible teaches him that Jehovah created a complete human male from mud.DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 1 by SallyF]
Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?
Since evolution makes no claims about HOW the first life forms came to be, only that they did by some means (at which point evolution can do its thing) I suppose he could make that claim without having to toss his bible.
However, evolution certainly destroys the idea that the first life form was a human being, and we'd have to ask the Pope if he's OK with "creation" of life being some single-cell organism without lungs or nostrils to breathe life into.
He might change his mind in that case (or take the stance that his favorite god did the creating, and evolution is just the mechanism he/she/it chose to allow it to diversify).
A human make with the capacity to develop a zoological taxonomy of the next set of creatures Jehovah then created in an attempt to find a suitable good helper for the mud-man.
A conveniently nebulous notion of "creation" can be wrapped around scientific evidence.
One cannot reconcile the details of biblical creation mythology with scientific evidence.
I suggest that anyone who says that it can be, needs to consider their decalogue …
… if they haven't already binned that too.
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Early One Friday Morning
Post #4[Replying to post 3 by SallyF]
Certainly true, but the creationists never stop trying (eg. Answers in Genesis and similar web sites). Why they bother in 2019 is beyond me, but I suppose they want to create some scientific legitimacy for stories like the creation week, Noah's flood, people living to 900+ years, a 6000 year old universe, etc. They have become adept at twisting science (or outright misinterpreting it) to try and convince the scientifically illiterate and gullible into believing that these fictional accounts are compatible with modern science when they very clearly are not.
If they'd just admit they believe these stories on faith I'd take that as an answer, but large numbers of creationists seem to have a motivation to force compatibility with modern science, and the only reason I can think of for this is that they want the legitimacy of it and are happy to mangle whatever areas of science are necessary to that end (specifically, those that disprove the biblical myths such as radiometric dating, evolution, etc.).
One cannot reconcile the details of biblical creation mythology with scientific evidence.
Certainly true, but the creationists never stop trying (eg. Answers in Genesis and similar web sites). Why they bother in 2019 is beyond me, but I suppose they want to create some scientific legitimacy for stories like the creation week, Noah's flood, people living to 900+ years, a 6000 year old universe, etc. They have become adept at twisting science (or outright misinterpreting it) to try and convince the scientifically illiterate and gullible into believing that these fictional accounts are compatible with modern science when they very clearly are not.
If they'd just admit they believe these stories on faith I'd take that as an answer, but large numbers of creationists seem to have a motivation to force compatibility with modern science, and the only reason I can think of for this is that they want the legitimacy of it and are happy to mangle whatever areas of science are necessary to that end (specifically, those that disprove the biblical myths such as radiometric dating, evolution, etc.).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Post #5
Is this how His Holiness sees creation mythology reconciling with science …?
Certain Christians see the result of the godly Friday morning looking like …
Others see …
Which may be a little hard to sell in Bible class ….
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Post #6
The idea that ‘man’ was created gets even stranger when you factor in ‘unnecessary’ things like the appendix, and apparently, your ‘inner lizard’. See this article for a fascinating insight into embryonic development.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49876827
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49876827
Post #7
I have been told, on more than one occasion, that things like this are placed there, by the Devil, to confuse followers of Christ and test their faith.Diagoras wrote: The idea that ‘man’ was created gets even stranger when you factor in ‘unnecessary’ things like the appendix, and apparently, your ‘inner lizard’. See this article for a fascinating insight into embryonic development.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49876827
I was told this by more than one 'church leader' and in all seriousness.
It's that kind of (non)thinking that will keep humanity locked in to our archaic ways, fears and pitfalls.
- Still small
- Apprentice
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
- Location: Great South Land
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
Menotu,Menotu wrote:I have been told, on more than one occasion, that things like this are placed there, by the Devil, to confuse followers of Christ and test their faith.Diagoras wrote: The idea that ‘man’ was created gets even stranger when you factor in ‘unnecessary’ things like the appendix, and apparently, your ‘inner lizard’. See this article for a fascinating insight into embryonic development.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49876827
I was told this by more than one 'church leader' and in all seriousness.
It's that kind of (non)thinking that will keep humanity locked in to our archaic ways, fears and pitfalls. (Emphasis added).
If that is truly the case, I would then suggest that you find some ‘church leaders’ with a better understanding of God. Such statements like this, which you make here and elsewhere concerning the devil I would suggest are made up by atheists in an attempt to disparage the creative abilities and wisdom of God. Yes, there was a time when we thought that the appendix was a useless or vestigial organ, a leftover of the naturalistic evolution process but we have since found this to be a fallacy. For example -
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... been-lost/
and
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 162333.htm
and for the coccyx -
https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx#1
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549870/
and for wisdom teeth -
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... be-removed
As for the purpose of dorsometacarpales, the developmental muscles that are present during fetal stages but later disappear, it may be simply another instance that science has yet to find their true purpose as designed by God. As science continues its research, they may come to find that they have a true and essential purpose during developmental stages.
Have a good day!
Still small
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #9
[Replying to post 8 by Still small]
But can you buy that explanation as a YEC? It is basically an explanation that is perfectly consistent with evolution in that jaw size changed (reduced) in response to an diet change (softer foods so no need for larger, stronger jaws and larger surface area third molars).
This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolutionary process, and it took far longer, according to this article, than a YEC believes that modern humans have existed. So I don't see how you could support an explanation for wisdom teeth provided by the linked article, and be a YEC, at the same time. They are not suggesting that a god had some special plan for wisdom teeth ... they are suggesting that the human jaw is evolving in response to softer foods with the result that wisdom teeth no longer have the space they once did in the jaw.
and for wisdom teeth -
But can you buy that explanation as a YEC? It is basically an explanation that is perfectly consistent with evolution in that jaw size changed (reduced) in response to an diet change (softer foods so no need for larger, stronger jaws and larger surface area third molars).
This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolutionary process, and it took far longer, according to this article, than a YEC believes that modern humans have existed. So I don't see how you could support an explanation for wisdom teeth provided by the linked article, and be a YEC, at the same time. They are not suggesting that a god had some special plan for wisdom teeth ... they are suggesting that the human jaw is evolving in response to softer foods with the result that wisdom teeth no longer have the space they once did in the jaw.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Post #10
I'm not looking for more church leaders but I've heard that from one than one from more than one denomination.Still small wrote:Menotu,Menotu wrote:I have been told, on more than one occasion, that things like this are placed there, by the Devil, to confuse followers of Christ and test their faith.Diagoras wrote: The idea that ‘man’ was created gets even stranger when you factor in ‘unnecessary’ things like the appendix, and apparently, your ‘inner lizard’. See this article for a fascinating insight into embryonic development.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49876827
I was told this by more than one 'church leader' and in all seriousness.
It's that kind of (non)thinking that will keep humanity locked in to our archaic ways, fears and pitfalls. (Emphasis added).
If that is truly the case, I would then suggest that you find some ‘church leaders’ with a better understanding of God. Such statements like this, which you make here and elsewhere concerning the devil I would suggest are made up by atheists in an attempt to disparage the creative abilities and wisdom of God. Yes, there was a time when we thought that the appendix was a useless or vestigial organ, a leftover of the naturalistic evolution process but we have since found this to be a fallacy. For example -
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... been-lost/
and
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 162333.htm
and for the coccyx -
https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx#1
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549870/
and for wisdom teeth -
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... be-removed
As for the purpose of dorsometacarpales, the developmental muscles that are present during fetal stages but later disappear, it may be simply another instance that science has yet to find their true purpose as designed by God. As science continues its research, they may come to find that they have a true and essential purpose during developmental stages.
Have a good day!
Still small
Just sayin'