The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[Oldfarmhouse]

The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago. The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is 13.1 billion light-years away from us. The light now reaching us from that galaxy was emitted before the Earth was formed. Thus at least some stars are older than Earth.

History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.

There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.

Again, 1213, you are just repeating stale old propaganda. This is something that popped up from creationists ages ago. Yes, science does change -- the scientific method requires that information is constantly improving to a greater level of accuracy and always has the ability to encompass new information. That is why our technology is more advanced than it was 20 years ago and much much more advanced than it was 100 years ago. That is because scientific information changes in order to get better. That is why science works. Nobody ever said that it does or ought to stay the same forever.

It is, however, claimed that the word of God is unchanging and eternal. Science is supposed to change. But every time God changes his mind -- how do you account for that? Yes, God changes his mind all the time. He did so about slavery, women's suffrage, polygamy, racial segregation, on and on. We just can't trust that God of yours -- changing all the time.

[TheJackelantern]

The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago. The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is 13.1 billion light-years away from us. The light now reaching us from that galaxy was emitted before the Earth was formed. Thus at least some stars are older than Earth.

History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.

There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.

Again, 1213, you are just repeating stale old propaganda. This is something that popped up from creationists ages ago. Yes, science does change -- the scientific method requires that information is constantly improving to a greater level of accuracy and always has the ability to encompass new information. That is why our technology is more advanced than it was 20 years ago and much much more advanced than it was 100 years ago. That is because scientific information changes in order to get better. That is why science works. Nobody ever said that it does or ought to stay the same forever.

It is, however, claimed that the word of God is unchanging and eternal. Science is supposed to change. But every time God changes his mind -- how do you account for that? Yes, God changes his mind all the time. He did so about slavery, women's suffrage, polygamy, racial segregation, on and on. We just can't trust that God of yours -- changing all the time.

And lets not forget the evolution of his religion from polytheism and it's speciation into thousands and thousands of different sects over different religions that can't even agree on anything.. Each has their own GOD concept and opinion of what their GOD is and what it's supposed will is.. :/... His argument was a terrible argument to make unfortunately.

Yeah, I think I will stick to a self-correcting and self-challenging empirical system over a faith based self-inventive magical system that doesn't care about what's real or not.

[SailingCyclops]

Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma?

Münchhausen Trilemma - after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair. That's pretty much nonsense. The idea that nothing at all can be known because of some infinite regress of proof of proof of proof ...... is guaranteed to insure that you will know absolutely nothing about anything. Oh wait!

Bob

[Goat]

Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma?

Münchhausen Trilemma - after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair. That's pretty much nonsense. The idea that nothing at all can be known because of some infinite regress of proof of proof of proof ...... is guaranteed to insure that you will know absolutely nothing about anything. Oh wait!

Bob

It seems to me that sometimes that 'we can't be sure of anything' philosophy is pulled out by someone who wants to believe in something that there is no evidence for. "We can not prove anything is true, so I can reject any data the does not fit in what I want to be true."

[TheJackelantern]

Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma?

Münchhausen Trilemma - after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair. That's pretty much nonsense. The idea that nothing at all can be known because of some infinite regress of proof of proof of proof ...... is guaranteed to insure that you will know absolutely nothing about anything. Oh wait!

Bob

It seems to me that sometimes that 'we can't be sure of anything' philosophy is pulled out by someone who wants to believe in something that there is no evidence for. "We can not prove anything is true, so I can reject any data the does not fit in what I want to be true."

I call it the "I can't handle reality card". It's the card pulled when the evidence kills every aspect of their argument. It's the typical card played by reality deniers that range from Hallow Earthers, Flat Earthers, Creationsists, Anti-climate changers, UFO buffs, to people who believe in big foot. Mystery and fantasy is great until people actually start believing it and worshiping it in some sort of cult culture. Even that is fine until it starts trying to progress and become Theocritus and brainwash others into them. Hence, until it becomes predatory.

[SailingCyclops]

Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma?

Münchhausen Trilemma - after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair. That's pretty much nonsense. The idea that nothing at all can be known because of some infinite regress of proof of proof of proof ...... is guaranteed to insure that you will know absolutely nothing about anything. Oh wait!

Bob

It seems to me that sometimes that 'we can't be sure of anything' philosophy is pulled out by someone who wants to believe in something that there is no evidence for. "We can not prove anything is true, so I can reject any data the does not fit in what I want to be true."

The problem with this is that if carried out to it's logical conclusion, even those who choose to believe something for which there is no evidence, must in turn doubt that very belief based on the same logic. It leaves you completely clueless and forever ignorant about everything, without any recourse to reverse it. It's intellectual suicide.

Bob

[1213]

History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.

There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.

And that is why you are typing on a computer likely powered by a nuclear power plant right?... It seems you don't know how science works, and you are making a pretty bad argument here. So if you think science isn't worth much, you can go back to living like the Amish, or Indians... And you do realize that your computer rests upon particle physics and in dealing with electrons right? The feeling I get from your post is the common intellectual laziness as an excuse to not needing to try and understand anything in science..

one "evidence" for your statements that is not 1. circular argument 2. regressive argument 3. axiomatic.

Your computer.

Sorry, computer is no way non circular, non regressive, non axiomatic argument for claims that SailingCyclops made.

But I appreciate that you even tried.

And I'm not against experimental knowledge that anyone can achieve.

[Oldfarmhouse]

History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.

There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.

And that is why you are typing on a computer likely powered by a nuclear power plant right?... It seems you don't know how science works, and you are making a pretty bad argument here. So if you think science isn't worth much, you can go back to living like the Amish, or Indians... And you do realize that your computer rests upon particle physics and in dealing with electrons right? The feeling I get from your post is the common intellectual laziness as an excuse to not needing to try and understand anything in science..

one "evidence" for your statements that is not 1. circular argument 2. regressive argument 3. axiomatic.

Your computer.

Sorry, computer is no way non circular, non regressive, non axiomatic argument for claims that SailingCyclops made.

But I appreciate that you even tried.

And I'm not against experimental knowledge that anyone can achieve.

The fact that computers have advanced is evidence that the computer is non-circular, non-regressive, and non-axiomatic. In the late 1940s the UNIVAC computer was created. The monster of a thing took up an entire room full of equipment. Huge cabinets filled with tens of thousands of vacuum tubes. Your desktop computer is many times more powerful and has more capabilities than the UNIVAC.

This is because science is not circular or axiomatic -- it progresses. Our technology has increased. Today's computers are way more advanced than those made only a few years ago.

Now let's look at religion. The most recently created religions such as Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, Scientology, or Transcendental Meditation -- are no more advanced than the religions of long lost ancient cultures.

Have the methods of contacting and recieving information from deities improved in any way? Have the description of deities improved? Has the method of prayer advanced? Is believing stuff that's not true done in a more sophisticated manner today than it was 20,000 years ago?

Nope.

[ttruscott]

...
Have the methods of contacting and recieving information from deities improved in any way? Have the description of deities improved? Has the method of prayer advanced? Is believing stuff that's not true done in a more sophisticated manner today than it was 20,000 years ago?

Nope.

Gee, good questions....

God bless...

Ted

[Haven]

Now let's look at religion. The most recently created religions such as Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, Scientology, or Transcendental Meditation -- are no more advanced than the religions of long lost ancient cultures.

Have the methods of contacting and recieving information from deities improved in any way? Have the description of deities improved? Has the method of prayer advanced? Is believing stuff that's not true done in a more sophisticated manner today than it was 20,000 years ago?

Nope.

Actually, I would say that religion has significantly progressed since 20,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago. Followers of many ancient religions used to carry out human and animal sacrifices and invoke violent rites to gain "power" or appease the gods. Followers of earlier versions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism thought it moral to kill individuals and groups of people who didn't believe, enslave human beings, restrict the rights of women, etc. Today, practicing religious fundamentalists are peaceful, and their main "actions" include passing out evangelical pamphlets and giving emotional appeals to nonbelievers in an attempt to convert them. I'd call that progress.

~haven