Only 1 vote on Genesis creation and darwins evolution theory co-cooperate

Author: Nevets

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
Nevets
Nevets's avatar
Debates: 35
Posts: 57
0
3
9
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
0
3
9

Only four days to go. I am 7-1 down. I feel that is a little harsh. You may disagree. But can we have some votes on this please. Honest votes too. If you genuinely disagree with me that is fine.

My over-all argument is apparent in my very first sentence, when i state that Genesis is mostly based on Mesopotamian mythology, and Mesopotamian mythology, which genesis is built on, is not a blue-print for evolution. And i provided examples of the mythology Genesis creation myth was b uilt upon, such as "godess Mami".

This right there in my opinion pretty much removes Genesis being compatible with modern science, which is what Charles Darwin was supporting.
Even Charles Darwins personal beliefs are not important really. The Scientific thesis he is proposing does not co-cooperate with Genesis.

Also for those that think i over used wikipedia. I only use wikipedia as a foundation to build an argument upon. I leave it to my opponent as to whether he accepts the information or wishes to challenge. If he challenges, i will then find another source. Encyclopedia Britanicca most likely. but he never made this challenge. Therefore i stuck with wikipedia.

I also admit i focus more on facts and information, than grammar. And i make a lot of slight errors regards to typos et cetera. I type very fast and should learn patience. 

Those that think humour is not a good thing for a formal debate also might wish to include that as a conduct violation, as i always seek to bring a little humour in to everything, no matter how formal, and i did make an attempt to bring humour in to this debate. My opponent was a little scathing of this.

But i personally fail to see how my main two objectives, described above, about Mesopotanian mythology and modern day science being two different things were ever refuted. Modern day science is not based upon mythology, and i made it perfectly clear in my argument, that this was my main argument.

Please can we have some votes.
If you do not agree with me. I shall accept that.
#2
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
I'm not sure that the Genesis Creation story can be compared to evolution. The scientific theory that would compare is called Abiogenesis; life from non-life. Evolution is only about life that already exists, it is not about the creation of life.
Topic's author
#3
Nevets
Nevets's avatar
Debates: 35
Posts: 57
0
3
9
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
0
3
9
-->
@ATroubledMan
And that is my stance on the subject.
If you read my thread, i even mention that myself. That Abiogenesis is what it would be.

I state it at the bottom of round 3

Now if i "were" to argue in favour of my opponents argument, i think i would be looking more along the lines at the fifth day, below

 Fifth day
And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
And this is consistent with the Scientific abiogenesis theory of life evolving from the Oceans, as shown below

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
However there are still huge differences between Genesis, and Abiogenesis, and it seems Genesis would be an extremely primitive form of Abiogenesis, purely based upon Humans pre-Septuagint had the same brain capacity as they do today, and had the knowledge to know that Fish likely pre-dated Man, but lacked the Scientific education to be able to give a Scientific explanation for this. The explanation was still in the evolutionary stage.


#4
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God made one male and one female of allllllll the animals. ( this would make for a hard start )
God made a breeding pair of allllll the animals. ( this would still make for a hard start )   


Ya easy loss half ya critters. 
Only The animals that breed take off.   
The male peach face parrot and the female peach face parrot have a baby peach face parrot. 


They get to a good level then Bammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm,
It's FLOOD time. So.
Change the word god now to Noah.
All the original animals that god made are all now long dead. 


Noah gathers one male and one female of every animal. ( this would make for a hard start. ) 
Noah gathers a breeding pair of each animal ( this would make for a hard start ) 

So This creation is more like a survival of the fittest.
And All the animals start with No human interaction ( pre flood )
Then a start again with a breeding pair of rideable donkeys ( after flood ) 
And
Does the baby brother peach face mate with the sister peach face and bammmmmm you have a mutation. Ha. 

Do allllll the animals in the world today come from the ZOO boat, and they've only been hear for no more then 10,000 years.

If the TOE is hard to grasp. 
Picture a Hessian sack marked ( BEETLES  RIGHT LEGS ) and another marked.  ( BEETLES LEFT LEGS ) ( BEETLES MIDDLES ) 
And god sitting at a bench making them. 
:
:
:
:
Alsoooooo.
When God creates a Animal, he must then place it on the " board " 

God makes a polar bear a panda bear a grizzly .  
God puts the white ones in the snow
The black and white ones at the beach.
and the grizzly bears with the gorillas in the desert. 
Thus there is no such thing as pandas , gorillas and maybe grizzlies.  

Evolution comes down to gods  placement of the animals he makes. 
God places the Giraffes straight in the ocean.  AKA , So we dont have giraffes. 

Picture it. 
Gods like makes a zebra powwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.......  A  Zebra. 
He looks at it , and then puts it somewhere in snow. 
He gets lucky sometimes. And makes goats and places them on the sides of mountains. 
He makes a bunch of snakes and accedently chucks half a handful in the water. 
But half of them were land snakes so . We aint got them. 

 
If god makes a animal.
God has to place it down.  ( hopefully in a evolution spot ) 


#5
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm not sure that the Genesis Creation story can be compared to evolution.

No, the story can't be compared to evolution but that's not the question....the question is can they be compatible. The answer to that question of course is yes, by not taking a literal approach to Genesis. And as I brought up in another thread the Genesis story just invokes the idea behind creation, it's not a recipe for how God created processes to where we observe them today. It's more like a snap shot or a generalized concept to conceptualize imagery rather than a detailed account of how God creates things, or manifests them into existence. 

The scientific theory that would compare is called Abiogenesis; life from non-life. Evolution is only about life that already exists, it is not about the creation of life.

Right, and that's how both evolution and Theism are compatible (which would entail Genesis as well). One deals with the other side of the equation so they work in harmony. In other words there is no contradiction between the two. One deals with the process, one deals with the reason for the process. 

Topic's author
#6
Nevets
Nevets's avatar
Debates: 35
Posts: 57
0
3
9
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
0
3
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hmmmm, not sure the word "can" was mentioned.
I read it as "do".

But of course. One can believe that God started the process of evolution.
But this was not written in Genesis.
Therefore Genesis is not the foundations for this belief.
Unless one believes Genesis was speaking allegorically.
But then we can only go by what Genesis says factually.
Allegory is just an assumption
#7
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Nevets
But of course. One can believe that God started the process of evolution.

Of course, processes don't generate by themselves, especially if those processes are resultant in an intelligent production.

But this was not written in Genesis.

Right, and I tackled that already.
"The answer to that question of course is yes, by not taking a literal approach to Genesis. And as I brought up in another thread the Genesis story just invokes the idea behind creation, it's not a recipe for how God created processes to where we observe them today. It's more like a snap shot or a generalized concept to conceptualize imagery rather than a detailed account of how God creates things, or manifests them into existence."

Therefore Genesis is not the foundations for this belief.

It's not the foundation for evolution specifically, but it is the foundation behind a creation....which includes evolution.

Unless one believes Genesis was speaking allegorically.

One should be aware that the Bible uses figurative writing styles, it weaves in and out of literal and figurative through the whole book.

But then we can only go by what Genesis says factually.

If you wish to force a literal application where it doesn't fit don't blame it on anyone else.

Allegory is just an assumption

Lol sure. And I'm just to assume your position right? in light of the fact I've been reading the Bible for a long, long time. 

#8
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, the story can't be compared to evolution but that's not the question....the question is can they be compatible. The answer to that question of course is yes, by not taking a literal approach to Genesis. And as I brought up in another thread the Genesis story just invokes the idea behind creation, it's not a recipe for how God created processes to where we observe them today. It's more like a snap shot or a generalized concept to conceptualize imagery rather than a detailed account of how God creates things, or manifests them into existence. 
That's a very good point, thank you.

Topic's author
#9
Nevets
Nevets's avatar
Debates: 35
Posts: 57
0
3
9
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
0
3
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
One should be aware that the Bible uses figurative writing styles, it weaves in and out of literal and figurative through the whole book.

In which case it is hard to take anything it says seriously, as it is only figuritively speaking.

Modern day science does not speak figuritively, therefore not compatible with Genesis texts.





#10
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Nevets
In which case it is hard to take anything it says seriously, as it is only figuritively speaking.

That doesn't make a lot of sense really, lots of people use figurative speech to make a point or draw an illustration. If the idea behind the Genesis account invokes an imagery of creation it serves its purpose, doesn't mean it HAS to be literal that's silly. And it doesn't mean everything in the texts are figurative, but it does mean that when a figurative interpretation is used things can make a lot more sense, especially when it was intended to be interpreted metaphorically. For example, when Jesus says "I am the bread of life" or "out of your belly shall flow living water" do you also interpret that literally lol? of course not...but even though it's figurative speech it has meaning behind it.

Modern day science does not speak figuritively, therefore not compatible with Genesis texts.

Again makes no real since sorry. They both work hand in hand and I explained how that woks in this thread, and why can't a literal method not work with a figurative one? who made that rule.... If you don't want to consider something so simple and want to play hardball then fine. But perhaps don't engage in things you later are unable to handle and when they don't go your way. Try conceding and moving forward. 


#11
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's a very good point, thank you.

You're welcome sir.