Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Ytse
Also, only contradictory if you assume that Genesis 2 is saying the same thing as Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is continuing the creation account from a different perspective. It specifically deals with humanity. Verse 8 isn't referring to the entire globe when it says god created plants after humans. It's referring to a garden which he made specifically for man. A place called Eden.

Originally posted by Ytse
Also, only contradictory if you assume that Genesis 2 is saying the same thing as Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is continuing the creation account from a different perspective. It specifically deals with humanity. Verse 8 isn't referring to the entire globe when it says god created plants after humans. It's referring to a garden which he made specifically for man. A place called Eden.

Do you take the bible literally? 😕 I think it's an easier answer to say, the people who wrote Genesis didn't know how the world was created, and wasn't trying to tell anyone how it was made. I think they where trying to tell fundamental truths about humanity. I believe it's a metaphor.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bible doesn't specify that, therefore that is by you (whoever thought that up first) changing the Bible to make sense.

All you seem to do is make assertions. You don't even try to provide support for them.

I don't think you know one iota about hermeneutics.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you take the bible literally? 😕 I think it's an easier answer to say, the people who wrote Genesis didn't know how the world was created, and wasn't trying to tell anyone how it was made. I think they where trying to tell fundamental truths about humanity. I believe it's a metaphor.

I take the bible literally when the context suggests I should. On the creation account I do not have a position (other than it isn't contradictory) because I don't really care.

Originally posted by Ytse
I take the bible literally when the context suggests I should. On the creation account I do not have a position (other than it isn't contradictory) because I don't really care.

"When it suggests I should" is where most people go wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, if you don't take it literally but interpret it it can make sense.

Originally posted by Ytse
I take the bible literally when the context suggests I should. On the creation account I do not have a position (other than it isn't contradictory) because I don't really care.

So, you only take the Bible literally when the Bible unexplicity suggests you should?

So basically, there is no system, you just make sh*t up when you feel like it.

Originally posted by Alliance
So, you only take the Bible literally when the Bible unexplicity suggests you should?

So basically, there is no system, you just make sh*t up when you feel like it.

Asking me a question and then answering it, especially with that played-out insolence, indicates to me that you don't really care what I have to say about it.

But no, you're mistaken.

If I didn't care, why would I reply? SUCH is insolence.

If you are so concerned...clarify 13 (because that is indeed what you directly stated)

Originally posted by Alliance
If you are so concerned...clarify 13 (because that is indeed what you directly stated)

What I am concerned about is being accused of eisegesis. That is, reading my own meaning into the text rather than trying to understand it within the context of the language and culture and surrounding passages, etc. etc. It's something I didn't mean to imply at all in my response to Shakya.

Genesis 1 states the following order of creation:

1. Heavens and the earth. (Not Earth, not sure why; it's covered in water.)
2. Light; night/day.
3. Sky. (In the KJV, it says it is "Heaven," probably multiple words in Hebrew that have one equivalent in English.)
4. Land, vegetation.
5. Sun and moon; stars. (Arguably, time.)
6. Sea creatures and birds.
7. Land creatures and man.

Genesis 2:

The universe is complete, so it "zooms in" to look at the Garden of Eden--plants and herbs "of the field" have not yet cropped up because of a lack of rain. God sends a mist from the ground to water them so that they will grow.

Then God creates man, described as a "living soul." (Interesting way to put it.) God sticks Adam in Eden--trees are already growing here, unlike the vegetation of the field.

Then the whole "serpent with fruit" bit comes into play. Let's look at God's curse on Adam:

"...[C]ursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field."

God has cursed Adam to work the fields for his disobedience, telling him that he will eat the "herb of the field," those plants that had not yet grown.

And why had they not yet grown? Because man had not yet been cursed and thus there would be no one to care for them. So, while other vegetation had grown on the third day, the field-plants/shrubs had not.

The bible is just a big metaphor. So, arguing over the order of this metaphor is silly.

You cant argue with people who always use Bible quotes as the end all of all arguments, despite overwhelming evidence to say otherwise. They wouldnt belive the truth even if it slapped them in the face

You two are ****ing idiots. I was quoting the Bible to disprove the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 don't mesh.

ok, sorry, my bad

Evolution, life created itself, yet ironically cannot anymore... funny isn't it?

God, no proof of existence... funny isn't it?

Originally posted by BananaKing
Evolution, life created itself, yet ironically cannot anymore... funny isn't it?

Evolution dictates more so how lifeforms changed, i.e. evolved, not so much as how life initially started... How do you know it "cannot anymore" though?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
God, no proof of existence... funny isn't it?

It's in the Bible!

Its really wierd to see in this day and age arguments over evolution over creationism. Evolution is scientific fact! Theres OVERWHELMING evidence to support this. You would never get this kind of argument anywhere in Europe becase its just so stupid. Its like trying to argue that the cookie monster is real.

Originally posted by BananaKing
Evolution, life created itself, yet ironically cannot anymore... funny isn't it?

You're thinking of abiogenesis. If you intend to be against something, you ought to know what you're against.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You're thinking of abiogenesis. If you intend to be against something, you ought to know what you're against.

Unfortunately, most people against the theory of Evolution have little or no idea what Evolution dictates... This very thread is a good example of that.