It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ask me anything about Creationism!
page: 7share:
if thats what you call winning, then im not too worried about it. hilarious hypotheses aside, the answer to that question makes no difference to me. even if i had it, and gave it to you right here, i doubt it would change your mind either. ...so, agree 2 disagree?
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm
They call it a stalemate...because there is no winning until you tell me where the energy came from....
A2D
edit on
1-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: scorpio84
I saw that there is a thread (several, in fact) for people who want to know more about evolution. Well, though science fascinates me, my training is as a theologian. I thought it'd be nice to have a thread answering questions people have about Creationism. Fire away and I'll do my best to explain everything to you.
OMNIPOTENT BEINGS were once as human and mortal as we are on the current stage of individual evolution. Somehow the leap was achieved which gives us hope. In fact if you want something to believe and put your faith in let it be this that immortality is possible and with it omnipotence, omnipresence, omniwhatever.
i would imagine such beings long to be mortal and finit once more, to enjoy things for the first time all over again, to experience the naivety and innocence that they lost millenia ago. a thousand flings, a thousand decadent feasts, a thousand wars and risen civilizations and fallen empires and children sired and raised and slaughtered in the same cycle of creation and destruction, the same pattern of joy and grief that plagues the epics across the cultures. no more mystery, no more suspense, no more surprise. when you have read every book in the world a hundred times over, what you long for is something you have not yet tasted, something new and engaging. and the only way you get that is if everything you desire is not a word away from reality. there is no triumph without trial.
originally posted by: Anadandan
originally posted by: scorpio84
I saw that there is a thread (several, in fact) for people who want to know more about evolution. Well, though science fascinates me, my training is as a theologian. I thought it'd be nice to have a thread answering questions people have about Creationism. Fire away and I'll do my best to explain everything to you.
OMNIPOTENT BEINGS were once as human and mortal as we are on the current stage of individual evolution. Somehow the leap was achieved which gives us hope. In fact if you want something to believe and put your faith in let it be this that immortality is possible and with it omnipotence, omnipresence, omniwhatever.
a reply to: scorpio84
You wrote: QUOTE "There's no contradiction. Think of Genesis 1 as a summary of the days of creation - and Genesis 2 as a closer look at the sixth day of creation. A good explanation can be found..." UNQUOTE
You've got to be kidding. Have you even read (i.e. closely) the two conflicting Cration Myths of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a contrasted with Ge 2:4b to 4:26?
In the P narrative (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and continues at Gen 5:1, male and female are created (Heb. bara, to create ex nihilo) together 'and he called their name Adam'. as the last in a long line of creation steps in which man is created AFTER THE ANIMALS (i.e. the 6th day); in the 2nd myth (JE found in Gen 2:4a to 4:26) Man is "formed" first out of mud alone without a consort BEFORE THE ANIMALS who are also 'formed' out of the mud and brought to Adam for naming and/or coitus, 'but no helpmate was found for him....'
If Genesis 1 is nothing more than a historical narrative, then ELOHIM made plants and trees appear across the land on the third day (verses 11-13). He then made fish and birds, concurrently, on the fifth day (20-23), followed on the sixth by land animals (24-25) and, last of all, humans. All indications within this text are that men and women were made simultaneously: “So ELOHIM created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
in the P myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) Vegetation and trees with fruit 'bearing seed inside them' are 'created' PRIOR to the sun, the moon and the stars (a scientific impossibility) and long BEFORE MAN was 'created'; in the JE Myth (Gen 2:4a to 4:26) MAN IS 'FORMED' FIRST then VEGETATION is 'FORMED' NEXT....
If Genesis 2:4-25 occurred during day six, verse 5 becomes problematic. It reads, "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up — for the YHWH ELohim had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground…" It's basically saying there were no bushes or plants in the fields before ELOHIM created Adam in verse 7. But Genesis 1:11-12 says that ELOHIM made plants on the third day. What gives?
To recap: Unlike what we are fed in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a, the text of Genesis 2:4b to 4:26 contains no mention of days, mornings or evenings that separate out the various creative periods. And, as you can surely see, the order of the two is completely different. Genesis 1: Plants and trees, fish and birds, land animals, men and women. Genesis 2: Man, trees, land animals and birds, woman.
In the P myth (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a) the writer's Hebrew is stodgy, formulaic and priestly (hence P) with a discernible Hebrew accent that betrays a Babylonian milieu (full of Babylonian loan words such as Tehom[ah] (Babylonian: Tiamat, the 'chaos monster who is split in two like a clam') whose diction is reminiscent of the prophet Hezekiel c. 540 BCE) and uses the term ELOHIM for the divine name, translated in the KJV simply as 'God" ) he only uses YHWH after Exodus chapter 3) and an Hebraic hymnology format ('and Elohim saw that it was good' is a refrain repeated throughout) reminiscent of ancient Middle Eastern/Levantine New Year Festivals, or perhaps the New Year for Trees (who are placed in a highlighted position in the text)
In the JE myth (Gen 2:4b to 4:26) the writer's Hebrew accent is light and lilting as a writing style (e.g. full of puns) and is reminiscent of the Hebrew spoken in the southern Kingdom of Judah (e.g. Hebronite accent) and uses the term YHWH Elohim (translated into KJV English as THE LORD God) and has a different vocabulary, syntax, Weltanschauung, theology & phrase length etc.
So we are clearly dealing with two DIFFERENT Creation Myths that contradict each other when one delves into the details - the literalists’ main problem is that they are trying to harmonize TWO SEPARATE Creation Myths that weren’t meant to be harmonized because the writers did not know each other - arising from different Jewish communities from different epochs and geography.
Clear as mud?
You wrote: QUOTE "There's no contradiction. Think of Genesis 1 as a summary of the days of creation - and Genesis 2 as a closer look at the sixth day of creation. A good explanation can be found..." UNQUOTE
You've got to be kidding. Have you even read (i.e. closely) the two conflicting Cration Myths of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a contrasted with Ge 2:4b to 4:26?
In the P narrative (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and continues at Gen 5:1, male and female are created (Heb. bara, to create ex nihilo) together 'and he called their name Adam'. as the last in a long line of creation steps in which man is created AFTER THE ANIMALS (i.e. the 6th day); in the 2nd myth (JE found in Gen 2:4a to 4:26) Man is "formed" first out of mud alone without a consort BEFORE THE ANIMALS who are also 'formed' out of the mud and brought to Adam for naming and/or coitus, 'but no helpmate was found for him....'
If Genesis 1 is nothing more than a historical narrative, then ELOHIM made plants and trees appear across the land on the third day (verses 11-13). He then made fish and birds, concurrently, on the fifth day (20-23), followed on the sixth by land animals (24-25) and, last of all, humans. All indications within this text are that men and women were made simultaneously: “So ELOHIM created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
in the P myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) Vegetation and trees with fruit 'bearing seed inside them' are 'created' PRIOR to the sun, the moon and the stars (a scientific impossibility) and long BEFORE MAN was 'created'; in the JE Myth (Gen 2:4a to 4:26) MAN IS 'FORMED' FIRST then VEGETATION is 'FORMED' NEXT....
If Genesis 2:4-25 occurred during day six, verse 5 becomes problematic. It reads, "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up — for the YHWH ELohim had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground…" It's basically saying there were no bushes or plants in the fields before ELOHIM created Adam in verse 7. But Genesis 1:11-12 says that ELOHIM made plants on the third day. What gives?
To recap: Unlike what we are fed in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a, the text of Genesis 2:4b to 4:26 contains no mention of days, mornings or evenings that separate out the various creative periods. And, as you can surely see, the order of the two is completely different. Genesis 1: Plants and trees, fish and birds, land animals, men and women. Genesis 2: Man, trees, land animals and birds, woman.
In the P myth (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a) the writer's Hebrew is stodgy, formulaic and priestly (hence P) with a discernible Hebrew accent that betrays a Babylonian milieu (full of Babylonian loan words such as Tehom[ah] (Babylonian: Tiamat, the 'chaos monster who is split in two like a clam') whose diction is reminiscent of the prophet Hezekiel c. 540 BCE) and uses the term ELOHIM for the divine name, translated in the KJV simply as 'God" ) he only uses YHWH after Exodus chapter 3) and an Hebraic hymnology format ('and Elohim saw that it was good' is a refrain repeated throughout) reminiscent of ancient Middle Eastern/Levantine New Year Festivals, or perhaps the New Year for Trees (who are placed in a highlighted position in the text)
In the JE myth (Gen 2:4b to 4:26) the writer's Hebrew accent is light and lilting as a writing style (e.g. full of puns) and is reminiscent of the Hebrew spoken in the southern Kingdom of Judah (e.g. Hebronite accent) and uses the term YHWH Elohim (translated into KJV English as THE LORD God) and has a different vocabulary, syntax, Weltanschauung, theology & phrase length etc.
So we are clearly dealing with two DIFFERENT Creation Myths that contradict each other when one delves into the details - the literalists’ main problem is that they are trying to harmonize TWO SEPARATE Creation Myths that weren’t meant to be harmonized because the writers did not know each other - arising from different Jewish communities from different epochs and geography.
Clear as mud?
originally posted by: randyvs
If man weren't meant to think beyond logic and evidence.
He would not have been given a mind, an imagination or
dreams.
why do you assume we our intelligence has a purpose?
id say despite i have no purpose, i can dream and think.
edit on 2-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)
and given by what or who exactly?
edit on 2-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Sigismundus
Yes, I've read them - the meaning is metaphorical. Only morons believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
Yes, I've read them - the meaning is metaphorical. Only morons believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
a reply to: vjr1113
I don't just assume it! It's the only thing that makes any sense.
Unlike your stupidity that lays waste to the human being our
intellect and our spirit. By your account we might as well be
a mollusk.
It's all for nothing, no ones important and there's really no hope or
reason to live at all. Oh and by the way, everything is permissable
while you go thru this minor inconvenience called life that adds
to one space between two nothings. And it's as ignorant 1+2 = 00
why do you assume we our intelligence has a purpose?
I don't just assume it! It's the only thing that makes any sense.
Unlike your stupidity that lays waste to the human being our
intellect and our spirit. By your account we might as well be
a mollusk.
It's all for nothing, no ones important and there's really no hope or
reason to live at all. Oh and by the way, everything is permissable
while you go thru this minor inconvenience called life that adds
to one space between two nothings. And it's as ignorant 1+2 = 00
edit on Rpm120215v00201500000039 by randyvs because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Sigismundus
Yes, I've read them - the meaning is metaphorical. Only morons believe in a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
That's what that statement makes you look like.
And I'll defend to the death your right to say it!
edit on Rpm120215v05201500000037 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
a reply to: randyvs
you're putting words in my mouth
i never said because we have no purpose that life is not worth living.
i just said that despite not having a purpose i can be human.
you said all things that have no apparent purpose are insignificant. well that can be your opinion but that's all it is unless you can prove that we are here for a reason, which you haven't done.
you're putting words in my mouth
i never said because we have no purpose that life is not worth living.
i just said that despite not having a purpose i can be human.
you said all things that have no apparent purpose are insignificant. well that can be your opinion but that's all it is unless you can prove that we are here for a reason, which you haven't done.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: vjr1113
why do you assume we our intelligence has a purpose?
I don't just assume it! It's the only thing that makes any sense.
Unlike your stupidity that lays waste to the human being our
intellect and our spirit. By your account we might as well be
a mollusk.
It's all for nothing, no ones important and there's really no hope or
reason to live at all. Oh and by the way, everything is permissable
while you go thru this minor inconvenience called life that adds
to one space between two nothings. And it's as ignorant 1+2 = 00
Ah, egocentrism. Everything was made just for us, to prepare us and only us for a special war over who is more special because so and so loves me because Im special. Surprise, none of us are special. We are dust in the wind, riding bigger dust in a bigger wind. But this is your one shot, so why waste it moping?
I just have to say, Randy is THE ultimate creationist troll. Makes ANY creationism thread go at least 6 pages
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
But this is your one shot, so why waste it moping?
Certainly, it's easy to see you living by such philosophy!
Phfff! I think you're windy.
i have never recommended that anyone model their philosophies on mine. i share my insights, because im nice like that. and i usually do it where people are begging for feedback, like a discussion forum. oh, look, here we are.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: scorpio84
Hey I didn't call you anything, I simply stated a truth miho.
you cant call it the truth then say its your opinion. if its your opinion that its the truth, then its worthless as a truth.
easy to see how you get opinions and facts mixed up now.
edit on 3-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 2 hours ago -
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago
top topics
-
Joe meant what he said about Hunter's pardon....
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 13 flags -
S.C. Jack Smith's Final Report Says Trump Leads a Major Conspiratorial Criminal Organization!.
Political Conspiracies: 13 hours ago, 11 flags -
Advice for any young Adult .
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 10 flags -
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago, 6 flags -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
Regent Street in #London has been evacuated due to a “bomb threat.”
Other Current Events: 16 hours ago, 3 flags -
Those Great Fresh Pet Commercials
Television: 12 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 118 • : Mantiss2021 -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 4 • : BedevereTheWise -
What Comes After January 20th
Mainstream News • 34 • : charlest2 -
Some sausage, some chicken, some sauce, some onions and some garlic...and some peppers!
Food and Cooking • 4 • : putnam6 -
S.C. Jack Smith's Final Report Says Trump Leads a Major Conspiratorial Criminal Organization!.
Political Conspiracies • 42 • : WeMustCare -
House Passes Laken Riley Act
Mainstream News • 22 • : KrustyKrab -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 6904 • : Imhere -
Steering the Titantic from the Drydock.
Rant • 43 • : charlest2 -
President Carter has passed
Mainstream News • 44 • : WeMustCare -
Those stupid GRAVITE commercials
Rant • 13 • : GENERAL EYES