Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists

ive never understood this big battle between creationism and "darwinism" or "evolution". I am a christian, but i still believe in evolution. How is that impossible? The bible, in my opinion from my own readings, simply states that god created the earth in 7 days. Was this really in 7 days? Or is this metaphorical of the power of god? How are we EVER going to know?

So, we know that god created the earth. Does the bible state how? This is where i am lost as far as the battle is considered. Ive always viewed it as the bible saying what god did, and science as the attempt to answer how he did so. Is there anyone out there other than me that thinks like this? Or am i just crazy?

aggroskater, I agree with you.

The problem is that there are people who are obsessed with trying to prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Those are the ones we refer to as "creationists."

Intelligent design has one major flaw. Science cannot prove divine intervention.

Science is about testing ideas. Seeing as how there is no test to prove or disprove an intelligent designer, it is not science.

There is a good reason that evolution is not compatible with the bible, and it does not have anything to do with trying to proove the Earth is 6000 years old. Evolution makes the entire message of the bible nonsense. Scripture teaches us that Jesus sacrificed his own life to pay the death penalty for our sin. According to the bible death and suffering exists because of mans sin. Evolution requires death and suffering to exist before the fall of man.

Much is written regarding the wording and meaning of the first two chapters of Genesis. Personally I don't think it could have been written more clearly.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day."

"And the evening and the morning were the second day."

"And the evening and the morning were the third day."...

Steve

Originally posted by sntx
Evolution makes the entire message of the bible nonsense.

That could not be further from the truth, and you know it. The creation myth is a PARABLE. It should not be taken literally.

If we're going to teach creationism in science class based on the concept of balance and teaching every theory lets let holocaust denial be taught in history class. We have to expose the kids to every possible theory right? The same way there's a "scientific conspiracy" supressing the "truth" about evolution maybe they're right and there's a conspiracy supressing the the "truth" about the holocaust right? They can teach about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (disproved countless times over a hundred years yet still it endures, reminds me of the "facts" supporting creationism). I mean whats the difference? Just because one is politically and socially unpleasant doesnt make it any less of a theory then Creationism.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That could not be further from the truth, and you know it.

Please don't attempt to tell me what I know. How pompous is that?

The creation myth is a PARABLE. It should not be taken literally.

Genesis is literal history and should be taken as such. When it is, it explains so much about our world and ourselves and serves as a solid foundation for the rest of scripture. Parables in scripture are clearly stated as such. History in scripture is clearly stated as such.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" Genesis 2:4

The above verse is also a good example of the looking at the context in which the word day is used. In my previous post the word day was used in conjunction with the words evening and morning as well as with ordinals (first, second, third) so as to make its meaning (a 24 hour day) clear. In Genesis 2:4 the word day clearly means time based on the context in which it is used. Yes, I know this is remedial reading comprehension, but there appears to be so much controversy about it. In my opinion the controversy is due to so many people willing to exchange the authority of scripture for belief in the ideas of men. Doing so is a mistake that has eroded the gospel message for many, including myself for over 20 years of my life. I thank God that I have been given another chance to see that his word is truth from the very first word.

Steve




[edit on 5/8/0505 by sntx]

Originally posted by marg6043
I always feel that Darwin Theory is worth of classroom discussion and so is creationism.

Science for science classrooms. If creationism is going to be discussed in science class, then the religionists should have lessons in darwinism in their sunday schools.

Both theories are missing the "link" any way, so they could be discussed without not body really winning anything.

Do you mean the 'missing link', ie an organism between ape and man?

www.talkorigins.org...

Creationism falls on far more problems than any 'missing link' tho.

After all human beings has not been the only species that walk the earth in two legs.

It needn'thave anything to do with man at all, all species undergo evolution, man is just one of them.

kenshiro
That is the distinction that I make

Fair enough, my only concern is over the politics and attempts to have religion as part of public education.

and actually, spend maybe one class period, to teach the students.

I just can't see any reason to teach it. There's lots of other 'failed' ideas out there, but we don't teach them. Heck, most of them have been more influential on modern scientific thought than creationism. I mean, why teach students about 'the ether' in a physics class?
I could understand something like creationism comming under consideration in a philosophy class, and certainly, natural theology is something every student of the history of science should be aware of, but I think that that goes beyond the basic education that everyone is required to get. Also, anyone who isn't a member of that religion isn't going to be interested in it. The average evangelical isn't going to care one whit about islamic creationism. They're going to receive this religious education outside of school. Heck, often, christian students are permited to leave school, in the middle of the day, to go to another building for religious education. This is a big distraction for the rest of the non-christians, and of course, if the teacher actually does teach anything in that time and test on it, there's an uproar. Already, the religionists perhaps get more than they should.

This is the same argument that the scientific community has used many times in the past few centuries when they challenged the beliefs of religion.

Its probably the right decision. Creationism simply doesn't deserve the attention of science on a public scale, its meaningless charlatanism and fraud. Hucksterism.
Think about it, you are a snake oilsalesman from the old days. You tell people 'those doctors don't even dare to come down here and refute my miraculous claims'. Well, why should they, the doctors know its bunkum to begin with, and any clear thinking person should be able to figure it out.
The creationist 'leaders' are just that, liars and hucksters.

On this issue, science is the one that is hiding it's head in the sand

Untrue. Everything that the creationist bring up has been addressed and refuted. Yet they fraudulently act like its new information. Its all bs. Science isn't hiding its head in the sand. Its taking a stand, its saying 'we don't send emails to your inbox explaining why you can't use a pill to 'increase then length and girth of your penis', and we don't send investigators to nigeria every time there is a bank fraud scam. " Creationism is one the same level as these scams.

By the scientific community refusing to address the issue

Thats the thing, the scientific community should only be addressing scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, creationism is not a branch of science, it itsn't a science at all.
And the community most certainly has been addressing it, when there is a claim for 'scientificness', there's allways numerous educated people willing to look at it. The big scientific organizations, however, won't address it, becuase they are well aware of the methods of fraud and charlatanism. When they don't send people to debate these guys on the pulpit, the creationists claim that they are scared because they know they are wrong. When they do, they send out notices 'Even harvard university is actively interested in the subject' or 'Big Creationist reseracher thrashes academic fool in debate', even tho the exact opposite has happened.
Scientific organizations don't debate creationists, genearlly, because creationists are immoral frauds and liars who have absolutely no basis for making an argument in the first place.

drogo
you will also take note that after sending his son to die for our sins that he has ceased dirrect interferance untill the end of times.

Not according to the people who have waged war in his name.

these acts are acts of MEN done in God's name

Demonstrate a way to distinguish between that and actual stuff that god himself did.

you DID NOT HAVE TO BE A WITCH TO STAND ACCUSED. all yo needed was someone who had something to gain

Precisely. That is perhaps JTLS primary point, you have the bible, and then you have a lot of people more than willing to use it to vent their rage. The complaint was that if you disagree with a religion, its members invariably try to destroy you, and if they can't get to you in life, they condemm you in the after life. It was true for the 'witches' in salem, and its true for anyone. Luckily, in the modern era, the secular state rules, not the ecclesiastical one. Take the majority of people in the creationist movement, and you've got the same sort of mentality, 'my religion is objective truth, the evidence the supports it is the true evidence, anything and anyone that contradicts it is a nonbeliver doomed to hell'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

it seems that there was some foucasing on the suffering of christ. well why not?

Beleive me, I am not complaining. After seeing that movie i was like 'now thats how you deal with a dissident'. But the point is,why does one of the very few movies focus on the violence? Why is that more popular than a movie about the message of love and what not? We've all seen those lame 'bible stories' movies. They're lame. That movie was awesome, all the blood and guts and beatings! Excellent. People didn't love it simply because it was a message about how suffering leads to redemption. They loved the brutality. And the audience of the bible, today, or 3,000 years ago, loved the brutality, the romans trampling peopel down, the babylonians enslaving the entire nation, the rivers running with blood, the ammonites literally feeding babies into idols, and the yehudis comming into an area, killing all the men, enslaving the few women and children that they neglected to kill, and even going so far as to chop up the legs of the enemies horses while the beasts were stil alive. People find comfort in the saviour, but they also love the idea of jesus swooshing out of the sky, thrashing satans armies, and melting the faces of the nonbeleivers and blazing their souls out of existence in a big gnarly lake of fire!

not realy after all we would have had plenty of warning that that was going to happen

Excellent. The religion that states its all about compassion says to the people who's limbs are being gnawed off by post-apocalyptic demon-rats "told ya so'.

how do you know that people are "salivateing" about this?

By watching their lips move when they read.
Ok, that was a cheap shot. But lets face it, the books are poorly written, they're all about gore and violence, and people love them. It follows that people love gore and violence.

to them the bible is just a big fairy tale isn't it?

The world is not black and white. Its not just biblical literalists and foolish poor old non-belivers. IOW, there are belviers, who are not literalists. Ask yourself, why is the apocalypse even in the bible? There were lots of books to choose from, why was it so popular? Becuase people like violence, or at least, they like to see the 'bad guy' get it in the end. Thats what the apocalypse is about, "all those bad guys who persecute me and don't beleive like I beleive, oh man, they're gonna get it one day!'. Its juvenile, honestly, its a mentality that was considered unrefined 2,000 years ago.

but isn't it rather predudical to point at almost every church for this?

I, honestly, have not seen any that have indicated that they are special. It would require a church to be very special indeed to not do this. And, since we're talking about creationism, the creationist supporting churches are almost certianly not the type to 'play nice'. They're suing to get their religion taught as objective truth (ie science) in schools. They're mostly literalists, and, as such, excpect and call for the destruction of all non-beleivers. They're every bit the state and church melding fundamentalists that the Puritans, dark ages Catholics, and modern age jihadis, are. They're just weak, too weak to wreack the destruction that they contain. I could be wrong, but, lets face it, they recject rational thought and dissesent, and worship a 'big sky daddy' who periodically rains nuclear like terror on cities that are merely offensive, not even dangerous. No one can claim surprise if they did just repeat the common practice that we've seen unfold in history.

just being a christan does not give you the ultimate wisdom of being compleatly right. or the legality to act upon it.

Thats the problem, it does do that when you start having religious dogma taught as objective knowledge by the state itself.

just as evolutionists are trying to surpress creation.

Evolutionists, and any rational thinking people, are not surpressing creationism. They are addressing the fraudulent, flat out wrong, claims that creationists make. Thats not supression. Refuting claims is what science is. If they wanted to be a science, then, well hell they'd be working to refute their own claims, not leaving it up to the scientists.

if creationists were doing the supressing we would be learning of creation in schools and not evolution.

I do no accept the 'power is required for wrongdoing' in this respect, tho I understand the rational. Its sort of like stating that 'black people arent' racist, because racism requires that you be in power' (which is an arguement I have heard). But, it simply does not follow. Go to a evangelical christian church where many members accept, say, young earth creationism, and, in the middle of a sermon, start asking questions out loud. Bring charts that show the decay rates of various radionuclides, and discuss them. You will be supressed. Where they have power, they use it, where they don't, they try to get it. They have no power in the schools, so they sued in court to get power, failed, and now use other methods to gain power.

otherwise we would be learning about at least BOTH UNPROVAN THEORIES, not just evolution

Thing is, there is no theory of creationism. Creationism is simply not science. Additionally, the theory of evolution is as equally proven as atomic theory. I don't hear anyone calling for physics classes to discuss the idea that angels use angel glue to hold protons and neutrons together.

and there is nothing any more irrational in the belief of creation than the belief of evolution.

You are fundamentally incorrect. Creationism is an irrational faith based system. Evolution, being a part of science, is a rational consideration of the world around us. Perhaps the world in primarily irrational and non-sensical. Nevertheless, evolution is a rational-logical examination of that world. Its incorrect to call rational thought irrational.

however we do have the beginning of the world documented, and it makes the same ammount of sence as evolution if not more

There are two fables of creation in the bible. Neither make the least bit of sense. They are complete nonsense, literally, they are nonsense.

just as everyone dosn't believe in evolution

You cna not beleive in evolution, gravity, electricty, all you want, but you will not teach about angels flying thru copper wires to power magic image boxes, at least not in a science class. Creationism is not science. It should not be taught in a science class.

and if most evolutionists are christians does that mean that much of the world being non-christans do not believe in this theory either?

Why in the world should it matter what relgiion one is as to wether or not one can accept a basic scientific premise?? Science is 'objective', it doesn't matter if you are a muslim or hindu, you perform a reaction, you get the products in solution. Pray to shiva or allah to have the reaction stop and it won't stop.

and teaching evolution in all schools while totaly ignoreing another theory that is just as valid, is not proppaganda?

Creationism is completely invalid. There is no theory of creationism.

who are the ones currantly "foisting their ideas on the public"?

The creationists. When they held sway, they arrested a teacher who taught science. They made their irrational religion (not a slight, all religions are definitionally irrational) law. Nowadays, thankfully, they don't have that much power. And still they sue in courts and finance propaganda campaigns to force students, even those of different faiths, to learn about their religion.

lets see that would be the evolutionists that are shoveing their theory down childrens throughts as truth.

Science does not teach itself as being 'fundamental truth'. Scientists are well aware that they cannot know if their rational-logical methodology uncovers or gets at ground Truth. They don't teach it as such, and they don't ram it down anyone's throats. They teach science in scienceclasses. Is that such a burden? Creationists teach creationism in religion classes. Thats equal, thats fair.

and yes i do find comparison to the "church of the dark ages" to evolutionary sciance

I'm sorry, but thats absolutley preposterous.

BOTH ARE SURPRESSING OTHER IDEAS and MAINTAINING that theirs are ONLY CORRECT ones

This is entirely untrue. Evolution is not taught as fundamental truth, its taught as science.

what the heck is a "vapour canopy"?never heard of it.

An example of complete BS that would get taught if we permited creationism in the class rooms. Google it, its stupid.

so there is plenty of room on it.

For what? Certainly not for representatives of all the different kinds of animals alive today, let alone all the kinds that would be alive if the fossil record represents victims of the flood.
This is precisely why creationism isn't going to be taught in schools. We're not going to have students wasting their time trying to figure out how much food X many animals would need and try to make up magical excuses as to how these animals survived the voyage, got their in the first place ,and arrived at their curent biogeographic locations. You can't refute anything in the bible, becuase you can allways just make up some other stuff to get around any problem. Not enough room on the ark? Well, maybe the dinosaurs were all babies and in eggs. Still not enough room? Well maybe everything was in a stage of hibernation and didn't need to eat very much. STill not enough room, well it was a miracle then.

sntx
Evolution makes the entire message of the bible nonsense

It gives it a problem if its taken completely and unerringly literally. The bible talks about adam and even in paradise, they sin and are cast out and life becomes hard for them and what not.
Why, in the world, take this as literal truth? Especially when the two accounts of man in paradise in the bible are contradictory, if taken literally?

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by boogyman
If we're going to teach creationism in science class based on the concept of balance and teaching every theory lets let holocaust denial be taught in history class.

I think that they should let the Raelians come in and explain how the universe was created by space aliens. And then the Sitchin people can come in and explain that it was actually the Annunaki.

And for every Bible brought out as proof, we should make them read the other books as well.

And then, the Raelians get to go into sunday schools, even the ones in the basement of the local church, and lecture the class on how Rael received quasi-divine revelation from voluptuous robots from outerspace. And then the parish has to purchase enough copies of 'dianetics' for every student. Heck, have fundamentalist jihadis teach about the strict monotheism of allah and why christianity is a paganistic polythiestic corruption of the true religion.

Equal time, yeah right

I still like the 22 Scientist. It is basically making fun of creation in school.

"Fine, and in Math class let's 22 Math. Go ahead and teach 2+2=4, but also teach 2+2=22. It is right there, take a 2, put it next to another 2, you have 22! It is all around us, 22 is everywhere! Also, 22-2=2, not 20, for you have two 2's, take one away, all you have is 2. I'm right cause I said so, anyone who disagrees with me is failed, kicked out of class, and banned from school until they bow down to me and agree that 2+2=22."

Originally posted by Nygdan
It gives it a problem if its taken completely and unerringly literally. The bible talks about adam and even in paradise, they sin and are cast out and life becomes hard for them and what not.
Why, in the world, take this as literal truth?

Why not? God's word is truth. Jesus didn't have a problem with quoting Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history in Matthew 19. And as shown in my previous post Genesis 2:4 makes it clear that the preceding scripture is literal history. Genesis 5:1 is a similar "signature" that applies to the scripture between Genesis 2:4 and 5:1.

Especially when the two accounts of man in paradise in the bible are contradictory, if taken literally?

I assume you are referring to the first two chapters of Genesis. If so, they do not contradict each other. www.tektonics.org...

Steve


[edit on 5/9/0505 by sntx]

A couple of sites with some nice retelling of different creation myths

www.gly.uga.edu...

and

www.mythinglinks.org...

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by boogyman
If we're going to teach creationism in science class based on the concept of balance and teaching every theory lets let holocaust denial be taught in history class.

I think that they should let the Raelians come in and explain how the universe was created by space aliens. And then the Sitchin people can come in and explain that it was actually the Annunaki.

Hey, if you can book 'em, I'd love to hear what they have to say! And then we can all get together and hope that the Great Handkerchiff doesn't come a wipe this sneezed out little universe away. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by sntx
Why not?

Because the things described are completely fantastical and make just as much sense if they are taken as allegory and metaphor. There's no reason to take them as literal anyway. IOW, its a matter of faith. Some have faith that its a literal telling of history. Others have faith that its allegorical/fantastical.

God's word is truth.

That doesn't mean that the bible is literal history.

Jesus didn't have a problem with quoting Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history in Matthew 19.

So? I don't recall jesus ever stating that science is the work of the devil or deception or anything like that.

And as shown in my previous post Genesis 2:4 makes it clear that the preceding scripture is literal history.

No it doesn't, especially since it conflicts with the second creation story. The very fact that the bible contradicts itself, even on apparently minor details, is enough to demonstrate that its not something that should be taken literally true. Heck, the fact that its a text thats translated and copied by man, over generations and through several languages, demonstrates that it shouldn't be taken literally, even if the major movements are there.

Genesis 5:1 is a similar "signature" that applies to the scripture between Genesis 2:4 and 5:1.

2:4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

"this is the story about how the world was created'. I think we all know what genesis is about. That line doesn't mean 'this is the exact sequence and methods used by god to create everything'. Its an account, a story, a tale, a tellling.

I assume you are referring to the first two chapters of Genesis. If so, they do not contradict each other. www.tektonics.org...

Genesis 2: When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed [...] 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

no plants, just the ground and streams, then man. The he makes paradise, then he puts man in it, and then he makes female from man.

Genesis 1:11
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so[...]20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." [...]24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so [...] 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

First he makes everything up to plants, then plants, then animals and everything, then he makes man and woman at the same time.

A contradiction. And certainly, not two literally the same tellings, hence, one really can't, reasonably anyway, say that its supposed to be taken as literal history.

Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.

Then the source agrees, the bible doesn't need to be taken literally.

But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field?

Thats patently weak. There's no rain, there's not plants. Its not going thru the bother to state that certain types of field plants aren't around yet, and, more imporatntly, there is nothing in the text to indicate this, it requires outside sources, amoung which is a knowledge of hebrew, to pretend that the distinctions are there. The bible is not only contradictory, yet appparently its not sufficient.

junglejake
And then we can all get together and hope that the Great Handkerchiff doesn't come a wipe this sneezed out little universe away

HA. Nice! Ahhhh-cooooo That movie was a disappointment tho.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Nygdan]

Hey Nygdan, I made a whole thing on Bible contradictions, or how it commands slavery, stoning to death of kids who act up, and that one is in the same chapter as the "Gays are Evil" quote they love to use so much. But the bible is never wrong, you just have to interpret my way.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Hey Nygdan, I made a whole thing on Bible contradictions, or how it commands slavery, stoning to death of kids who act up, and that one is in the same chapter as the "Gays are Evil" quote they love to use so much. But the bible is never wrong, you just have to interpret my way.

The bible talks about slavery and stoning kids to death if they act up in Second Corinthians? Wierd, I've missed that. Which isn't to say it's not there, I don't have the whole Bible memorized, but that just seems directly contrary to Paul's ministry. He didn't even advocate any kind of violence or anything against gays, he just said it was wrong and that they are not in communion with the Church.

Nygdan, I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm kind of surprised they'd put that little bit of mythology in it. It was pretty darn funny, but I thought it was only mentioned in the Hitchhiker's Guide when talking about the origins of the universe.

The movie makes references too all the books. It puts a short plot onto the whole series.

For example, it opens with a song and dance number by dolphins singing 'So long and thanks for all the fish", and has one character say 'hey I know a good restaurant at the end of the universe that we can go to'.

But I was disappointed iwth it overall.

Alas, there are no more Douglas Adams books, but there are Terry Pratchett books, which are pretty darned funny too!

Now on the BS tour, hypocrisy and picking what you like and what you don’t. This is what Christians are famous for, they pick whatever rules they like and follow them, but the ones they don’t they act as though they don’t exist.

In fact, the passage republicans/Christians use to justify making gays evil baby eating devil worshipping monsters,
“If a man also lie with man-kind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”
also has that children who are disruptive are to be stoned to death. Yep, they didn’t have Ritalin; they had rocks bludgeoning kids to death.
“And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, the he die: so shalt thou put evil….”
Wow, how come they don’t mention this little rule? What? They don’t like it? Too bad, they are suppose to follow the rules gods gave them, not just some, but all. So, you want more things from the bible? Here we go….

Exodus 21:7 says that it is ok to sell your daughter into SLAVERY!

Exodus 35:2 clearly states anyone working on the Sabbath is to be put to death.

Corinthians 11:14 “Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shame unto him.” Wait, doesn’t JESUS have long hair? I have never seen Jesus with a buzz cut, he always has long hair in any picture/painting you see.

Corinthians 11:19-24 demands that a man not go near a woman who is on her period. Try explaining that to the judge? “Ma’am, before I approach the bench, are you on your period?”

If you believe that the bible is the word of god, and he is all powerful, YOU MUST FOLLOW HIS RULES! You can’t nitpick at which ones you want to follow and which ones you don’t. You can’t follow the happy shiny people rules but dismiss all the other rules, you have to follow, ALL OF THEM! Elvis didn’t do any drugs.

There all the BS Bible stuff.

Originally posted by Nygdan
So? I don't recall jesus ever stating that science is the work of the devil or deception or anything like that.

Where did this statement come from? Of course he didn't state anything like that. Did I suggest that he did? Men are perfectly capable of being wrong without any help from the devil. I merely stated that Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and 2 matter of factly. He did this because they are both literally true. There was no confusion in his mind because the confusion lies in the minds of those that would rather believe a lie than face the truth.

It is hard for me to believe that you can not comprehend that an account told from two points of view does not constitute a contradiction. It is telling that a literary device that would not even be questioned in any other form of writing is called an error when read in scripture.

Steve

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A couple of sites with some nice retelling of different creation myths

www.gly.uga.edu...

and

www.mythinglinks.org...

Thanks for the links Howie
Ive studied world cultural links to the bible to a good degree of depth. Its awesome how no matter where you go, you always come back to the same stories of creation and or the flood.

Nygdan..Not just one missing link that doesnt exist , but the billions of transitional fossils from the various forms. There is not just one missing link between man and 'whatever'. There are many. (depending on what flavor of evilution you adhere to)
Unless they start bringing up transitions by the truck load, they will never have enough to justify evolution.

All fossils and geologic formations fit perfectly with bible history. Evolution is still trying to catch up.