Please answer this.

Actually, it starts on the first.

Actually it starts with "The Bible".

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

I found this on another thread a while ago. It's pretty funny. Might help you.

And people complain about plot holes in books today...

I don't interpret all of the Bible literally, specially Genesis, but if you're going to critique it it wouldn't hurt if you just do a bit more research.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis5.htm

Genesis 5
So it wasn't only Cain and Abel, you can assume then that they simply married their sisters (!).

Only Cain, Abel and Seth are named in Genesis, but one or two daughters are named in the "Book of Jubilees" (not part of the Bible)

I can't remember what was the site, but they explained they could have kids between brothers and sisters because their blood was pure and undiluted.

So you see, you can't argue with science.

See, the plot holes in the bible all make sense once you realize people really live to be 950.

Can't help you. If it isn't explained in that site with the Lego re-enactments, I haven't read it.

I've always wondered about the part in Genesis when Moses is dealing with the priests of the Pharoah. Obviously Moses gets the power to change his staff into a snake by God, but where did the priests get the power to change their staffs into snakes? Since a lot of Christians believe that there is only God how is this then explained?

ya... cus someone is still considerred to be human when they live for 800 years....

haha i have enough beef with the bible.. and downloaded a pdf file with a couple hundred contradictions which appear on its very pages.. but the most interesting contradiction (to me) has to do with Ramses II and his first born...

in the exodus and all that noise, theres the whole lot with the plagues and passover, where the son of the pharaoh is killed that night.. but i watched this show on the discovery channel that basically ran a couple hours on how they actually, legitimately found the tomb of the first born son of ramses 2, and that not only did he die in his 30s or 40s, but he died from a blow on the head.. not some freaky deeky passover nonsense..

considerring that ramses II is supposed to have been the pharaoh ruling over egypt at the time.. its all just pretty meh if you know what i mean

yup... pretty sick of that bible... and how it ruins people's lives... countries.. whatever.. hahahaha

I thought the original poster asked about how could Cain have married at all, I fail to see what that has to do with the use of age (of Patriarcs) in the Old Testament , that has nothing to do with my point and the original question.

I have no problem if this is the case or not, but while it's good work, it's not definitive ...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6614215/

Not sure if by "actually, legitimately" you meant, 100% sure ...

I think it's still debated if the Exodus refers to Rames II or not.

An interesting movie you may want to watch is "Inherit the Wind", a good Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly movie that deals with the Scopes Monkey trials (we want our thumbs). Anyway, there is a good deal of these inconsistencies argued during the climax of the trial. Basically, the teaching of evolution vs. creationism is put on trial. But I like the message of the movie: God gave man intellect and the ability to reason. The Bible is a good book, but it is not the only book, and man has to march forward with his thinking or give up his God given gift.
Plus the movie has Darren from Bewitched, and Col. Potter from M*A*S*H...

It's a tribal origin myth that works as an allegorical explanation of the relationships between the genders and between God & man.

You know the whole Washington & the cherry tree story? That didn't happen either.

The problem is, you're government as never based is whole policy on the cherry tree story. Now they're actualy teaching creationism in schools. How can you still expect the USA to stay at the head of the pack if your future thinkers and scientist are thought concepts that have proven to be false?

That's the least of our worries. The U.S. isn't producing nearly enough engineers, mathematicians, and scientists to sustain the technological/industrial base required to keep us on the cutting edge. If we keep going at this rate, India & China will pull ahead by the middle of this century.

But hey, we have lots of people with marketing degrees, so we've got that going for us.

I disagree. That is the problem. How can you expect to make engineers, mathematicians and scientists when you are basically saying to kids in school that science is wrong and a 3000 year old book that's been translated hundreds of time by people who were far from impartial is the truth?

Alexor, you make it sound as if the entire U.S. educational system has changed its collective science program to teach creationism. That is inaccurate.

Having said that, however, I'd like to contest your implied assertion that such beliefs negate the possibility of an individual's becoming a technical professional. Surely you're aware that Newton thought his theological works would outlast his scientific contributions.

Many scientist in history belived in the creation story literally. We know today that you don't have to interpret it that way, and I see no evidence that fundamentalist that do belive it in have less of an inclination to become scientist and mathematicians. As pointed out, we're slipping behind in these areas and the last factor I would include is belief in "creationism".

Is it even 3000 years old???

The OT is at least that old. (3500 yrs approximately)

If you take the myth of the needle of creation as true then it more like 5000+ years old, for the first ½ of Genesis. The Torah was assemble and numbered between 2500 to 3000 years ago. The numbering is were the bible code bull shit come from.


If you read and study the story of creation, and the words used in it, you find out that creation theory is not biblical sound. The word that is used in the Torah in place of day does not mean day but time period, and the word earth mean 'of the earth'. So the bible give no date for any part of creation. Also it can be biblically correct that Adam was made from dirt, a plant, or an animal. The bible also make it quit clear that there were people already on the world when Adam and Eve left Eden. Seth was born a long time after Cain left. God put a mark of murder on Cain forehead. The father of the bride at first did not want Cain to merry his daughter because of the mark. He was afraid of she might face retribution from the relatives of the murdered party.

Adam is just a symbol of a blood bound between God and humanity.

Not remembering this bit.

Great point, Frank. When the marketing of a scientific breakthrough becomes more important than the breakthrough itself, we are in a heap o' trouble.

Me neither, I even looked it up and can't find it.

I know it's not the entire education system that teaches creationism. But mere fact that it is taught in school in 2005 in a modern country is beyond me.

Newton lived in the 18th century and science as surpassed his works by huge bounds. At the point where physics are now, you need a very deep understanding of the universe to make any advancement. I don't see how creationism (wich is very different than believing in a higher power) can co-exist with quantics physics in the mind of a modern scientist.

Ah, I thought you were arguing that any religious belief precluded the possibility of becoming a technical professional. Now I see that you're arguing that learning creationism precludes this. My bust.

I'm unaware of any American public school systems that are teaching creationism as the ordering theory of the universe. Can you source this?

I don't understand how a belief that God created the multiverse can't coexist with quantum physics. Now I'm not a physicist, I'm just a guy who took some classes in college & read some Feynman books, in addition to leafing through the occasional issue of "Scientific American". Based on my limited understanding of current theory, however, I don't see anything in there that makes me think, "God couldn't have done this."

I think it's actually from an issue of House of Mystery.

I may have been wrong about the part about Cain in-laws it been some time since I have study the story, but the point is from readying chapter 4 there are other people running around.

The point is that it's not specified in Genesis, which means it's probably not important to the story. But within the context of the story, the most natural assumption is that these people all have descended from Adam, therefore he married a relative. Traditionally, this has been interpreted to be a sister.

The other sons and daughters are mentioned later, but it doesn't say when they were born. One can assume these include kids shortly after Cain too. (specially considering the age spans used in the story).

You made up the father in law story, and you're making up this other people not descendant from Adam. This is why personal interpretation is so often a disaster, but that's another topic ... :-)

1. I know it's not widespread in your education system but many states do teach creationism in school. Maybe it's because I'm from Canada, but that would be enough to worry me. Such a practice greatly undermines the separation from state and church, education being a state affair.

2. Creationism is not the belief that God created the universe. It is the belief that God created the universe in 7 days. That a big difference. How can such a theory work with modern science?

I'm unaware of any American public school systems that are teaching creationism as the ordering theory of the universe. Can you source this?

Ah, I thought you were using the creationism to mean the belief that God created everything. Now I see that you were referring to young-earth creationism, which is a horse of a different color. I have no idea how such a theory can work with modern science. Nevertheless, I do know a couple of technical professionals who buy into young-earth creationism, though I haven't invested the energy to figure out how they reconcile the two.

They aren't teaching creationism explicitly, but they are advocating strong challenges to evolution such as intelligent design, a theory which is scientifically unfounded, if a valid one at all. link

For the most part, religious theory which allows for the known rules of science can easily integrate into a harmonious modern secular society. For the most part, religous people who hold these beliefs are rational and sociable in the broader sense, and rarely clash with their fellow citizens on religious grounds.

Strict creationist theory denies any others which contradict it, and even goes so far as to demonize many of them and their believers. I consider strict creationist theory to be fundamentally irreconcilable with many secular rational principles, and I believe strict creationsists would agree with me on this point.

Young-earth creationism can be reconciled with today's world, while strict creationism contradicts the mountains of evidence that indicate the world is older than 10,000 years.

This is like more benign Holocaust denial to me.

Interesting post, Gray. Thanks for the source - this was a case of "I'll believe it when I see it." Now I've seen it, so I believe.

Regarding young-earth vs. strict creationism, I thought they were identical. Thanks for that, as well.

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm right there with you. Well played, sir.

It is a new theory. Given that I do think it's a mistake to require the teaching of it (ID not evolution). I htink the school board is doing it to appease some vocal right wing Christians. Big mistake.


Indeed they would.

They (the OEC) see the evidence of the mountains as faulty and can give any number of reasons to deny it. Not ones that meet with great scrutiny that I've seen so far, but reasons. As a YEC I could really care less if my belief can be reconciled. All I care about is that it is what the Bible seems to indicate.

Hyperbole alert!

NP Frank, in this day and age it is something that has to be seen to be believed.

Actually, I shouldn't have been so certain in my definitions, I was playing off your post;

I assumed young-earth creationism was something more rational than God making the animals in seven days, that God intiated the processes of evolution at the dawn of Earth.

I forget were I got the part about Cain in-laws, as it been 10 years since I studied the subject. So I have t o let that oner go. The bible does not say that he married his sister, and the next time it even make mention of any kind of sibling is why down the chronological path. If Adam, Eve, and Cain were the only people then why did God have to mark him? He was marked on the forehead. The answer is that there were other people living. Creationism has only been around for a couple of hundred years. If they are right then God made the descendants of Adam sin, and God can't do that. If you study any from of Hebrew they naver believed that Adam was the only human. They believe that Adam and Eve were just the first people to have a link with God or a soul. That why I said that Adam is just a symbol of a Blood bound between humanity and God. You do know what a blood bound is and what it signifies right? Blood is thicker the milk. Meaning that those who share a blood bound put each other before family. God put humanity first, or above the angles.

Frank, apparently you don't understand the rules of the internet. You were supposed to reply with a hastily worded, invective-filled post that not only calls into question Gray's intellect, but the legal status of his birth.

Shape up, buddy.

I thought this article was mildly related and thus appropriate for the discussion. enjoy:

Dinosaurs for Creationists

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...056282,00.html

Or that there would later be other people living, namely other descendents, direct and indirect, of Adam and Eve.

Maybe the term has only been around that long (perhaps coined in opposition to alternate theories like evolution?), but would you care to explain what Christians previously believed, if not a form of creationism? Did they think that God DIDN'T create humanity? Because, boy, would that be news to historians.

Well, I'd say we're in a bit of a pickle, then, unless we thoroughly re-interpret passages to fix this incongruity.

This is news to me. Do you have a link to a reputable source on this? I'm sincerely interested.

I zipped over to Wikipedia to see its take on the term. Here's what it has to say:

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. It is generally held by those Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is an accurate account of historical events and that evidence for the accuracy of a strictly factual interpretation of the text should be evident in the world today. Many of its adherents are active in the development of Creation "science", a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through the scientific method.

Now I'm confused. Captain, what's the difference between OECs and YECs?

I thought there were two camps w/in Christianity: Young-Earth Creationists, which is a term I associate with the kind of literalist creationism one may expect to find in a very conservative church; and Old-Earth Creationists, who believe that Genesis's creation stories are allegories, and that the nuts & bolts of cosmology are the precinct of science.

Am I way off here?

It sounds to me like I reversed the correct definitions of the respective terms in my last post, and you are correct in saying that young-earth creationists quite literally believe in a young earth, old-earth christians in an old earth.

That's the problem with this damn place Jake, it's lawless. No respect for how 'net things are done. Next thing, people will start making contact outside the web! ROTFLOL!!

Cats and dogs living in sin....

Every once in awhile I find an article that makes me want to destroy the human race.

Here's an interesting article on creationism vs. science from today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050402022.html - Sorry, the Fantastic Four popup is blocking the linking button.):

TOPEKA, Kan., May 4 -- Alarmed by proposals to change how evolution is taught, scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools.

This week's battle is focused on Kansas, where State Board of Education hearings begin Thursday on evolution and intelligent design, a carefully marketed theory that challenges accepted understandings of Earth's origins in favor of the idea that a creator played a guiding role.

Scientists warn that introducing challenges to evolution in the public school curriculum would weaken education, harm the economy and, as one paleontologist put it, open Kansas to ridicule as "the hayseed state." Science organizations are boycotting the hearings but plan to offer daily critiques.

Teachers and trade groups around the country are working to build e-mail lists, lobby lawmakers and educate the public about the perceived perils of intelligent design. Lawyers are examining prospects for court challenges. Evolution's defenders would love to repeat the success of nuclear physicist Marshall Berman, who led a counterattack after winning a seat on the New Mexico education board.
====================
Check the Post for more.

It was I who was confused. I flipped my Y adn O. I am indeed an OEC not a YEC. Now I need to go to the YMCA with my friends from the DNC ASAP.