Logical Flaws In Progressive Creationism, Concerning Order Of Events.

a reply to: mikefougnie

The mainstream theories of evolution generally claim: An infinitely dense and in some cases infinitely hot singularity of high energy existed at some point and expanded, then cooled, various forces and mater and the fabric of space and time.

False.
The theory of evolution of life on Earth addresses neither the origin of the Universe or the origin of life.

This also suggest that we are the ultimate intelligence

No, it doesn't. There are plenty of non-intelligent organisms which have survived longer than humans. There is no reason to believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that intelligence is a necessary adaptation for survival.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Many will claim that the book of Genesis does not mean "literal 24 hour period" where it says, "On the ## day, God... ...And there was evening, and there was morning—the ## day."

If you have studied the Bible for years I would hope that you realize people don't just claim this it is a legitimate interpretation of the Hebrew Text.

www.godandscience.org...

Above link will explain that the Bible shows Adam had seen death prior to the fall.


Your entire post about creationism is making a huge critical error imo, but I will get to that later. I don't personally believe the earth is 6000-10000 years. If you'll look at the Jewish Publication Societies English Translation of Genesis1:1-3 you will see that grammatically the first two verses lead up to verse three:

1 When God began to create heaven and earth — 2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — 3 God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

This is interpretation is grammatically more accurate to the original language. Now, many creationist will say that the word translated create means to create from nothing, but this to is not true. As the same word is used in many other places, and everytime that hebrew word is used it refers to God creation of something out of pre-existing matter. For example the same verb for create in Genesis 1:1 is used in reference to the creation of Adam, which we all know came from dust(which is not nothing). Also, this view implies that Heaven(Space)and Earth pre-existed the creation account in Genesis. What you are reading is a reformation after some kind of calamity that occurred to cause the earth to be unformed and void. This re-creation of Earth for humans was believed by ancient Hebrews to have been 24 hour days. Now to the logical flaw I believe you, every creationist/ID, atheist, and even myself are making when we view the Bible. The Bible is a pre-scientific piece of work. For example, there is no word for "brain" in Hebrew so even if God told an ancient Hebrew what the "brain" was and exactly how its neurons opereated that person would have had no way to effectively communicate the information to others. God could have changed to culture of the Hebrew people and of the people of the time, but he chose not to, because God didn't write the Bible to tell you if dinos died or not. He didn't write it to tell you how chemical react with one another or anything like that. That being said, trying to make the Bible fit with Science isn't always the logical thing to do. The Bible does occasionally make truth claims(not scientific facts) about the world, and these truth claims are always very accurate.

Cris Putnam, the force behind the Logos Apologia website, has recently blogged about how the creation stories of Genesis 1-2 target ancient Egyptian creation myths. The impetus behind Cris’ efforts is a recent book entitled, In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context. The authors are both Dallas Seminary grads. Their thesis is well known to scholars (and readers of this blog), though little known to the people in the pew: the biblical creation story isn’t at all about science, but about dissing other gods and the myths written about them. I haven’t read the book yet, but I’ve ordered it. I don’t expect to learn much, since this is familiar turf to Hebrew Bible specialists, but I’m very interested in how the material is presented. As readers here know, this “not about science” approach has long been my position on Genesis and the Bible in general. What’s happening in Genesis 1-2 is very obvious to anyone who works in the original text (beyond simplistic word studies) and (important) is familiar with ancient Near Eastern creation stories. The beliefs of ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Canaanites all have shots taken at them. The biblical authors are clever and fearless in putting forth their fundamental theological claim: the world all of us humans experience is the product of the creative power of the God of Israel and no other god, period. They skillfully backhand other gods with textual eye-poking that anyone living in the ancient world would have readily discerned — and that is our fundamental disconnect. We process Genesis in light of our own age and intellectual battles. The result is a flawed presentation of the Genesis creation is both rebutting undesirable science (Darwin) and affirming science outside Darwinism’s immediate purview. Genesis 1 isn’t about any of that, save that it affirms an external creator God. The claim of the biblical writers is a supernaturalist one, not a scientific one.

drmsh.com...

The above is to give you a bit more info on what I am talking about.

So what do I mean by truth claims? Let me use an example:

A little girl is playing on the play ground and a scientist and his kid are also playing. The Scientist overhears the little girl say to another little boy that "God makes it rain." The Scientist walks over to the little girl and tells her, "No God doesn't do it the water cycle does it, stupid kid."

Who is right and who is wrong?

It's a trick question as they both right, and they are both wrong. We must examine the truth claims behind each to determine how this is so. When the little girl says "God makes it rain," we all know what she means by that. In her world God lives UP and thats where rain comes and in that sense she is wrong, and the Scientist is right as the mechanisms behind rain are the water cycle(Scientist is making a scientific claim). However, the little girl is also making a truth claim without being aware of it and that is that God is the agent behind the mechanisms that cause rain and in that sense she is right and the Scientist is wrong.


The Bible makes truth claims not scientific claims imo. So trying to make those fit with facts isn't always gonna work out like one would expect.

In conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world. This paper has compiled a list of the more significant parallels between Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts, and has shown that Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts share more affinity with one another than the Genesis creation accounts share with Babylonian cosmology.

bible.org...

This might shed some light on why Genesis is written like it was as I believe this was most likely the writers intention for the book.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

a reply to: mikefougnie
I have a thread on this very subject (www.abovetopsecret.com...), but my creationism view is not Biblical.

I agree with you that if you exclusively use the Bible as your source of information on Creation that it does not mesh well with evolution. However there are other sources of information on the subject of God and the act of Creation. I based my thread on the teachings of the Urantia Book. (www.urantia.org...)

The account of the creation of time and space and its continued upholding is very different in the Urantia Book than the Bible's account. You must remember that the account in Genesis was written in a time that the people had very little if any scientific knowledge.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

God, the first source and center, is the only uncaused cause. The only being in all creation who does not depend on another for his existence.

a reply to: UB2120

If your god is exempt then the premise is false. This is called the special pleading fallacy.

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

God, the first source and center, is the only uncaused cause. The only being in all creation who does not depend on another for his existence.

so god can be without cause but the big bang cant. makes perfect sense.

/tzarchasm

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

If your god is exempt then the premise is false. This is called the special pleading fallacy.

Not really. You are under the assumption God is a human and needs created, this is a false idea.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

If your god is exempt then the premise is false. This is called the special pleading fallacy.

Not really. You are under the assumption God is a human and needs created, this is a false idea.

i guess youve forgotten that whole "everything has to have a creator" idea that people keep kicking around on the origins forums.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

Exactly.
That is the big question. If the egg came before the chicken, who made the egg? If the Chicken came before the egg, who made the chicken?

If they say we evolved from the elements during their extreme changes in temperatures and environments with carbon branching off and "mutating" during a state of electrical and physical unrest, where simple bacteria and molds begin to occur and "life" as we know it begins, then who or what made the elements and who or what created the "world" that these elements exist in, including basic fundamental frames like gravity?

Obviously evolution is in the works. But evolution is one of those constant and natural life-structural frames like gravity. It is always there and can be seen at all stages of development, whether it be "living" or "dead".

So whether or not intelligent beings came to earth and genetically updated our dna into "modern man" or mankind evolved naturally from apes doesn't really matter. Both theories only give us modern man, but who or what gave the world life? Was "life" always part of the universe?
What was before life? How did life get made? Who or what made it?

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

You're under the assumption that even god exists. But not only that, you're exempting your god from the very premise you propose. Baseless assumptions + faulty logic = bad argument.

There are actually more modern theories on the evolution of life that might be of interest to those struggling to understand how it could happen- and it's probably more bizarre than any existing views on both sides of the argument.

Turns out that organic matter and energy are not enough to create life on their own.
According to the theory, life also needed the actual physical structure of a heavily oxidised element (probably molybdenum or boron) which provided some sort of "template" upon the organic compounds

Bizarreness turns to bewilderment when studies show that this kind of heavily oxidised element was not available on Earth at the time when life is theorised to have evolved- however it was readily available in plentiful supply on Mars.

Source

In my eyes it seems more likely that bits of this element found their way to earth in some unknown way rather than life evolving on Mars but it is fascinating that the "key to life" might be coded into the "Nature" as a result of energetic exchanges over billions of years.



Oh and by the way...it is pretty much accepted that our Sun is a third generation star- implying 2 previous stars existed and died before it providing all materials as part of a giant universal re-cycling process (clue to big bang right there) .

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: Tangerine

If I am wrong, correct me. Explain where the singularity came from.

Science doesn't have an answer to that. All science can tell us is when the standard time-space model of physics began. We have no way to describe or interpret what happened before then, how it got that way, where it came from, and why it changed to start expanding. In other words, "we don't know." Much better answer than inferring something like God or "something from nothing."

originally posted by: Jukiodone
There are actually more modern theories on the evolution of life that might be of interest to those struggling to understand how it could happen- and it's probably more bizarre than any existing views on both sides of the argument.

Turns out that organic matter and energy are not enough to create life on their own.
According to the theory, life also needed the actual physical structure of a heavily oxidised element (probably molybdenum or boron) which provided some sort of "template" upon the organic compounds

you mean like a scaffold?

originally posted by: mikefougnie
The Bible Claims: God Creates the Universe with the Earth (water-world) in it, then creates light and dark (unspecified light source, not the Sun), then creates the sky separating the ground level ocean from the water (or as some research suggests an ice layer) in the sky, then creates dry land, and then creates plants. At this point, God creates the Sun to contain the previously created light to shine on one side of the earth and the moon to reflect to the other, he then did this in various other parts of the universe creating the stars we see. God then fills the air and water with living creatures, and then the next day fills the land. Then God creates an individual man and then a woman shortly after. Then God tells these people to reproduce and fill the land, and take care of it. There was also no death (to humans or animals) until humans sinned, realized they were naked attempted to cover themselves with leaves, then God slaughters an animal to make covering for them showing that sin leads to death. At this point death enters the world lead to animal and human death. Meaning sorry, dinosaurs had not died before people. This view shows that we were created as servants. A future post will explain where religion comes into the picture.

Are you sure that is the correct order things were created? Contradiction: When Were Plants Created?

First Plant Creation Story

Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them ....And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Second Plant Creation Story

Genesis 2:4-7: 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, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.

Also this. The two contradictory creation accounts. When were humans created?

First Account

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I havent got time to revisit this now but yes- as far as I remember- the suggestion was that the crystaline structure of the surface of the material provided a "physical interaction" that acted as a catalyst to generate what we know as RNA.

Mind shattering implications if true and the guy with the theory is better qualified to comment than most.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: TzarChasm

I havent got time to revisit this now but yes- as far as I remember- the suggestion was that the crystaline structure of the surface of the material provided a "physical interaction" that acted as a catalyst to generate what we know as RNA.

Mind shattering implications if true and the guy with the theory is better qualified to comment than most.

i can look it up and link it. thanks!

a reply to: mikefougnie

This view shows that we were created as servants.

how any member of the free world can admire the idea of lifelong servitude is beyond me. we have gone to war for freedom and you want to throw it away.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

If your god is exempt then the premise is false. This is called the special pleading fallacy.

All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God. Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

God, the first source and center, is the only uncaused cause. The only being in all creation who does not depend on another for his existence.

so god can be without cause but the big bang cant. makes perfect sense.

/tzarchasm

Something outside time and space initiated what we call the Big Bang, the creation of everything. That being is God.