|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis Claims about Gender | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: My personal vew is that Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality. EvC Forum: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? In this post IamJoseph makes sevel assertions:
1 declares the universe as finite, namely that there was a beginning. V2 says no laws existed at this time, and everything was a formless void. Of recent, this has also become a scientific theory, but Plank states it back to front, going back in time, instead of assuming at the start-up point. The premise of laws breaking down is incorrect; better that laws once never existed [Genesis]; that is why stars emerged later - not because laws broke down, but because the laws had yet not came into being to form stars. V3 shows the point when laws [science] came into being and the formless became formed. There was no science before this point, which obviously would include theories such as evolution. V4. Says, agree or disagree, that the first primordial product of the universe was Light, appearing ammediately after formation laws were initiated, and before the advent of stars. This verse also says how the light occured, namely via the laws embedded [in particles like quarks?], which became 'SEPARATED' from all else - this is the meaning of becoming a 'FORMED' entity, which contrasts with the un-formed. The laws allowed things to become independent entities via separations. Photons would arguably not have existed at this time, as the light was either not visible [e.g. radiation] or there was none to envision the light as yet. Photons would have emerged in V14, which speaks of Luminosity. The DAY & the WEEK is also introduced here. V5 onwards speaks of other actions beside light, focusing now on earth, as anticipatory actions of forthcoming life, namely the critical separations of day and night, and water from land. This says life could not emerge without these actions, appearing ammediately prior to mentioning life forms, and IMHO making Darwinian evolution deficient and not comprehensive in its theories how life emerged. Species [Kinds]. The first recording of life form groupings and sub-groupings are now introduced for the first time, categorised via terrain and habitat, as opposed to skeletal features and fossils, namely as vegetation, water borne, air borne, land borne, speech endowed kinds. In these verses 'ALL' of the factors mentioned in Darwinian evolution can be found, including DNA and cross-speciation of the life forms belonging to the same terrain. The variance with Darwin is that all life stemmed from one life - while Genesis posits that each specie was specifically designed and they appeared in their completed forms, derived solely from the seed and have no impact from the environment. Also in this first creation chapter is the premise that all life was initiated in a positive/negative gender duality, then separated as independent positive and negative genders. Darwin does not explain the gender variances, nor accounts the pivotal factor of the host seed. Can IamJoseph or anyone else support these assertions with evidence? 'Is it Science?', please. Edited by Admin, : Original proposal hidden, see Message 3 for the opening post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
The quote from IamJoseph covers a lot of ground, from cosmology to astronomy to geology to biology. Can you narrow it down to just one topic area?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: My personal vew is that Genesis is better aligned with real science and evidenced reality. EvC Forum: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? In this post IamJoseph makes the following assertion:
...in this first creation chapter is the premise that all life was initiated in a positive/negative gender duality, then separated as independent positive and negative genders. Darwin does not explain the gender variances, nor accounts the pivotal factor of the host seed. Can IamJoseph or anyone else support this assertion with evidence? 'Is it Science?', please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Genesis Claims about Gender thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The sad part is that the Bible writings don't support the idea of a single being and then separated into two beings (if that is what IamJoseph is stating).
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created mankind. The him refers back to mankind, not a man. Then the second part states that God created mankind with males and females. IMO, one would need to know the purpose of the writing before trying to align it with today's knowledge. My question is, where does IamJoseph get the idea that "life was initiated in a positive/negative gender duality"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
My understanding is that IamJoseph means that the Genesis account of the origin of the two sexes is mirrored by the scientific consensus.
Therefor, as it is written in Genesis, it must also be so in reality else his/her assertion is contradicted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And just as with so many claims made in Genesis, reality refutes the claim.
The order of creation as outlined in Genesis is factually wrong. Not all things are created male and female. Genesis is simply wrong.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well I'm basically waiting for IamJoseph to support his point.
I can't imagine anyone else in the world would be willing to try to support IamJoseph's position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Bumpity bump bump bump.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So true. I didn't read his quote close enough. My guess is that asexual reproduction wasn't known at that time, least of all by a priest. I don't think the author was trying to be factually right. I think he was more interested in religious ideas, as opposed to reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course it is not factually correct and the author was not trying to be factually correct.
In addition to asexual reproduction their are critters that are born one sex but change as they mature, things that are male and female at the same time and things that are neither male or female.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024