Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

Can you say POUNCE!?!LOL.I certainly don't see it as "lying" or "useless."Maybe more like, "Wow...look what He can do!"

If we can conceive that God is not bound by physical laws, then we have no logical reason to charge Him with lying just because it appears He may have operated outside those laws during creation or any other time. Miracles ~ e.g., the healings Jesus performed ~ would be examples of the Creator operating outside the laws of the creation after the creation event.I would consider it most logical to operate outside the laws of the creation during the creation process. That would seem the only way to do the job.Why lock yourself up in that line of thinking?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 11:52 PM

I am certainly interested in exploring this issue, but will have to take it up later.

why bother making physical laws in the first place then?if the universe were mine to create, i would first set up basic rules of its operation; laws it has to follow. this way, i wouldn't have to personally and miraculously intervene everytime an apple falls from a tree: it would be able to happen on its own.in fact, the definition of miracle involves operating outside of natural law. i think it is far more meaningful and powerful to see god as operating USING those laws instead of just breaking them randomly at will.in the book of exodus, god doesn't come down, step into the sea of reeds, and push the water aside with his great big hands. what separates the water? a strong east wind. even the book of exodus indicates that god miracle happen naturally.so the question is not "why can't an all-powerful god break his own rules?" but "why would he NEED to?" no, we have entirely naturalistic explanations, some of which can be currently observed elsewhere in the universe. it is much more sensible to direct logical natural processes than to set up rules, break them, and cover your tracks so that it LOOKS LIKE it was the natural processes all along. why would god decieve us with his creation? why lock up god in the book of genesis?

take it up with the people who put both accounts into the book of genesis, because they apperently weren't reading both too literally...

Not trying to be mean, but, really, I don't see how what a fellow human might think is a good way to go about it even matters. It seems much like a piston ring telling some little bolt, "Well, if *I* were going to build a truck, first thing I'd do is..." Should the bolt be very impressed with whatever the piston ring says next? Perhaps the bolt can just glance around and understand that there is no way the piston ring, who has always been near the bolt, has any clue how to build a truck.Is Ford Motor Company lying to its consumers because it doesn't leave wrenches and machining equipment in the engine compartments of its vehicles? No, the tools used to create the vehicle, but which have nothing to do with the operation of the vehicle, are left at the plant! What if some consumers get all confused and think spark plugs are used to make vehicles? Perhaps some will reach this strange conclusion, but Ford Motor Company won't care, and it still hasn't lied; it's merely been misunderstood by people with limited knowledge about car manufacturing.Likewise, the laws found operating in the creation, being part of the creation, are not the logical tools, with which to construct the creation. I would consider it highly *unlikely* that the principles responsible for the creation events should be found operating anywhere within the creation.

Well, weren't you using analogies between human designs and things in the universe to "detect" intelligent design in the first place?You can't have it both ways. You can't support ID by reference to similarity to human-designed objects and then, when the argument is turned against you, claim that human design has nothing to do with the design of the universe.

I think we'd all agree with you that once you postulate a god he can operate outside the laws to do the creation.However, that is not the point being made at all; the point is that the nature of the creation, things embedded in it suggest a particular pattern of the history of that creation.If that is not the actual pattern then those things are misleading. They are so misleading and so very, very extensive that they can only be called a trick, a prank, a joke and completely dishonest.

The god called Ford has left much in the way of records of the creation process. I've seen TV films of it. I've read a lot of company material and company history. They are all consistent with what the finished product is like and with each other.In the case of life and the universe, the other God left lots and lots of evidence. It is all consistant with a particular pattern.You are the one trying to say it is false evidence.

yes, but a custom 2004 ford mustang (sorry, i couldn't resist.)seriously, if you take apart and look the engine block of a car, you can tell what sort of tools were used to make it. the bolts have a hexagon shape, and we can infer that the tool used to tighten them had a hexagon hole. we can tell if the tools were metric or english, with a simple measurement. we can tell how old the engine is by wear and tear, rust, and various other factors. sometimes, we can evem tell the composition and age of the tools used to make it. so we can look at a car and tell with reasonable study if it was assembled in a factory, or hand built.what you are proposing is that this mustang was hand built, brand new, to look exactly like a factory 67 chevelle, including 27 years of wear and tear, with bolts hand-tightened to factory specs, and a thick layer of greese to add to authenticity.now, presented with this car, i'd say it's someone's old pile of junk: a 67 chevelle, factory assembled. not a custom 2004 mustang convertible. hell, it's not even the same company's parts.if ford did do this, well, not only would they be lying to their customers, they'd probably get sued for copyright infringement. (unless they're owned by the same company, which they probably are)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-30-2004 04:37 PM

Crashfrog,I can see your point to an extent.I suppose every analogy will have limits because, were the two things being compared so similar they had no differences, no analogy would be needed and, likely, they are the same object or concept.But here's another:Joe and Bob are both cooks at Hardees (like me). Both were lucky to graduate from highschool. Joe likes watching reality TV and going to the downtown scene on weekends. Bob likes watching football and drinking beer.The district manager owns a really sweet 2004 Ford Mustang. Joe and Bob are admiring it one day after the breakfast shift. Both fellows realize that the car was designed by experts and built in a factory under highly managed circumstances. But now Joe starts telling Bob how he would have designed the car and the manufacturing processes. Should Bob be impressed and have Joe build him a 2004 Ford Mustang?Can't both realize that intelligence went into the design and construction of the car? Don't you think Bob has good reason not to ask Joe to build him a 2004 Ford Mustang? This would be magnified many times over if Joe and Bob were part of the Mustang and carrying on such a conversation.Somehow, I think it is possible to look at what humans design and build and conclude that the universe must have been designed and built. I also think it is possible to look at the universe and then look at the humans around us and conclude that none of them even remotely knows how to make a universe.I may yet not be making my point in a clear fashion.Edited to add the point:
Joe and Bob do make things ~ biscuits stuffed with various things like sausage patties. They might even do simple house repairs or car maintenance (in between Survivor episodes, six packs, and football games). They can recognize design, but Bob can also realize that Joe's unqualified for the job of automobile engineer/manufacturer.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-30-2004 06:52 PM

You are right about analogy limits.We have now gone from an analogy about taking genesis literally and therefore having to conclude that we are being fooled by the world around us to a completely different analogy that is discussing design. That is not the same topic at all.Now the analogy is totally useless. Mustangs (of the car type) do not breed. They are not produced through an imperfect reproductive process with the imperfections potentiall kept. Therefore the analogy is totally useless now.We have a process which as been shown to produce design like results without the input of "intelligence". However, it only works on things which reproduce though an imperfect reproductive process and are weeded out through a selection process. Therefore we can not conclude intelligent design when we see something which could have been produced through this alternative "design" process.The very important point is: "Ford Mustangs don't f**k!"Again, all of that has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing which is the discrepancy between the record left in the natural world and your interpretation of genesis. One of them is wrong.

Well, the whole thing melted down on light speed and star distances.Light speed is a physical constant (maybe) and obviously part of the creation. I see no way to use any part of the creation to judge when or how the creation event occurred.

In the universe, what is the 27 years of wear and tear or the thick layer of grease equivalent to?If it's light speed and star distances...well, I know I'm tired of that subject, too . Are there other lines of evidence?

But the analogy is all that you have. Analogies constitute the entire support for the ID argument. It's quite refreshing to see you admit the inherent limitations in analogy, but you don't seem to see that that cuts the knees out from under the ID position.It may very well be that everything cool in the universe can be joined, analogously, with some artifact of human intelligent design. But it's exactly because of the limitations you describe that this is no reason to assume design in the natural world. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If Joe rebuilds Bob's carburetor, and it performs more efficiently than the stock model that came with his car, maybe Joe's input on the manufacture of Mustangs isn't as idiotic as you make it sound. Certainly humans have sufficient artifice to improve the bodies we've been given, or to rectify "failures" inherent in the "design" of the human being. If we can literally bring people back from the brink of death, or heal them of conditions that they were born with, surely we're qualified to at least advance an opinion on the effacacy of God's design?