Unlikely, given that Matthew and Acts are largely considered to have been written around the same time.
see, you don't have a broad understanding of the purposes of what was written. Genesis 2 isn't supposed to be a sequential account of creation. It places Man in the Garden and discusses his involvement in God's plan, to put a big picture view into some perspective. The sequential word "Then" refers first to God's creation of Man and subsequent specific actions God performed in relationship to Man. The apparent discrepancy between the plants of Genesis 1:11-12 and Gen. 2:5-6 is easily understood. The plants referred to are different sorts of plants, fruit trees, grass and seed bearing plants in Gen 1 and 'plants of the field' in Gen 2. Plants of the field, as indicated in Gen 2, are cultivated plants that need tending. Another apparent discrepancy is resolved when it is noted that the Hebrew verb can be translated both in the perfect and pluperfect tenses ( 'formed' and 'had formed' ). Tyndale's translation, directly from the original texts, uses 'had formed'. Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, predating Tyndale, and states 'formed'. The pluperfect makes more sense.
Sorry, I'm obviously not enlightened enough. I'm not sure what the above has to do with the post you quoted but hey, whatever. Why is there a need to have to explain everything (other than the obvious reason that the book makes little sense without a running commentary)? I work on a general principle that if someone has to say "I know it says this, but it actually means this" then the book is poorly written, of little value and can be dismissed. Have you made any progress with those 101 contradictions?
but it doesn't say what you think it says because you make a priori assumptions that are wrong. that is the primary fault of Bible critics who don't take a scholarly approach. my guess is that you are getting your info from other sources, that you didn't figure all this out by yourself. am i close?
in the first case, the misunderstanding lies in the fact that Scripture attributes to the Lord actions which he permits which are actually instigated by others. the reference to 1 Chron 2 clearly states that Satan tempted David to count the men in his army, which was contrary to God's will. David was trying to determine whether he had enough troops; he only needed as many troops as God would provide. elsewhere in Scripture God wins battles where His army of men is hopelessly outnumbered. David knew as much. re: contradiction #2 From Bible.org
@StiltonFC The genesis of life, also known as abiogenesis...Have you looked into any of the protocell literature? Yes the conditions of early earth provided the opportunity, but you lost me with the "certain forces, provided the spark". A commonly understood term, but is it a commonly used term by abiogenesis researchers? And I don't mean, when they're giving a TED talk or being quoted in a popsci article. The way a scientist describes their research to the 'laity' is not the way they would describe it in a peer reviewed article or a professional meeting of their field. They use 'commonly understood' terms to get their ideas across to people who haven't been studying this for 2o years. Why did you put 'certain forces', and 'the spark' in quotations? What do you think these 'certain forces' are? Or is the problem that researchers haven't definitively nailed down what these forces were? Have you ever looked into it? What's the problem with using 'spark'? Is lightning, electromagnetic radiation, and geothermal energy not real things anymore? Does it require 'belief' to know that energy can drive reactions? After year 1 chemistry lab you would know that external energy can drive unfavorable reactions. Unless you give me specifics, I have a difficult time understanding why you can't at least conceptually accept that small organic molecules can be made in an abiotic environment. Conceptually in the sense, that you agree through your knowledge of chemistry that this is possible, regardless if we know how it actually happened. Than we can debate on whether anyone has figured out the proper ingredients to the soup yet. Your basing this argument on misinformation. Metamorphosis is part of the normal development process of hemimetabolous insects, that's what separates them from the ametabolous ones. A grasshopper nymph is not the equivalent of tiny adult grasshopper, nymphs go through morphological changes with successive molts. That's why they are called "hemi" (part) metabolous, or partial/incomplete/gradual metamorphosizers. The point that allows for some insects to pass thru a pupal stage (which according to studies done, is a modified nymphal stage), is older than the split of hemi and holometaboloutes. No need to activate or introduce. Now that we see there is no need for 'activation', the idea is not counter-intuitive. Not that it would even matter if was, collecting counter-intuitive data is not unusual in science. If everything made intuitive sense, this shit would be aaaaalot easier. The rest doesn't need to be addressed, because there was no 'anticipation' of the pupal stage needed for the hormonal network to work, so therefore no need to anthropomorphise evolution. If you would have done just the tiniest bit of scholarship I asked for before asking more questions, you wouldn't be making statements like "Since metamorphosis seems to be an all-or-nothing phenomenon", which is clearly not the case, and a major point of these studies! My comment on tweaking was not towards the transition of a caterpillar to a butterfly specifically, it was in reference to what happened to the existing blueprint of hemimetabolous development that yielded holometabolous development. Concerning the transition from larvae to pupae to adult, did you look into it? The figure I provided included the link that addresses this. That the pupal stage is equivalent to a single nymphal instar of the hemimetabolous lineages? Seeing that hemimetabolous go through a gradual metamorphosis through each successive nymphal instars, what's to prevent these changes from occurring in one much longer nymphal instar? It's certainly not the 'blueprint', the blueprint is the same, it's the timeline to completion that has been changed. This is likely due to mutations in the regulatory network that controls the process. According to M&W, tweaking means to make usually small adjustments in something. This why I used that word specifically, the changes made are small and gradual. You added the phrase 'to improve', which is not inherent to the definition of tweak. Tweaking is only thought of by you to improve things, because you're only looking at tweaking as only a directed action by some intelligent lifeform. Afterall, why would anyone choose to change something with the plan on making it worse? I don't even understand the point you're trying to make by saying 'tweak is a cunning word'. And you're spot on that random mutation tends to cause deleterious or neutral changes far more than anything that would become an advantage. But you are wrong that this is some incalculable magnitude. You haven't done your scholarship. You know evolutionary geneticists use a number of mathematical models to study the field right? Have you ever looked into any of these? Here is a link to a website that has java based software which uses math to study natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift, http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popgen/. Here is a list of other software: https://popmodels.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/gsr/packages/. Here's a review on the topic: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v13/n2/full/nrg3130.html. These tools are used to study the probability of outcomes concerning scenarios of evolutionary genetics. It is imperative you understand these concepts in full before you attempt to make sense of reviews on any evolutionary process, let alone one that is as involved as insect metamorphosis. Will you please check out the site and those terms I listed? Please? I'm begging now, they are very very important concepts to understand whether you are in the business of confirming OR refuting evolution research. I love to have these discussions, and am happy to debate/address any cutting edge stuff going on the field, but you need to build a solid foundation of knowledge before most of what you are presented will make any sense whatsoever. Nothing about evolutionary genetics is even a 'stretch' if you have a proper understanding of probability, generation times, and age of the earth. I bold probability to highlight I don't mean in a colloquial sense of the word, I mean a mathematical understanding of probability theory. Evolution/Evolutionary genetics is a field which utilizes tools and knowledge accrued from anatomy, chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics. To say the conclusions they come to using these tools are outrageously implausible (this is the vibe I get from you), is to essentially rubbish all those fields as well. In your narrow definition of it maybe. It would be more accurate to say that tweaking is virtually always performed by fallible intelligent forces (i.e. man). Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being have need to tweak anything it created? So much for being the alpha and the omega... That, I can most certainly believe to be the case.
the difference between the metamorphosis of a grasshopper and a butterfly is remarkable. one would hardly call the structural changes that are involved in "building" a chrysalis to be comparable to the relatively simple developmental changes in grasshoppers. but to put a finer point on it, here is a quote from the article accompanying the graphics you posted: The figure above, from Truman & Riddiford (1999), shows suggested stages in the evolution of the holometabolan larva from the pronymph. Stages (a) and (b), as already noted, are both found in living hemimetabolous insects. The major step, which remains undocumented, would have been the evolution of the ability to feed in the pronymph, allowing maintenance of the pronymphal stage through more than one instar - stage (c) in the figure. Lengthening of the pronymphal stage seems to have been matched by a shortening of the nymphal stage, though again, the exact mechanics of this are as yet undocumented. It is possible that once the pronymphal stage became the main feeding and growing stage, then the multiple nymphal instars became fairly redundant, in which case there may have been a selective pressure for their rapid loss. I have bolded a couple of disclaimers and put in red a couple of qualifiers. If you read those four modifications you will note that they explicitly in two cases and implicitly in the other two indicate that biological science knows zero/zip/nada about the "exact mechanics" of the process. That stuff is crazy making. It's like the theories that speculate about abiogenesis. Are we testing those theories assiduously, or is it the case that it would be nearly impossible ( and i use the word "nearly" to be charitable ) to do any definitive testing. But say that there was a Creator and you're a looney. but the order isn't a significant issue to anyone who understands the point of that section of the narrative.
What incorrect assumptions have I made? No more so than anyone else. Look - referencing another source (surely you could have figured this out by yourself), albeit one that deals in lots of maybes and ultimately concludes that they can't really explain it with certainty. So that will be a contradiction - something you claimed did not exist. If you people can't get the basic facts correct and then attempt to justify the errors, then I don't see any reason to trust that anything else they provide is correct.
You're not a looney, but you're certainly not credible. I'm a neutral and it doesn't matter how much more to know there is in the science, the score is science 1k million, creator theorists zero. The only way for your side to gain credibility is to admit you don't have it. The whole Bible thing is a red herring and hurts your cause.
The problem isn't so much belief in a creator, it's the belief in something without any supporting evidence.
the problem is that there is plenty of evidence, but you don't accept it as evidence. the same is true with certain elements of evolutionary biology. the kinds of assumptions made are mind-boggling. we are expected to believe that there have been gazillions of beneficial mutations that account for the etiology of varying genera when the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that mutation is detrimental to the affected lifeforms. a couple of examples are trotted out, like sickle-cell anemia is beneficial against malaria, and that's supposed to be convincing. it ain't.
You think that's tough, let's hear how the Creator herself evolved. When you start with God, Occam's razor starts to direct your attention towards pure science fiction as pretty solid stuff by comparison.
...And we're back to the beginning of another exciting lap of the "Race Around In Circles". This segment of today's show is brought to you by: The Gideons - appearing in hotel rooms everywhere...
You do realize that the ancestors of these species reportedly diverged around 250 million years ago right? You're looking a the results 250 millions years, and scratching your heading saying 'Gee, I can't see the similarity'. Do you think the first holometabolous insects had larva that looked like caterpillars, and adults that even remotely looked like butterflies? Is that your rationale? The holometabolotes are filled with a range of different pupae, from the chrysalis on one extreme end to ones that are still ambulatory!! AMBULATORY! And it's the chrysalis you choose to compare to the grasshopper!? I only use the grasshopper as an example of an extant hemi, I never suggested that it was the closest living relative to holo insects, nor that butterflies are the closet living relative to hemis. Do you see what you're doing? Do you see how you don't give an earnest attempt to rationalize the research being done in these fields? http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/text02/index.html Here's some more information that gives a general overview of insect evolution starting as far back as worms, so you can a better idea of why saying "The difference between the metamorphosis of a grasshopper and a butterfly is remarkable.", is really just lazy thinking. Really, are we really going to go down this road? Again? You again have (willfully?) misinterpreted those statements, they know the mechanisms that could have caused these changes, they just don't have evidence to support a specific one in this case. "Science doesn't have all the answers, so it's all conjecture until every 'i' has been dotted"? So incomplete data sets are to be considered worthless? These guys just gave you a bunch of evidence about the pronymph/larvae connection, nymph/pupae, and because there are more questions to be answered, what they found shouldn't be taken seriously? Do you realize that ALL biology papers end with the authors discussing what they DON'T know about what they're studying? It shows how their little piece of the puzzle fits the grand story, and gives them a platform for further studies. Acknowledging what you don't know gives the community a chance to speculate on how that occurs, and use known information to derive a hypothesis, which leads to experiments. This process is often referred to as science. Does 'remain undocumented' mean 'impossible to know' in California? There once was a time when the data showing the correlation between pronymphs and larvae remained to be documented, but scientists studied these organisms just the same, reported their findings and made conclusions of them. And a lot of the were pretty close to the mark, even without the benefit of molecular biology and modern biochemistry. It's kinda how science works man, you can't bold gaps in knowledge from someone trying to explain something and start screaming "YOU SEE! YOU SEE! They have no idea what they're talking about?!". You asked specific questions about metamorphosis, I found you answers. And what did you do with those answers? You essentially trolled them for answers that weren't known yet, so you can make some kind of point. There are testable theories, as they are currently being tested right now. I can see you haven't looked into the protocell data... The breakthrough studies in abiogenesis being done are being rigorously scrutinized, and reviewed, and being repeated in other labs for verification. One thing you're ignoring in your crusade to discredit the scientific process is that research labs are competitors. There is no Science Illuminati that meets in Zurich to decide what lies to feed the general public. If someone in your field announces a major breakthrough, and you smell even a whiff of bullshit, you call them out on it. Being beaten to the punch can cost you notoriety, papers, funding, and can invalidate work that you spent years of your life on. I think the problem some religious people have with the scientific process is that it is so different from how your worldview is shaped. You have the conviction of 'infallibilty' on your side, you know that the bible is inerrant so there's little room for speculative thought on things such as the origins of the universe and life. But scientists don't operate that way, in fact we're actively thought not to think this way. Scientist collect data, analyze data, and then interpret the data. Some of the interpretation of the data will ultimately come to a point where you ask, how did this come about? You think scientists treat the workings evolutionary theory as gospel, but it's quite the opposite, the investigations, and debates, and questions seem endless. The reason it hasn't gone away is after many years of testing and working with it, no one has found anything better. But maybe there is, I personally doubt it, but all good scientists leave the room for alternative possibilities. Alternative possibilities that can be backed up by some evidence. Stilton, you find evidence for the origin of species that explains it better than evolution, and you'll be the most famous scientist in the world, and the one of the most influential in history. And like I said, you don't need all the answers, just give us something to work with. That's the difference between me and you on this subject, and these scientists and unquestioning believers in general is that a scientist can say 'it is possible' and 'there may', because we haven't deluded ourselves into thinking we have all the answers and all the evidence collected. Scientists are taught that we should never consider ourselves to be 100% certain of anything; that's your lot's credo. I don't worship any creator. But I don't know if one exists or not, there very well maybe a god, I've just be given no reason to believe in it. And I have even less reason to believe that this theoretical god in any way resembles the Judeo-Christian deity, as his absurdities puts the Greek pantheon to shame. As a scientist, if someone said to me that they think there is a god, there may be a god, or even that there probably is a god, I would not think them a loon, just open to many possibilities, which is the way to go in my book. But if you say I know there is a god, there definitely is a god, my god speaks to me, I pause. On what testable evidence has this certainty arisen from? Even with a mountain of evidence, a scientist doesn't use such strong language unless accompanied by some mathematical proof or law. Yet guys with old books and feelings have no qualms doing this, and to me that's looney.
Um, I guess that is one explanation. Another explanation is that the two creation stories were written by different authors at different times from different cultural traditions, as biblical scholars assert. This, of course, helps to explain why different names for God were used and why one account is fairly consistent with the Babylonian creation myths. I recently reread Genesis and came up with a couple dozen pages of issues with the book. One topic that I had numerous issues on was God's sense of justice. 1) God punishes all snakes because Satan supposedly took the form of a snake (note, that Satan was the snake who "deceived" Eve is a Christian understanding and not one supported by the Old Testament itself). 2) Neither Adam nor Eve were able to discern good from evil, so God punishing them for violating a command (adherence to commands is dependent upon an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil) puts God in a questionable light. 3) Cain killed Abel after becoming enraged that God accepted Abel's sacrificial offering and not Cain's. In order to prevent a murder all God had to do was accept a gift that was being offered to it. Accept a gift and no one dies. But God apparently likes the smell of a barbecue so much that an omniscient God was willing to allow Cain to kill his brother because God is not a vegetarian nor appreciates a good Caesar salad. 4) All those "sinful" babies who died in the flood. Newborns, who didn't know how to speak, were murdered by God - God drowned them because those newborn babies were sinners somehow. We'd throw God in jail for doing that. 5) Noah curses Canaan because Canaan's father saw Noah naked. Look at that again - Canaan did nothing wrong. Noah's curse would have been ineffectual if not for God acting on the threat. Someone totally innocent was punished because Noah was so drunk he couldn't control his actions. If Ham was the one that saw Noah naked, why not punish Ham? No, Noah had to go after his innocent grandchild and God allowed it. 6) God gets so pissed off that people work in harmony together that God decides to confound their languages to ensure they won't build a tower that reaches up to Heaven (as if Heaven can be reached through such earthly means). So much harm has occurred because of this. If God wasn't so paranoid maybe humans wouldn't war so much! 7) I love the Sodom story. In the New Testament Lot is declared righteous. Lot, the man who volunteered to have his daughters gang raped and then impregnated them. God thinks that is the behavior of a righteous man. Wow. Lot would be in jail for so long in this country. But hey, God knows best! It's ok to volunteer to have your daughters gang raped and then father their children! The Bible can't be wrong, can it? 8) God decides to punish Abimelech's wives because Abimelech did nothing wrong. That's wrong on so many levels. Abraham, who literally married his half-sister (which God does not have a problem with) lies to Abimelech saying that Sarah is simply his sister and not his wife. So what does God do? Punish Abimelech. 9) I'll not go into detail how perverted it is that God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, nor how God called Isaac Abraham's only son, despite knowing that Ishmael existed. Seriously, go and kill your son - that's perverse, no that's criminal. 10) The omnipotent God is unable to overpower Jacob. The omniscient God then renames Jacob "Israel" on two separate occasions. Did God forget he had already done it? 11) After Dinah is raped her rapist tries to marry her, following God's requirement in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that rapists marry the virgin they just raped and pay the father the necessary fine. In response Dinah's brothers murder a bunch of innocent people and then kidnap and enslave the women and children. And God didn't strike these men dead, unlike what he did when Onan and another brother refused to impregnate their other brother's widow! At least God has standards! Don't have sex with your brother's widow - DEATH! Murder, kidnap and rape, hey, you're all right in God's book! To sum it all up, thank God God is not in charge of our justice system! And that's just topics related to God's sense of justice in Genesis. I can also write at length about the historical inaccuracies in Genesis, the inconsistencies in Genesis (why was Abraham so shocked he would father children at an elderly age when so many of his ancestors did exactly that?), the un-scientific understanding of the Cosmos demonstrated in Genesis, and the evidence for polytheism in Genesis (among other topics).
Killing every single first born child (male I think) of every Egyptian. Not just the elite or the ruling/priestly class, but all down to the bricklayers, the garbage pick up guys, the fisherman, the farmers, all of them that had nothing to do with the Pharaohs decision. All after she (goddess) hardened the hearth of the pharaoh because she wanted to fvck with the Egyptians. That yahweh character is such a bitch.
I've always been curious about Noah and his family. What race was Noah? Did he have a da from Kenya and a ma from Kansas? If we're all related to Noah, are we not a bit dangerously inbred? And now this: 15 Answers
I'm not sure if aliens ever took credit for creating life on earth, but Ford Prefect did claim credit for the evolution of one particular species:
A problem for evolution is that the giraffe’s entire body—both its anatomy and physiology—is tightly intertwined as a single functional unit. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_1/j16_1_120-127.pdf discuss
A problem for biblical creationists is that Genesis is filled with historical inaccuracies, borrowings from Mesopotamian religions, was written by multiple authors long after the narrated events took place, portrays an anthropomorphic deity of questionable morality, include elements of polytheism and internal contradictions. Discuss.