Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)

[Jayrok]

Carl Sagan, Blue Dot

Way to go Carl.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Yeah, I read the articles and still nothing even close to definitive on the origin of life from non-life. Hardly a death blow to those who believe in creation.

There is a theory of how maybe what is generally considered the items needed for self replicating life to be possible (with no idea as to how) could have formed in a similar environment, but couldn't have happened at the same time in the same place and would have had to be washed together into a common pool where some unknown process happens and life starts and somehow continues to replicate and maintain optimal conditions to continue and not die and have enough time to evolve.

Oh, and we still haven't found a shred of evidence of actual extra-terrestrial life. Just evidence of water and what is considered possibly favorable conditions for life to exist.

Are you saying you need at least a "shred of evidence" before you believe something is true?

What's "definitive" about Creationism?

 

[Jayrok]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

Perhaps it was who used the smoke and mirrors to trick those who might believe.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

Perhaps it was who used the smoke and mirrors to trick those who might believe.

There's always an answer.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

I think he was feeling artistic that "day" and decided to go against the tried and true "snapping of the fingers". I'm sure that can get boring.

 

[proninja]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

Have you ever tried to create a plant by snapping your fingers? It takes a tremendous amount of concentration and is very draining. Now try repeating the process for every organism on earth. Setting up an algorithm and letting it run on its own is a breeze by comparison, and a lot more fun. Even omnipotent beings are entitled to do things the easy way now and then.

 

[proninja]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

Have you ever tried to create a plant by snapping your fingers? It takes a tremendous amount of concentration and is very draining. Now try repeating the process for every organism on earth. Setting up an algorithm and letting it run on its own is a breeze by comparison, and a lot more fun. Even omnipotent beings are entitled to do things the easy way now and then.

Ok. So "God" is a programmer. Cool. I wonder if we're version 1.0 or 13.4.c? You think maybe he'll ever work out all the bugs?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

Religion's claim to be non-disprovable.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

You and I agree, that science and religion should be kept separate. Creationists disagree, as do the original writers of religious texts and the early founders of most religions.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

THIS isn't really why we shouldn't debate religion vs science. We shouldn't do it because it's completely different things dealing in completely different realms. I've never really mixed them and I don't understand why others do.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

You and I agree, that science and religion should be kept separate. Creationists disagree, as do the original writers of religious texts and the early founders of most religions.

Like whom? What evidence do we have from the original writers of religious texts that tell us they had a desire for religion and science to be melded together?

 

[Jayrok]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

We may have talked about this before, and if so, my apologies. Didn't Jesus believe and teach creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I suppose the more relevant question would be does Jesus' ultimate sacrifice require there to be an Adam and Eve (specifically the idea of original sin)?

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

THIS isn't really why we shouldn't debate religion vs science. We shouldn't do it because it's completely different things dealing in completely different realms. I've never really mixed them and I don't understand why others do.

I would say that the removal of prayer in school was a huge impetus for creationists to attempt to scientifically prove God's existence.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

THIS isn't really why we shouldn't debate religion vs science. We shouldn't do it because it's completely different things dealing in completely different realms. I've never really mixed them and I don't understand why others do.

I would say that the removal of prayer in school was a huge impetus for creationists to attempt to scientifically prove God's existence.

This never happened.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

THIS isn't really why we shouldn't debate religion vs science. We shouldn't do it because it's completely different things dealing in completely different realms. I've never really mixed them and I don't understand why others do.

I would say that the removal of prayer in school was a huge impetus for creationists to attempt to scientifically prove God's existence.

This never happened.

Really it has been removed from school and from government too!

 

[msommer]

I'm not religious, but . . . what if God created evolution?

Why? To trick us? What a ####!

Not to trick us. To bring us into existence.

OK, but why all the theatrics of evolution to create life? Why not just snap his fingers and create every animal and plant out of thin air? If you think God created all of us (and I know you personally do not), then doesn't all the evidence of evolution end up looking like smoke and mirrors that the creator laid down to cover his tracks? i.e. to trick us.

Have you ever tried to create a plant by snapping your fingers? It takes a tremendous amount of concentration and is very draining. Now try repeating the process for every organism on earth. Setting up an algorithm and letting it run on its own is a breeze by comparison, and a lot more fun. Even omnipotent beings are entitled to do things the easy way now and then.

And in his spare time God created craft beer

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

You and I agree, that science and religion should be kept separate. Creationists disagree, as do the original writers of religious texts and the early founders of most religions.

Like whom? What evidence do we have from the original writers of religious texts that tell us they had a desire for religion and science to be melded together?

Don't most, if not all religions have a creation story? Isn't "where did we come from" one of the most basic questions that religion attempts to answer? Before we had a scientific theory about these things, religious theories were all we had.

 

[Jayrod]

But don't let facts deter your mocking.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity in all this vastness there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1997 reprint, pp. xvxvi

I vehemently disagree with the bolded. That supposition at the crux of the argument is a mere personal opinion upon which a man falls one direction or the other. Mr. Sagan believes no God exists while I believe He does. I believe the evidence is not in the stars or in subatomic particles, but in the spiritual world of which Sagan probably doesn't even consider.God chooses the foolish things to shame the wise lest no man should boast. I do not know everything, but I believe this; that life came from God and He exists and that my life is complete in Him. Nothing in science has ever refuted that and nothing in that is at odds with scientific fact.

So laugh all you want, but I guaranty you no one in this thread has put more effort into this topic than I have. I have wrestled with the questions posed and had to come to conclusions I could be intellectually honest with. I haven't blindly held to my faith despite facts like many seem to think. I have dug deep into it and questioned everything.

So maybe I'm a bit touchy on the subject, and I shouldn't post in serious topics so late, but to me this goes beyond a scientific discussion to the core of who I am. I believe in God because the sum of my knowledge and personal experiences points to that, not because I'm too scared or weak or stupid to not believe.

For now, try to focus on spiritual growth, especially yours. You have undertaken a challenge to your beliefs, reflected, proposed your thoughts.

I truly appreciate where you are coming from, even though I disagree.

You have the patience of Job, literally.

I cannot read you and I'm not familiar enough to know if you are being serious or not here.1st you indicate I'm being spiritually immature (won't argue that and tend to agree). Then you seem respectful of my position and finally you compare me to Job, a great hero of believers. But calling me patient seems disingenuous considering the fact that I've been snippy in this thread and the beginning part indicating I need spiritual maturity.

Long story short, you confuse me.

Wow, Lutherman goes out of his way to compliment you and this is how you respond? Disgusting.

I guess I just wasn't sure if it was actually a compliment or not. Like maybe a backhanded one. If it's a genuine compliment thanks, but there are some elements there that seem a little odd.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

And in his spare time God created craft beer

"Gods". It's the nectar of the gods.

 

[shader]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

We may have talked about this before, and if so, my apologies. Didn't Jesus believe and teach creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I suppose the more relevant question would be does Jesus' ultimate sacrifice require there to be an Adam and Eve (specifically the idea of original sin)?

Yes. And he preached Noah, the flood, the whole thing.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

You and I agree, that science and religion should be kept separate. Creationists disagree, as do the original writers of religious texts and the early founders of most religions.

Like whom? What evidence do we have from the original writers of religious texts that tell us they had a desire for religion and science to be melded together?

Don't most, if not all religions have a creation story? Isn't "where did we come from" one of the most basic questions that religion attempts to answer? Before we had a scientific theory about these things, religious theories were all we had.

I can't speak for any religion other than Christianity with confidence, but I am confident "where we came from" is one of the last things Christianity is concerned with. Christianity centers around an eternal life with God, through Jesus Christ.

This however doesn't really answer my question about what texts you'd reference and what authors you'd cite to support the claim that they believed science and religion should be joined at the hip.

 

[Jayrok]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

We may have talked about this before, and if so, my apologies. Didn't Jesus believe and teach creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I suppose the more relevant question would be does Jesus' ultimate sacrifice require there to be an Adam and Eve (specifically the idea of original sin)?

Yes. And he preached Noah, the flood, the whole thing.

That's how I read it too. If Jesus believed in the great flood and in creation, and resulting doctrine is built around these stories, why is it so difficult for those that believe he is God or son of God to believe in creation? I assume they believe in a literal resurrection. Why not creation?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

But don't let facts deter your mocking.

 

[matuski]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

Religion's claim to be non-disprovable.

Thanks,

The idea that religion is a separate magisterium which cannot be proven or disproven is a Big Lie - a lie which is repeated over and over again, so that people will say it without thinking; yet which is, on critical examination, simply false. It is a wild distortion of how religion happened historically, of how all scriptures present their beliefs, of what children are told to persuade them, and of what the majority of religious people on Earth still believe. You have to admire its sheer brazenness, on a par with Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. The prosecutor whips out the bloody axe, and the defendant, momentarily shocked, thinks quickly and says: "But you can't disprove my innocence by mere evidence - it's a separate magisterium!"

 

[proninja]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

We may have talked about this before, and if so, my apologies. Didn't Jesus believe and teach creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I suppose the more relevant question would be does Jesus' ultimate sacrifice require there to be an Adam and Eve (specifically the idea of original sin)?

Yes. And he preached Noah, the flood, the whole thing.

That's how I read it too. If Jesus believed in the great flood and in creation, and resulting doctrine is built around these stories, why is it so difficult for those that believe he is God or son of God to believe in creation? I assume they believe in a literal resurrection. Why not creation?

I should clarify that I absolutely believe God created the world. I just don't think that Genesis is the step by step scientific manual as to exactly how he did it.

I'm open to a non-historical Adam, and Jesus' references to Genesis don't explicitly end the discussion one way or the other - though admittedly a historical Adam is the easiest way to read them. My position on that topic is currently that I'm not exactly sure, and I would caution about being too dogmatic about things that Jesus wasn't explicit about. My denomination absolutely affirms a historical Adam, and I won't argue with them at all.

The more I study theology, the fewer things I am dogmatic about.

 

[Jayrok]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

We may have talked about this before, and if so, my apologies. Didn't Jesus believe and teach creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I suppose the more relevant question would be does Jesus' ultimate sacrifice require there to be an Adam and Eve (specifically the idea of original sin)?

Yes. And he preached Noah, the flood, the whole thing.

That's how I read it too. If Jesus believed in the great flood and in creation, and resulting doctrine is built around these stories, why is it so difficult for those that believe he is God or son of God to believe in creation? I assume they believe in a literal resurrection. Why not creation?

I should clarify that I absolutely believe God created the world. I just don't think that Genesis is the step by step scientific manual as to exactly how he did it.

I'm open to a non-historical Adam, and Jesus' references to Genesis don't explicitly end the discussion one way or the other - though admittedly a historical Adam is the easiest way to read them. My position on that topic is currently that I'm not exactly sure, and I would caution about being too dogmatic about things that Jesus wasn't explicit about. My denomination absolutely affirms a Historical Adam, and I won't argue with them at all.

The more I study theology, the fewer things I am dogmatic about.

Step by step scientific manual, no. Of course not. But I know what you mean. Being dogmatic tends to paint one into a corner since there is so much room for interpretation when one reads the Bible.

 

[timschochet]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

 

[cstu]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

AFAIK only Jews and he apparently only wanted his message to go to Jews.

 

[cstu]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

AFAIK only Jews and he apparently only wanted his message to go to Jews.

Did He explicitly say that somewhere in the NT?

 

[Van Dyman]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

Huh? Are you suggesting that Jesus wanted one group (Jews) to take these OT stories literally but wanted everyone else to take them metaphorically?

 

[timschochet]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

Huh? Are you suggesting that Jesus wanted one group (Jews) to take these OT stories literally but wanted everyone else to take them metaphorically?

I wasn't suggesting anything.

 

[Jayrod]

Jesus only preached to religious Jews, who also believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Is this not so? Or did he preach to pagans and non-religious as well?

He mostly went to Jews but the Bible also records that he ministered to a Samaritan, a Cannabite and a Roman Centurion.But since we believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and the book of Acts clearly shows Jesus' message was intended for both Jews and Gentiles, we can reasonably conclude that the gospel was sent first to the Jew and then to the Gentile.

 

[proninja]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

 

[matuski]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

 

[Jayrod]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

I was written with a poetic structure. How many poems are exacting and scientific? Especially when written through and to a group of people who knew nothing of science?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I think it's good for Christians not to get too dogmatic about exactly how God brought about things, because for centuries science has been proving our reading of Genesis wrong. Genesis isn't a textbook from which we can pull all of the mysteries of natural revelation. It's an ANE document meant to explain to people with an ANE understanding of science and nature that God created the world. Imposing our context onto Genesis leads to all kinds of foolishness.

Genesis and science are not against each other. They're designed to do different things. If you interpret Genesis improperly and science proves you wrong, some humility is in order, and it's ok for Christians to say "you know, we've been reading that wrongly"

It happened with geocentrism, it's happening with evolution.

This is exactly why its pointless to debate religion vs. science. Religion can always just re-interpret things to say whatever in the heck they want. When science can finally explain the origin of life, when we find life on other planets, etc., I'm 100% certain religions aren't going to just say "Damn, checkmate! We were wrong!" They'll evolve their message to fit the current reality. Most people understand this and don't try to mix the two too much. Creationists are the exception, and they're just plain silly and wrong about science (and probably religion as well).

So, basically, if we look at Genesis and think "this may have happened" and it turns out that's not the way it worked, we're mocked as relativists if our understanding of our sacred text evolves to meet the understandings of the modern world. If our beliefs don't evolve, we're mocked as luddites?

I fully expect scientists to figure out the mechanical causes behind the origin of life. My faith won't at all be threatened by it. I don't view Genesis as a mechanical literal step by step of every part of creation. I think that's a poor use of Genesis, in fact.

The bible and science deal in different realms. I don't at all view them as competitive. Science won't disprove my faith in God any more than my faith in God will disprove science. Science and theology are not related disciplines.

You and I agree, that science and religion should be kept separate. Creationists disagree, as do the original writers of religious texts and the early founders of most religions.

Like whom? What evidence do we have from the original writers of religious texts that tell us they had a desire for religion and science to be melded together?

Don't most, if not all religions have a creation story? Isn't "where did we come from" one of the most basic questions that religion attempts to answer? Before we had a scientific theory about these things, religious theories were all we had.

I can't speak for any religion other than Christianity with confidence, but I am confident "where we came from" is one of the last things Christianity is concerned with. Christianity centers around an eternal life with God, through Jesus Christ. This however doesn't really answer my question about what texts you'd reference and what authors you'd cite to support the claim that they believed science and religion should be joined at the hip.

The book of genesis is part of the Christian bible, no? It contains the Christian creation myth. It's been disproven by science, so nowadays most people claim it's poetic, and not a literal story of what the authors believed really happened. If you're asking me to get inside the minds of the authors to prove that what they thought they were writing was literally true, I obviously can't do that. However, why is it that everything that has been debunked by science is now just a metaphor, yet anything that can't be disproved is still literally true? Ex. The resurrection of Jesus.

Said another way, why did the authors write about science if they didn't want people to accept it as such? And if they didn't want people to literally believe their stories about scientific things, how do we know they wanted us to believe all of the other stuff they wrote? How do we know which parts we're supposed to believe and which parts we're to discard?

Did you read the article MT linked above? It's sort of along the same lines.

 

[proninja]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it.

Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it.

Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

And that's the problem. You can interpret these books any way you like. Who's to say your interpretation is right and matuski's is wrong?

 

[matuski]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it.

Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

And that's the problem. You can interpret these books any way you like. Who's to say your interpretation is right and matuski's is wrong?

It is an attempt to convince themselves they are being reasonable I guess. It is pretty hard to stand your ground on a literal Genesis these days for obvious reasons.

How do you cling to the Bible's other equally ridiculous claims while acknowledging a god obviously didn't steal a rib from a guy named Adam and turn it into a woman. Once you apply that critical thought to one area how do you suspend it in others? The whole book falls apart on the same merits.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it. Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

And that's the problem. You can interpret these books any way you like. Who's to say your interpretation is right and matuski's is wrong?

Generally speaking on religious matters, especially Biblical ones... If there's a disagreement between matuski and someone who has actually read the Bible, matuski is probably wrong. In general on matters related to Christianty, matuski either doesn't know what he's talking about, or will deliberately say something he knows isn't true in an effort to be provocative. That doesn't address your greater point, but it is a useful answer for your specific question. If you find yourself agreeing with him a lot in threads like these, you should reevaluate how well you actually understand the subject matter at hand.As far as Genesis 1-3 goes, IMO it's helpful to know literal interpretations of it were rejected long before Darwin came along. For example, St. Augustine rejected a literal reading of it for theological reasons in a book he published in the early 5th century. So claiming, as many have in this thread, that an interpretive reading of Genesis 1-3 came about only after Origin Of Species gained traction is not an informed claim.

 

[matuski]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it.Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

And that's the problem. You can interpret these books any way you like. Who's to say your interpretation is right and matuski's is wrong?

Generally speaking on religious matters, especially Biblical ones... If there's a disagreement between matuski and someone who has actually read the Bible, matuski is probably wrong. In general on matters related to Christianty, matuski either doesn't know what he's talking about, or will deliberately say something he knows isn't true in an effort to be provocative. That doesn't address your greater point, but it is a useful answer for your specific question. If you find yourself agreeing with him a lot in threads like these, you should reevaluate how well you actually understand the subject matter at hand.As far as Genesis 1-3 goes, IMO it's helpful to know literal interpretations of it were rejected long before Darwin came along. For example, St. Augustine rejected a literal reading of it for theological reasons in a book he published in the early 5th century. So claiming, as many have in this thread, that an interpretive reading of Genesis 1-3 came about only after Origin Of Species gained traction is not an informed claim.

I've established that I have read the Bible, which I find to be more than most who claim the faith.

I am not a "biblical scholar", although I have always equated that to something along the lines of an expert on Dr. Seuss. That is cool and all, but it doesn't lend you any leverage over another when it comes to what is real or not in the bible.

eta - an opinion 400 years AD (a mere millennium after it was written?)is your "informed claim" that Genesis wasn't originally meant to be taken literally? Is St. Augustine the authority on this? What other parts does he tell us to interpret as literal or not? How does he get to these conclusions?

 

[matuski]

How do you cling to the Bible's other equally ridiculous claims while acknowledging a god obviously didn't steal a rib from a guy named Adam and turn it into a woman. Once you apply that critical thought to one area how do you suspend it in others? The whole book falls apart on the same merits.

eta - an opinion 400 years AD (a mere millennium after it was written?)is your "informed claim" that Genesis wasn't originally meant to be taken literally? Is St. Augustine the authority on this? What other parts does he tell us to interpret as literal or not? How does he get to these conclusions?

I've been asking this line of questions since the day I realized this was the only way I was managing to keep up appearances... by suspending critical thought when it came to my religion.

So it doesn't surprise me when religious people get upset when I challenge them on this. There isn't a good response.

 

[Jayrod]

How do you cling to the Bible's other equally ridiculous claims while acknowledging a god obviously didn't steal a rib from a guy named Adam and turn it into a woman. Once you apply that critical thought to one area how do you suspend it in others? The whole book falls apart on the same merits.

eta - an opinion 400 years AD (a mere millennium after it was written?)is your "informed claim" that Genesis wasn't originally meant to be taken literally? Is St. Augustine the authority on this? What other parts does he tell us to interpret as literal or not? How does he get to these conclusions?

I've been asking this line of questions since the day I realized this was the only way I was managing to keep up appearances... by suspending critical thought when it came to my religion.

So it doesn't surprise me when religious people get upset when I challenge them on this. There isn't a good response.

You have gotten answers and there are countless discussions all over the Internet on this very topic, and handful are even good. The problem is, you reject those answers, which is your prerogative. But don't act like you've "stumped" anyone.

 

[matuski]

How do you cling to the Bible's other equally ridiculous claims while acknowledging a god obviously didn't steal a rib from a guy named Adam and turn it into a woman. Once you apply that critical thought to one area how do you suspend it in others? The whole book falls apart on the same merits.

eta - an opinion 400 years AD (a mere millennium after it was written?)is your "informed claim" that Genesis wasn't originally meant to be taken literally? Is St. Augustine the authority on this? What other parts does he tell us to interpret as literal or not? How does he get to these conclusions?

I've been asking this line of questions since the day I realized this was the only way I was managing to keep up appearances... by suspending critical thought when it came to my religion.

So it doesn't surprise me when religious people get upset when I challenge them on this. There isn't a good response.

You have gotten answers and there are countless discussions all over the Internet on this very topic, and handful are even good. The problem is, you reject those answers, which is your prerogative. But don't act like you've "stumped" anyone.

Unfortunately, this just isn't true.

The goal isn't to stump anyone. As I said.. I understand your defensive reaction - I briefly held onto that same place.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Did Jesus ever talk to his dad? Maybe God never told him that Genesis was wrong.

My view, to be clear, is not that Genesis is wrong. My point of view is that it was never intended to be the type of literature that is exacting and scientific, and bringing it to bear on scientific matters is using it incorrectly.

Sort of like how if you needed to eat some soup, a hammer wouldn't work very well. That doesn't mean that hammers are wrong.

It was absolutely intended as such.

It was a story to explain the unexplained to people who didn't know better. It was a claim made with authority.

You're making claims that are above your pay grade when it comes to ancient near east religious texts. You don't know what you're saying is right, but it suits your presuppositions so you roll with it. Just like the 6 day 6000 year folks.

And that's the problem. You can interpret these books any way you like. Who's to say your interpretation is right and matuski's is wrong?

Generally speaking on religious matters, especially Biblical ones... If there's a disagreement between matuski and someone who has actually read the Bible, matuski is probably wrong. In general on matters related to Christianty, matuski either doesn't know what he's talking about, or will deliberately say something he knows isn't true in an effort to be provocative. That doesn't address your greater point, but it is a useful answer for your specific question. If you find yourself agreeing with him a lot in threads like these, you should reevaluate how well you actually understand the subject matter at hand.As far as Genesis 1-3 goes, IMO it's helpful to know literal interpretations of it were rejected long before Darwin came along. For example, St. Augustine rejected a literal reading of it for theological reasons in a book he published in the early 5th century. So claiming, as many have in this thread, that an interpretive reading of Genesis 1-3 came about only after Origin Of Species gained traction is not an informed claim.

That still doesn't answer the fundamental question of how do you know any one interpretation is better than any other. Interpret it how you like. Believe whatever you want. That's your prerogative.