davidylan:

this is chrisbenogor addressing the JEDP hypothesis . . .

Thank you very much, if mazaje insults me I will tell him to stop just like I am telling you now, maybe I am biased but if I have insulted you in time past I apologise.
Ok issue at hand, you are quite right burden of proof is on me, but it does shift in a conversation.
I kept silent yesterday mostly because I was trying to reconcile the problems in the documentary hypothesis, [size=14pt]I agree that the theory has a lot of loop holes in it [/size]but it has formed the foundation of other criticisms today. So far the theory does not address who wrote it but there is more than enough proof it was not written by moses.
You have faith, if you have evidence than Moses did then convince me.

Yeah if you have an issue take it up with me, its K who has been talking not me, if you have questions ask him, if you have for me ask me. This forum should encourage debates and I applaud K for his patience. Carry on guys I am reading.

Where is davidylan's evidence to show that Moses wrote the book of genesis?

1. I started this thread by commending the fact that like every one else u are also entitled to ur opinion. So with regards to ur position on the authority of the bible, I do not find it interesting. I have gone through several theoretical concepts about possible explanations to the bible in the form of books and documentaries. Some of the theories being postulated include.

a. Jesus lived and died. . . . but did not resurrect.  
b. There is no record of Jesus ever existing. . . .he is a fictional character.
c. The shroud (garment) of Jesus has been found . . . . .oh! NO! it cannot be His garment
d. Jesus was Hindi . . . .He learnt from Buddhist monks
e. He married mary madgalene
f. The bible was written by barbaric tribes men. . . . or even the amunaki's and white masters to control the world population.
g. Jesus is the abdicated son of Julio ceaser and Cleopatra, who attempted to recapture His father's kingdom.

This theories have been postulated by several different groups of people. I have taken my time to analyse, study and read each of this theories. They all have one thing in common. . . .they are very inconsistent in their postulations. They make ambiguous and sarcastic claims that cannot stand the test of intellectual or logical scrutiny. The most annoying part is that I spent my hard earned money to actually buy some of these books.

My point  is . . . . I accept the bible as absolute authority on all matters. There has been no plausible explanation to any of the anti-biblical stories and theories. If and when such does arise. . . .I am intelligent enough to analyse such.


2. By creating the world and its inhabitants God left us undeniable evidence. Note that the following statements are very different.

a. credibility of an evidence
b. acceptance of an evidence
c. belief in an evidence.

# There is a huge difference between the credibility, acceptance or belief in an evidence. God definitely made the inhabitants of the world. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply. This decree is today biologically defined as reproduction. A man and a woman reproduce a baby. so also do lions and lionesses, tigers and tigresses. I make this deduction from the knowledge of science available in this century.

This is a credible evidence for creationism. you and I are products of a reproductive process explainable only by creationism. The issue is not the acceptance of this evidence or a belief in it?. . . .The issue remains that this evidence is reconcilable with the proclamations of God in Genesis. God is mentioned here because He is the subject of creationism.

is this evidence acceptable?

Based on the knowledge we have about reproduction. . . .we have no doubt about the process involved.
One thing is certain. .  .and it is the fact that all those alive today and within the recorded scope of history that we know of as humans were born by virtue of reproduction. from the BC years to the present age. . . . .all were born or rather reproduced.

The reproduction process of all living animals and also humans have been extensively analysed. The creationism concept of "be fruitful and multiply" is ontologically reconcilable to reproduction as buttressed by the conception of Cain and Abel as recorded in the bible.

I am of the opinion that reproduction as we know it today is an acceptable evidence for creationism.

is this evidence believable?
There is no intellectual or scientific knowledge that suggests otherwise. This is not a question of faith. It is visible to all that just as the bible proclaims we all are still reproducing today.

questions might be raised about the believe-ability of the creationism concept of the formation of pioneer man and animals. The fact remains that since the resultant process of reproduction is reconcilable to the decrees made by God. . . .and since this reproduction concept is not synonymous to any other concept. . . . it is easy to as such believe that God indeed create Adam and other pioneer animals out of almost nothing.

# Modern agricultural practices as deducible from knowledge tells us that the soil has to be tilled, an active photosynthetic process, the plants watered or irrigated before plants could grow. The bible establishes this fact,  ,   .via creationism, ages before this knowledge was sacrosanct.

verses 5 and 6 of genesis 2 gives explicit explanation as to how this processes took place and how we had our first rainfall.

is this evidence acceptable?

Science has since acknowledged the essence of photosynthesis and rainfall in the life of plants. This acknowledgement does not dispute the creationist account. This process as advocated by creationism is repeatable, observable and reproducible in millions of farm lands all over the world.

This evidence for creationism is scientifically, logically and intellectually acceptable.

is this evidence believable?

u should only disbelieve if u have any other explanation for the source and process of food we do consume.

3. Evolution is anything but scientific. I asked u to define science: this was ur definition:

Krayola:

A systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Lets analyse ur definition

a. was this genetic changes in population observed in real life scenarios without the need for guesses and assumptions? by who?
b. how credible is the means of identification?
c. are these genetic changes experimentable? where have they been experimented? are they repeatable?

The major flaw of evolution is its inability to explain the pioneer formation and conceptualisation of life as we see it today under the verifiable microscopic knowledge we have now.


To be continued.

mazaje:

Where is davidylan's evidence to show that Moses wrote the book of genesis?

Nopes there is no need for that here is what he has said on other threads

davidylan:

But first let me take on two errors i highlighted here - If we know that christianity is the true religion by reason then why is everyone not a christian? Does it mean only christians can reason and the rest out there are idiots with no brain?

If we shld go by reason alone then why shld i believe a bible that talks about Jonah being in the belly of a whale for 3 days? Does that make sense to you? At least the Bahai's dont make such really tall claims . . .

What about "miracles"? Do they make medical sense?
How do you make sense of someone dying on the cross for the sins of people born 2000 yrs away? What is a miracle? Have you seen one? Did Christ really exist? where is your archeological proof? How did Jonah survive in the belly of a whale for 3 days without oxygen?

I'm sure the bahai religion makes more sense than the book of Jonah.

2. To believe in Jesus Christ in the first place depends solely on faith! Where you there when He died on the cross? Do you have any archeological evidence to show that a cross in golgotha ever existed? Where is His tomb? Afterall your faith goes along with reasoning no? Surely you shld have no problem sharing with us how Jonah could stay in the belly of a whale for 3 days without dying . . . what oxygen was he breathing?

3. Christianity is based on FAITH! That is why you absolutely need the Holy Ghost to believe . . . its hard to imagine that you would go to heaven simply because God came down to die and wash away your sins . . . do you have a physical written contract where God told you so personally? How then do you know that the bible is true based solely on reasoning?

Its only when it comes to evolution that he uses reason, he is not a christian because it makes sense or because there is the much touted evidence he looks for in evolution, he is because he has faith simple. There is no need ever picking an argument with him.
K I am sorry but this just came up, back to you guys.

mazaje:

Where is davidylan's evidence to show that Moses wrote the book of genesis?

thats not what this thread is about.

why not open a new thread to educate us on atheism and naturalism?

i applaude you noetic

@ Noetic. . .I am writing a post to explain the JEPD hypothesis and why I find it credible. I started workin on it last night but I had class all morning so i just got back to it. I have read ur response and I thank u for taking the time. I will respond when I'm done with this. After that I will respond to ur posts on evolution, and then explain why I find evolution credible. I'm not a scientist, though, so don't expect any ground breaking scientific discoveries but I think I can make a decent case. Anyways, this post i'm working on is stupendously long, and i gotta get back to it. ciao

Krayola endeavor to divide your JEPD post into two or three posts coz if its a single long one the spam bot will get it. Remember what happened last time
i'm really looking forward to it.

noetic2:



2. By creating the world and its inhabitants God left us undeniable evidence. Note that the following statements are very different.

I you only made a claim and tagged it as "evidence", that is not evidence for your claim, what about your lack of an explanation as to how it relates to your claim. Your baseless assertions do not in themselves build an argument and you instead have to do more work.

The question is why do you even think this is even an acceptable form of an argument as presented? If you can't show factual evidence that first a deity exists, and the one in which you are referring to, stating that a deity (yours) definitely created the inhabitants of the world is a wide yawn.

a. credibility of an evidence
b. acceptance of an evidence
c. belief in an evidence.

# There is a huge difference between the credibility, acceptance or belief in an evidence. God definitely made the inhabitants of the world. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply.

Where you there when any god was making that declaration or do you accept it because some men wrote it down and said god told them to write it down? The bible, if this is what you are referring to, is not evidence. If I write what you have written but reffered to another man's religion like say Islam or the native african religion will you accept it?

This decree is today biologically defined as reproduction. A man and a woman reproduce a baby. so also do lions and lionesses, tigers and tigresses. I make this deduction from the knowledge of science available in this century.

You know very little about science since quite a lot of animals do produce asexually. Not all animals and/or plants on earth reproduce by opposite sex.

This is a credible evidence for creationism. you and I are products of a reproductive process explainable only by creationism. The issue is not the acceptance of this evidence or a belief in it?. . . .The issue remains that this evidence is reconcilable with the proclamations of God in Genesis. God is mentioned here because He is the subject of creationism.

What really has creationism "explained"? How is your god the subject of creationism, because some ancient people wrote about it and ascribe it to their god? Where is your evidence of your god telling them to write what they wrote? Of course every body knows that people are a result of the reproduction process, it's common knowledge even in ancient sheep herder days.

is this evidence acceptable?

You have provided no evidence as of yet just high assertions and assumptions based on what you believe to be true most likely based on what it states in the bible only because you are a Christian.

Based on the knowledge we have about reproduction. . . .we have no doubt about the process involved.
One thing is certain. .  .and it is the fact that all those alive today and within the recorded scope of history that we know of as humans were born by virtue of reproduction. from the BC years to the present age. . . . .all were born or rather reproduced.

Its very obvious and every body knows that humans come about as a process of reproduction, every cultures and religion knows this. You bible writers actually know very little about the reproduction process, they once considered menstruating women as unclean and their god told them it was wrong to even look at menstruating women, if they or their god actually have any knowledge of the reproduction process their god will not tell them to ostracize or look down on menstruating women.

The reproduction process of all living animals and also humans have been extensively analysed. The creationism concept of "be fruitful and multiply" is ontologically reconcilable to reproduction as buttressed by the conception of Cain and Abel as recorded in the bible.

Who is cain and who is abel? cain and abel are ONLY mentioned in the torah and no where else.

I am of the opinion that reproduction as we know it today is an acceptable evidence for creationism.

I don't know what to make of this, but your opinion is terrible flawed, is this what you call your evidence from creationism? .

is this evidence believable?
There is no intellectual or scientific knowledge that suggests otherwise. This is not a question of faith. It is visible to all that just as the bible proclaims we all are still reproducing today.

Other religious text that predate the torah also talk about people reproducing and it is also visible that people are still reproducing.

questions might be raised about the believe-ability of the creationism concept of the formation of pioneer man and animals. The fact remains that since the resultant process of reproduction is reconcilable to the decrees made by God. . . .and since this reproduction concept is not synonymous to any other concept. . . . it is easy to as such believe that God indeed create Adam and other pioneer animals out of almost nothing.

Apart from the writing of ancient jews which I believe you do not really understand where is your evidence of any god decreeing anything. Allah also made some decrees in the koran no? How did your god create humans and animals out of nothing? what was the first chemical reaction that took place and how did he use nothing to create something? How exactly did the process take place and what were the reactions involved? since you claim to speak for you god you should be able to provide us with all these. Saying he spoke them into existence is absolute rubbish you need to explain to us in details all the chemical reactions involved and how the entire process materialized.

# Modern agricultural practices as deducible from knowledge tells us that the soil has to be tilled, an active photosynthetic process, the plants watered or irrigated before plants could grow. The bible establishes this fact,  ,   .via creationism, ages before this knowledge was sacrosanct.

Your bible actually make no mention of photosynthesis and the writers of the torah know nothing about it. Ancient men all knew that the soil had to be tilled no?

verses 5 and 6 of genesis 2 gives explicit explanation as to how this processes took place and how we had our[b] first rainfall[/b].

Rain fall that took place when the windows of this very strange thing called the firmament open? What exactly is this thing called the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below? what exactly is the waters above? Stars are set in the firmament, what exactly is that? Scientist are yet to see the firmament.

is this evidence acceptable?

You have provided NO evidence only claims.

Science has since acknowledged the essence of photosynthesis and rainfall in the life of plants. This acknowledgement does not dispute the creationist account. This process as advocated by creationism is repeatable, observable and reproducible in millions of farm lands all over the world.

So farming is now a creationist claim?

This evidence for creationism is scientifically, logically and intellectually acceptable.

What really are the evidence for creationism? So far you have provided NON at all, claims are not evidence.

is this evidence believable?

u should only disbelieve if u have any other explanation for the source and process of food we do consume.

Agriculture is now a an evidence for creationism? .

3. Evolution is anything but scientific. I asked u to define science: this was ur definition:
Lets analyse ur definition

a. was this genetic changes in population observed in real life scenarios without the need for guesses and assumptions? by who?
b. how credible is the means of identification?
c. are these genetic changes experimentable? where have they been experimented? are they repeatable?

The major flaw of evolution is its inability to explain the pioneer formation and conceptualisation of life as we see it today under the verifiable microscopic knowledge we have now.

Since you speak for your god what is your explanation for the pioneer formation and conceptualization of life, how did the process actually happen, what did your god use and what were the chemical processes involved?

noetic2:

By creating the world and its inhabitants God left us undeniable evidence. Note that the following statements are very different.

Neotic claims are doomed to fail right from the start. He wants to show "undeniable evidence" for a creation of the world, but thats not what he did.

His whole claim is built on the premise, that what he wants to show is true. . . . . . . Instead of letting the 'evidence' speak for itself, he presuppose his favored outcome "God created the world" is true to show "God created the world."That's not how it works. . . . . . . . . .

I will ask you to begin anew and show us evidence that points directly to your god (the god of the bible) without using the bible in your argument or presupposing "god did it" right from the start.
If there is "undeniable evidence" like you say, then this task should be an easy one for you. . . . . . . . . .

There is yet no repeatable, scientific, observable, recordable or reproducible analyses, process, theory or evidence to suggest that animals evolve.

Ever used antibiotics? Ever wondered, why we have to invent more and more antibiotics instead of just using basic Penicillin and Erythromycin?

You should also have a look at the Nylon-eating bacteria.
Nylon does not exist in nature and has only been around since 1935. The strain of bacteria discovered in 1975 produce a enzyme capable of digesting nylon. Prior to that they were not able to do that and it has been confirmed that the enzyme is in fact 'new' (meaning the ability to digest nylon evolved from scratch).
Since then the 'evolution' of the ability to digest nylon has been replicated in laboratories with other strains of bacteria. I am not an evolutionist but these are some of the evidence for evolution(micro evolution) and scientist agree to it.

This is how some Christian creationists "made sense of the creation" account in the book of Genesis.  These scientists who believe in the biblical account of creation develop models like these by studying the facts of God's Word and God's world to know God and see His truth.

In the beginning, the everlasting God spoke both time and the universe into existence.  At first, the earth was without form and unfilled.  Over three days, God gave form to the sky, sea, and land.  Then, on the following three days, God filled these voids with abundant reminders of His glory.

Included in the original material of creation was water, out of which God created the earth.  This unique planet had just the right mix of chemicals and the right mass to hold a life-sustaining atmosphere.

God then raised a landmass, similar to Rodinia.  As the water rushed off the just-created continent, they scoured the surface and dumped trillions of tons of dirt at the edges of the continent, up to thirty miles deep.

God created all sorts of bacteria to convert chemicals into useable forms and make them available to plants and animals.  He stationed these bacteria in every corner of the globe, from the deepest parts of the crust to the sea and sky.

God then filled the land with billions of energy factories, known as plants.  From the first day of their existence, these plants were fully functional.  In each plant hundreds of chemical processes ran in perfect symphony, harnessing the sun’s energy to provide food for living things.

A bewildering variety of plants made up niches all over the earth.  In the DNA of each “kind” of plant was a rich storehouse of instructions to produce a variety of offspring.  For example, within the first grasses was information to produce wheat, rye, rice, bamboo and fescue.  By God’s command, the earth was bursting with ripe fruit and grains, ready to satisfy the needs of living things.

On day Four, God began the process of “filling” the universe.  By His command a vast variety of astronomical objects burst into being, including comets, moons, planets and stars.  Each object was unique, beautiful and fully functional.

God placed the sun at just the right distance from earth to keep our planet warm.  He set a moon in earth’s orbit with the right mass and distance for tides to cleanse the seas.  As the earth spins, the sun and stars rise with clockwork precision, marking the passage of time for living things.

At last, God was ready to introduce life into creation.  He filled the ocean, sky, and land.  Despite their differences, living things share many things in common – chemicals, genetic codes, and cell structures – to help them coexist in the same world.  Such design shows the hand of a wise Designer.

Like plants, animals were divided into “kinds” that can generate incredible variety.  For example, the ancestors of the camel kind produced offspring as diverse as Ilamas, alpacas, and one-humped and two humped camels.

No living thing was alone.  God placed them all into an astonishing array of fully functional communities, probably more diverse, beautiful and integrated than anything we see today.  Whether T. rex tromping through a cycad forest or trilobites swimming in shallow seas, each exotic environment reminds us how much living things depend on each other-and the Creator.

God capped off this week by making humans in His likeness and giving us dominion over the earth.  By the end, a beautiful tapestry of forms, colours, sounds and tastes filled the earth.  Communities lived in harmony, and all was “very good”.  The stage was set for God’s most glorious work.

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and the U.S.  Author of numerous scientific articles.

horse703:

i applaude you noetic

thanks.

toneyb:


I  you only made a claim and tagged it as "evidence", that is not evidence for your claim, what about your lack of an explanation as to how it relates to your claim.  Your baseless assertions do not in themselves build an argument and you instead have to do more work.

The question is why do you even think this is even an acceptable form of an argument as presented? If you can't show factual evidence that first a deity exists, and the one in which you are referring to, stating that a deity (yours) definitely created the inhabitants of the world is a wide yawn.


Where you there when any god was making that declaration or do you accept it because some men wrote it down and said god told them to write it down? The bible, if this is what you are referring to, is not evidence. If I write what you have written but reffered to another man's religion like say Islam or the native african religion will you accept it?


You know very little about science since quite a lot of animals do produce asexually. Not all animals and/or plants on earth reproduce by opposite sex.

What really has creationism "explained"? How is your god the subject of creationism, because some ancient people wrote about it and ascribe it to their god? Where is your evidence of your god telling them to write what they wrote? Of course every body knows that people are a result of the reproduction process, it's common knowledge even in ancient sheep herder days.


You have provided no evidence as of yet just high assertions and assumptions based on what you believe to be true most likely based on what it states in the bible only because you are a Christian.

Its very obvious and every body knows that humans come about as a process of reproduction, every cultures and religion knows this. You bible writers actually know very little about the reproduction process, they once considered menstruating women as unclean and their god told them it was wrong to even look at menstruating women, if they or their god actually have any knowledge of the reproduction process their god will not tell them to ostracize or look down on menstruating women.


Who is cain and who is abel? cain and abel are ONLY mentioned in the torah and no where else.

I don't know what to make of this, but your opinion is terrible flawed, is this what you call your evidence from creationism? .

Other religious text that predate the torah also talk about people reproducing and it is also visible that people are still reproducing.

Apart from the writing of ancient jews which I believe you do not really understand where is your evidence of any god decreeing anything. Allah also made some decrees in the koran no? How did your god create humans and animals out of nothing? what was the first chemical reaction that took place and how did he use nothing to create something? How exactly did the process take place and what were the reactions involved? since you claim to speak for you god you should be able to provide us with all these. Saying he spoke them into existence is absolute rubbish you need to explain to us in details all the chemical reactions involved and how the entire process materialized.

Your bible actually make no mention of photosynthesis and the writers of the torah know nothing about it. Ancient men all knew that the soil had to be tilled no?

Rain fall that took place when the windows of this very strange thing called the firmament open? What exactly is this thing called the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below? what exactly is the waters above? Stars are set in the firmament, what exactly is that? Scientist are yet to see the firmament.

You have provided NO evidence only claims.

So farming is now a creationist claim? 

What really are the evidence for creationism? So far you have provided NON at all, claims are not evidence.

Agriculture is now a an evidence for creationism?   . 

Since you speak for your god what is your explanation for the pioneer formation and conceptualization of life, how did the process actually happen, what did your god use and what were the chemical processes involved?

you have said nothing and made no point. 

open a new thread to educate us on atheism.

mazaje:

Neotic claims are doomed to fail right from the start. He wants to show "undeniable evidence" for a creation of the world, but thats not what he did.

His whole claim is built on the premise, that what he wants to show is true. . . . . . . Instead of letting the 'evidence' speak for itself, he presuppose his favored outcome "God created the world" is true to show "God created the world."That's not how it works. . . . . . . . . .

I will ask you to begin anew and show us evidence that points directly to your god (the god of the bible) without using the bible in your argument or presupposing "god did it" right from the start.
If there is "undeniable evidence" like you say, then this task should be an easy one for you. . . . . . . . . .

Ever used antibiotics? Ever wondered, why we have to invent more and more antibiotics instead of just using basic Penicillin and Erythromycin?

You should also have a look at the Nylon-eating bacteria.
Nylon does not exist in nature and has only been around since 1935. The strain of bacteria discovered in 1975 produce a enzyme capable of digesting nylon. Prior to that they were not able to do that and it has been confirmed that the enzyme is in fact 'new' (meaning the ability to digest nylon evolved from scratch).
Since then the 'evolution' of the ability to digest nylon has been replicated in laboratories with other strains of bacteria. I am not an evolutionist but these are some of the evidence for evolution(micro evolution) and scientist agree to it.

why are scared of taking up my challenge?

So God created HIV? what a merciful father.

mazaje:

Ever used antibiotics? Ever wondered, why we have to invent more and more antibiotics instead of just using basic Penicillin and Erythromycin?

You should also have a look at the Nylon-eating bacteria.
Nylon does not exist in nature and has only been around since 1935. The strain of bacteria discovered in 1975 produce a enzyme capable of digesting nylon. Prior to that they were not able to do that and it has been confirmed that the enzyme is in fact 'new' (meaning the ability to digest nylon evolved from scratch).
Since then the 'evolution' of the ability to digest nylon has been replicated in laboratories with other strains of bacteria. I am not an evolutionist but these are some of the evidence for evolution(micro evolution) and scientist agree to it.

this is the proof for evolution? Mutating one gene to adapt to develop resistance to a drug?

I wonder why bacteria havent morphed into a higer organism all this while which is the ESSENCE of evolution. All these false attempts to call it "micro" evolution just wont wash.

davidylan:

this is the proof for evolution? Mutating one gene to adapt to develop resistance to a drug?

I wonder why bacteria havent morphed into a higer organism all this while which is the ESSENCE of evolution. All these false attempts to call it "micro" evolution just wont wash.

I said these are the evidence for micro evolution that scientist have provided, you are not a scientist. They won't wash by you or scientist? No body needs your opinion when scientific studies are being discussed because you have never and will never contribute anything to the scientific process. . . . . . .

noetic2:

why are scared of taking up my challenge?

You presented no challenge, stop giving yourself credit you don't deserve at all.

In the beginning, the everlasting God spoke both time and the universe into existence. At first, the earth was without form and unfilled. Over three days, God gave form to the sky, sea, and land. Then, on the following three days, God filled these voids with abundant reminders of His glory.

Included in the original material of creation was water, out of which God created the earth. This unique planet had just the right mix of chemicals and the right mass to hold a life-sustaining atmosphere.

God then raised a landmass, similar to Rodinia. As the water rushed off the just-created continent, they scoured the surface and dumped trillions of tons of dirt at the edges of the continent, up to thirty miles deep.

God created all sorts of bacteria to convert chemicals into useable forms and make them available to plants and animals. He stationed these bacteria in every corner of the globe, from the deepest parts of the crust to the sea and sky.

God then filled the land with billions of energy factories, known as plants. From the first day of their existence, these plants were fully functional. In each plant hundreds of chemical processes ran in perfect symphony, harnessing the sun’s energy to provide food for living things.

A bewildering variety of plants made up niches all over the earth. In the DNA of each “kind” of plant was a rich storehouse of instructions to produce a variety of offspring. For example, within the first grasses was information to produce wheat, rye, rice, bamboo and fescue. By God’s command, the earth was bursting with ripe fruit and grains, ready to satisfy the needs of living things.

On day Four, God began the process of “filling” the universe. By His command a vast variety of astronomical objects burst into being, including comets, moons, planets and stars. Each object was unique, beautiful and fully functional.

God placed the sun at just the right distance from earth to keep our planet warm. He set a moon in earth’s orbit with the right mass and distance for tides to cleanse the seas. As the earth spins, the sun and stars rise with clockwork precision, marking the passage of time for living things.

At last, God was ready to introduce life into creation. He filled the ocean, sky, and land. Despite their differences, living things share many things in common – chemicals, genetic codes, and cell structures – to help them coexist in the same world. Such design shows the hand of a wise Designer.

Like plants, animals were divided into “kinds” that can generate incredible variety. For example, the ancestors of the camel kind produced offspring as diverse as Ilamas, alpacas, and one-humped and two humped camels.

No living thing was alone. God placed them all into an astonishing array of fully functional communities, probably more diverse, beautiful and integrated than anything we see today. Whether T. rex tromping through a cycad forest or trilobites swimming in shallow seas, each exotic environment reminds us how much living things depend on each other-and the Creator.

God capped off this week by making humans in His likeness and giving us dominion over the earth. By the end, a beautiful tapestry of forms, colours, sounds and tastes filled the earth. Communities lived in harmony, and all was “very good”. The stage was set for God’s most glorious work.

Sorry but the bible does not say ANY of the things written here, these are the opinion of the writer of this article but not what is written in the bible. The bible says that the moon was created to rule over the night, science showed that the gravitational pull from the moon create tides which cleans the seas, the bible says not such thing. . . . . . . .

The bible does not talk about the biblegod creating bacteria, this is very telling because the writer actually prefers science and what it has revealed to humanity than the "word of god". What does the guy mean by the ancestors of camels producing lamas, alpacas, and one-humped and two humped camels. Is he tacitly endorsing evolution? . . . . . . . .

mazaje:

I said these are the evidence for micro evolution that scientist have provided, you are not a scientist. They won't wash by you or scientist? No body needs your opinion when scientific studies are being discussed because you have never and will never contribute anything to the scientific process. . . . . . .

You presented no challenge, stop giving yourself credit you don't deserve at all.

Sorry but the bible does not say ANY of the things written here, these are the opinion of the writer of this article but not what is written in the bible. The bible says that the moon was created to rule over the night, science showed that the gravitational pull from the moon create tides which cleans the seas, the bible says not such thing. . . . . . . .

The bible does not talk about the biblegod creating bacteria, this is very telling because the writer actually prefers science and what it has revealed to humanity than the "word of god". What does the guy mean by the ancestors of camels producing lamas, alpacas, and one-humped and two humped camels. Is he tacitly endorsing evolution? . . . . . . . .

why not open a new thread to educate us on atheism and naturalism? thats was my challenge.

mazaje:

I said these are the evidence for micro evolution that scientist have provided, you are not a scientist. They won't wash by you or scientist? No body needs your opinion when scientific studies are being discussed because you have never and will never contribute anything to the scientific process. . . . . . .

That is what is called mutation, the term "micro" evolution is ENTIRELY MISLEADING. It alleges that evolution occurs but only has proof for it occuring at a small scale.

The term "micro-evolution" is in relative dis-use today. But of course as a scientist i thought you would already know that.

davidylan:

That is what is called mutation, the term "micro" evolution is[b] ENTIRELY MISLEADING[/b]. It alleges that evolution occurs but only has proof for it occuring at a small scale.

The term "micro-evolution" is in relative dis-use today. But of course as a scientist i thought you would already know that.

Entirely misleading according to who? You Since when has your deluded opinion become of any importance to any scientific study or process? .

Ok.   I'm goin to attempt to talk about JEDP and explain why it should not be dismissed. I know there is a lot of cynicism on this forum, but i'm willing to accept any challenge about whatever I post, as long as people actually look at the information I present, research it, and have honest, reasonable questions. This is going to be another long post, because . . .It just is  . But hopefully you read all of it. This stuff isn't simple, and we tend to try to over-simplify things on this forum. If we want to understand stuff we have to do a lot of work, and stop pretending everything is either black or white, right or wrong .  I'm not going to show that it is 100% accurate, because it probably isn't, but I'm going to explain why I use it to support my understanding of the Genesis accounts of creation.

First of all I want you to think of this date –  November 18 1996, and recall everything that you did that day. And then imagine having to prove that what u are thinking of is exactly what u did on that date. I think most of us will agree that u probably can't prove it. Even though u might have some idea of what u did that day, u might even have a diary, but to prove to someone else that ur recollection of everything u did is 100% accurate is impossible.

We also need to realize that theories, or ideas, do not have to be either right or wrong, but that there are degrees of rightness, and degrees of wrongness. For example, can we prove that cigarrettes cause cancer? No. Do we have enough evidence to believe that cigarrettes probably cause cancer? Yes. Should we dismiss all the evidence that shows that cigarettes can cause cancer because it can't be proven? I think not. There used to be very good arguments that smoking does not cause cancer, there still are. The thing is, having a good argument does not make u correct. At the end of the day u have to look at the evidence critically, do the hard work of studying it and understanding it, and then make honest assessments. U study the trend of lung cancer, and see that an overwhelming number of smokers get cancer, and combine that with other scientific knowledge, etc, evaluate everything, and then you can make an informed decision on what to believe.


The thing I noticed with the debates on this forum, is that people want every thing to be proven. That is impossible. The smartest people in the world can't do it, I doubt we are going to do it here. Unless our objective when we sign in to this forum is to come and shout insults at each other all day, we have to get over this “prove this, prove that” mindset. It is a bridge to nowhere. Neither side is 100% right, and neither side is 100% wrong; That I can bet my life on. Some (don't want to generalize so i'm not saying all, but almost all, myself included)  atheists here are wrong about a lot of stuff IMHO, and the religious people are too. We are also both right about a lot of stuff. The task before us is how do we sort thru all our sometimes unfounded presuppositions and biases, and engage in real debate and exchange of ideas; so that when we come to the forum we can actually leave with something; if only just an argument we disagree with, at least it is an argument we have learned.

Before I explain my understanding of the JEDP traditions there are a few things I think need to be said.

First, to atheists and those who are dismissive of religion. I think you make a mistake, a huge one. Religion, IMO, should be embraced, and i will explain why i feel this way.

I have read, and, i admit, have sometimes written posts calling people deluded, calling ancient people ignorant and what not. We tend to think that Science is the beginning of human knowledge. I think to do that is blasphemous. If not against God, against the intellectual potential of humans as a species.

Science did not change the intellectual potential of humans, but the focus of human intellectual endeavor. It didn't change our ability to think, but changed the focus of thought. Science was the beginning of asking a whole new set of questions, and seeking a whole new set of anwsers. Science asks questions about how things work, what makes plants grow, what makes people sick, etc. The great thinkers of ancient times were not asking those kinds of questions. They already “knew” the answer. God or/and the gods. But that does not mean they were not asking any questions, it just means that they were asking a whole different set of questions. While science might be a relatively young phenomenon, scholarship is not, thought is not, knowledge is not, and most importantly, wisdom is not.

The great thinkers of ancient times were asking deeper questions. Questions about meaning, about purpose, about our place in the universe. The great achievement of ancient cultures is not in their scientific discoveries, but in their philosophies, their architecture, their culture etc. How can anyone look at the pyramids, or read about Buddhist or Hindu philosophy, the lessons in the Christian and Islamic scriptures, or listen to some of our native proverbs, see the architecture of ancient Ethiopians or the plumbing of ancient Harrapan civilization (for religious/purity reasons) of over 4000 years ago that still dunbfounds modern architects, and conclude that ancient minds are deluded and ignorant. If u are looking for scientific answers, then ancient times probably isn't where to go. But if u want insight into the deeper questions of life, religion is rich with this.

Just like the age of science and rationality has its problems (pollution, nuclear arms, mass hunger and poverty, deforestation etc), the ancient times have theirs. The same way we can look at our current leaders and accuse them of being corrupt and irresponsible is the same way things were in the past. That genocide and things like that are in the scriptures should not reduce their credibility, but increase it. The same scripture that tell us about the Israelites massacreing others tells us bout the Israelites getting massacred. Perhaps there is a lesson in that. Perhaps, buried between the socio-political and theological biases of the writers of ancient scriptures, there are lessons to be learned about the nature of humans and our relationship with each other. Perhaps when the writers of Genesis wrote “ . .and he saw that it was good” and that God appointed man as custodians over the earth, that was an attempt by the ancient minds to articulate human responsibility is ensuring that all of creation thrives. That the oceans and air that we pollute, hungry that we ignore alter this “good” that God saw, and that it is our responsibility to fix it. These are the types of insights that we can get from teachings of all religions. Is there a lot of crazy stuff in there too, yes. But we should not let our “rational/scientific” biases lead us to , in my opinion, wrongly conclude that religions have nothing to offer us. Let us seek to understand what we don't and stop playing “God” because we have science. If in just about 700 years of science we have gone from subsistence farming to the moon, to Mars, to ipods and ferraris, I can't even begin to imagine the amount of wisdom and insight into non-scientific/non-emperical concerns that our ancient acestors had built up and passed down thru generations over millenia. In ancient times knowledge was not discovered in labs, but by great philosophers (or in religious terms, prophets), mostly under the employment of royalty (religion and state were the same thing) sitting in the courtyards or under trees, all day long, discussing and philosophizing about man's deepest concerns. To miss out on this in the name of atheism would be rather unfortunate imo.

To the religious people who think that atheists are bad people being used by the devil to confuse your faith, I appeal to you to not think this way. Even though I admit that we sometimes give you more than enough reason to do so. Religions, from what I have studied, are built on ROCK SOLID foundations, and u should embrace the challenge we bring, because it will help you to learn more about ur faiths, and i honestly think you will be better off for it.

The difficulty with ancient scripture is knowing where to seperate the real honest philosophical insight from the socio-political/theological biases and agendas of the wirters, from the mythology, which was just a way of the times. Imagine someone like Gandhi, or Mandela, having lived three thousand years ago, and standing up to authority, peacefully, and having such profound impact. . . what kind of stories do u think we would be hearing/reading about them today? Would they be actual factual narratives, or would the stories be expressed in colorful and elaborate prose, trying to express the profound nature of these people in the non-scientific language of their times? How would a story of one man standing up to a powerful empire be told? Does Gandhi have to walk on water and raise the dead for his story to be an example to follow or an inspiration for us? Does God have to have physically apeared to him for him to have had the wisdom and insight and to be influenced by his faith to live such an exemplary life? I think not. God works through people, and we should not let the short-comings, or if I may say, absence of modern standard of expression, obscure the importance of the lessons these ancient scriptures seek to teach us. Let us try to get over the assumption that non-religious people are by definition, bad. Though some of us might like to pretend we don't ask these deeper questions about life and meaning, that we are on a religious thread shows that we do care, if not about God, we care about our brothers and sisters that we feel are being exploited by the custodians of institutionalized religion. And while we may have a different approach, we do have a lot to bring to the debate. It is our responsibily to make sure u do not get caught in thinking ancient scripture  was written to answer all questions, and appeal to u to use reason when necessary. It is also ur responsibility to show us that science does not have it all, and that we are better off learning about things we do not fully understand. You should try to be true ambassadors of your faith, and show us, by example, the virtues that ur faiths instill in its adherents. For either of us to assume we are right and the other, wrong, is, IMO, misguided.

That said I'll explain what the issues with the JEDP hypotheses are, and why they do not diminish the credibility of the general idea it tries to express.

When a theory is developed in the academic community, other experts look relentlessly for holes in it. If they find that it is full of holes then there is no consensus around it. If some holes are identified, modifictions are made, and then those again are relentlessly scrutinized by the larger academic community. Over time, with new discoveries and research, consessus starts to build, if not around the whole theory, but around certain aspects of it. Scholars continue to dig and dig, and that is how we have most of the knowledge we have today. Even science is mostly about consensus, hardly ever about agreement. There are holes in almost all theories, but that does not make them wrong, only partly right. To view things in absolute terms; either right or wrong, is not what scholarship is about. We don't know it all, and we probably never will.

If you noticed when I mentioned the hypotheses, i didn't name the specific hypothesis i was referring to. I just named the different traditions that the theories believe to have existed. That is because the disagreement over the nature of these traditions is not whether they represent what actually was (there is consensus that these were separate traditions that were not compiled into a book at one specific time, but developed over time). The disagreement is about the fine details. The precise dating, were they written traditions or oral, when were they first written, at what point was one tradition blended in with another, etc. In matters regarding specific dating of specific historical events you are better off not using this alone because all you will get is an approximation with a significant margin of error. But as far as what writing comes from what tradition, for the most part there is agreement. The problem is that it is not all black and white. In some parts in the Bible a story that obviously comes from one tradition, will have certain small verses or parts that come from another tradition. So we know that it was not just a straight “copy and paste” type thing, and that a lot of work needs to be done to work out the fine details. It is in light of these types of issues that they are called hypotheses, but that does not mean they do not teach us anything. Instead of dismissing them, we should do the hard work and learn all the different variations of hypothesis, and see what we can learn and when they apply.

It is, however, not just because of this theories by themselves that I find it credible. There are other reasons, including the difference in scroll types, and the fact that Judaism, or Jews have accepted the theories of modern scholars. Remenmer it is a Jewish tradition, and I know how committed they are to their tradition. That they have accepted it shows, in my humble opinion, that this is credible stuff.

  Rather than try to give my explanation of how it developed. I will type a section from a book about how this theory started, way back in the 9th century, and how much work has gone into gettin it “right”, the level of scrutiny it has received, and why this makes it more credible, as opposed to less. It was published in 2003 so it is still quite recent. I will also write something about the wrong impression people have of  biblical scholars so hopefully people stop being so cynical anytime they hear “biblical-scholarship”.

If you dont want to read the whole thing from 9th century BCE i you can skip right to the modern developments which i will put in different color fonts.

“According to the rabbis, the expositions and elaborations of the Written Law were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai; subsequently they were passed from generation to generation, and through this process additional legislation was incorported (Oral torah). Thus traditional Judaism affirms that God's revelation was two-fold and binding for all time.

In the modern period however, it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the traditional concept of divine revelation in the light of scholarly investigation and discovery. As early as the 9th century, Hiwi Al- Balkhi offered 200 objections to the doctrine of the divine origin of the Bible. In response Saadiah Gaon composed a refutation of Hiwi's views. In jewish circles Hiwi was regarded as a heretic. Later the 12th century scholar Abrahan Ibn Ezra expressed the opinion that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch. For example, in his commentary to Deut. 1:2 he is troubled by Deut 1:1: 'These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan'. In Moses' day the Israelites had yet entered the promised land; thus the term 'beyond the Jordan' would not have been used to designate the side of the Jordan on which they were encamped.

Later in the sixteenth century, scholars pointed out that the Five books of Moses appear to be composed of different sources. Subsequently Jean Astruc, a catholic physician, was disturbed by the evidence of the composite nature of the Pentateuch. As a consequence, he put forward the theory that Moses used ancient documents as the sources for the Five books of Moses. This theory was advanced by Astruc in his 'Conjectures sur les momoires orginaux dont il paroit que Moyse se servit pour composer le livre de la Genese`  which was published in the middle of the eighteenth century. In advancing his theory Astruc noted that portions of Genesis uses the name 'Elohim' while other portions use YHWH. This led Astruc to conclude that one of the documents used by Moses was the elohist, the document described the origins of the world where God is referred to as 'Elohin'.

Other theories based on Astruc's hypotheses suggested that various fragments of documents could be detected in the Torah. Eventually 2 main documents were detected: One names Elohin, and the other using YHWH, reffered to as J. In 1805 another scholar, De Wette, published a dissertation entitled Discourse on Deuteronomy in which he argued that this book was a work compiled shortly before it was found in the days of Josiah. Thus there were three documents in the Torah: E,J and D. E was viewed as the main document, with J and D as additions. Each of these documents was regarded as having been compiled at different times.

In the middle of the nineteenth century sustained investigation by two German scholars, Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen, concluded that the Five books of Moses are composed of four main documents which once existed separately but were later combined by a series of editors and redactors. The first document, 'J', dating from the ninth century BCE, attributes the most anthropomorphic character to God, referred to by the 4 Hebrew letters YHWH. The second source E, stemming from the 8th century BCE is less anthropomorphic and uses the name Elohim. In the 7th Century BCE, the D source was written, concentrating on religious purity and priesthood. Finally the P source from the 5th century BCE, which has a more transcendent view of God, emphasizes importance of the sacrificial cult.
By utilizing this frame work, Graf and Willhausen maintained that it is possible to account for the manifold problems and dicrepancies in biblical texts. The following characteristics are found within the sources

1)J
Anthropormorphisms and a simple style. Here the divine name is J. There is an occasional mention of angels. There is also an interest in the south of Palestine
2)E
This source is less anthropormophic and focuses on angels, and dreams. The divine name Elohim is used. There is a special interest in the North of Palestine
3)D
Here there is an interest in purity of religion, and the role of the priests.
4)P
The P source is primarily concerned with the sacrificial system, and adopts a transcedental view of God. Only Kohanin are allowed to offer sacrifices in the Temple. Tithes are to be given to priests and Levites.


The Graf-Wallhauses hypothesis was subsequently modified by other scholars. Some preferred not to speak of separate sources but of circles of tradition. On this view, J,E,D and P represent oral traditions rather than different documents. Further, these scholars stress that the separate traditions themselves contain early material; thus it is a mistake to think they originated in their entirety at particular periods. Other scholars reject the view of seperate sources altogether; they argued that oral traditions were modified through-out the history of ancient Israel and only eventually were compiled into a single narrative. Yet despite these different variations of the theory, there is general recognition among Biblical scholars- including Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanist Jews- that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Rather, it is seen as a collection of traditions originating at different times in the ancient Israel.

In addition to the findings of Biblical scholarship, textual studies of ancient manuscripts highlight the improbability of the traditional Jewish view of Scripture. According to Jewish heritage, the Hebrew text of the Five Books of Moses used in synagogues today (the Masoteric text) is the same as that given to Moses. Yet it is widely accepted among scholars that the script of contemporary Torah scrolls is not the same as that which was current in ancient Israel from the time of the Monarchy to 6th   century BCE. It was only later, probably under Aramaic influence, that the square script was adopted as the standard for Hebrew writing. Furthermore, the fact that the ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into languges such as Syriac and Greek contain various variant readings from the Masoteric text suggests that the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch now in use is not entirely free from error. 

A final aspect of modern studies which bears on the question of Mosaic authorship concerns the influence of the ancient Near East on the Bible. According to Orthodox Judaism, the Five Books of Moses were essentially created out of nothing. But as we have seen (in earlier section of the book. .i aint typin all that shit out, google it  ) there are strong pararrels in the Jewish Bible to laws, stories and myths found throughout the ancient Near East. It is unlikely that this simply  coincidence- the similarities offer compelling evidence that the Pentateuch emerged in a specific social and cultural context. The authors of the Biblical period shared much of the same views as their neighbours and no doubt transformed this framework to fit their own religious ideas. In this light, most Biblical scholars would find it impossible to reconcile the traditional conception of Mosaic authorship of the Five Books of Moses with the discoveries of modern Biblical criticism and scientific discovery.

For Orthodox jews, however, such investigations are irrelevant. Orthodox Judaism  remains committed to the view that the Oral Torah as well as the Written were imparted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This act of revelation serves as a basis for the entire legal system as well as the doctrinal beliefs about God. Yet despite such an adherence to tradition, many modern Orthodox Jews  only pay lip service to such a conviction. The gap between traditional belief and contemporary views of the Torah is even greater in the non-orthodox branches of Judaism. Here, among Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanistic Jews, there is general acceptance of the findings of Biblical scholarship. Such a non-fundamentalistic approach, which takes account of recent scholarly developments in the field of Biblical studies, rules out the traditional belief in the infallibility of scripture and thereby provides a rationale for changing the law and reinterpreting the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of contemporary knowledge. In the modern period, therefore, there has been a shift from the fundamentalism of the past- nontheless non-orthodox Jews join ranks with the Orthodox in continuing to regard the Jewish Bible as fundamental to the faith. As the liturgy used in all synagogoues proclaims” 'It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it.'
Dan Cohn- Sherbok. Judaism " History, Belief and Practice.
So, for those different reasons combined, I think it is reasonable for me to trust the JEDP hypotheses as regards to the Genesis accounts of creation in my earlier post. Again, you do not have to agree with this stuff. I just want you to understand why i believe what I do.

Finally I just want to say a lil sumn on behalf of biblical scholars. Please, please, Christians, they are your best friends. That they are demonized is one of the most unfortunate things IMO.

Pastors make a lot of money, these people don't, yet they dedicate their lives to the Bible. With the amount of knowledge they have of the Bible imagine how much they would be making if they were on the pulpit of one of these so called churches we have today, or doing tele-evangelism. That they choose the noble option should be testament to their character. These people, for the most part, are committed Christians that dedicate their lives to their faith. They are not motivated by money, and if they were bad or evil people they would be doing other things, trust me. The amount of work the do is stupendous, and there is a wealth of wisdom and knowledge that they  have helped to unearth. I would advice anyone whose pastor tries to demonize them to stand up and walk out, and never go back. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for sittin thru this   

noetic2:

1. I started this thread by commending the fact that like every one else u are also entitled to ur opinion. So with regards to ur position on the authority of the bible, I do not find it interesting. I have gone through several theoretical concepts about possible explanations to the bible in the form of books and documentaries. Some of the theories being postulated include.

a. Jesus lived and died. . . . but did not resurrect.  
b. There is no record of Jesus ever existing. . . .he is a fictional character.
c. The shroud (garment) of Jesus has been found . . . . .oh! NO! it cannot be His garment
d. Jesus was Hindi . . . .He learnt from Buddhist monks
e. He married mary madgalene
f. The bible was written by barbaric tribes men. . . . or even the amunaki's and white masters to control the world population.
g. Jesus is the abdicated son of Julio ceaser and Cleopatra, who attempted to recapture His father's kingdom.

This theories have been postulated by several different groups of people. I have taken my time to analyse, study and read each of this theories. They all have one thing in common. . . .they are very inconsistent in their postulations. They make ambiguous and sarcastic claims that cannot stand the test of intellectual or logical scrutiny. The most annoying part is that I spent my hard earned money to actually buy some of these books.

My point  is . . . . I accept the bible as absolute authority on all matters. There has been no plausible explanation to any of the anti-biblical stories and theories. If and when such does arise. . . .I am intelligent enough to analyse such.


2. By creating the world and its inhabitants God left us undeniable evidence. Note that the following statements are very different.

a. credibility of an evidence
b. acceptance of an evidence
c. belief in an evidence.

# There is a huge difference between the credibility, acceptance or belief in an evidence. God definitely made the inhabitants of the world. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply. This decree is today biologically defined as reproduction. A man and a woman reproduce a baby. so also do lions and lionesses, tigers and tigresses. I make this deduction from the knowledge of science available in this century.

This is a credible evidence for creationism. you and I are products of a reproductive process explainable only by creationism. The issue is not the acceptance of this evidence or a belief in it?. . . .The issue remains that this evidence is reconcilable with the proclamations of God in Genesis. God is mentioned here because He is the subject of creationism.

is this evidence acceptable?

Based on the knowledge we have about reproduction. . . .we have no doubt about the process involved.
One thing is certain. .  .and it is the fact that all those alive today and within the recorded scope of history that we know of as humans were born by virtue of reproduction. from the BC years to the present age. . . . .all were born or rather reproduced.

The reproduction process of all living animals and also humans have been extensively analysed. The creationism concept of "be fruitful and multiply" is ontologically reconcilable to reproduction as buttressed by the conception of Cain and Abel as recorded in the bible.

I am of the opinion that reproduction as we know it today is an acceptable evidence for creationism.

is this evidence believable?
There is no intellectual or scientific knowledge that suggests otherwise. This is not a question of faith. It is visible to all that just as the bible proclaims we all are still reproducing today.

questions might be raised about the believe-ability of the creationism concept of the formation of pioneer man and animals. The fact remains that since the resultant process of reproduction is reconcilable to the decrees made by God. . . .and since this reproduction concept is not synonymous to any other concept. . . . it is easy to as such believe that God indeed create Adam and other pioneer animals out of almost nothing.

# Modern agricultural practices as deducible from knowledge tells us that the soil has to be tilled, an active photosynthetic process, the plants watered or irrigated before plants could grow. The bible establishes this fact,  ,   .via creationism, ages before this knowledge was sacrosanct.

verses 5 and 6 of genesis 2 gives explicit explanation as to how this processes took place and how we had our first rainfall.

is this evidence acceptable?

Science has since acknowledged the essence of photosynthesis and rainfall in the life of plants. This acknowledgement does not dispute the creationist account. This process as advocated by creationism is repeatable, observable and reproducible in millions of farm lands all over the world.

This evidence for creationism is scientifically, logically and intellectually acceptable.

is this evidence believable?

u should only disbelieve if u have any other explanation for the source and process of food we do consume.

I understand what u re saying. U observe the world around you and the Genesis creation story accounts for what u see, and that works for you. I don't see why any reasonable person in a free society should have a problem with that.

noetic2:

3. Evolution is anything but scientific. I asked u to define science: this was ur definition:
Lets analyse ur definition

a. was this genetic changes in population observed in real life scenarios without the need for guesses and assumptions? by who?
b. how credible is the means of identification?
c. are these genetic changes experimentable? where have they been experimented? are they repeatable?

The major flaw of evolution is its inability to explain the pioneer formation and conceptualisation of life as we see it today under the verifiable microscopic knowledge we have now.


To be continued.

HEY!! U're not supposed to be looking for flaws in what I present. Just ask questions if you don't understand what I mean. Besides i haven't said anything about my understanding of evolution so those arguments u are refuting aren't mine.

But since u raise this, I think it is irrelevant whether cultural anthropology, which is the field from which my understanding of Evolution comes from, is a science or not. (I think it is a social science). I think what matters is that we have actual physical evidence, and we should, in my opinion, follow it to see what it tells us about whateva.

I'll explain my understanding of evolution tomorrow. And then u can pick all the flaws in it. I actually welcome it because it will give me a chance to study the stuff more. Exams are coming up

What can I say, that was beautiful, glad I sat up for it, its almost 2 30 am now time to sleep.
K can I ask what school you are studying?

Krayola2:

I understand what u re saying. U observe the world around you and the Genesis creation story accounts for what u see, and that works for you. I don't see why any reasonable person in a free society should have a problem with that.

This is very dishonest. . . .but again, I will let this pass.

HEY!! U're not supposed to be looking for flaws in what I present. Just ask questions if you don't understand what I mean. Besides i haven't said anything about my understanding of evolution so those arguments u are refuting aren't mine.

But since u raise this, I think it is irrelevant whether cultural anthropology, which is the field from which my understanding of Evolution comes from, is a science or not. (I think it is a social science). I think what matters is that we have actual physical evidence, and we should, in my opinion, follow it to see what it tells us about whateva.

I'll explain my understanding of evolution tomorrow. And then u can pick all the flaws in it. I actually welcome it because it will give me a chance to study the stuff more. Exams are coming up

What do u mean by flaws?

those were simple questions, u could either ignore or answer.

Krayola2:

Ok.   I'm goin to attempt to talk about JEDP and explain why it should not be dismissed. I know there is a lot of cynicism on this forum, but i'm willing to accept any challenge about whatever I post, as long as people actually look at the information I present, research it, and have honest, reasonable questions. This is going to be another long post, because . . .It just is  . But hopefully you read all of it. This stuff isn't simple, and we tend to try to over-simplify things on this forum. If we want to understand stuff we have to do a lot of work, and stop pretending everything is either black or white, right or wrong .  I'm not going to show that it is 100% accurate, because it probably isn't, but I'm going to explain why I use it to support my understanding of the Genesis accounts of creation.

First of all I want you to think of this date –  November 18 1996, and recall everything that you did that day. And then imagine having to prove that what u are thinking of is exactly what u did on that date. I think most of us will agree that u probably can't prove it. Even though u might have some idea of what u did that day, u might even have a diary, but to prove to someone else that ur recollection of everything u did is 100% accurate is impossible.

We also need to realize that theories, or ideas, do not have to be either right or wrong, but that there are degrees of rightness, and degrees of wrongness. For example, can we prove that cigarrettes cause cancer? No. Do we have enough evidence to believe that cigarrettes probably cause cancer? Yes. Should we dismiss all the evidence that shows that cigarettes can cause cancer because it can't be proven? I think not. There used to be very good arguments that smoking does not cause cancer, there still are. The thing is, having a good argument does not make u correct. At the end of the day u have to look at the evidence critically, do the hard work of studying it and understanding it, and then make honest assessments. U study the trend of lung cancer, and see that an overwhelming number of smokers get cancer, and combine that with other scientific knowledge, etc, evaluate everything, and then you can make an informed decision on what to believe.


The thing I noticed with the debates on this forum, is that people want every thing to be proven. That is impossible. The smartest people in the world can't do it, I doubt we are going to do it here. Unless our objective when we sign in to this forum is to come and shout insults at each other all day, we have to get over this “prove this, prove that” mindset. It is a bridge to nowhere. Neither side is 100% right, and neither side is 100% wrong; That I can bet my life on. Some (don't want to generalize so i'm not saying all, but almost all, myself included)  atheists here are wrong about a lot of stuff IMHO, and the religious people are too. We are also both right about a lot of stuff. The task before us is how do we sort thru all our sometimes unfounded presuppositions and biases, and engage in real debate and exchange of ideas; so that when we come to the forum we can actually leave with something; if only just an argument we disagree with, at least it is an argument we have learned.

very long and unnecessary.

Krayola2:

Before I explain my understanding of the JEDP traditions there are a few things I think need to be said.

First, to atheists and those who are dismissive of religion. I think you make a mistake, a huge one. Religion, IMO, should be embraced, and i will explain why i feel this way.

I have read, and, i admit, have sometimes written posts calling people deluded, calling ancient people ignorant and what not. We tend to think that Science is the beginning of human knowledge. I think to do that is blasphemous. If not against God, against the intellectual potential of humans as a species.

Science did not change the intellectual potential of humans, but the focus of human intellectual endeavor. It didn't change our ability to think, but changed the focus of thought. Science was the beginning of asking a whole new set of questions, and seeking a whole new set of anwsers. Science asks questions about how things work, what makes plants grow, what makes people sick, etc. The great thinkers of ancient times were not asking those kinds of questions. They already “knew” the answer. God or/and the gods. But that does not mean they were not asking any questions, it just means that they were asking a whole different set of questions. While science might be a relatively young phenomenon, scholarship is not, thought is not, knowledge is not, and most importantly, wisdom is not.

The great thinkers of ancient times were asking deeper questions. Questions about meaning, about purpose, about our place in the universe. The great achievement of ancient cultures is not in their scientific discoveries, but in their philosophies, their architecture, their culture etc. How can anyone look at the pyramids, or read about Buddhist or Hindu philosophy, the lessons in the Christian and Islamic scriptures, or listen to some of our native proverbs, see the architecture of ancient Ethiopians or the plumbing of ancient Harrapan civilization (for religious/purity reasons) of over 4000 years ago that still dunbfounds modern architects, and conclude that ancient minds are deluded and ignorant. If u are looking for scientific answers, then ancient times probably isn't where to go. But if u want insight into the deeper questions of life, religion is rich with this.

Just like the age of science and rationality has its problems (pollution, nuclear arms, mass hunger and poverty, deforestation etc), the ancient times have theirs. The same way we can look at our current leaders and accuse them of being corrupt and irresponsible is the same way things were in the past. That genocide and things like that are in the scriptures should not reduce their credibility, but increase it. The same scripture that tell us about the Israelites massacreing others tells us bout the Israelites getting massacred. Perhaps there is a lesson in that. Perhaps, buried between the socio-political and theological biases of the writers of ancient scriptures, there are lessons to be learned about the nature of humans and our relationship with each other. Perhaps when the writers of Genesis wrote “ . .and he saw that it was good” and that God appointed man as custodians over the earth, that was an attempt by the ancient minds to articulate human responsibility is ensuring that all of creation thrives. That the oceans and air that we pollute, hungry that we ignore alter this “good” that God saw, and that it is our responsibility to fix it. These are the types of insights that we can get from teachings of all religions. Is there a lot of crazy stuff in there too, yes. But we should not let our “rational/scientific” biases lead us to , in my opinion, wrongly conclude that religions have nothing to offer us. Let us seek to understand what we don't and stop playing “God” because we have science. If in just about 700 years of science we have gone from subsistence farming to the moon, to Mars, to ipods and ferraris, I can't even begin to imagine the amount of wisdom and insight into non-scientific/non-emperical concerns that our ancient acestors had built up and passed down thru generations over millenia. In ancient times knowledge was not discovered in labs, but by great philosophers (or in religious terms, prophets), mostly under the employment of royalty (religion and state were the same thing) sitting in the courtyards or under trees, all day long, discussing and philosophizing about man's deepest concerns. To miss out on this in the name of atheism would be rather unfortunate imo.

None of this has a place in this thread. This is fast becoming boring.

Krayola2:

“According to the rabbis, the expositions and elaborations of the Written Law were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai; subsequently they were passed from generation to generation, and through this process additional legislation was incorported (Oral torah). Thus traditional Judaism affirms that God's revelation was two-fold and binding for all time.

In the modern period however, it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the traditional concept of divine revelation in the light of scholarly investigation and discovery. As early as the 9th century, Hiwi Al- Balkhi offered 200 objections to the doctrine of the divine origin of the Bible. In response Saadiah Gaon composed a refutation of Hiwi's views. In jewish circles Hiwi was regarded as a heretic. Later the 12th century scholar Abrahan Ibn Ezra expressed the opinion that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch. For example, in his commentary to Deut. 1:2 he is troubled by Deut 1:1: 'These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan'. In Moses' day the Israelites had yet entered the promised land; thus the term 'beyond the Jordan' would not have been used to designate the side of the Jordan on which they were encamped.

Later in the sixteenth century, scholars pointed out that the Five books of Moses appear to be composed of different sources. Subsequently Jean Astruc, a catholic physician, was disturbed by the evidence of the composite nature of the Pentateuch. As a consequence, he put forward the theory that Moses used ancient documents as the sources for the Five books of Moses. This theory was advanced by Astruc in his 'Conjectures sur les momoires orginaux dont il paroit que Moyse se servit pour composer le livre de la Genese`  which was published in the middle of the eighteenth century. In advancing his theory Astruc noted that portions of Genesis uses the name 'Elohim' while other portions use YHWH. This led Astruc to conclude that one of the documents used by Moses was the elohist, the document described the origins of the world where God is referred to as 'Elohin'.

Other theories based on Astruc's hypotheses suggested that various fragments of documents could be detected in the Torah. Eventually 2 main documents were detected: One names Elohin, and the other using YHWH, reffered to as J. In 1805 another scholar, De Wette, published a dissertation entitled Discourse on Deuteronomy in which he argued that this book was a work compiled shortly before it was found in the days of Josiah. Thus there were three documents in the Torah: E,J and D. E was viewed as the main document, with J and D as additions. Each of these documents was regarded as having been compiled at different times.

In the middle of the nineteenth century sustained investigation by two German scholars, Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen, concluded that the Five books of Moses are composed of four main documents which once existed separately but were later combined by a series of editors and redactors. The first document, 'J', dating from the ninth century BCE, attributes the most anthropomorphic character to God, referred to by the 4 Hebrew letters YHWH. The second source E, stemming from the 8th century BCE is less anthropomorphic and uses the name Elohim. In the 7th Century BCE, the D source was written, concentrating on religious purity and priesthood. Finally the P source from the 5th century BCE, which has a more transcendent view of God, emphasizes importance of the sacrificial cult.
By utilizing this frame work, Graf and Willhausen maintained that it is possible to account for the manifold problems and dicrepancies in biblical texts. The following characteristics are found within the sources

1)J
Anthropormorphisms and a simple style. Here the divine name is J. There is an occasional mention of angels. There is also an interest in the south of Palestine
2)E
This source is less anthropormophic and focuses on angels, and dreams. The divine name Elohim is used. There is a special interest in the North of Palestine
3)D
Here there is an interest in purity of religion, and the role of the priests.
4)P
The P source is primarily concerned with the sacrificial system, and adopts a transcedental view of God. Only Kohanin are allowed to offer sacrifices in the Temple. Tithes are to be given to priests and Levites.


The Graf-Wallhauses hypothesis was subsequently modified by other scholars. Some preferred not to speak of separate sources but of circles of tradition. On this view, J,E,D and P represent oral traditions rather than different documents. Further, these scholars stress that the separate traditions themselves contain early material; thus it is a mistake to think they originated in their entirety at particular periods. Other scholars reject the view of seperate sources altogether; they argued that oral traditions were modified through-out the history of ancient Israel and only eventually were compiled into a single narrative. Yet despite these different variations of the theory, there is general recognition among Biblical scholars- including Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanist Jews- that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Rather, it is seen as a collection of traditions originating at different times in the ancient Israel.

In addition to the findings of Biblical scholarship, textual studies of ancient manuscripts highlight the improbability of the traditional Jewish view of Scripture. According to Jewish heritage, the Hebrew text of the Five Books of Moses used in synagogues today (the Masoteric text) is the same as that given to Moses. Yet it is widely accepted among scholars that the script of contemporary Torah scrolls is not the same as that which was current in ancient Israel from the time of the Monarchy to 6th   century BCE. It was only later, probably under Aramaic influence, that the square script was adopted as the standard for Hebrew writing. Furthermore, the fact that the ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into languges such as Syriac and Greek contain various variant readings from the Masoteric text suggests that the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch now in use is not entirely free from error. 

A final aspect of modern studies which bears on the question of Mosaic authorship concerns the influence of the ancient Near East on the Bible. According to Orthodox Judaism, the Five Books of Moses were essentially created out of nothing. But as we have seen (in earlier section of the book. .i aint typin all that shit out, google it  ) there are strong pararrels in the Jewish Bible to laws, stories and myths found throughout the ancient Near East. It is unlikely that this simply  coincidence- the similarities offer compelling evidence that the Pentateuch emerged in a specific social and cultural context. The authors of the Biblical period shared much of the same views as their neighbours and no doubt transformed this framework to fit their own religious ideas. In this light, most Biblical scholars would find it impossible to reconcile the traditional conception of Mosaic authorship of the Five Books of Moses with the discoveries of modern Biblical criticism and scientific discovery.

For Orthodox jews, however, such investigations are irrelevant. Orthodox Judaism  remains committed to the view that the Oral Torah as well as the Written were imparted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This act of revelation serves as a basis for the entire legal system as well as the doctrinal beliefs about God. Yet despite such an adherence to tradition, many modern Orthodox Jews  only pay lip service to such a conviction. The gap between traditional belief and contemporary views of the Torah is even greater in the non-orthodox branches of Judaism. Here, among Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanistic Jews, there is general acceptance of the findings of Biblical scholarship. Such a non-fundamentalistic approach, which takes account of recent scholarly developments in the field of Biblical studies, rules out the traditional belief in the infallibility of scripture and thereby provides a rationale for changing the law and reinterpreting the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of contemporary knowledge. In the modern period, therefore, there has been a shift from the fundamentalism of the past- nontheless non-orthodox Jews join ranks with the Orthodox in continuing to regard the Jewish Bible as fundamental to the faith. As the liturgy used in all synagogoues proclaims” 'It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it.'
Dan Cohn- Sherbok. Judaism " History, Belief and Practice.
So, for those different reasons combined, I think it is reasonable for me to trust the JEDP hypotheses as regards to the Genesis accounts of creation in my earlier post. Again, you do not have to agree with this stuff. I just want you to understand why i believe what I do.

This looks like a copy-paste stuff.

In my previous post I listed several conspiracies theories that attempt to discredit the bible. . . . I choose to subscribe to none of them, just like u chose to subscribe to this. The least I would have expected though is an analyses as to why u believe in this particular chronological list of theories and not the others.
is that a difficult task?

Krayola2:

Finally I just want to say a lil sumn on behalf of biblical scholars. Please, please, Christians, they are your best friends. That they are demonized is one of the most unfortunate things IMO.

Pastors make a lot of money, these people don't, yet they dedicate their lives to the Bible. With the amount of knowledge they have of the Bible imagine how much they would be making if they were on the pulpit of one of these so called churches we have today, or doing tele-evangelism. That they choose the noble option should be testament to their character. These people, for the most part, are committed Christians that dedicate their lives to their faith. They are not motivated by money, and if they were bad or evil people they would be doing other things, trust me. The amount of work the do is stupendous, and there is a wealth of wisdom and knowledge that they  have helped to unearth. I would advice anyone whose pastor tries to demonize them to stand up and walk out, and never go back. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for sittin thru this   

none of this has place on this thread. . . please stop digressing.