please endeavour to explain why u subscribe to evolution in a very simple, short and precise post.

noetic2:

This looks like a copy-paste stuff.

I think I stated that I was copying it from a book. I even wrote the name of the book. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

noetic2:

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?

The theories are really variations of one theory. The differences do not affect my understanding of Genesis because the theories agree about the order in which the traditions came about, and that Genesis 1 was written some centuries after Genesis 2

noetic2:

please endeavour to explain why u subscribe to evolution in a very simple, short and precise post.

haha. . . i doubt it would matter what the length was. I expect, maybe wrongly, to receive the same cold response 

It'll be as long as it takes. I'm goin out 2 get drunk  good night, amigo!

Chrisbenogor:

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?

thanks, bro. U of Waterloo.

Krayola2:

I think I stated that I was copying it from a book. I even wrote the name of the book. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

you could have easily summarised it all in brief points and offer personal analyses as to why u believe the contents of that book.
That would have been intellectually honest IMO. . . .  .

while I and every other person have read that post. . .I have no idea as to why exactly u subscribe to the contents of that theory.

The theories are really variations of one theory. The differences do not affect my understanding of Genesis because the theories agree about the order in which the traditions came about, and that Genesis 1 was written about some centuries after Genesis 2

what is ur understanding of the Genesis story?

Krayola2:

haha. . . i doubt it would matter what the length was. I expect, maybe wrongly, to receive the same cold response 

It'll be as long as it takes. I'm goin out 2 get drunk  good night, amigo!

1. Regardless of the length, I eagerly await ur analyses of evolution.

2. I have no reason to give cold responses.

@ wirinet

Noetic, I sometimes avoid entering a debate with you because you responses are stereotyped, but i decided to enter this one because you are asking specific questions and giving "cogent" reason why you disagree with evolution. Although i disagree with your conclusions of " if evolution cannot explain the existence of life on earth then Genesis must be true". I am sorry i had never seen anyone reason that way. They are lots of things i do not understand and i leave it that way " I Do Not Understand". I might seek explanations but until i find one i understand and agree with.

All the questions you raised were raised and answered adequately by scientists, the problem you have with evolution does not fall within the purview of evolution itself, It falls within either biogenesis, biochemistry or molecular biology. Evolution in the strict sense deals with the diversification and differentiation of organisms on the earth surface, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
So your puzzle of how the first life appeared on earth is more directed at Molecular Biologist than evolutionist.

Also i do not know your background or your ability to understand science, because i had deduced ( maybe wrongly) from past debates that you do not have adequate scientific background, so i thought you copy davidylans line of arguments since he claims to be a biologist.

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

To answer your question, you first have to define what you mean by LIFE. Because when we say LIFE people have varied definitions of its meanings. Some can define life and afterlife and beforelife. I had provided my own definition in one of the debates. So lets have your definition of life, then we can go into how life can start from non-life.
i claim to be an evolutionist but you have provided me with many evolutionary terms i am unfamilair with, like spontaneous generation and last universal ancestor please explain what they are, after all we are here to learn.

1. I disagree with ur notion that I am stereotyped. especially if u refer to my position on several atheistic postulations, this is largely due to the incessant irrational outbursts and opinions advocated by several atheists on this forum. I am not in any form stereotyped with regards to intellectually driven debates. . .I remain very open minded and objective.

2. My basis of believing in genesis is not on the notion that "if evolution is false genesis must be true". On the contrary I do believe that the genesis account of creationism passes the test of scientific, intellectual and logical analyses. I do not subscribe to evolution for numerous reasons. . . .some of which are the basis of the questions I asked in my previous posts about evolution. The least u can do is to answer my questions or produce links where these answers had been earlier given.

3. With regards to spotaneous generation and the last universal ancestor. . .u might want to examine this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

noetic2:

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

Why do u say that I am being VERY dishonest? Do u think the reasons you gave are so unreasonable that I couldn't possibly understand them?

I read through your post and that was my honest opinion. What I wrote in my post was what I understood from your post and If it was wrong please correct me.

what exactly is krayola's point?

@Krayola2
I am afraid this is not working out as you thought it would, thing is you picked the wrong person to have a debate with. Anyway what do you say we make sense of some things, you said a lot of stuff that actually got me thinking so I am proposing we open a thread to see what Nairaland atheists think of the bible and of religion in general, hopefully you will get a better response from people and you can start by trying to correct the ideologies of the atheists first. Tell me what you think.

@ chrisbenogor . . haha  I wasn't counting on it. If anything it showed me that being patient with people is harder than I thought. I had to pretty much force my self not to go loco.   I was just hoping it would allow us to actually exchange views on stuff. All the debates seem the same. Its just the same cycle everyday and it gets boring after while. Its almost like we have the same exact conversations every day.

1: Prove this
2: u cant even prove this and u want me to prove that
1: I showed u evidence
2: Is that proof u this idiot?
1: who u callin idiot? ur daddy is an idiot
2: no, ur daddy u this bastard
3: stop insulting each other
1: this lost foolish idiotic atheist started it
2: no!! it was this deluded christian buffoon talking crap about his desert daddy and peasant carpenter
1: die bitch!!
2: Death to the infidel!!

Yeah.  .please start the thread. . .not sure how long it will last though. . .

Krayola2:

@ chrisbenogor . . haha  I wasn't counting on it. If anything it showed me that being patient with people is harder than I thought. I had to pretty much force my self not to go loco.   I was just hoping it would allow us to actually exchange views on stuff. All the debates seem the same. Its just the same cycle everyday and it gets boring after while. Its almost like we have the same exact conversations every day.

1: Prove this
2: u cant even prove this and u want me to prove that
1: I showed u evidence
2: Is that proof u this idiot?
1: who u callin idiot? ur daddy is an idiot
2: no, ur daddy u this bastard
3: stop insulting each other
1: this lost foolish idiotic atheist started it
2: no!! it was this deluded christian buffoon talking crap about his desert daddy and peasant carpenter
1: die bitch!!
2: Death to the infidel!!

Yeah.  .please start the thread. . .not sure how long it will last though. . .

This is ridiculous.

you offered no analyses from ur brain. . .all u did was to copy and paste. . . . .without any reason as to why u subscribe to what u copied and pasted.
You failed to answer any of my questions. . . .am I supposed to engage u based on the stuffs u copied?

what sort of . . . .

It's ok. I don't want to debate u any more. Thanks for your time.

Krayola2:

@ chrisbenogor . . haha  I wasn't counting on it. If anything it showed me that being patient with people is harder than I thought. I had to pretty much force my self not to go loco.   I was just hoping it would allow us to actually exchange views on stuff. All the debates seem the same. Its just the same cycle everyday and it gets boring after while. Its almost like we have the same exact conversations every day.

1: Prove this
2: u cant even prove this and u want me to prove that
1: I showed u evidence
2: Is that proof u this idiot?
1: who u callin idiot? ur daddy is an idiot
2: no, ur daddy u this bastard
3: stop insulting each other
1: this lost foolish idiotic atheist started it
2: no!! it was this deluded christian buffoon talking crap about his desert daddy and peasant carpenter
1: die bitch!!
2: Death to the infidel!!

Yeah.  .please start the thread. . .not sure how long it will last though. . .

when did any of all that happen on this thread? was that the purpose for which u started the thread?

For a fact, I know that u are both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Krayola2:

It's ok. I don't want to debate u any more. Thanks for your time.

u are welcome. . . . .but I did not see u debate anything. . .did u?

I never said that happened on this thread. I was was using that to describe what the typical nairaland thread looks like.

Its not about debating. If u do not even read my posts, then this is pointless.  Why are u are asking me questions that i already answered?

Krayola2:

@ chrisbenogor . . haha  I wasn't counting on it. If anything it showed me that being patient with people is harder than I thought. I had to pretty much force my self not to go loco.   I was just hoping it would allow us to actually exchange views on stuff. All the debates seem the same. Its just the same cycle everyday and it gets boring after while. Its almost like we have the same exact conversations every day.

1: Prove this
2: u cant even prove this and u want me to prove that
1: I showed u evidence
2: Is that proof u this idiot?
1: who u callin idiot? ur daddy is an idiot
2: no, ur daddy u this bastard
3: stop insulting each other
1: this lost foolish idiotic atheist started it
2: no!! it was this deluded christian buffoon talking crap about his desert daddy and peasant carpenter
1: die bitch!!
2: Death to the infidel!!

Yeah.  .please start the thread. . .not sure how long it will last though. . .

you're being deliberately dishonest. Do you know the reason debates with atheists like you run into deadlocks? Because all you folks do is copy-paste, you cant debate your own opinions.

Krayola2:

I never said that happened on this thread. I was was using that to describe what the typical nairaland thread looks like.

Its not about debating. If u do not even read my posts, then this is point less. Why are u are asking me questions that i already answered?

please stop lying.

what question did u answer and where?

@ Noetic2

I don't want to debate someone who questions my motives, and calls me dishonest every other post. That is the main reason I'm not debating you anymore. U've done it several times and I have decided i won't put up with it anymore.

Krayola2:

@ Noetic2

I don't want to debate someone who questions my motives, and calls me dishonest every other post. That is the main reason I'm not debating you anymore. U've done it several times and I have decided i won't put up with it anymore.

again this is dishonest and lying.

1. We were never debating. . . . .all u did was to copy-paste and evade my questions. . . .while I took the pain to make original analyses.

2. I never questioned ur motives at any time. . . If I had any reason to question ur motives I would not have agreed to engage u on this thread.

You dont have state anything. . . . .cos so far u havent, . . .good luck.

noetic2:

again this is dishonest and lying.

1. We were never debating. . . . .all u did was to copy-paste and evade my questions. . . .while I took the pain to make original analyses.

2. I never questioned ur motives at any time. . . If I had any reason to question ur motives I would not have agreed to engage u on this thread.

You dont have state anything. . . . .cos so far u havent, . . .good luck.

i wondered how long it would take before anyone noticed this glaring fact. Noetic2 did 99% of the nitty-gritty answering . . . there was nothing from krayola's side. I think he's simply run out of gas.

davidylan:

i wondered how long it would take before anyone noticed this glaring fact. Noetic2 did 99% of the nitty-gritty answering . . . there was nothing from krayola's side. I think he's simply run out of gas.

I guess he had ulterior motives for opening the thread.

davidylan:

i wondered how long it would take before anyone noticed this glaring fact. Noetic2 did 99% of the nitty-gritty answering . . . there was nothing from krayola's side. I think he's simply run out of gas.

That is not true, what did you expect to see from him that you did not get?

noetic2:

again this is dishonest and lying.

1. We were never debating. . . . .all u did was to copy-paste and evade my questions. . . .while I took the pain to make original analyses.

2. I never questioned ur motives at any time. . . If I had any reason to question ur motives I would not have agreed to engage u on this thread.

You dont have state anything. . . . .cos so far u havent, . . .good luck.

Again not true, the only part he copied he did because he wanted to explain the JPED hypotheses which davidylan singled out.

noetic2:

again this is dishonest and lying.

1. We were never debating. . . . .all u did was to copy-paste and evade my questions. . . .while I took the pain to make original analyses.

2. I never questioned ur motives at any time. . . If I had any reason to question ur motives I would not have agreed to engage u on this thread.

You dont have state anything. . . . .cos so far u havent,  . . .good luck.

Krayola2:

[b] 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.
[/b]
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. Remember 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.
If you don't 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.

I showed what the issues with the theory were and explained why they do not affect my understanding of Genesis which is (It's unfprtunate that u claim i didnt give any analyses. Very unfortunate.

First of all I know that Jewish civilization did not emerge in a vacuum. Rather it was forged out of the essential elements of an extensive Mesopotamian cultural heritage. Also, until around the time of Elijah, Jews did not believe their God was the only god. They believed there were other gods, but their's was the Supreme one. It was something called monolatry, and not monotheism. The latter was a later development.

Another thing is that when u read the stories of the Bible, you have to realize that some of them were written way way waaaaay after the “fact” (sometimes centuries, sometimes decades, some were records of recent events. I mean that the Israelites were a people creating an identity for themselves, based on certain beliefs that had been passed down orally by tradition. So when a lot of the writing was done, current events and previous ones are retrojected waay into the past, and then stories are created to illustrate how they understood their history based on these beliefs about God and his relationship with them. 

My understanding of the creation story in Genesis (based on what I have studied over the last 3 years and not what i was raised with, which is identical, i assume for now, to what u believe) is that the story does not focus on a scientific account of the origin of the universe, but on the gracious provision of God for humankind. Three thousand years ago people were not asking scientific questions, but theological ones. In my opinion, reading the bible without literal and historical sensivities is not intellectually honest. But that is just my opinion. We know how much things have changed since the 1980s, i can't even start to imaging what people were like 3000 years ago.  The purpose of the Genesis account was not to explain how the earh came to be, but to state what exactly the nature of the relationship betweem them and their God was. This was to be the basis for all future developments of their philosophy/worldview. .

“Modern readers should not allow issues of no consequence to the purposes of these early narratives to obscure their profound view of God and humanity.” Fant Clyde An Introduction to the Bible

The purpose of Genesis was not to give a scientific account. Science didn't exist.


Aight. . . I don't want to bore u with details, so if anything is unclear please ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure u might have heard of the hypothesis that several traditions were incorporated into the Torah. J,E,D and P. Scholars have studied the writing styles, grammar, vocabulary, of the text, and used archaelogical evidence etc to develop this hypothesis. (Remember you don't have to agree with it, I just want you to understand so lets not yet get into debating whether it is valid or not). My explanation of my understanding of Genesis and why i do not accept it as authority regarding the origin of the earth involves the J and the P traditions, so I'll will describe both a little bit.


The J tradition is the oldest according to this hypothesis. It dates back to the 9th century BCE, and attributed the most anththropomorphic chracter to God, referred to as YHWH.  The creation account in Genesis 2 is believed to come out of this tradition.

The P tradition is from the 5th century BCE, which has a more transcendental view of God, and emphasizes the importance of the sacrificial system. It is also the only tradition that states that tithes are to be given to priests and Levites (evidence of statehood and tax-collection) The creation account is Genesis 1 comes out of this tradition.

This P tradition shows the 1st signs of Monotheism. . .that only 1 God exists and none other.

“It occured when foreign Gods were seen as simply the works of men's hands. This was the view Elijah had in the 9th centure BCE when , confronting the prophets of Baal, declared 'The Lord, he is God; The Lord he is God.' (1 kings 18:39). Certainly by the time of Jeremiah (several decades after the babylonian exile), monotheism appears to have taken a firm hold on the Israelite community. In the words of Jeremiah: 'Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them for they can do no evil, neither is it in then to do good' (Jeremiah 10:5). Psalm 82 also describes how God rebukes the other Gods for their injustice and deprives them of divine status and immortality." Dan Cohn- Sherbok. Judaism “History, Belief, and practice”

This change in world-view changed western religion permanently and is responsible for the account of creation in Genesis 1. I will explain why I believe this to be so, and why despite this the Bible retains both its scriptural authority, and remains consistent with science (Justifying why there are many biblical scholars who are devout christians regardless of the “inconsistencies” in the bible. They just have a more thorough understanding of it, and it reinforces their faith rather than weaken it)

The account in Genesis 2 is the original tradition passed down orally. It takes as a given that God made the Heaven and the Earth and does not attempt to explain how. This was not their concern. If you read it carefully (get your bible) you will notice the following.
"1)That it describes god in human terms. i.e God formed, God planted, God placed. This shows that God was not seen as radically transcendent (outside this world), but close to man, and in close contact to man. i.e. Involved in his life and concerned about his well being and conduct “The Lord God called Adam 'Where are u'. . . 'How could you do such a thing?'. . .” Genesis 2: 8

2)The first person (' adam, which translates to “human” in ancient hebrew) is made from soil ('adama – notice the play of words). BUT, this human is not complete until a second act of creation, when the first woman (eve, which translates to life of life-giver) is created in Genesis 2:23. they both come from one body; they both are animated by the breath of God; they both are drawn to one another as “one flesh”; and they both return to the soil from which they came. This is the original creation story of the Israelites, and it was not concerned with the origin of the earth, but of humans, and our relationship with the Creator . ." [/b] Fant Clyde An Introduction to the Bible (paraphrased. . .only a brief summary)
[b]Nothing in this passage, considering it was developed over 3000 years ago, is inconsistent with science. It was a deep, insightful, and honest response to a honest question. That is because politics was not involved yet. Israel was not yet a “Super- power”


Now to the creation story in Genesis 1. First I want to emphasize that though it can be tempting for some to be cynical, the intent of this story was not to decieve anybody. It was just the way of the times, and that was how culture was preserved, and history written back then.

I already described briefly earlier the shift from Monolatry(One most powerful God among other less powerful gods) to Monotheism (radical transcendence of the only God). Israelites (perhaps Elijah was the visionary who discovered this) saw all the other Gods as man made. They were made of wood, broze etc. They were made of things of this world. It was a revolutionary idea that had developed slowly over centuries. The Israelite God created the universe and “its fullness there-of”. Therefore, by definition he had authority over all the other gods, and had the power to render them out of commission. As the stories of Elijah tell us. These stories do not always tell us about actual events, but actual development of ideas and world-view. The stories of Elijah's victory over other gods illustrate the change in belief about the nature and status of their God.

This is what the story in genesis seeks to articulate. Not to tell us about the actual origin of the earth, but incorporate this new belief into their tradition. It was written to affirm that their God was the creator of all that exists, and everything else was beneath, and subject to His Authority . The objective of the writers was to document what they now knew for sure to be true. That the other gods were nothing more than material objects, and that the power that sustains was not of this world. It wasn't supposed to describe the actual way the earth was created, but to show the transcendence and dominion of their God over all that exists. His word is his power. ( God said, made, created is used when creating, though he does other things like setting and separating).

Now I'm not saying this is all true for sure, i'm just saying that based on what I have studied, I believe Evolution over Genesis when it comes to the origin of the Earth,. Not because I think the bible is a book of “lies”, but because I do not believe that was what the writers sought to describe. I, however, believe the account in Genesis 2, viewed with literal and historical sensitivites, can be reconciled with evolution because it does not make any claims that are, in my opinion, inaccurate in light of modern science.

The part I copied was for people who were not familiar with the hypotheses, and also to back up what I said in the paragraph before the part i copied. (the analysis u say i never did). I rest my case.

I apologize if i couldn't meet ur expectations.

@Krayola2
You should learn your lesson, its impossible with these two (noetic and david). But I am sure so many other people read it.

Krayola2:



I showed what the issues with the theory were and explained why they do not affect my understanding of Genesis which is (It's unfprtunate that u claim i didnt give any analyses. Very unfortunate.

1. how can explain how a theory does not affect ur understanding of a subject. . .when u have not displayed or stated ur understanding of that subject. why was it so difficult to state ur understanding of genesis?

2. please spare me. . .was that an analyses? analyses of what?

The part I copied was for people who were not familiar with the hypotheses, and also to back up what I said in the paragraph before the part i copied. (the analysis u say i never did). I rest my case.

I apologize if i couldn't meet ur expectations.

there is no basis for apologies.

all u did in the final paragraph was to make assertions. . . which u did not explain.

Ok.

@noetic
I am curious can you give me a link to any post on Nairaland where you apologised for being wrong?

Chrisbenogor:

@noetic
I am curious can you give me a link to any post on Nairaland where you apologised for being wrong?

why is this important?

u can search for 3kings thread and the thread attacking kobojunkie. . . . I did offer apologies for my erroneous attacks.

stereotypes like urs could be . , .

noetic2:

why is this important?

u can search for 3kings thread and the thread attacking kobojunkie. . . . I did offer apologies for my erroneous attacks.

stereotypes like urs could be . , .

Do you feel like I am out to discredit you each time I ask you something?

Chrisbenogor:

Do you feel like I am out to discredit you each time I ask you something?

does it matter what I think about ur post? does ur opinion on my posts matter?

noetic2:

does it matter what I think about ur post? does ur opinion on my posts matter?

It matters to me, I find it mind boggling that you and I cannot have a common ground to discuss issues. Do you ever think there could be a concensus?

Chrisbenogor:

It matters to me, I find it mind boggling that you and I cannot have a common ground to discuss issues. Do you ever think there could be a concensus?

I actually attempted to discuss with u. . . .but u ended up doing it the NL atheists way. . .so I felt it was pointless.

of course we can reach a concesus on several issues, . . .

noetic2:

I actually attempted to discuss with u. . . .but u ended up doing it the NL atheists way. . .so I felt it was pointless.

of course we can reach a concesus on several issues, . . .

Ok, shoot which issues?