| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| created male and female. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2009, 10:15 PM (497 Views) | |
| the breeze | May 26 2009, 10:15 PM Post #1 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Created Male and Female Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:00 PM Genesis 6:19: "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." One of our Creation Moments listeners has written to ask how evolutionists explain the development of male and female. The problem is, if a mutation produced the first male, it isn't likely that another mutation would have produced the first female at the same time and in the same neighborhood. The writer further pointed out that studies now show that with the current genetic errors we all carry within us, one male and one female would not be enough to establish a new population of male and female creatures. The question is important. Evolutionists have admitted that their theory does not have a satisfactory explanation for how male and female could have developed. One evolutionist even noted that because evolutionists have no credible explanation, most textbooks simply ignore the question as obvious as it is. But evolutionists also point out that the problems in explaining the origins of male and female are even greater than those already mentioned. They now admit that their studies show that if creatures progress by evolution, creatures who reproduce sexually would be at a disadvantage. Even worse, sexual reproduction is, as one evolutionist put it, designed to weed out the very genetic variations that supposedly cause evolution! It is difficult to understand, then, how anyone could say that evolution offers a better explanation of life than the Bible's creation account. Prayer: Dear Father, I thank You that in Your wisdom You have made us male and female and that You have done so in a way which confounds man's rebellious wisdom. Help this fact be a witness to Your glory. In Jesus' Name. Amen. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 26 2009, 11:18 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How can you tell an creationist is lying? When he's posting crap on the Internet! Oh, not breezy, but the sources he loves to snip. Anyone wondering how science hypothesizes how the "evolution of sexual reproduction" came about... you might start with the Wiki article under the same title and then throw the phrase into Google. There are thousands of non-biblical references on how sexual reproduction might have come about. Breezy snips:
Which, in the face of the fact that Google shows 17,200 pages on the exact phrase, gives lie to the idea that there are no satisfactory explanations. There are a plethora of explanations that don't boil down to "Magic man done it." A good question for the creationists is: Why do some species use BOTH sexual and asexual reproductive techniques? One might think such diverse reproductive tools would light the path between asexual and sexual reproduction. One might also notice that the bible makes NO mention of asexual reproduction, but it exists. The bible, in the passage quoted above, might lead one to believe that there is no asexual reproduction! "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." Even leaving out plants and fungi since the bible seems to apply "flesh" only to animals, there are animals that reproduce asexually which means that the bible, counting "every living thing of all flesh... they shall be male and female" is wrong. There are living things of flesh that are not male and female. Wonder why the bible, that science text nonpareil (or so some out have us believe), didn't know that some animals reproduce asexually and are not divided into male and female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction#Examples_in_animals Set 'em up and knock 'em down... Edited by ngc1514, May 26 2009, 11:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 27 2009, 12:00 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
It is a lot easier to prove evolution that it is creationism. This issue is probably the biggest issue for religion. Evolution is a proven fact. It happens & is observable. Whether it explains the actual origins of life can be debatable. Religion has to adapt. It had to adapt in the past to the rather uncomfortable discovery that this planet was inhabited by huge reptiles before we came along. A lot of people still cling to the belief that the earth is 10k years old & children played in rivers with T-Rex's. All scientific evidence is contrary to that, its easier to believe that pigs fly. One can reconcile science & the account in genesis by assuming it is an allegory, not too difficult since the bible is full of them. One also has to remember that those who wrote Genesis, only had the framework of their own cultural, environmental & technological framework to work within and had to write it so it was understandable to the people of the day. If God had told them to write stuff about the universe that sounded like it came out of the mouth of Stephen Hawking, they would have thought the writer was nuts. Likewise, if he had said that on the 3rd day God created giant reptiles the size of Mac truck, then bought a 3 mile wide Asteroid down to get rid of them, since they didn't quite work out as planned. That brings up another point, if God never makes an error, why the heck did he create those things? They served no useful purpose. Maybe, assuming Earth was his first effort at this creating animal thing, he was playing with differing ecological experiments. If it had worked out maybe we would now be toothy T Rex descendants ranching bronto's. Heck we couldn't be any nastier a species than we are now. Maybe another divinely inspired asteroid is on the way to clear things out for attempt # 3. |
|
|
| Deleted User | May 27 2009, 12:51 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Genesis 6:19: "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." But Genesis 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." So which is it? Can't both be right. So much for inerrancy. |
|
|
| Deleted User | May 27 2009, 01:06 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
The bible, divinely inspired or not, was written by humans. Humans are not perfect. Then we can go into the editing, & omissions over the centuries. The bible may be an enduring text compared to many others, but it is certianly not in its original form. Not mention that as soon as something is translated, it changes its meaning, at least subtlety, since language is a reflection of culture. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2009, 01:58 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The clean beasts were, I suspect, to become dinner for Mr. and Mrs. Noah and the kids. Obviously with the understanding that they were not supposed to eat ALL the clean beasts lest the newly washed world become populated only by the unclean. Would have been pretty tough keeping up with Leviticus 11 had only the unclean survived! |
![]() |
|
| Mike | May 29 2009, 04:47 AM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How can you tell an creationist is lying? When he's posting crap on the Internet! Oh, not breezy, but the sources he loves to snip. Now now. You might disagree with Bruces's posts, but I have yet to see you disprove them. Anyone wondering how science hypothesizes how the "evolution of sexual reproduction" came about... you might start with the Wiki article under the same title and then throw the phrase into Google. There are thousands of non-biblical references on how sexual reproduction might have come about. "Might" ? Yep, lots of speculation out there on the internet. Breezy snips:
Which, in the face of the fact that Google shows 17,200 pages on the exact phrase, gives lie to the idea that there are no satisfactory explanations. There are a plethora of explanations that don't boil down to "Magic man done it." Why would one of the speculative theories transcend intelligent design? A good question for the creationists is: Why do some species use BOTH sexual and asexual reproductive techniques? One might think such diverse reproductive tools would light the path between asexual and sexual reproduction. One might also notice that the bible makes NO mention of asexual reproduction, but it exists. The bible, in the passage quoted above, might lead one to believe that there is no asexual reproduction! The bible does not mention many things that are common knowledge. What is your point? "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." Even leaving out plants and fungi since the bible seems to apply "flesh" only to animals, there are animals that reproduce asexually which means that the bible, counting "every living thing of all flesh... they shall be male and female" is wrong. There are living things of flesh that are not male and female. Why are you picking apart biblical verse? Is this a feeble attempt to discredit the bible? And attempt to prove that there is no God? What? Wonder why the bible, that science text nonpareil (or so some out have us believe), didn't know that some animals reproduce asexually and are not divided into male and female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction#Examples_in_animals Set 'em up and knock 'em down... Set up what and knock down what? The bible never claims to explain all things in nature. I'm not following your logic here. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 29 2009, 07:55 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not sure how you got so badly derailed, Padre, but you've fluffed it completely on this one! I almost wonder if we are talked the same language! But, let's take it from the top and perhaps I can ease your confusion.
One disproves something by showing how what one has written is wrong. The discussion breezy's original post created was not about how sexual reproduction evolved, but the statement where he posted:
Now, you being an intelligent man, what do you think would prove this wrong? Perhaps reference to literally thousands of websites, journal articles and papers that discuss the very issue? Papers that, while speculative since we'll never really know how it came about, offer solid scientific approaches to how it MIGHT have come about. The reference to all these papers..etc, disproves breezy's post that a "satisfactory explanation" has not been developed. By any definition of the word "disprove," breezy's post has been disproven.
The fact that there exists "speculation" at all disproves breezy's point that there exists an explanation. I'm discounting his use of "satisfactory" because ANY explanation would be considered unsatisfactory by the creationists. 17,000+ citations in Google for those papers, journal articles and monographs blow breezy's argument out of the water as well as your "failure to disprove" point. If you look at the rest of the engagements between breezy and the rest of the world, you will see that his other arguments have been similarly disproven. None of the refutations to his endless pastes have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of god, but only showing why his creationist posts are wrong or outright lies.
If, for no other reason than Occam's Razor and the unnecessary multiplication of entities. There is no objective evidence that supports intelligent design. It remains "Magic man done it."
And your evidence that asexual reproduction was "common knowledge to the people who wrote the bible is??? This was another simple demonstration that the bible isn't a science text. Something you and I agree upon, but breezy discredits.
I don't think there is any need to discredit the bible if you accept that it is allegory and not scientific truth. You may so accept, but breezy does not. And, as I've mentioned more than once, I have no need to prove there is no god. I've said many times that it is impossible disprove the existence of god for the same reason that it's impossible to prove a scientific theory. As a Logical Empiricist, I don't care if god exists or not. Whether he/she/it exists in some objective fashion is irrelevant until objective evidence supports the existence claim. None does.
There was no reference to the bible in my set 'em up. It was a reference to the endless creationist drivel breezy posts without the slightest hint of understanding of what it's saying. As we've seen with his power of prayer posts, the stuff he clipped and pasted said the exact opposite of what he was trying to prove. Set 'em up and we'll knock 'em down. Not following my logic is the least of your problems, Padre. It's your inability to follow a simple argument over a few messages that concerns me more. As Aiden Nichols writes in his, "The Shape of Catholic Theology: An Introduction to its Sources".
Your eagerness to count coup lead you down paths that were not blazed during this thread. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 29 2009, 08:52 AM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'd like to address the common defensive and dismissive attitude behind these words: "Why are you picking apart biblical verse? Is this a feeble attempt to discredit the bible? And attempt to prove that there is no God? What?" Just purchased Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted. He is a recognized Biblical scholar, though not a devotional scholar but a historical scholar. Early in the book he gives as an example of a discrepancy in the Bible the different days Mark and John give for the death of Jesus. He addresses several common responses to the discrepancy. Attempts to explain it away fail. Attempts to dismiss it as insignificant miss the point. Defenses it's just to attack the Bible or God are brushed aside for the fact that Mark and John wrote with different purposes. John chose the cleansing day before Passover because that's the day a lamb is sacrificed, and John's theme is Jesus was the lamb sacrificed to take away our sins. Defensive, dismissive attitudes miss the deeper significance. You don't need to be a believer to understand how such rhetorical devices and poetic license tells a greater story. Why do Christian need such an attitude? |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





12:40 AM Jul 14
