Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[Tcg]

That's a real problem for anyone who wants to make Genesis into a literal history, isn't it? For working the ground was a curse laid on Adam after the fall. It makes no sense at all to bring that in before the fall, unless the creation story is figurative.

Adam was put in the Garden, "to work it and keep it." (Gen 2:15), prior to the fall. After the fall the task of working the ground became more difficult due to the "thorns and thistles" (Gen. 3:18) which were the result of God's curse. According to the story, work was not the curse, work being difficult was.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

These are philosophical questions and they are not confined to claims about the Bible either.

My question was directed at Eloi and was asked in the spirit of scientific enquiry. What evidence is there (external to the Bible) that shows the Bible to be factually correct about ‘kinds’?

It says God made kinds. Doesn't say how. The evidence says they evolved, but the Bible is neutral on that.

[Inquirer]

The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind. As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Well there are sound reasons for that disapproval Barbarian.

There's never a sound reason to dispprove of God's will.

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Notice it wasn't Adam's body (which was produced from nature, but his living soul, which was give directly by God.

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

That's a real problem for anyone who wants to make Genesis into a literal history, isn't it? For working the ground was a curse laid on Adam after the fall. It makes no sense at all to bring that in before the fall, unless the creation story is figurative.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And Adam was the first living soul, not the first human. Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning? Why not just let it be God's way instead of your new revision of Genesis. As you see, the "work the ground" issue cannot be reconciled with the creation story as a literal history.

This is an interpretation of the text Barbarian, and as I'm sure you know there are a great many different interpretations each perhaps with their own little personal agenda.

Nothing in Genesis says the creation of life was not an instantaneous act, in fact the creation summarized in Genesis is expressed in terms of discrete steps not as a continuous unfolding process.

As for "living soul" the text states unambiguously that Adam was NOT the first "living soul" was not the first "nephesh" was not the first נֶפֶשׁ

And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living [נֶפֶשׁ] creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

This is the very same identical Hebrew term used below:

Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh, נֶפֶשׁ].

So Adam was not the first "nephesh" he was though the first man (that is clearly written), not the millionth man.

There's no Biblical basis for claiming life existed that was at one time not "nephesh" and that later became "nephesh", how would a bird without nephesh differ from one with it?

This is easily reconciled by understanding that "nephesh" or "living soul" is life, not something added to already living material. Nowhere do we here of living creatures people or animals existing without "nephesh".

Nothing in Genesis supports your belief that God created life and people via some slow, lengthy, drawn out material process, it is everywhere characterized as dramatic, discrete, a fact exemplified by the Cambrian explosion.

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your scientific understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying some of the text is literal and some is not and that you are able to tell which is which.

[Clownboat]

Please calm down, I'm not sure why you are imagining nano machines and what not.

Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When living organisms reproduce, they pass on to their progeny a collection of traits.

So what was the first example of evolution?

I don't know, but do you understand that there were no nano machines involved and have you updated your understanding of what evolution really means?

how could evolution ever take place if the means by which it propagates had not yet evolved?

It couldn't. For all we know, there was a god that created basic life on earth. What does that have to do with how populations of organisms have changed or why they change?

Take two breaths and let's pretend that evolution has been shown to be false so we can continue our discussion.
Can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would very much like to hear it.

Must it be a scientific explanation? That is if I propose a non-scientific explanation will you reject it because it is not a scientific explanation?

I guess we will have to see what you propose before I can determine if it will be rejected. Does you explination makes sense? If so, then perhaps you have a start. If not, ask youself why you hold it.

What do you even understand by the term "explanation" anyway? do you know?

I thought I did, but you tell me and then kindly answer why you asked such a question.
Explination: A reason or justification given for an action or belief.
Why are you asking?

[Clownboat]

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your scientific understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying some of the text is literal and some is not and that you are able to tell which is which.

Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?
It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?

To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.

[Inquirer]

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your scientific understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying some of the text is literal and some is not and that you are able to tell which is which.

Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?
It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?

To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.

This won't help, I've been through it a hundred times over the years, are we trying to get somewhere or just find this or that excuse to dismiss scripture? It is easy to dismiss the Bible, I did it myself for the first 28 years of my life, I'm well aware of the techniques.

Who are you to say that someone's perception is not real? we each perceive, perception is subjective, you cannot interact or understand what's around you without your own perception being part of that, try as you might you cannot objectify subjective experience.

If you experience fear of a threat in a dream, is that real literal fear or something else? are you truly scared or not?

[Clownboat]

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your scientific understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying some of the text is literal and some is not and that you are able to tell which is which.

Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?
It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?

To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.

This won't help, I've been through it a hundred times over the years, are we trying to get somewhere or just find this or that excuse to dismiss scripture? It is easy to dismiss the Bible, I did it myself for the first 28 years of my life, I'm well aware of the techniques.

Sorry, I'm talking about common sense, not excuses for dismissing scripture. Now, if a holy book is non-sensical, that could be a reason to reject it wouldn't you think?

Who are you to say that someone's perception is not real?

I am that I am.
Like you, if a person was perceiving unicorns or fairies, we would consider their perception to not be real.

we each perceive, perception is subjective, you cannot interact or understand what's around you without your own perception being part of that, try as you might you cannot objectify subjective experience.

Is this a distraction from all the odd Bible beliefs that are clear to see above? Does living in a whale for days on end not defy common sense? How about a talking donkey, does that defy common sense?

If you experience fear of a threat in a dream, is that real literal fear or something else? are you truly scared or not?

Fear is internal. We cannot inflict fear on to another person. So the fear you mention in the dream is real.
You really don't want to talk about the beliefs in the Bible that defy common sense do you?

[The Barbarian]

There's never a sound reason to dispprove of God's will.

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Notice it wasn't Adam's body (which was produced from nature, but his living soul, which was give directly by God.

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

That's a real problem for anyone who wants to make Genesis into a literal history, isn't it? For working the ground was a curse laid on Adam after the fall. It makes no sense at all to bring that in before the fall, unless the creation story is figurative.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And Adam was the first living soul, not the first human. Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning? Why not just let it be God's way instead of your new revision of Genesis. As you see, the "work the ground" issue cannot be reconciled with the creation story as a literal history.

This is an interpretation of the text Barbarian, and as I'm sure you know there are a great many different interpretations each perhaps with their own little personal agenda.

Nothing in Genesis says the creation of life was not an instantaneous act,

Nor does it say that it was. The Bible does not say the sun is made of burning fuel, nor does it say the Sun's energy comes from fusion. Some things, He seems to have intended for us to figure out on our own. That's what the evidence is for.

As for "living soul" the text states unambiguously that Adam was NOT the first "living soul"

Whatever the argument might be, it's clear that while human bodies evolved over time, our souls are given immediately by God. No other being was so given a soul directly by God.

Nothing in Genesis supports your belief that God created life and people via some slow, lengthy, drawn out material process

Nor does it say it was instantaneous. It's neutral on that. However, the evidence He left for us, is not neutral. And that matters.

it is everywhere characterized as dramatic, discrete, a fact exemplified by the Cambrian explosion.

Apparently, less than 10 million years. Seems like a lot of time to me. And given that we find complex animals existing long before the Cambrian, it's not as "discrete" as once imagined.

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your own religious understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying the text is literal but you are unable to actually show that it is.

[Inquirer]

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your scientific understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying some of the text is literal and some is not and that you are able to tell which is which.

Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?

Yes, study and heed God's word. It reveals knowledge that is undiscoverable scientifically.

It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?

Yes.

To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.

Does that Bible claim that it contains "literal" truth? it does not, so where did you get this idea from?

[Inquirer]

There's never a sound reason to dispprove of God's will.

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Notice it wasn't Adam's body (which was produced from nature, but his living soul, which was give directly by God.

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

That's a real problem for anyone who wants to make Genesis into a literal history, isn't it? For working the ground was a curse laid on Adam after the fall. It makes no sense at all to bring that in before the fall, unless the creation story is figurative.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And Adam was the first living soul, not the first human. Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning? Why not just let it be God's way instead of your new revision of Genesis. As you see, the "work the ground" issue cannot be reconciled with the creation story as a literal history.

This is an interpretation of the text Barbarian, and as I'm sure you know there are a great many different interpretations each perhaps with their own little personal agenda.

Nothing in Genesis says the creation of life was not an instantaneous act,

Nor does it say that it was. The Bible does not say the sun is made of burning fuel, nor does it say the Sun's energy comes from fusion. Some things, He seems to have intended for us to figure out on our own. That's what the evidence is for.

As for "living soul" the text states unambiguously that Adam was NOT the first "living soul"

Whatever the argument might be, it's clear that while human bodies evolved over time, our souls are given immediately by God. No other being was so given a soul directly by God.

Nothing in Genesis supports your belief that God created life and people via some slow, lengthy, drawn out material process

Nor does it say it was instantaneous. It's neutral on that. However, the evidence He left for us, is not neutral. And that matters.

it is everywhere characterized as dramatic, discrete, a fact exemplified by the Cambrian explosion.

Apparently, less than 10 million years. Seems like a lot of time to me. And given that we find complex animals existing long before the Cambrian, it's not as "discrete" as once imagined.

You are striving to adapt what is written to fit your own religious understanding, your own understanding, you excuse that by saying the text is literal but you are unable to actually show that it is.

Where did you read that man was given a "soul" that animals were not also given? I just explained to you that the word "soul" in some English translations is from the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Bible does not reserve that term exclusively for people Barbarian, go and check, do some research, accuracy is important.