The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[uwot]

"The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" I would agree completely, what did you eat for your meal, didn't it either grow in the dirt, was an animal that ate what grew in the dirt?

Fish.

Does what you eat not form what you are?

Fishy.

Humans usually take their first breath when they are born...

That must keep god very busy.

....and the rib could be an analogy to the genetic origin of another human being.

Oh?

The Bible was written by stone age nomads that didn't understand anything about genetics and couldn't understand anything about it...

Then they couldn't understand the analogy, ergo; they weren't making one.

...everything was written in the form of mythology.

So why should this book be useful to anyone but "stone age nomads"?

[thedoc]

"The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" I would agree completely, what did you eat for your meal, didn't it either grow in the dirt, was an animal that ate what grew in the dirt?

Fish.

If you trace it back far enough you will discover that the nutrients came from the "dust of the Earth".

[thedoc]

...everything was written in the form of mythology.

So why should this book be useful to anyone but "stone age nomads"?

If you understand the mythology, you can understand what is written.

Unfortunately today most people have "progressed" beyond mythology.

[uwot]

If you trace it back far enough you will discover that the nutrients came from the "dust of the Earth".

Fair enough; I was being fishetious. Anyway, what about that blowing up the nostrils stuff?

If you understand the mythology, you can understand what is written.

Well, as you have demonstrated, if you wish to believe the bible, you can understand it any way that pleases you.

Unfortunately today most people have "progressed" beyond mythology.

Do you think it unfortunate that your own understanding of the creation of Adam and Eve has "progressed" beyond mythology?

[thedoc]

Anyway, what about that blowing up the nostrils stuff?

I thought I addressed that here, "Humans usually take their first breath when they are born." I believe it is an allusion to the child taking it's first breath after birth. As I said, most of the old testament is mythology, not to be read literally, the genealogy is probably correct, mostly, but the ages are probably a mistranslation. If you divide the number of years by 12, you get a reasonable number of years, for the period.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Anyway, what about that blowing up the nostrils stuff?

I thought I addressed that here, "Humans usually take their first breath when they are born." I believe it is an allusion to the child taking it's first breath after birth. As I said, most of the old testament is mythology, not to be read literally, the genealogy is probably correct, mostly, but the ages are probably a mistranslation. If you divide the number of years by 12, you get a reasonable number of years, for the period.

There are no reliable genealogies in the bible, and the time scales do not add up either.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...everything was written in the form of mythology.

So why should this book be useful to anyone but "stone age nomads"?

If you understand the mythology, you can understand what is written.

Unfortunately today most people have "progressed" beyond mythology.

Not really. The idea of a nation state; money; economic and political systems are all based on unrecognised mythologies that future times may well render to their proper place in history; myths.

[uwot]

Anyway, what about that blowing up the nostrils stuff?

I thought I addressed that here, "Humans usually take their first breath when they are born." I believe it is an allusion to the child taking it's first breath after birth.

Funnily enough, I thought I addressed that here: "Well, as you have demonstrated, if you wish to believe the bible, you can understand it any way that pleases you."

As I said, most of the old testament is mythology, not to be read literally...

Tell that to young Earth creationists. I understand that you don't read it literally; what makes you think the "stone age nomads" who wrote it didn't?

...the genealogy is probably correct, mostly...

Like the sons of Noah populating the planet?

...but the ages are probably a mistranslation. If you divide the number of years by 12, you get a reasonable number of years, for the period.

How do you know what was reasonable for the period, if the bible isn't reliable? Why 12? More to the point: why is it that some passages of the bible should not be taken literally, because of mistranslation, and others because they are mythological? Do you have anything more compelling than 'Because I say so'?

[Londoner]

Tell that to young Earth creationists. I understand that you don't read it literally; what makes you think the "stone age nomads" who wrote it didn't?

They were as intelligent as you and me. Genesis has two different accounts of the creation of man and they would have spotted that. So the fact that they included them both suggests the object was not to give a scientific account of the origins of life, but rather to make theological points. The Bible simply isn't interested in science; it gives two conflicting accounts of Creation and then never mentions it again.

How do you know what was reasonable for the period, if the bible isn't reliable? Why 12? More to the point: why is it that some passages of the bible should not be taken literally, because of mistranslation, and others because they are mythological? Do you have anything more compelling than 'Because I say so'?

I think we have to ask what the book is for. If I am reading a book written to amuse children, I would not understand the stories in the same way as I would if I was reading a history book. The Bible isn't all of one kind. Some bits read as allegory, others as traditional legends, others seem to be meant as straight history and so on. But even where it is telling legends or history, it is always with the view of making some religious point.

[Harbal]

The idea of a nation state; money; economic and political systems are all based on unrecognised mythologies

How are they based on mythology? Surely they are all based on pragmatism, they are just strategies for achieving something. If any of them fail to achieve their intended purpose or lead to undesirable consequences then it means the idea is based on a misconception rather than mythology, doesn't it?

[uwot]

Tell that to young Earth creationists. I understand that you don't read it literally; what makes you think the "stone age nomads" who wrote it didn't?

They were as intelligent as you and me.

No doubt, but they were nowhere near as well informed.

Genesis has two different accounts of the creation of man and they would have spotted that.

The question of whether the universe was created ex nihilo or from some preexisting material has always been a bone of contention. In contemporary terms, the debate is whether the big bang happened in a vacuum, or some quantum field. Ancient and classical accounts generally favour the latter and attribute the construction of the visible universe from 'chaos' to some god or other, Marduk, Atum and Plato's Demiurge, being examples. The biblical accounts reflect this dichotomy.

So the fact that they included them both suggests the object was not to give a scientific account of the origins of life, but rather to make theological points.

Which ever way you look at it, the theological point is that a god created the world.

The Bible simply isn't interested in science; it gives two conflicting accounts of Creation and then never mentions it again.

Given the available technology, there wasn't much to add.

I think we have to ask what the book is for.

Do you mean what it was written for, or how it has been used subsequently?

If I am reading a book written to amuse children, I would not understand the stories in the same way as I would if I was reading a history book. The Bible isn't all of one kind. Some bits read as allegory, others as traditional legends, others seem to be meant as straight history and so on. But even where it is telling legends or history, it is always with the view of making some religious point.

Like all 'religious' books, it makes political points. The most important of which is to create a common identity, which justifies the treatment, usually reprehensible, of nonbelievers.

[Londoner]

Which ever way you look at it, the theological point (of creation stories) is that a god created the world.

I think there is rather more to it than that. As I say, if that was all then why give two stories? I imagine that everybody assumed the world must have been created by some sort of God; what is interesting is what sort of God and his relationship with mankind. And that is what the rest of the Bible is about.

Me: I think we have to ask what the book is for.
Do you mean what it was written for, or how it has been used subsequently?

I mean how it can sensibly be understood. It has very little science and a great deal about the relationship between God and man, so it makes sense to understand it as being about the second.

Plainly there is nothing to stop somebody interpreting it as a guide to physics, or thinking 'Revelation' is a coded prophecy about Donald Trump, but I think they would be massively missing the point. Much like somebody reading a maths text book as if was about theology.

Like all 'religious' books, it makes political points. The most important of which is to create a common identity, which justifies the treatment, usually reprehensible, of nonbelievers.

Well, if that was the case we can at least agree that it is not about physics.

Personally, I think that is a bit simplistic. I think it does all sorts of things; it explains the meaning of place names, it gives tribal histories, it contains legal rules, it recounts popular stories...This will certainly create a common identity between those who identify with the contents, but I do not see why that is particularly a feature of religious books. If I turn on the TV there will be stories about conflicts between Americans and various sorts of dastardly foreigners. If I go to the theatre I may see a Shakespeare play about English history. All cultural products are about defining the identity of a society - and necessarily contrasting that society with those who do not share that identity.

[Belinda]

Hobbes Choice wrote:

The idea of a nation state; money; economic and political systems are all based on unrecognised mythologies

I agree. Let's identify the mythology in question. I claim that the mythology to blame is any mythology the main protagonist of which is unquestionable Authority.

Fortunately for the Christian mythology the main protagonist of which metamorphosed from tribal god of war, through god of justice, to god of mercy as promulgated by Jesus. Because the Jesus story was the life of a man the Christian myth could metamorphose further into secular Humanism and dispense with the supernatural aspects of the Christian myth.

As we all know there are many individuals whose aims are supported by the preservation of the god of war and his present day religious and political institutions.

Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are a clear example of Jahweh who although well dead is kept in suspended animation by , largely Conservative , institutions.

[PauloL]

The idea of a nation state; money; economic and political systems are all based on unrecognised mythologies

I'd like to remember that the thread is:

THEORY OF EVOLUTION - PERFECT?

Off-topic is as far as talking about Saudi Arabia by now.

Can't you create other threads accordingly as needed and keep this thread clean?

[Belinda]

A pologies to all concerned in keeping the thread unsullied by politics.
Actually my "arms sales to Saudi Arabia" was only an illustration of how the Christian and generally Abrahamic religion has evolved in two distinct branches. One branch is secular Humanism and other liberal but not always secular organisations, and the other branch is illiberal and oppressive institutions such as Wahabbism in Islam and Right-wing capitalism especially the industrial-military complex, in Christianised societies.

'Evolution' is applicable not only to species, but also to cultures.

I refer above to cultures of belief . I also refer to cultures of practice and technology which also evolve; one illustration of the latter is the evolution of agricultural methods.