Are you seriously asking for logical proof that the cardinal sin doesn't exist? It's quite simple, really: we have extensive scientific evidence that women are not created from their husbands' ribs; that snakes don't talk; that knowledge-granting trees don't, in fact, exist; that Mesopotamia doesn't hold a paradise guarded by an angry angel; and that humans evolved from older primates (and in fact interbred with them). Hence the creation story is provably bollocks.

Comments like this are why I got out of this discussion. Being closed minded doesn't make you smart or correct.

If you actually READ Genesis, you find that it says (paraphrasing) "Let Us make man in Our own image. Male and female, he created them." THEN He created Adam. Adam couldn't find a mate, not because he was alone, but because they were taken. Adam and Eve were created with the express purpose of providing a method for mankind to make the ultimate choice whether to choose God or not. It all rested with them. EVE was created from Adam, not all females. Creationists place WAY too much emphasis on Adam and Eve. No logically minded person would think that they were the first people, especially when the Bible clearly states otherwise. Think about it logically. Cain was banished, but not before God placed a mark of protection. There were three people, according to doctrine, on earth at the time. Who was God protecting him from? He took a wife. How? You are basing your statement on religious teaching and that teaching has been flawed for 2000 years. Open your mind, clear out all that you have been force fed and READ.

No, snakes do not talk. The SNAKE wasn't talking. That point is clear in the text. I am curious why snakes were made into pariahs though. Animals do not have a will of their own and it couldn't have avoided being used. This part always confused me...

No, such trees do not exist. I am willing to bet this was a metaphor, but taking the text at face value, it was unique and placed there for a purpose. Also...

The garden was destroyed. No, it does not exist. Anyone trying to find it is a fool. It DID exists at one point in time.

The creation story is not "bollocks" (?). However, when you take it as a complete and unabridged account, as has been taught for the past 2000 years, coupled with the fear instilled in anyone daring to challenge doctrine by those doing the teaching, you are left with something that is not what it was intended to be. Again, throw out the teaching for the past 2000 years. Look at it with an open mind. Accept that there are holes big enough to fit a planet. It becomes much more enlightening at that point.

The creation story is not "bollocks" (?). [...] Accept that there are holes big enough to fit a planet.

Hence, bollocks.

Again, throw out the teaching for the past 2000 years. It becomes much more enlightening at that point.[/quote]


Indeed.

[quote name='MarkS' timestamp='1299958884' post='4784936']
The creation story is not "bollocks" (?). [...] Accept that there are holes big enough to fit a planet.

Hence, bollocks.[/quote]
there are holes in everything. Almost every branch of science has enormous holes.

Hence, bollocks.

Go back to my original posts in this thread. Only a fanatic wouldn't accept that the creation story is not complete. It wasn't meant to be. I've explained why several pages ago.

Indeed.

So, I take it you are happy being closed minded? I am a creationist and I am open to so much more. I realize that the creation story is not complete and am willing to accept scientific thought and theory to fill those holes. You are not even willing to entertain the thought? What purpose do you have in this thread?

So, I take it you are happy being closed minded? I am a creationist and I am open to so much more. I realize that the creation story is not complete and am willing to accept scientific thought and theory to fill those holes. You are not even willing to entertain the thought? What purpose do you have in this thread?

The point is that the creation story is not only "not complete", it is trivially disprovable. Unless you reduce the story to the point of where it is metaphor/allegory that only bears the vaguest resemblance to the source material, all the available evidence points to it being simply wrong.

Besides, why the value on being open minded? I'm quite proud of being close-minded, it means my mind is closed to the random trash that masquerades as valid ideas (such as astrology, homeopathy and idiots who think they can predict earthquakes by the moon). I'm willing to be persuaded by valid evidence or logic, but if you have neither of those, your argument isn't really worth much.

I don't particularly want to get into a debate about 6 day creationism, but for what it's worth, I think it's okay to read the creation account as metaphorical if it presents itself as metaphorical within the text itself.

e.g. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was without form and empty" - two problems: formless, empty.

So then if you make a chart of days 1-6, they break down quite nicely:


+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| FORM | FILLING |
+---------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 1. Day & Night | 4. Sun & Moon |
| 2. Sea & Sky | 5. Fish & Birds |
| 3. Dry land | 6. Land animals, humans |
+---------------------+-------------------------------------+



Which suggests that the order of the days of creation isn't necessarily intended to be taken literally. The overall message of the chapters is still clear, though: there is ONE God who created absolutely everything without a struggle - that's very different from other Ancient Near East creation accounts written around the same era.

..snip..

Two things that I find interesting about Genesis more than anything else.

1.) When a planetary system is formed, the planets (and the planetary system as a whole) are formless and empty until they gather enough dust and debris and cool. Per scientific theory.
2.) For years, scientists have bristled at the thought that there was light before the formation of the sun. Just not possible. Can't happen. Ludicrous! Until a couple of years ago when scientists speculated that shortly after the universe was "created", it was flooded with light. As though someone flipped on a light switch. What was darkness was filled with light. Interesting.

Now, let's look at the verse where God defines day. He called the light day and the darkness night. No where in the Bible is a 24 hour day mentioned. That is a human construct. Nor is it mentioned that day has any relevance to the rotation of the earth or brightness of the sun. If the universe was dark for 300,000 earth years (I believe that is the time frame I read) before it was flooded with light and then the light took a million or so earth years to dim into background radiation, it stands to reason that this period is the length of "day" as described in Genesis. Still too short of a time period per scientific theory, but far longer than 6 24-hour days.

My point is that we do not know everything and our understanding of the universe grows daily. To summarily dismiss a line of thought because it goes against our current understanding doesn't make that line of thought wrong. What makes creationism so hard for scientists to stomach isn't so much what was written, but the fact that those that believe what was written so often flat out resist any thought that it isn't complete. If creationists are so (nearly violently) opposed to any form of scientific thought and theory, then there is no point trying to reconcile the two. I have as much disdain for close minded creationists as I do for closed minded evolutionists.

[quote name='AndyGeers' timestamp='1300089802' post='4785508']..snip..

Two things that I find interesting about Genesis more than anything else.

1.) When a planetary system is formed, the planets (and the planetary system as a whole) are formless and empty until they gather enough dust and debris and cool. Per scientific theory.
2.) For years, scientists have bristled at the thought that there was light before the formation of the sun. Just not possible. Can't happen. Ludicrous! Until a couple of years ago when scientists speculated that shortly after the universe was "created", it was flooded with light. As though someone flipped on a light switch. What was darkness was filled with light. Interesting.

Now, let's look at the verse where God defines day. He called the light day and the darkness night. No where in the Bible is a 24 hour day mentioned. That is a human construct. Nor is it mentioned that day has any relevance to the rotation of the earth or brightness of the sun. If the universe was dark for 300,000 earth years (I believe that is the time frame I read) before it was flooded with light and then the light took a million or so earth years to dim into background radiation, it stands to reason that this period is the length of "day" as described in Genesis. Still too short of a time period per scientific theory, but far longer than 6 24-hour days.

My point is that we do not know everything and our understanding of the universe grows daily. To summarily dismiss a line of thought because it goes against our current understanding doesn't make that line of thought wrong. What makes creationism so hard for scientists to stomach isn't so much what was written, but the fact that those that believe what was written so often flat out resist any thought that it isn't complete. If creationists are so (nearly violently) opposed to any form of scientific thought and theory, then there is no point trying to reconcile the two. I have as much disdain for close minded creationists as I do for closed minded evolutionists.
[/quote]

So, in other words, you've reduced the story to the point of where it is metaphor/allegory that only bears the vaguest resemblance to the source material.

It's akin to me saying "I built my house" when what I actually meant was "I found a site and then hired an architect and a building company to build the house, but it wouldn't have been built without me!"

So, in other words, you've reduced the story to the point of where it is metaphor/allegory that only bears the vaguest resemblance to the source material.

It's akin to me saying "I built my house" when what I actually meant was "I found a site and then hired an architect and a building company to build the house, but it wouldn't have been built without me!"

I don't know how you can get that from what I've written.

Everyone knows there was no talking snake or magic garden... It was a motherfucking giant rainbow snake that created the world! Prove to me that it wasn't.