God is Not Incompatibile With a Rational Explanation of Creation of Man

You’re so full of shit. I think you’re the one having issues with reality. After all, you’re the superstitious one spouting off religious bullshit. No one else in this thread is. No one is going to agree with you in order for you to feel validated. Now be a good Christian and piss off.

Moses wrote nothing. He was too busy not existing.


Well spotted, though it is clear by now that facts are anathema to @GodisReal .

A flair for the bleedin’ obvious:

YHWH of the Torah is a monster. EG petty, jealous , vindictive, cruel, sadistic and genocidal.

1 Like

You are right, there weren’t homo sapiens at the time of dinosaurs, but the fact remains that it is recorded here that dinosaurs were real. How do you explain that? Where else would they get the knowledge unless it was passed down?

Errancy is not a sufficient explanation for the specific record of creatures that represent dinosaurs in the bible. That’s like saying if I say I saw an upright creature walking and you say it was just a metaphor or something other than a human millions of years later- if you and I are dogs.

You’re right, It may be rational to hold the position that this is human errancy but to me it is a logical reach based on the descriptions lain out from genesis including the location that they arise, the sea which is the origin of life according to evolution, followed by the next verse which said the earth brought up life as well and how they reproduce by kind. If it could be proven that there is a difference between sea and land evolution this would explicate my thesis further. To show life evolved on its own in two different places.

Your definition of organism is also useless. Your definition includes nerve endings as animals which think move and eat. That is useless.

The question is what created it, animals do not create themselves, but a guided process would explain it quite easily. Riboneucleic acids could be created from the ground and create the animals we see in nature but we can’t decide how to determine how the effect of nature would guide that process to life without any new information being added as it continues. How do you explain the increasing complexity of life rather than merely inactive microbiological life as is.

I also wanted to mention that being an informed scientist is not incompatible with believing in evolution even in educated circles. Please consider this not as proof but as worthy of consideration in light of general decency. I believe the two are in no way opposed because there is no de facto reason to assume that evolution is causeless rhyme and rhythm of a void universe without intelligence. Intelligence would cleanly explain why things are intelligent but nothing does not explain anything without assumption. lack of intelligent designer I believe to be an inferior stance in general outside of the bible because of that fact. It is a much easier assumption and risk free.

I said there is no evidence ‘as such’ for a god or gods. I did not say there was NO evidence period. General realities can prove many things. Open your eyes, that is evidence of many things that there is no concrete evidence of, such as consciousness. Truth itself is something that nobody can define completely or understand but you have faith and believe in it because it appears to be so. I am considering things evidence that you do not, it is that simple. I see where the bible says dinosaurs and I say, dinosaurs, you see it and say ‘nothing’. That is your reading and it is given without evidence whereas mine is evidenced on the Hebrew wording and meaning of “dragon”.

The other things I said, you quoted as fallacy, but they are merely statements of opinion and never were asserted as anything else except that. You can’t claim its illogical to state opinions in the midst of making statements unless they are serving as the argument itself which they were not. And definitely not preaching, because I am clearly stating opinions and asking for refutations.

This is by no means an argument from authority, this is a selective reading of this verse in the bible regarding its application to evolutionary theory.

@boomer47 I’m sorry you feel that way but God is love and thus our subservience to Him. You have no right to say God is unjust when you are human. What do you know about justice or heaven? Do you know how to create planes of existence or establish the foundation of life? Your ego has taken control over your soul if you give your self wisdom greater than the God of the universe. You are sick and project your sickness to God, the only one who can save you from your ignorance. That is truly sad!!

@Cognostic Your reason is faulty, you lie.


I did not know the earliest last remaining copies were re-printed by those authors, that is very interesting but irrelevant. It doesn’t change what’s written about dinosaurs. I believe you missed the point. I also don’t buy that argument because the torah is a verbal tradition and they most certainly kept records before their captivities in different nations and in between their captivities they still had it mentally even though their temples and documents may have been largely destroyed. That is logical is it not?

You deny the definition dominion, clearly humans are superior in every way and have every characteristic of almost all land animals. It cannot be said that any animal has dominion over us. The world is in a disordered state in which death is the ruling principle, so although we have the highest place, we are in a living war zone. This is the cost of sin.

Yersinia pestis does. Microbes are the original and still dominant species on this planet. They’re everywhere in huge quantities and variety. Some of them make wine for us, and some of them live symbiotically inside us. Some of them sicken and kill us, and we die they reclaim our bodies as raw materials.

Yet they are mentioned nowhere in the Bible.

1 Like

I will, but only after you have given me a valid reason and evidence why I should. And you have not, you have just insisted I accept your claim.

Some parts of the bible are true and accurate, some may not be. Therefore we must separate the wheat from the chaff, not just blindly accept that the entire bible is accurate and true. I do agree that many parts of the bible are positive. But so are Harry Potter books, or a Spiderman comic.

Not even close. The famously known dinosaurs you are referencing died off about 65 million years ago, while the first evidence of primitive man appeared 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa. That is a gap of at least 62 million years.

I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the bible. It was a compilation of stories written in unknown dates by unknown authors, and those stories were either rejected, modified, or accepted into the bible by a council expressly formed (hundreds of years after the fact) to create a book that carried a specific message and dogma.

It is not that I need to go to any effort to discredit your bible, it has not proven itself as valid.

1 Like


The bible mentions giant scaled creatures called monsters or serpents (taniynniym). That’s quite amazing and it does implicate that among the earliest creations were dinosaur-like creatures. I do admit it does not mean they lived at the same time as us. I believe this may have been revealed to the authors by the Spirit of God (which is irrelevant to the point) and doesn’t change the text and what it says about dinosaur-like monsters that were before human beings. If this were true surely it would change your view on the world, God, and the bible.

You also haven’t commented on the deep significance of life arising out of the sea. I mean for a fairy-tale story you would think they would get that wrong don’t you think? According to modern science that is correct (at least according to the discovery, sci, natgeo, pbs, shows I watched with Neil Degrass Tyson, Michio Kaku as a kid) at least according to the royal society of chemistry.

There is another argument that life arose out of deep sea clay as well that indicates ocean life as the origin of RNA. The fact that this lines up, for what you consider a fairy tales is quite unlikely don’t you think? And highly specific, especially about the forms of life that arose…dinosaurs (hint hint).

[RNA from monomer->polymer creation underwater via clay on underwater heat vents] Hypotheses about the origins of life (article) | Khan Academy

You keep talking about the my arguments like i’m saying you have to believe something. I’m not and I don’t. If harry potter was thousands of years old and it mentioned dinosaurs I would make the same argument about how they could even suggest that. These are independently comparable not self-referential to the bible. yet you keep saying I have to prove the bible is true or untampered with :thinking:.

The bible can speak for itself just like harry potter. Feel free to argue that harry potter revealed dinosaurs before their time if you want. If a math book were found from a thousand years ago I wouldn’t need to prove who the author was, the math speaks for itself in the same way the letters prove the origin of the earth recorded in the bible is historically similar to what science confirms.

That is my valid reason and it is in no way circular.

Thank you

1 Like

The cosmic order is centered around the creator. Every creature submits totally to their creator who is love. Humans are centered around themselves. We live in excess and claim to be healthy, we hoard and claim to be generous. We steal and claim to be holy and we trespass and claim virginity. This as an obvious violation of God’s law which is to give generously in proportion to your earning and reap a due reward, but people take more than their share and have no shame in many things. It is clear we are not the animal we are meant to be in my opinion.

The Book of Genesis

[1:11] Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

Having plants and animals before there was light definitely contradicts science.

1 Like

Now you are just preaching again, with nothing to support your assertions.

@GodisReal Do you understand that in this forum, you must support your assertions?

You don’t want to come round my neck of the woods then, when you’ve been chased by a 4 metre Salty or circled by a 5 meter Great White you would change your tune. Muppet.

1 Like

“I did not know the earliest last remaining copies were re-printed by those authors”

No, they werent, and I never mentioned printing, which only became available some two thousand years later (1440 AD). Traditionally copies of the Torah, aka The Law, were written on the prepared skins of ‘clean’ animals in the form of scrolls. It took over year to transcribe a single new copy.

The written Torah was used as a liturgical device and the entire Pentateuch was read over the period of a year with specific sections narrated chronologically for relevant celebrations covered in the history of the Jews beginning with the Passover in Egypt.
To summarise I quote this from Wikipedia to save time
“The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).” which agrees with your logical assessment but does not deny the great amount of editing, redaction, insertion done for any number of political and social agendas. The Torah, Bible, whatever is a written document and was copied and recopied many times and subject to the vanities and expediences of mere mortals with specific agendas. You should read Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible and anything by Ehrmand and Carrier.

It is Richard Friedman’s contention that while someone like Ezra and others might have compiled and edited the stories, a detailed analysis can show that it was not a seamless or perfect editorialisation. One example clearly shows two different stories forced together without any semblance of logical sequence or clear story telling (I shall go dig this reference up to put on display) Further the book of Deuteronomy supposedly written by Moses as the ‘second’ giving of the law is accepted as having been added to the scriptures during the reign of King Josiah before the Babylonian exile as a warning against idolatory for which their god would punish the Jews.

“It doesn’t change what’s written about dinosaurs.”

Well no. More succinctly, it doesnt change whats written about behemoths and leviathans.
The creatures referred to in the bible are only described as large animals but not necessarily reptilian dinosaurs.
Job 40 briefly mentions the behemoth as a large strong herbivore with a long big tail.
Job 41 describes a large indomitable beast, a leviathan, that breathes fire (very scientific), that defies the vain attempts of puny men to subdue it but which their god can destroy without effort. In this case its an imaginary device used to illustrate the power of god. Its not part of a biological research into very big animals.
Pslam 104 only mentions a Leviathan that frolics in the sea. That could just be a whale and not a dinosaur, yes?
Isaiah 27:1 compiled sometime between 800-700 BC before the Exiles, only refers to Leviathan as a gliding, coiling serpent of the sea which his god will slay at some point, which really is just a hat tip to the Babylonian creation story about the titanic struggle between Marduk and Tiamat that led to the creation of the world. The word ‘tiamat’ can still be found in the Genesis of the Jewish Torah.
Bible references aside there were already as early as 1000BC many tales world wide of huge mythological creatures and it is not beyond all improbability that some dinosaur or mammoth fossils had been unearthed to lend credence to them.
However the several separate disciplines of biological sciences flatly reject the idea that men and dinosaurs ever coexisted. Creationists are keen on this fiction despite the total lack of evidence for it. It does make for neat tourist attractions like Ken Ham’s Ark and the assertion that everyone and every creature before the Flood was vegetarian, including lions and other known carnivores. It was Noah’s burnt offering that turned his god onto the savoury smells and taste of barbecued meat.


That straw man is pure sophistry. FYI just because you believe something represents evidence for a deity, doesn’t make it objective evidence.

That’s a bare claim, and logic axiomatically can’t be limited in this way. Something either adheres to the principles of logic or it dies not, and you have offered no rational argument for biblical creation. Though a bigger problem for your erroneous claim, is that the creation myth in the bible is demonstrable contradicted by known scientific facts.

For example, all living things evolved, including humans, vegetation could not exist on the earth without the sun, which formed before the earth if course.

No book can conform it’s own unevidenced claims, again that’s axiomatic. If you don’t understand this then you clearly don’t know what an appeal to authority fallacy is, or an argument from assertion fallacy. So your hubris about your argument being rational is destroyed right there, as it’s a basic principle of logic that no argument can be rational if it contains a known logical fallacy.

Again this is an unevidenced assertion, and again we have zero evidence for Dragons, or monsters, all you’ve offered were desperate rationalisations of the text. We also know all living things evolved, because we have a weight if objective evidence contained in the accepted scientific theory of evolution that puts it beyond any reasonable or rational doubt.

More sophistry, there is no such scientific evidence. Just flip on any news channel ffs, and it’s clear your claim is preposterous.

Where to start, evoluti8n has nothing to with atheism, and my atheism has nothing to do with evolution. It’s an accepted scientific fact, so your denial of it is again preposterous, and your god claims absolutely incurs burden of proof.

Wrong again, I don’t think you have even a basic understanding of what atheism means if you think that is true. There is simply no objective evidence that the origins of the bible is anything but human.

Just think about this latest desperate rationalisation, you’re actually claiming that the bible requires subjective interpretation, to find some esoteric meaning, this means by definition it cannot be objective evidence, and worse still why would a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate it, deal in superstitious myths that so accurately mirror the ignorance and prejudice of the archaic human cultures that produced it? That isnt6just an unevidenced rationalisation, it is again preposterous. The idea that an omniscient omnipotent deity can get no closer to the 14.5 billion year age of the universe than 6 days, and a few thousand years, is so stupidly and obviously erroneous, that it doesn’t even require a response.

1 Like

TRabbits eat their own droppings when food is scarce, to refuges any remaining nutrients, that’s not how cud is defined, try again.

That’s a lie, the definition is in the dictionary, and bats are not birds.



  1. a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate animal distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, a beak, and typically by being able to fly.

  2. Bats give birth to live young, they don’t lay eggs.

  3. They don’t have feathers.

  4. They don’t have beaks.

Quod erat demonstrandum

An omniscient deity would never communicate such a preposterous error by accident. Primitive humans ignorant of the difference would though.

Dragons are mythical creatures, dinosaurs are not, your claim is nothing more than a desperate rationalisation. Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. Their existence in the fossil record show they evolved and became extinct hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved.

Your unevidenced assumption that the dragons mentioned in the bible were dinosaurs cannot be referring to dinosaurs as they had been extinct for hundreds of millions of years.

A key point then that is demonstrably false, since humans evolved into their current form a mere 200k years ago, and this is a scientific fact, supported by overwhelming objective scientific evidence.

Of course it is, why would a deity with limitless knowledge and power communicate the existence of mythical creatures like dragons if it meant dinosaurs which actually existed? Your assumption is unsupported by any evidence at all, and it is as I said nothing more than a desperate rationalisation, to avoid facing the fact of biblical errancy.

I read the next part , ostensibly referring to evolution, three times and couldn’t for the life of me understand what point you’re making.

The biblical creation myth gets the most basic chronological facts about the formation of the universe and our solar system wrong, it omits the scientific fact of species evolution entirely.

It’s easy to see how early humans could make such errors, based in their ubiquitous ignorance of facts we now understand thanks to science. It’s a preposterous logical contradiction to claim a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message and limitless power to communicate it, would make any errors at all, or deal in cryptic hidden meanings.

It’s the definition, not mine. So this dishonest sophistry is manifest. Do you really imagine your claim that humans are not animals is any less erroneous, simply because you are happy to contradict the commonly understood definition of the words animal? Your dishonesty is as preposterous as your claim. No one here will be swayed by such dishonest nonsense. Humans are by definition part of the animal kingdom. This is also an evidenced scientific fact, we share genetic similarities.

No that’s your belief in an outdated and demonstrably erroneous creation myth. You would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for any deity, and for creation before your loaded and irrational question made any sense. Asking what created everything as an argument for a creator, is a begging the question fallacy if ever there was one.

Evolution explains it, and all the evidence supports it.

That said I don’t need a contrary explanation to your creation myth, in order to disbelieve it as you have no objective evidence for it, your question is using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Look it up, and learn what it means, as it destroys your spurious claims to be making logical arguments.

This is a straw man fallacy as I’ve not said otherwise?

Your using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, to try and dishonestly reverse the burden of proof. Evolution is a fact, extant life is a fact, the existence of the universe is a fact.

If you are going to add a creator then it is entirely incumbent on you to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for your claim, I have no burden to disprove it. However since you’ve invoked logic I am obliged to point out that Occam’s razor would apply to your unevidenced addition.

I have no interest is easy assumptions, only in objective evidence. Again your assumptions are by definition illogical, as I’ve pointed out they are based on and using multiple known common logical fallacies.

Semantics and sophistry, are you really going to pretend no evidence is now not no evidence, please.

If you have any objective evidence for any deity then please demonstrate it, and stop prevaricating.

So what? Opinions can demonstrably be irrational, you used known logical fallacies. What’s more you opened your argument claiming it was logical. Nothing that contains known logical fallacies can be asserted as rational, that is a fundamental principle of logic.

Your arguments are irrational by definition. Do you really think you can simply dismiss this fact? Dear oh dear…

Yes I really can, though I clearly demonstrated several of your arguments were using known logical fallacies, some of them repeatedly.

Indeed, arguments can be based on opinions, as yours are, sadly your claims for evidence are nothing but assumption or subjective opinion. The refutations have been given, and the reasons, namely that despite falsely claiming your core premise was compatible with logic, you then resorted to using known logical fallacies to defend it, ipso fact it is irrational by definition, as least as you have presented it.

Sadly I’ve had enough of these discussions over the years, to know that theists and religious apologists invoke the word logic as rhetoric, but often haven’t even the most basic understanding of what it means or it’s principles of validation. As of course you’ve shown here, when after having your arguments exposed as irrational because they break the logical principle that nothing can be asserted as rational if it uses or contains a known logical fallacy, you use preposterous dishonest evasion of asserting they are opinions, as if that a) means they can’t be arguments, or b) that opinions can’t be irrational?

That’s risible embarrassing nonsense sorry.

1 Like


…it takes a human to interject whatever “meaning” they want to pull from a book (in this theist’s choice, the bible). AND confirmation bias has a go at what the theist chooses to support with his book NEGLECTING these same passages…

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Early earth??? Lol. Wasn’t dark and the early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the “waters” and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.

A LITTLE MORE because it’s soooo funny

4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of “light”, one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that “darkness” was an element separate and distinct from “light” (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God “maketh the day dark with night”). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more “separate” light from darkness than one can separate “left” from “right” or “up” from “down”.

5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

YAY :grin: finally a sun… it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a “day” is itself based on the earth’s rotation near the Sun, there could have been no “day” until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of “day light” other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete.

The Genesis account, which has the earth and the “waters” formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.


This is a word salad that makes no sense to me. Whatever message there might be in there, your jumbled sentences make it disappear.

By “true things”, do you mean objective facts? So, what objective facts and evidence do you have to “show the reality of God”?

If it is NOT a literal document from the hands of God, what is it then? An illiteral document? (sorry, couldn’t resist)

@Sheldon beat me to it. But what you are referring to here is the ingestion of its own faeces, which is not “chewing cud”. Besides, rabbits and hares display jaw movements when using its nose to sniff the air, which can for the uneducated eye look like chewing. In any case, if the Bible was truly from God, whether inspired or dictated, it is truly strange that this all-knowing godly god-creature didn’t mention this, but instead elected to skip the facts and instead present a myth. It’s as if it was a purely man-made book, incorporating popular myths of the bronze age and the antiquity. In fact, the Bible (and the Torah, and the Quran) is indistinguishable from a man-made book.

Again, @Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes: It’s the same as with the hare-chewing-cud myth above. It’s a very bad sign for a supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful god to present misconceptions as facts. It’s almost as if God didn’t know the difference himself and/or didn’t bother to get the facts straight to his bronze age followers. Which is strange, since he supposedly created them himself, knowing fully well that they are mammals, not birds. In any case, bats aren’t birds, period. It would be VERY simple to avoid this error by splitting up the list, and treating the bat separately. All in all, we have the same situation as above, the Bible is a man-made book incorporating myths from the bronze age.

Uhm, no. That’s quite a disingenous, desperate and pathetic excuse. First, all insects have six legs, not four. Not two, not three, not five, but six. Four is right out. Six is the number of the legs. And among the insects (which have six legs, no more and no less), you have locusts. And locusts and grasshoppers actually walk on six legs. Just have a look:

The same goes for this as for all the above: the Bible presents erroneous bronze age misconceptions about Nature. And any god didn’t bother to get the facts straight. Infallible book, my ass.

1 Like