Originally posted by KingOnPointFirst of all, there was no sun till day 3. I thought a literal day was the earth spinning on its axis while orbiting the sun. This is problematic to say the least.
Whodey and Others,
While I don't believe that a "day" in Genesis during creation had to be 24 hours, why can't we just take it literally that a day was a time of evening plus a time of morning? Maybe it was 36 hours or 19 hours, but certainly God is powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to create in 6 days and not in 6 billion years.
Why is it ...[text shortened]... ing were the fifth day.
Genesis 1: 31
. . .And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Secondly, time is relative. If you know anything about science you understand that a day is not equal in other places in the universe. What then can we say of God? What is his perspective? It seems to me that we have time in the perspective of God in the Bible until man comes on the scene.
And lastly, it's not about what I or you want. It is simply about what is and how God chose to go about it. Trying to find the answers is a jigsaw puzzle. Science tells us that the earth is billions of years old and that the universe is around 16 billion years old. This can be measured via a variety of methods and they all point to the same evidence. As a person of faith, all I have is what the Bible says and what science says. No one disputes what science tells us, at least, not scientifically. Then we have the Bible. As I have shown, those that had expertise in the Hebrew language pre-modern science seemed to think that the verbiage indicated that the days in Genesis were much longer than a mere day.
You are free to believe what you will, but just know that such a belief is not necessary to uphold scripture, much like in Galileo's time when it was not necessary to uphold the notion that the universe revolved around the earth. No where did scripture say this, rather, it was their feeble interpretation that led them astray.
Originally posted by KingOnPointThe side that never tries to prove anything does not get to ask the other side, which has done the hard work of traveling and experimenting around the world, to work harder still.
ProperKnob
I typed:
------------------
If you are saying that God did not create as it says in Genesis, then why don't you prove it by science to the point of making it "law." Also, do the same of cosmological origin. If Darwin posted that his hypothesis could be debunked, then there is still "proof" that needs to be presented by scientists.
-------- ...[text shortened]... xplosion. I want you to make them scientific laws. Prove both to us here in the forum, please.
You come off like the lazy guy in a hammock telling the maid "You missed a spot." For shame.
Originally posted by moonbusI think I have finished the head count. Unfortunately, we do not have a very strong representation of pro-evolution theists here. I suspect the ones that are tend to avoid forums like this altogether.
Sorry, SG, we've drifted way off topic. What's your tally so far? My guess is that many of the mainstream Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) can reconcile their faith with evolution's really having happened. The ones who can't are probably those peculiarly American Protestants who are still trying to re-run the Scopes trial. {KoP just gave it away: it's not really about evolution; it's really about the secular education system in America.}
I'm also not a dictatorial thread controller; I propose the topic and then let discussion go where it may. I think the thread has been highly interesting, revealing the motivations and misconceptions of the anti-evolution side.
Originally posted by SwissGambitInterestingly, the Bible does not mention plant life being created in the waters. It only mentions him on day 5 creating the moving creatures.
What about the order of creation? Evolution currently proposes that life started in the water, and that plants came later. Genesis starts with plants as the first life-form.
You have a few choices here. You can presume that the author had no idea that the ocean has plant life and thus forgot to include it or you can assume that when God created plant life in the ocean with the sole purpose of bringing it to land and the author simply failed to include that detail.
Keep in mind, this text is written from the perspective of an ancient nomadic people. Therefore, the only plant life that matters to them or that they have an appreciation for is plant life on land. Likewise, try telling Moses and the gang what the number 1 billion means when it comes to the age of the universe. The text is modified for the reader.
Speaking of the time line of the Bible, Schroeder has a theory of his own. He proposes that the entire age of the universe is a little over 15 billion years and that with each day time halves. This means that day one I 8 billion years, day 2 is 4 billion, day 3 is 2 billion etc. Interestingly, the days correspond to the days in Genesis like day 5 corresponding with the explosion of life occurring in the ocean known as the Cambrian explosion.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYours is probably not a statistically significant survey, but, as you say, a vivacious one. It appears to have evolved a life of its own.
I think I have finished the head count. Unfortunately, we do not have a very strong representation of pro-evolution theists here. I suspect the ones that are tend to avoid forums like this altogether.
I'm also not a dictatorial thread controller; I propose the topic and then let discussion go where it may. I think the thread has been highly interesting, revealing the motivations and misconceptions of the anti-evolution side.
Originally posted by whodeySee, this is why I do not think of you as a Biblical literalist. I never hear things like "maybe the author left that part out" or "maybe the choice of words was limited by the audience of the time".
Interestingly, the Bible does not mention plant life being created in the waters. It only mentions him on day 5 creating the moving creatures.
You have a few choices here. You can presume that the author had no idea that the ocean has plant life and thus forgot to include it or you can assume that when God created plant life in the ocean with the sole pu ...[text shortened]... 1 billion means when it comes to the age of the universe. The text is modified for the reader.
Originally posted by SwissGambitPlease.
See, this is why I do not think of you as a Biblical literalist. I never hear things like "maybe the author left that part out" or "maybe the choice of words was limited by the audience of the time".
There is not enough paper to include all that happened scientifically during the creation of the universe and life on earth. There is no other choice but to pick and choose what you wish to leave out. To compound the problem, the Bible in no way attempts to be a scientific book.
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe I need a more accurate label than "literalist". The type of person that thinks that, if it isn't written in the Bible, it did not happen. The type of person that thinks, "if it doesn't mention moving creatures until Day 4, then there weren't any before day 4." The type that just takes everything at face value from the text without even thinking about it further.
Please.
There is not enough paper to include all that happened scientifically during the creation of the universe and life on earth. There is no other choice but to pick and choose what you wish to leave out. To compound the problem, the Bible in no way attempts to be a scientific book.
You're not one of those people, clearly. And that is to your credit.
SwissGambit,
God tells in the bible that He "created." Any denial of that is saying that God lies. Therefore, it is directly against God. Evolution vs. God's testimony has no in between to rely on.
It seems to me, unless you can show me how you are not, that you are at least, deceived. But don't go lie to your own self for your own sake.
Originally posted by KingOnPointYou're coming off as a combination of stupid, ignorant and arrogant here. Hard to imagine a less flattering blend.
SwissGambit,
God tells in the bible that He "created." Any denial of that is saying that God lies. Therefore, it is directly against God. Evolution vs. God's testimony has no in between to rely on.
It seems to me, unless you can show me how you are not, that you are at least, deceived. But don't go lie to your own self for your own sake.
You haven't shown that evolution rules out divine creation. You haven't been able to wrap your head around the possibility that both could be true. And yet you have the gall to lecture others on how deceived they are, and how they lie to themselves.
Kid, you're in for a shock if you ever enter the rest of the world - the one outside your cozy little fundamentalist church.
FMF,
You typed
--------------
So how do you figure that the bible is true
--------------
I believe in God because scripture is declared to come directly from Godly inspiration. It is God's word. God attests to it. So, for as much as the bible contains scripture, it is accurate. As for the oldest writings from where the bible is produced, what has ever been disproved? I also believe the original writings by faith. The bible is supposed to be taken from the oldest writings available.
I cannot believe in evolution or cosmological origin even by faith because they have not been proven. Evolution leads me away from God, not towards Him. The way I see it, is that God's testimony is true or a lie. If it is a lie, then God cannot be depended on. And if God cannot be depended on, then man cannot be depended on.
When it comes to science, I can believe in gravity, that water less than 32F will not freeze, my unprotected hand will burn in fire, lighter gasses rise above heavier gasses, and whatever other demonstratable thing I can reproduce. However, I cannot demonstrate evolution or cosmological origin in science Science has not proven them either.
Therefore, no scientist can tell me that God is a liar and prove it.
Furthermore, I can see the earth, and all viewable things in it. I can see animals. I can see plants. I can see light and dark. I can see the sun and other bodies out in space. I can learn how plants and humans are symbiotic. I can study, examine, and see how life's physical mysteries work together for me to be able to live and function. I can see how that I am different than any animal. I can control the existence of animals. I can change and make use of my environment. I can learn why my environment functions as it does in details. I can "think" past myself. I can hate. I can do things naturally which go against my well being. I can do things against my creator. I can see my dominion above my environment. I can hear, smell, touch, and taste my environment. I can imagine and postulate. I can think at higher levels than animals can think. I can teach details to further generations of people. And what else should I add?
I can put faith in a God that created me. I can choose my own paths in life. I can take my own life on purpose.
King James Version
===============
Psalms 139: 14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Romans 1: 20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Originally posted by KingOnPointI believe in God because scripture is declared to come directly from Godly inspiration.
FMF,
You typed
--------------
So how do you figure that the bible is true
--------------
I believe in God because scripture is declared to come directly from Godly inspiration. It is God's word. God attests to it. So, for as much as the bible contains scripture, it is accurate. As for the oldest writings from where the bible is produced, what ...[text shortened]... y the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
There's your circular argument. The Bible is true because the Bible say so.