Originally posted by jebryNo worries!
Hey KellyJay!
Very good points as always. I still think that Moses may have been speaking of creation as it applies to man in these verses, but let me do some reading and studying and get back to you on this. I do have some thoughts that I would appreciate your imput on but I want to take the time to put them correctly.
Jeff
I also think Moses was speaking of creation as it applies to man too,
which means he said what meant to say. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by jebryHi Jeff,
To my knowledge scripture does not claim a young earth.
Genesis 1:1 Says that in the begining God created the Heavans and the Earth which just says that God created everything. The rest of the creation story speaks of God's creative activity on the earth but doesn't say anything about the time issue. It could have been millions or even billions of years after the creation (at least from our perspective), it just doesn't say.
Jeff
You are right. These verses don't give us a calendar type of date as to when it all happened. They are not intended to. But the time period is indicated in scripture through the analysis of other sections.
Sometimes we use the word day to mean a generational period, as in "back in my day...", or to indicate some unknown era, like I might say "one day I'll have some money". I understand that the Hebrew language has different words that each carry these different meanings. The word used for day in Genesis is used elsewhere in scripture where it very clearly means a 24 hour period.
As far as dating the creation event goes, however, it is only more or less calculated from the geneologies given. We are told how old various people were when their sons were born, and when they died. Of course there are disputes about the methods and the details, but it seems we have enough to get a very good idea how long ago Adam was created. And we are told he was formed on the sixth literal day ('there was evening and there was morning' between each day mentioned) after God started building.
Mike
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is not a disclaimer BDN, but rather a magnification of understanding about God. He is different from us. I think these verses that demonstrate the fact that God lives outside of time, as it were, have nothing to do with the creation story. When He created the universe, time was a new thing, introduced at the same time as matter! In relating the story to man, through Moses, God was explicit in describing the sequence of events and the time frame used. For us, what we generally mean by a day is...a day.
Yeah, but don't forget the famous disclaimer, that one day for His Nibs can mean virtually any length of time (it's in Psalms somewhere).
The latent anthropomorphism in the description of the Big Guy's Working Week makes me smile tenderly.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayyou asked for the how far back , first I thought it advisable to show
Okay, I'm talking about gene pools you want to deal now in the age
of the rocks? Changing the subject will not make my question go
away.
Kelly
a reliable time referencing method, radiometric testing can and does accurately date fossils and fossils are evidence that a gene pool existed.
Originally posted by frogstompI may not have been clear, the question dealt with gene pools, did
you asked for the how far back , first I thought it advisable to show
a reliable time referencing method, radiometric testing can and does accurately date fossils and fossils are evidence that a gene pool existed.
life start with one or several different kinds?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is a kind?
I may not have been clear, the question dealt with gene pools, did
life start with one or several different kinds?
Kelly
Primitive organisms don't interbreed so the conceopt of a gene pool is tricky. If you have one unicellular organism (in the universe) is that a gene pool. If it replicates by dividing do you have two genepools? As the two organisms will never breed there will be no recombination between them hence no resampling of the "genepool" Perhaps if you replace the term with the word populations it would make more sense.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn that case why do (some) creationists get their knickers in a twist when geologists use very old dates for the earth?
Yeah, but don't forget the famous disclaimer, that one day for His Nibs can mean virtually any length of time (it's in Psalms somewhere).
The latent anthropomorphism in the description of the Big Guy's Working Week makes me smile tenderly.
If this concept of time being different for the god thingee is well accepted and scriptural it provides a justification for using creation myths as (powerful) allegory and persuading fundies to stop interferring with science in matters of detail. A win win situation.
Originally posted by chinking58Why be so precise in calculating the age of the earth on the basis of prehistoric oral history. Is this not better seen as allegory? If fundies and literalists could stop chewing this bone there would be more potential for constructive relationsips between religion and science.
Hi Jeff,
You are right. These verses don't give us a calendar type of date as to when it all happened. They are not intended to. But the time period is indicated in scripture through the analysis of other sections.
Sometimes we use the word day to mean a generational period, as in "back in my day...", or to indicate some unknown era, like I ...[text shortened]... evening and there was morning' between each day mentioned) after God started building.
Mike
Originally posted by frogstompA 2nd point about this.
you asked for the how far back , first I thought it advisable to show
a reliable time referencing method, radiometric testing can and does accurately date fossils and fossils are evidence that a gene pool existed.
Simply seeing a fossil does not mean that the fossil was part of some
evolutionary line of species, all we really have before us is a fossil,
all meanings we put on that fossil are not always going to be factual.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeIn my statement you are referring to when I said, "several different
What is a kind?
Primitive organisms don't interbreed so the conceopt of a gene pool is tricky. If you have one unicellular organism (in the universe) is that a gene pool. If it replicates by dividing do you have two genepools? As the two organisms will never breed there will be no recombination between them hence no resampling of the "genepool" Perhaps if you replace the term with the word populations it would make more sense.
kinds" I was simply referring to different creatures. If you are referring
to the biblical 'kinds' I would assume it means the same thing after
a sort. I think Moses wrote what he thought was needed to get his
point across. Was what he wrote science, no, it was just about some
of the details about an event. He was not attempting to write a paper
to get published in some type of scientific journal.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywell what meaning would you put on a billion year old trillobite fossil
A 2nd point about this.
Simply seeing a fossil does not mean that the fossil was part of some
evolutionary line of species, all we really have before us is a fossil,
all meanings we put on that fossil are not always going to be factual.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I was in the process of posting the scientific defination of species that all evolutionary models have. Which was:
A 2nd point about this.
Simply seeing a fossil does not mean that the fossil was part of some
evolutionary line of species, all we really have before us is a fossil,
all meanings we put on that fossil are not always going to be factual.
Kelly
".... A species is a group of populations through which genes can flow and whose offspring have a fitness equal to the parents. As evolution progresses, gene flow is eventually stopped between one population and the species as a whole...."
And later I , as background, gave information on the reliability of radiometric testing.
Do I have to give you a definition of "fossil" too?
Originally posted by KellyJayYes indeed, what Moses wrote was not science. Why do the supporters of creationism andd ID insist that evolution can take place within kinds when the term is so vague as to have no meaning
In my statement you are referring to when I said, "several different
kinds" I was simply referring to different creatures. If you are referring
to the biblical 'kinds' I would assume it means the same thing after
a sort. I think Moses wrote what he thought was needed to get his
point across. Was what he wrote science, no, it was just about some
of ...[text shortened]... s not attempting to write a paper
to get published in some type of scientific journal.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeIm trying to figure out how anyone could conclude that dating the existence of gene pools and age of rocks aren't related through fossils.
Yes indeed, what Moses wrote was not science. Why do the supporters of creationism andd ID insist that evolution can take place within kinds when the term is so vague as to have no meaning