Do you?
Populist Indeed!
- Thread starter Meat
- Start date
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
@wkmac
I always read this to be the formation of the sun since it is the separation of day and night. Obviously that's not the case as you have pointed out. But what then is the first day referring to? "Let there be light" still refers to the beginning of all earthly creation. Is it the "big bang"?
Certainly religion is not modern day science and you will never see me suggest that it is but the way I read it, at least this creation story isn't devoid of concerning itself with a logical order.
@wkmac
I always read this to be the formation of the sun since it is the separation of day and night. Obviously that's not the case as you have pointed out. But what then is the first day referring to? "Let there be light" still refers to the beginning of all earthly creation. Is it the "big bang"?
Certainly religion is not modern day science and you will never see me suggest that it is but the way I read it, at least this creation story isn't devoid of concerning itself with a logical order.
njdriver
FedEx Browned
I'm assuming here that you are implying some sort of contradiction or incongruity because the Sun was created after plants and vegetation, therefore how could plant life be sustained without sunlight.
It happens every day, or should I say, night.
All plants and vegetation are subjected to a period of darkness anywhere between 8+ hours to 12+ hours, depending on the time of year with absolutely no indication of wilting or plant death. Since the days of Creation are literal 24-hour days, I don't see any problem with plants surviving until the creation of the Sun on Day 4. In fact the poinsettia, a holiday staple in many homes, undergoes complete darkness 14 hours a day for 2 months to produce the bright red leaves we are accustomed to seeing.
The Bible does not go into detail about at what stage of growth the plants and vegetation were, but I believe it is also possible that they could have been in seed form in the Earth, especially in light of Genesis 2: 5-6
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
Unbelievably the Flat Earth theory was a somewhat common belief in some areas until the mid 1800's, even though Eratosthenes calculated Earth's circumference in approximately 240 BCE, and wound up being off by less than 2%.
Pictures sent back by Hubble should be enough to discourage anyone from aligning themselves with that theory anymore.
njdriver
FedEx Browned
I used the term settled science to denote those who counter arguments Creationists make in the area of education. The fact evolution is not taught as theory anymore should have been illustrative enough for you to make that distinction.
Guess not.
I'd really like to believe that's always true, but after I hear the cries from some who call for climate change deniers to be jailed, I get a bit defensive.
Darwin himself understood the very same problems with his theory that the scientists I quoted did, but it's nice to hear that you think Darwin is also short-sighted.
Last edited:
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Every time you post you demonstrate your ignorance. Evolution doesn't often happen on a time scale directly observable to man. If you need examples though, how about the flu virus. You need a new flu shot every year because the virus mutates. Many bacteria develop drug resistance. That means they mutate and the strains that are resistant to antibiotics are selected for better survival and thrive.
If you need an animal you can see, take a look at dog breeds. Over the years certain traits are selected for and reinforced by breeders and the breeds noticeably change.
I don't think there is any reasoning with you, you will choose to believe what you want regardless of reality.
newfie
Well-Known Member
do you?
newfie
Well-Known Member
subject to translation of the scrolls. some have theorized that the day described is a much longer time period then a day as we know it.
njdriver
FedEx Browned
IT'S STILL A DOG, EINSTEIN!!!
The dog didn't change from a bear, or into a lion. Darwin's entire theory was based on natural selection, that given enough time for accumulated changes to take place, dinosaurs could turn into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.
The reality is THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE INSTANCE OF AN OBSERVABLE CASE OF ONE TYPE, OR KIND, OF ANIMAL CHANGING INTO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
GET IT?
IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED!!!
Regardless of what you think you know about evolution, or how tightly you cling to it so that no other explanation can make any sort of sense to you, THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
Last edited:
That seems to me to be like trying to force religion into scientific compliance. To me, simply not necessary.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Wow, you used bold text. It must be true.
oldngray
nowhere special
Exactly. Evolution is a trigger word for people on both the right and left and many people don't even understand what they are arguing about. There is scientific evidence to prove microevolution (changes within a species) but macroevolution (where one species changes into a completely different species) is still just a theory and should be taught as such.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
The Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old.
6000 or 100,000,000...makes no difference to me.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
If the creation account is a literal 24 hour day then your explanation has a valid point. Anything else will need an apologist explanation in order to work. The text seems to work best when day is understood in the context of a literal 24 hour day.
As for implying a contradiction or incongruity, I implied nothing at all but it doth seem the obvious was observed all on its own. When one applies the Documentary Hypothesis (Wellhausen Hypothesis) to these earliest of texts, any conflict or contradiction is understood but the standard answer of Moses authorship (or even single person authorship) becomes impossible among other things.
Yes, the round earth understanding was far more understood than what is often portrayed. But the description in the bible which is alleged to be the word of god, either given directly by or in some manner inspired by, does describe an earth that fits the disproved flat earth theory. This begs the question why would the god who created the universe describe the heavens and the earth in such a disprovable manner?
As you pointed out with the Hubble pictures, those pictures and others show there is no watery firmament above the sky from which we get our rain and from which god can open gates to invoke a deluge upon the earth should he choose too. We also know from science that rain is a process of the sun and evaporation and not from a watery body above a dome sky.
The bible is not without its value, to the contrary, it is very valuable IMO. All religious texts on some level are as they offer a "light" (hint, hint @bbsam ) a knowledge (gnosis), an understanding, an illumination of what past mankind thought and how mankind conducted themselves. I would even assert such texts in fact have a place in the school classroom but instead of physical sciences, I'd place them in the social sciences, in history or even anthropology studies. And I suspect there would be those on both sides of the bible debate who would harshly disagree with me on this.
I don't accept the bible's ultimate conclusions myself but I'm a huge advocate of its reading, its study, especially regarding its language and contextual scholarship. There are those who I share some common conclusions with regarding religious claims who believe we should crush and destroy all religion, rub it out of existence but I strongly disagree. Guess its the free thinker in me.
Understanding religion and understanding its place is important to understanding ourselves, who we are and even how we got to this point in time and existence. Religion might even be considered an early form of psychology, the common phrase across religions of "know thyself" seems to suggest this to me. The only reason religion seems such a problem is that people on both sides refuse to read the texts from which religion comes which allow charlatans to manipulate people with it. Instead read it ourselves and then to rationally and logically consider what is written along with why and how it came to be written.
Some argue it's a pretty psychedelic trip we've been on and at this point I'm more and more inclined to agree!
njdriver
FedEx Browned
Darn that 30 minute time limit to edit posts!
In your example about dogs above, what you are describing is not evolution, or even literally natural selection. Rather it is the purposeful combining of dominant and recessive genetic codes by breeders or geneticists to come up with a potential new BREED of dog, NOT A NEW ANIMAL SPECIES.
Very over simplified example:
Dog 1 has the following genetic code, AA Bb cC DD
Dog 2 has the following genetic code, aA BB CC dD
When they mate, there is a transfer of genetic material between the dogs which results in a new combination (LOSS) of information such as Aa bb Cc dd. This new code might change the color of hair, or the length, or size or weight of the dog, BUT IT IS STILL A DOG. IT WILL ALWAYS BE A DOG, IT WILL NEVER BECOME ANYTHING BUT A DOG!
That is not evolution. It is mutation.
Mutation ALWAYS results in a LOSS of genetic material, not an increase of it, AND, an increase is exactly what would have to occur for Darwin's theory to be valid.
You even allude to it in your virus example.
When a virus mutates, although it might well become a more virulent strain, it still results in a loss of information, and IT IS STILL A VIRUS. It will never become a person or an animal.
So, maybe it is YOU who are being unreasonable. Maybe it is YOU who needs to open your mind and examine an opposing viewpoint instead of being so quick to cast aspersions or denigrate someone.
The bible is not without its value, to the contrary, it is very valuable IMO. All religious texts on some level are as they offer a "light" (hint, hint @bbsam ) a knowledge (gnosis), an understanding, an illumination of what past mankind thought and how mankind conducted themselves. I would even assert such texts in fact have a place in the school classroom but instead of physical sciences, I'd place them in the social sciences, in history or even anthropology studies. And I suspect there would be those on both sides of the bible debate who would harshly disagree with me on this.
You didn't think I would disagree with this, did you? In fact I found Comparative Religions to be among the most fascinating in college.
You didn't think I would disagree with this, did you? In fact I found Comparative Religions to be among the most fascinating in college.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Taken as an absolute literal light, your understanding would seem on some level to be of value to your conclusion. Your view on some level was also the view of the father of the Big Bang theory, oddly enough a Catholic Priest, Father George Lemaitre. Funny that so-called atheistic science holds to an explanation of our existence that came from a Catholic Priest. Lemaitre saw the "Big Bang" as that instant flash of light described in the Genesis texts of the events of the first day. Obviously from that point forward the following events were not as well set to a literal 24 hour day time scale but that can be debated another time.
Continuing and understanding the events of Day 4, one explanation is that the Day 1 light is some type of cosmic glow. This might be explained with some type of plasma event that can fit into the hebrew usage of the word translated light. One usage relates to lightning that can have a kind of plasma state known as ball lightning and this might explain a literal understanding but my own view is metaphorical.
There is also the POV of not taking this first light as literal light but light of another form. The same hebrew word translated light in the first Genesis verses is also used another 122 times in the Old Testament. What if some of those uses were not meant as a literal form of light but rather used in a metaphorical or allegorical sense? Christians are told to walk in the light of Jesus and does than mean Jesus as a cosmic flashlight he holds on his followers or is this metaphorical for following the teachings of Jesus? In fact, change it to a literal cosmic flashlight and even most christians would be doing eye rolls at you and rightly so. Jesus is the, wait for it.... "light of the world." Hmmmmm!
Something you might find of interest to study is ex nihilo or creation from nothing, ex materia or creation out of pre-existent matter or creatio ex deo or creation out of the being of God.
A little food for thought.
Oh and that's metaphorical food and not literal food!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I had no expectation either way nor would it matter if you did disagree. That said, comparative religious study is a fascinating subject for sure.
All religions say the same thing, they just use different means to get there.
njdriver
FedEx Browned
How would you know.
You seem much more comfortable insulting people instead of at least giving the impression you can carry on a rational dialog with those whose views you differ with.
Do you have even the slightest idea of what Darwin's theory was?
Read up on it and THEN get back to me, ok pumpkin.
njdriver
FedEx Browned
Your half right.