Bible-Creation-Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Except that all motion is relative -- the rotation of the Earth wouldn't mean anything to anyone without another object in the sky by which to measure it. Having "evening" and "morning" without a Sun and a moon -- to say nothing about without light -- is literalistic nonsense.

How's come we understand it quite well then, and Internet scientists don't?

Does 'relative motion' get in the way? if so, relative motion can take a hike.

And while relative motion is away on ambulation, let's sneak this in before it gets back and starts confusing you guys again:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How's come we understand it quite well then, and Internet scientists don't?

You "understand it" because:

Does 'relative motion' get in the way? if so, relative motion can take a hike.

You choose to dismiss, rather than discuss, the flaws in your thinking.

And while relative motion is away on ambulation, let's sneak this in before it gets back and starts confusing you guys again:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So what's so confusing about this? The makings of the creation myth were present during the heroic myth of Moses.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what's so confusing about this?

Nothing -- once stuff like relative motion and other bologna get factored out, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nothing -- once stuff like relative motion and other bologna get factored out, it makes perfect sense.

What makes perfect sense? I sense you're trying to make a point, but there's nothing there.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes perfect sense? I sense you're trying to make a point, but there's nothing there.

95

 

[Nathan Poe]

95

You're bouncing from one senseless post to another -- what does 95 have to do with Exodus?

 

[Research1]

Genesis does not portray a consistent chronological account of creation, which can be evidenced by comparing the first and fourth days of creation and noticing the apparent similarities between them: the creation of light and darkness and the separation of them. This leads me to think that there are two descriptions of one single event and that the order is not chronological but topical. Not only this, but the writing style these comparative verses most reflects is a poetic method called parallelism.

This is why I think Genesis does not offer scientific data or specifics for creation, but rather states the theological truth that God created.

There is no actual order of the creation outlined in Genesis if you stick to the ANE context of when it was written from the perspective of a revelation.

''There is another viewpoint from a few old age earth advocates that suggests that the six days of the creation account punctuated by the words “evening” and “morning” are literal days with literal evenings and mornings. Not that God created the heavens and the earth in literally six days, but that He communicated to Adam for six literal days how He created it all. That would also explain the use of the terms “evenings” and “mornings” before the creation of the sun and moon, for example. Yet, it would not contradict the evidence from the physical sciences of an old age earth.''
– E. Raymond Capt, M.A., A.I.A., F.S.C., Scot., Biblical Antiquities, “A Six Day Creation?”, Covenant Media Productions, 1998, Album 1, Tape # 6.

 

[elopez]

I'll give it a try, bro --

Light was first created -- in transit -- then the source of the light, viz. the stars, was created.

Light, of course, isn't needed to calculate a day -- the rotation of the earth would do just fine.

Thus saying, 'The evening and the morning were the first day', when as yet the sun didn't exist, is still an appropriate expression.

However the sun is needed to calculate days, not simply the rotation of the earth around some light. Saying that there were days and nights occurring without the sun is not an appropriate expression according to science nor the Bible as I was explaining to your bro.

 

[elopez]

There is no actual order of the creation outlined in Genesis if you stick to the ANE context of when it was written from the perspective of a revelation.

''There is another viewpoint from a few old age earth advocates that suggests that the six days of the creation account punctuated by the words “evening” and “morning” are literal days with literal evenings and mornings. Not that God created the heavens and the earth in literally six days, but that He communicated to Adam for six literal days how He created it all. That would also explain the use of the terms “evenings” and “mornings” before the creation of the sun and moon, for example. Yet, it would not contradict the evidence from the physical sciences of an old age earth.''
– E. Raymond Capt, M.A., A.I.A., F.S.C., Scot., Biblical Antiquities, “A Six Day Creation?”, Covenant Media Productions, 1998, Album 1, Tape # 6.

If one held that the earth was old yet maintained that Genesis is literal, it would sill blatantly contradict evidence from modern science since we know from such evidence that the sun was present before the earth.

 

[Tiberius]

All things pertaining to the Bible must be backed up by Bible Scripture.
All things pertaining to Evolution must be sited from a credible source

Okie dokie.

The Bible is based on God and Him being the creator of man without any evidence of evolution in the process of creating him a man.

That is one such interpretation. however, there are some people who can see support for evolution in the Bible, as I explained in this post.

The Theory of Evolution is based key observations and inferences drawn from them. A process of random variables persuaded by the changing conditions of the Earth itself. Without any evidence of a Creator, or a Creator creating a man.

Evolution by means of natural selection is not random.

How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

There are four possible options.

1. Creation of some kind is correct.
2. Evolution, or a scientific explanation of some kind is correct.
3. Both creation and evolution played a part in life developing as we see it.
4. Neither creation nor science have played any part in the development of life.

The way you've phrased this makes it sound like religion and evolution are mutually incompatible, but there are many believers who find no such problem.

 

[dad]

If what you are saying is true, then I will tell you, (the star of Bethlehem is none other than the actual quasi-physical form of God, hovering over the Baby Jesus in a flying throne made out of sapphires.)
is NOT Biblical.

Oh? Try to tell me that... You see, the flying wheels of God happens to be the best explanation for the star, and I am confident that is precisely what it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

However the sun is needed to calculate days, not simply the rotation of the earth around some light.

Since when?

 

[1611AV]

Okie dokie.



That is one such interpretation. however, there are some people who can see support for evolution in the Bible, as I explained in this post.



Evolution by means of natural selection is not random.



There are four possible options.

1. Creation of some kind is correct.
2. Evolution, or a scientific explanation of some kind is correct.
3. Both creation and evolution played a part in life developing as we see it.
4. Neither creation nor science have played any part in the development of life.

The way you've phrased this makes it sound like religion and evolution are mutually incompatible, but there are many believers who find no such problem.

Evolution is a religion.

 

[Phred]

Evolution is a religion.

Because you say so?

 

[sandwiches]

Evolution is a religion.

That's your response to that post? Sad...

 

[Research1]

Because you say so?

I think his point is that since we can not observe how we were created, evolution is religious.

Anything really pertaining to origins is religious, because no one was there to observe and also we cannot test. Unique historical events fall outside of science - so evolution in this sense could be seen as a religion.

 

[sandwiches]

I think his point is that since we can not observe how we were created, evolution is religious.

Anything really pertaining to origins is religious, because no one was there to observe and also we cannot test. Unique historical events fall outside of science - so evolution in this sense could be seen as a religion.

That's not what a religion is.

I can't observe what people in Tokyo are doing but thinking that they're probably going to work, eating, sleeping, etc isn't a religion.

Neither is the belief that black holes, virtual particles, or neutrinos exist.

This is merely an equivocation to make it seem as though evolution has as much, or as little, evidence as his religious beliefs.

 

[Phred]

I think his point is that since we can not observe how we were created, evolution is religious.

Anything really pertaining to origins is religious, because no one was there to observe and also we cannot test. Unique historical events fall outside of science - so evolution in this sense could be seen as a religion.

We can't observe how murders happened either but we manage to convince a jury of who did it and their guilt. Is the law religious?

I think his point is, "I can't argue with evidence so I have to try and bring you down to my level." That's what I think his point is.

 

[Research1]

We can't observe how murders happened either but we manage to convince a jury of who did it and their guilt. Is the law religious?

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

The origin of life, the earth etc is obviously completely different. We are talking billions or millions of years, and because of that huge timeframe hardly any evidence is left. We can't work out how the earth or moon was created, as some have already pointed out - there are 5 different theories on how the moon formed. Scientists don't have a clue. Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory. And the only people who disagree with this are militant atheists who NEED evolution to be true because they are insecure and fundamentalists.

 

[sandwiches]

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

The origin of life, the earth etc is obviously completely different. We are talking billions or millions of years, and because of that huge timeframe hardly any evidence is left. We can't work out how the earth or moon was created, as some have already pointed out - there are 5 different theories on how the moon formed.

I'm afraid that maybe YOU can't. Some of us can and do.

Scientists don't have a clue.

Again, this is mere projection on your part.

Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory.

Just like gravity but yea, it's a theory.

And the only people who disagree with this are militant atheists who NEED evolution to be true because they are insecure and fundamentalists.

It seems like someone touched a nerve there...