Genesis chapter 1 and reality

[DanielGillan]

It's amazing atheists try and use science as proof for their viewpoints, since pretty much every single great scientist has believed in God, Charles Darwin was baptised and studying to become a clergyman, when God gave him some insight, Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, Einstein was Jewish, even in the modern day, Feynman attends church. If so many great scientists believe in God, how come their works are being used by atheists ?
Next time you meet an Atheist, ask them why they rely on religious mens works.

 

[Huram Abi]

You are a very rude person.Every one of your posts is personally derogative,and dripping with sarcasm.

It's rude to address someone who you've never spoken to before just to tell them they are rude.

Do you have anything constructive to say?

 

[Huram Abi]

You probably know, but forget to mention that these are simply subjective ways of sorting the various life forms, rather than telling us whether bacteria of fungi are this or that.

RIGHT???

No, they are not subjective at all. What we are doing is sorting these different species according to how closely they are related to each other. We now are doing this using DNA.

Is it subjective to say that you are more closely related to your mother than your second cousin?

or is this a fact that we can evidence?


The kingdoms are made for organizational purposes and so we can descibe a new species discovered, simply by putting it in its taxonomical place.

The same as being a resident of USA->State->County->City->Street->House Number, it describes PROXIMITY TO OTHER BEINGS, but regarding family tree.

It isn't arbitrary. It is practical and useful.

 

[underheaven]

It's amazing atheists try and use science as proof for their viewpoints, since pretty much every single great scientist has believed in God, Charles Darwin was baptised and studying to become a clergyman, when God gave him some insight, Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, Einstein was Jewish, even in the modern day, Feynman attends church. If so many great scientists believe in God, how come their works are being used by atheists ?
Next time you meet an Atheist, ask them why they rely on religious mens works.

Not only great scientists,but great artists, ie. those who last .Here are a few.
Beethhoven, Mozart ,[musicians] Michael Angelo, All those who built the most beautiful
churches at a time when there was no advanced technology,Tolstoy,Dostoevsky,
William Blake,Julia Kavanagh,[writers].
The list is endless.Maybe it would be an idea, to start a post that people could add to,
of those inspired by God, to make timeless classics.
I am very busy ,but what do you think of that ? Would you start it ?
It would also allow us to learn about those special people and their work.

 

[cupid dave]

It's amazing atheists try and use science as proof for their viewpoints, since pretty much every single great scientist has believed in God, Charles Darwin was baptised and studying to become a clergyman, when God gave him some insight, Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, Einstein was Jewish, even in the modern day, Feynman attends church. If so many great scientists believe in God, how come their works are being used by atheists ?
Next time you meet an Atheist, ask them why they rely on religious mens works.

Sexual promiscuity???

Welfare Single mothers, abortion, gay marriage, No Fault Divorce, pre-marital sex...???

 

[underheaven]

It's rude to address someone who you've never spoken to before just to tell them they are rude.

Do you have anything constructive to say?

Lets start with you,about being constructive. Maybe you have very interesting things to teach us, but if you personally insult people who are engaged in an EXCHANGE of ideas,not a competition or war,then we might not want to learn.

 

[cupid dave]

No, they (the six kingdom system) are not subjective at all. What we are doing is sorting these different species according to how closely they are related to each other. We now are doing this using DNA.

Is it subjective to say that you are more closely related to your mother than your second cousin?

or is this a fact that we can evidence?


The kingdoms are made for organizational purposes and so we can descibe a new species discovered, simply by putting it in its taxonomical place.

The same as being a resident of USA->State->County->City->Street->House Number, it describes PROXIMITY TO OTHER BEINGS, but regarding family tree.

It isn't arbitrary. It is practical and useful.

Well other sources beside you tell us differently:

note:
"However, phylogenetic research from about 2000 onwards does not support ANY of the traditional systems."

Kingdom (biology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks, which is an example of definition by genus and differentia.
A domain contains one or more kingdoms.

Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.
In biology, kingdom (Latin: regnum, pl. regna) is a taxonomic rank, which is either the highest rank or in the more recent three-domain system, the rank below domain. Kingdoms are divided into smaller groups called phyla (in zoology) or divisions in botany.

The complete sequence of ranks is life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

Currently, textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) while British, Australian and Latin American textbooks may describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera).

Historically, the number of kingdoms in widely accepted classifications has grown from two to six.

However, phylogenetic research from about 2000 onwards does not support ANY of the traditional systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

 

[Huram Abi]

Lets start with you,about being constructive. Maybe you have very interesting things to teach us, but if you personally insult people who are engaged in an EXCHANGE of ideas,not a competition or war,then we might not want to learn.

And I am not aware of any time I have personally insulted "people." If you are among these people, and I have insulted you personally, then I apologize.

 

[Huram Abi]

However, phylogenetic research from about 2000 onwards does not support ANY of the traditional systems.

Yes, which is why I told you that it's probably best if you update your antiquated picture because fungi are more closely related to humans, specifically, than any plant species.

The source you posted actually agrees with me.

 

[Huram Abi]

Oh, and Cupid, I would appreciate it if you would edit your post and remove the addition you made to my quote. I know you like to do this to the bible, but it distorts my actual meaning and implies that I was talking about something I wasn't.

 

[timbo3]

This is incorrect. Cyanobacteria oxygenated the earth.

Animals can live off of fungus, bacteria, and each other.


Plants were neither necessary for oxygen or a foodsource that primitive microorganisms needed in order to feed.

The Bible is accurate in saying: "And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day."(Gen 1:11-13)

Thus, on the 3rd "creative" day, God caused "grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees according to their kinds." This also included cyanobacteria, a blue-green algae, which produces oxygen. Of phytoplankton, Scientific American says: “Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton.” (Aug 2002)

For the animals that were created on day five, there was now in place lush vegetation for them, with the carbon/oxygen exchange in operation. In effect, its like saying: "you scratch my and I will scratch yours", with plants providing us with needed oxygen and we give back to them carbon dioxide.

A perfect arrangement for sustaining life, with life on the earth to remain forever.(Isa 45:18) An arrangement put in place by Jehovah God, along with a whole host of other systems to form our eco-system, that is self-regulating and thriving if left untouched.

 

[Huram Abi]

Thus, on the 3rd "creative" day, God caused "grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees according to their kinds." This also included cyanobacteria, a blue-green algae, which produces oxygen.

Are you a literalist for this chapter or do you take Genesis 1 allegorically?

 

[DanielGillan]

I take Genesis 1 literally, which is one of the reasons I started this post. Dividing the age of the universe into 6 equal parts, unsurprisingly the sun appears at the end of the fourth part. The only day which is hard at the moment to prove, is day 3. Unfortunately introducing a massive fusion reactor (the Sun) probably vaporised all the evidence. However I suspect it was necessary to have the chemical building blocks in place to build up the living population of the planet.

 

[Huram Abi]

Taking Genesis literally means that you accept a 6 day creation week, based on a 24 hour day.

Believing that Genesis is scientifically accurate is not the same as believing the account is literal. In fact, you have to interpret it allegorically in order to believe it means anything other than a 6 day creation.

 

[granpa]

actually the line between literal and allegorical isnt as sharp as you might imagine.

the primitive language at that time made extensive use of allegory as part of teh normal day to day conversation.

 

[Huram Abi]

I know. But there is a fundamental difference between interpreting it literally or interpreting it in a way that compliments a real-world setting.

For example, God made adam out of clay.

The literal interpretation is that God started with some mud, sculpted a human body and then blew life into it.

The interpretation that compliments a scientific understanding may be that life, itself, started from nutrient rich material (mud ) and after abiogenesis and millions of years of evolution, mankind came to be. Through a transitive understanding, man was created from clay factually, but not literally.

 

[granpa]

what is the 'literal meaning' of a sentence depends on how it is used daily by those that speak the language.

If it was common to say 'God made man from clay' to mean that God made man from clay over millions of years then that would be the literal meaning.

 

[Huram Abi]

What it comes down to is that if there is no further explanatory diction, then there is no more to the meaning than what the words themselves say.

Since the scripture doesn't specifically include the words "over millions of years," including them would be a departure from the literal meaning.

 

[timbo3]

Are you a literalist for this chapter or do you take Genesis 1 allegorically?

Genesis 1 is literal, for it lays out in chronological order the events of creation in preparation for God's final creative on the earth at that time, that of humans. Just as with building a house, a skilled carpenter will first lay its foundation, then the walls, next the roof, etc., there being organization to the formation of the home, till it is ready for its new occupants.

As the last creative act God performed before the beginning of the "seventh" creative day, when the earth was now fully prepared for human habitation, Genesis 2:7 says: "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."

Later, "Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man."Gen 2:21, 22)

Now both the man and the woman, named Adam and Eve, existed, with the divine instructions: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”(Gen 1:28) The earth was to be ' filled' with Adam and Eve's offspring, taking the perfect example of the beautiful Garden of Eden and subduing the rest of the earth, till it became a paradise.

Hence, "Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth."(Prov 3:19) Jeremiah 10:12 says that "He is the Maker of the earth by his power, the One firmly establishing the productive land by his wisdom, and the One who by his understanding stretched out the heavens."

Further, at Isaiah 45:18, God says: "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."

The earth is to be home forever for those who measure up to becoming "meek", teachable individuals by Jehovah God, for Psalms 37:11 says that "the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace." Jesus, in giving the Sermon on the Mount, quoted this scripture, saying: "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."(Matt 5:5, King James Bible)

 

[Huram Abi]

Genesis 1 is literal,

Then it doesn't make any account for cyanobacteria. And the chronology given cannot be reconciled with a real-world understanding.

So, why make these scientifically innaccurate claims of "lush vegetation" that you cannot demonstrate without departing from it literally says?