Genesis chapter one

[kaotic]

Originally posted by lucaspa
That's another possible hypothesis.  However, that does contradict the parable about the shepherd, as Aaron pointed out to you.  Also, remember that God stuck with the Hebrew people even when they didn't worship Him.

Other possible hypotheses are:

You need a "deity detecting module" in your brain, and some people simply don't have it.

God does speak to everyone. Some people simply don't recognize it for what it is. 

In Genesis 1, God doesn't create people for any reason other than it is "good".  Not for worship, not for companionship, not for anything other than for themselves.  So God doesn't have a reason to speak to everyone.

Of course, there is also the hypothesis that God doesn't exist and theists are simply mistaken.

BTW, are you going to take a stab at my questions about what is nonfictional and what is fictional in Genesis 1 or 2?

I would have to go with "Of course, there is also the hypothesis that God doesn't exist and theists are simply mistaken.".

 

[aaron]

Originally posted by lucaspa
3. There are many stars out there older than earth. Yet earth is supposed to precede them. 

 

Star birth. Stars are born which would explain that.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"How much light does the earth get without the sun? Not enough to keep plants alive, right? How about heat? Think how cold it gets in the Arctic and Antarctic with those long nights."

Well you can certainly ask God that when you get the chance. We have light bulbs, you don't think God would have a way?

"2. Birds were not around before reptiles. Instead, reptiles preceded birds, contrary to verses 21-24. "

Oh they were not? Were you there? Where is your proof? I already see you dating methods argument coming around the mountain.

"1. All organisms are contemporary with a literal interpretation. Yet the fossil record clearly shows that organisms were not contemporary. Titanotheres didn't live with us and didn't live with the dinosaurs, either, as just one example."

Oh it does? It just talks about kinds bringing forth it's kind. We see this with all the evidence we have today. I think this is just a misinterpertation on your part with what the bible is saying.

". There are many stars out there older than earth. Yet earth is supposed to precede them. "

2nd point in a roll here on you showing us why evolution theory is flawed. You act like you know stars are older then earth without any good proof. This statement can't be proved and in cases where I see they try it doesn't hold water.


"4. We have a series of transitional fossil individuals linking H. sapiens to A. afarensis through H. erectus and H. habilis. Therefore humans were not spoken into existence in their present form as in Genesis 1 or formed from dust in their present form as in Genesis 2."

Only thing fossils show is there a lot of kinds of monkeys/apes and also various humans. Just like we see still today.

"Would you like me to go on"


Well you have yet to give me 1 conflict. Only conflicts with your guesses of what the evidence shows us. It's just your interpetation.

 

[kaotic]

Project 86,

2nd point in a roll here on you showing us why evolution theory is flawed. You act like you know stars are older then earth without any good proof. This statement can't be proved and in cases where I see they try it doesn't hold water.

Nasa has ways to tell how old stars are. So they know that there is stars older than the earth.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Nasa has ways to tell how old stars are"

Oh ok. Because NASA says so it must be so. How silly of me.

 

[aaron]

Here is the explanation for there being stars older and younger than earth.
Older- Genesis 1
Younger- star birth

Simple.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Project 86
"Nasa has ways to tell how old stars are"

Oh ok. Because NASA says so it must be so. How silly of me.

Well I think I would believe nasa sence they have done do much stuff that has came out to be right.


Let me add

Oh ok. Because the bible says so it must be so. How silly of me.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Oh ok. Because the bible says so it must be so. How silly of me."

Well NASA has been wrong before. The Bible has a really good and long track record going.

Well I need to log off. I'll thank seesaw and others for keeping this mature. I just have gotten turned off by this forum before because of to much mud slinging. I might come back to check this thread but I may not. But I'm sure I'll be around sooner or later in the science area.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Project 86
"Oh ok. Because the bible says so it must be so. How silly of me."

Well NASA has been wrong before. The Bible has a really good and long track record going.

Well I need to log off. I'll thank seesaw and others for keeping this mature. I just have gotten turned off by this forum before because of to much mud slinging. I might come back to check this thread but I may not. But I'm sure I'll be around sooner or later in the science area.

Name three things that nasa has been really wrong on.

Really what about the flood story there is no evidence for a global flood.

 

[aaron]

he said you are being mature

as for the flood I have seen proof on it. I can't think of what it is right now. If I run across it again I will post it.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by aaron
he said you are being mature

as for the flood I have seen proof on it. I can't think of what it is right now. If I run across it again I will post it.

There is no proof or evidence at all. There is only evidence for a local flood. But this is for another time.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by lucaspa
That was rather vague, Anthony. Which information is nonfictional? That God created?  That God created in 6 days?  That entities -- stars, planets, animals, people -- appeared instantaneously in their present form?

You admit that the author(s) of Genesis 1 were not there.  Therefore just how much of Genesis 1 is completely accurate? 

Or let me reduce that to the crucial issue: How much of Genesis 1 has to be nonfictional for Judeo-Christianity to be accurate?  Does it all have to be nonfictional?

For those who take the Bible as true, they cannot pick and choose. Once someone accepts the Bible as true, you must also accept Genesis as true. Accordingly when reading Genesis as truth, the reader must accept the obivous theme and plot and not try to make more or less of what is written. Therefore if the intend of the writer is clear that is the way it should be taken.

Six days is six days, marked with a morning and evening. Now does this mean it was 24 hours? Not necessarily. If a day is define as being marked with a morning and an evening than not all days are 24 Hours. If you go to Alaska, not all days last 24 hours. The key is these six time units were marked by a morning and an evening.

 

[kaotic]

For those who take the Bible as true, they cannot pick and choose. Once someone accepts the Bible as true, you must also accept Genesis as true.

That is the problem people that there religious text as truth. If they take the bible and other religious text as truth they have to take all the fiction books as truth.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by seesaw
Name three things that nasa has been really wrong on.

How about the Space Shuttle that blew up

 

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Anthony
How about the Space Shuttle that blew up

 

You can't really say that's NASA's fault someone just didn't do what they were suppose to do, but have they really ever gotten any of there dating wrong. I don't think so. Well none of the new datings.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by seesaw
You can't really say that's NASA's fault someone just didn't do what they were suppose to do, but have they really ever gotten any of there dating wrong. I don't think so. Well none of the new datings.

How about the mixup between English and metric units that doomed NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Anthony
How about the mixup between English and metric units that doomed NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter.

Fine I give you that one, but can you show me where the dating of the stars are wrong that is what we were talking about.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Matthew
Your division of 4.5 billion years into 6 periods has no basis in the Biblical text or in science itself.

How can we have a conversation here, if you know that little about what we are talking about.

 

[aaron]

Originally posted by seesaw
Fine I give you that one.

If he just gave you one example when you said that none existed there are obviously more there. So you point on when has NASA been wrong is incorrect.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by aaron
If he just gave you one example when you said that none existed there are obviously more there. So you point on when has NASA been wrong is incorrect.

I never said that none existed. I was talking about the dating which we were talking about. I havn't seen any where that nasa's dating on stars are wrong.