Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not a contradiction, and the sad part is you see one. There is one creation story the other is the 6th day. Challenge me on the second genesis account (Come on- give me a question) and watch me blow it apart, LITERALLY!
I would say the sad part is you don't see one. To see one one need only look, to not see one, requires strange twisting apologetics.
So here we go.
One Creation Myth has man and woman created at the same time both in God's image
One Creation Myth has man created first in God's image, and woman created later from his rib.
One Creation Myth has animals created before man, on has them created after.
These cannot be reconciles, without introducing nonsensical, and unverifiable explanations.
Occam's Razor. The twisted apologetic logic is a lot more complicated than the plain fact that these were two separate accounts set down by different people at different times.
Much like the conflicts in the Birth and Childhood narratives which also cannot be reconciled.
The curse of Biblical literalism is that if a literalist accepts these facts, the Bible is no longer true. To a non literalize these are strengths. It shows that throughout time Man has experienced the divine, and struggled to capture that experience in words. Limited, as we all are, by their time, their prejudices, their intellect, the literary style of the time, and most of all by the sheer impossability of capturing the infinite within the finite. Thi does not cause me to doubt my belief in God. I do not believe the Bible is "The Truth" it as a collection of failed attempts to capture the truth. It is a signpost (and not necessarily the only signpost) pointing to the truth.
That's right, set up the question in a way that any answer I give will sound rediculous. That's responsible.
<cracking knuckles>
They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and thereby do not contradict one another.
In actual fact, while Genesis 1 describes the “Six Days of Creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that Creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction
God describes the sequence of Creation in Genesis 1, then fleshes out its most important aspects and details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
I would say the sad part is you don't see one. To see one one need only look, to not see one, requires strange twisting apologetics.
So here we go.
One Creation Myth has man and woman created at the same time both in God's image
One Creation Myth has man created first in God's image, and woman created later from his rib.
One Creation Myth has animals created before man, on has them created after.
These cannot be reconciles, without introducing nonsensical, and unverifiable explanations.
Occam's Razor. The twisted apologetic logic is a lot more complicated than the plain fact that these were two separate accounts set down by different people at different times.
Much like the conflicts in the Birth and Childhood narratives which also cannot be reconciled.
The curse of Biblical literalism is that if a literalist accepts these facts, the Bible is no longer true. To a non literalize these are strengths. It shows that throughout time Man has experienced the divine, and struggled to capture that experience in words. Limited, as we all are, by their time, their prejudices, their intellect, the literary style of the time, and most of all by the sheer impossability of capturing the infinite within the finite. Thi does not cause me to doubt my belief in God. I do not believe the Bible is "The Truth" it as a collection of failed attempts to capture the truth. It is a signpost (and not necessarily the only signpost) pointing to the truth.
We have gone over how these two stories are just two views of creation, one by God and one by man (Adam).
All land based animal were created by God before the creation of man, that is a single adult male of all land animal kinds. After God created man, he caused every animal kind to be formed out of the ground for Adam to name. Adam saw each female counter part to the male. Adam found no mate for himself. God showed Adam what he was lacking and that was a relationship with another of his kind. So God caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam and God took Even out of Adam.
So, the answer is Yes all land dwelling animals were created before man and yes, all land dwelling animals were created after man, but before Eve. This is because God showed Adam what he needed. Adam did not know until God showed him and that was a mate for relationship. The bible calls Eve a "helpmate".
The bible is the truth and is true down to the tense of the verb. This is how Jesus debated the the Saducees. Because of the verb "IS" in the herbrew refers to living. So, God is the God of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob. So, Jesus proved God is the God of the living and that there will be a resurection of the dead.
That's right, set up the question in a way that any answer I give will sound rediculous. That's responsible.
<cracking knuckles>
They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and thereby do not contradict one another.
In actual fact, while Genesis 1 describes the “Six Days of Creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that Creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction
God describes the sequence of Creation in Genesis 1, then fleshes out its most important aspects and details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
To note, we in America look at the bible through the greek mindset which is literal and straight forward. The bible however was written by Hebrews and sometimes things get inverted for meaning. This is a Hebrew litterary device. ie. "These are the generations (account) of the heavens and the earth" vs. "These are the generations of the earth and the heavens".
I do agree with you that the accounts are different on perspective aswell. Gods perspective, all of creation. Man's perspective, day six, the day he was created.
Evolution has nothing to do with the discovery of any Medicine. Antibiotic resistance (I guess that is what you are refering too) predates the existance of antibiotics. So, the resistance is part of the genetic make-up of bacteria from the beginning.
If you are refering to the common cold. Remember that the common cold is not becoming anything new. It is just changing its signiture so that your body does not recognize it. The common cold has about 3000 of these changes so, the likely hood that you will see the same version in your life time is almost imposible. Remember that the common cold is not becoming anything else, it has always been the same from the beginning and no new information is created in it.
I don't why evolutionist always attempt to bring up modern medicine when it is clear evolution has done nothing for modern medicine.
You funny. Simply because of ignorant comments like that, letting everyone know you really don't know what you are talking about. Remember, when the doctor say to take all of your anti-biotics, be sure to do it, otherwise, natural selection will allow for many survivors. Just trying to help you out. Maybe you need to download that pdf file. Study it and hopefully you won't make another gaffe. It's pretty embarrassing.
You funny. Simply because of ignorant comments like that, letting everyone know you really don't know what you are talking about. Remember, when the doctor say to take all of your anti-biotics, be sure to do it, otherwise, natural selection will allow for many survivors. Just trying to help you out. Maybe you need to download that pdf file. Study it and hopefully you won't make another gaffe. It's pretty embarrassing.
No gaffe here. Anti-biotic resistance is already present in bacteria. In environments where anti-biotics are used heavily like the hospital, strains of bacteria can grow that are resistant to the anti-biotics. Unfortunatly this is at a cost. Sometimes it is motility or rate of reproduction or the intake of certain nutrients. So, when the populaiton moves to a non anti-biotic environment the non-resistant strains survive better, returning the population to pre anti-biotic conditions. Is there any new information produced? No, the genes for resistance is present prior to the anti-biotics and in history are found to exist prior to the invention of anti-biotics.
I take anti-biotics to reduce the amount of bacteria not because there is some link to evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. It is one of the tools evolution uses in conjunction with mutations over millions of years to produce new species. Bacteria with resistance and non-resistance in it's population is no contributor to the idea of evolution. They have always had this information from the beginning. This is because of the diversity of the original kinds of animals that God created. To allow them to survive in a sin cursed world.
No gaffe here. Anti-biotic resistance is already present in bacteria. In environments where anti-biotics are used heavily like the hospital, strains of bacteria can grow that are resistant to the anti-biotics. Unfortunatly this is at a cost. Sometimes it is motility or rate of reproduction or the intake of certain nutrients. So, when the populaiton moves to a non anti-biotic environment the non-resistant strains survive better, returning the population to pre anti-biotic conditions. Is there any new information produced? No, the genes for resistance is present prior to the anti-biotics and in history are found to exist prior to the invention of anti-biotics.
I take anti-biotics to reduce the amount of bacteria not because there is some link to evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. It is one of the tools evolution uses in conjunction with mutations over millions of years to produce new species. Bacteria with resistance and non-resistance in it's population is no contributor to the idea of evolution. They have always had this information from the beginning. This is because of the diversity of the original kinds of animals that God created. To allow them to survive in a sin cursed world.
You take anti-biotics to wipe out the population of bacteria before it can evolve. If you don't wipe it out entirely, by taking enough of your meds, it will allow that part of the population to evolve to be resistant and flourish. This illustrates how NS, a mechanism of evolution, works in a sin-filled world, although I imagine it would work in other worlds. I have never known how a sin-filled world would affect physical laws. Water would still go downhill, right? This is how life has survived through several extinction events, in geologic history, since not one of them have wiped out all living things. There is all that death again, before man came on the seen. Evolution isn't much of an obsticle when you have all that death before man right here under your feet.
Did God at the beginning equip the creation with all of the functional capabilities that would be needed to actualize the full variety of structures and forms through the course of time? Evidently so. Looks like NS and GM are effective mechanisms to produce just that.
If you don't think evolution has any practical benefits read this.
Quote:
There are numerous natural phenomena for which evolution gives us a sound theoretical underpinning. To name just one, the observed development of resistance - to insecticides in crop pests, to antibiotics in bacteria, to chemotherapy in cancer cells, and to anti-retroviral drugs in viruses such as HIV - is a straightforward consequence of the laws of mutation and selection, and understanding these principles has helped us to craft strategies for dealing with these harmful organisms. The evolutionary postulate of common descent has aided the development of new medical drugs and techniques by giving researchers a good idea of which organisms they should experiment on to obtain results that are most likely to be relevant to humans. Finally, the principle of selective breeding has been used to great effect by humans to create customized organisms unlike anything found in nature for their own benefit. The canonical example, of course, is the many varieties of domesticated dogs (breeds as diverse as bulldogs, chihuahuas and dachshunds have been produced from wolves in only a few thousand years), but less well-known examples include cultivated maize (very different from its wild relatives, none of which have the familiar "ears" of human-grown corn), goldfish (like dogs, we have bred varieties that look dramatically different from the wild type), and dairy cows (with immense udders far larger than would be required just for nourishing offspring).
Critics might charge that creationists can explain these things without recourse to evolution. For example, creationists often explain the development of resistance to antibiotic agents in bacteria, or the changes wrought in domesticated animals by artificial selection, by presuming that God decided to create organisms in fixed groups, called "kinds" or baramin. Though natural microevolution or human-guided artificial selection can bring about different varieties within the originally created "dog-kind," or "cow-kind," or "bacteria-kind" (!), no amount of time or genetic change can transform one "kind" into another. However, exactly how the creationists determine what a "kind" is, or what mechanism prevents living things from evolving beyond its boundaries, is invariably never explained.
Good gracious somebody has really done a job on nikk have'nt they.
The bible Is supposed to be the literal word of god, not god and adam.
I'm sorry nikk but you are spouting complete drivel, your arguements are devoid of any logic.
I'm told that In Kentucky there Is a creationist museum complete with a version of noah's ark.
But on this ark there Is a T-REX, some people were amazed to see a carnavore on the ark and asked would'nt that be a risky thing to do, they were told that god changed the dinosaur Into a vegetarian for the duration of the flood.
I mean It beggers belief does'nt It that some people like nikk believe this garbage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
