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.
I firmly believe that the understanding of Genesis that leads Christians to believe in a 6 day creation is incorrect. The biblical account does not actually say that literally. Personally as a Christian I believe the belief in this 6 day creation brings disrepute to the bible and Christian belief in general. The whole problem started with the translation of the bible into Greek and the beginning of the understanding of these scriptures to be understood from a `Greek worldview`. The ancient Jews never understood these passages the way most modern evangelicals do. I believe that God created the universe and he did it just as stated in the bible over eons of time.
[quote=hd4me;32530378]I The universe and earth were in existence before life appeared on the planet (is that not what science has found?)[quote]
Even ancient man wasn't dumb enough to propose that life existed before there was anywhere for life to stand, swim or crawl.
Quote:
light reaches the earth and there is a division between day and night (the earth rotates on its axis, fact, hence we have night and day)
That's a bit of stretch since light is always present even when light is present I can create darkness simply holding my hand between an object and any source of light.
Quote:
There's an expanse (i.e sky yes just walk out the door and look above)
You have dry land and vegetation then animals finally humans
Yet another logical progression even for ancient man since even they recognized that food had to be present for man to subsist on. Sort of a chicken vs the egg sort of thing, although the Yoruban creation narrative actually has a real chicken spreading life across the world. In short in virtually every creation narrative the logical progression exist, gods create the heavens, then plants and animals and finally man. Ancient man might not have been well informed but they did possess a certain logic.
First...DNA is real. Either one holds to the basic belief (article of faith) that DNA (human or otherwise) is the result of chance...or one holds to the basic belief that it was designed by a creator. I personally believe that DNA was created by The Word of God, Namely Yeshua Messiac.
Second...oops...maybe?
No knowledgeable individual "believes" DNA is the result of chance. Its chemistry is well understood. Its function as the blueprint for all earthly life is well established.
if science and genesis are to be in any sort of agreement, then it would have to be billions of years, not a few thousand and certainly not a day.
Cosmologists are well aware of how stars and planets form - and roughly how long that formation takes. They have actually observed different solar systems and different stars in various stages of development, so this isn't some obscure mathematical model that only geniuses and wizards can understand.
If we're going to engage in "special pleading" for our own solar system (i.e. God directly created the sun and earth but the rest of the universe formed naturally), then science is already far afield of genesis and the discussion would be effectively over.
Quote:
genesis specifically states that god created the plants a full "day" before the sun. Again, if science and genesis are going to remain in alignment, this "day" would have to amount to millions if not billions of years. We all know that life cannot survive on earth without the warmth and light from the sun - and sunlight contains necessary elements for complex life to survive. A generic "light" mentioned in genesis 1:1 just doesn't do the job, and genesis 1:1 doesn't say anything about this generic light giving off warmth to keep earth from becoming a giant ice ball.
Is it reasonable to use the Creationists interpretation of Genesis as a counterpoint and then by extension determine the Genesis account in error? If we can just get past the dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shirina in addition, cosmologists know that solar systems cannot form before the parent star. Otherwise, those planets would just float around aimlessly in space with no gravitational field keeping them locked into an orbit. Therefore, the sun would, by necessity, have to be created even before the earth, much less before plants.
But perhaps the most perplexing point of all is ... Why? Why would god do all of his creating and making in such a haphazard order? What is the point of making this generic "light" as a placeholder for the sun when, on the first day, he could have simply created the sun? It makes no sense at all. In addition, there is no reason why an all-powerful god would need to create a "hazy" atmosphere to protect the earth - protect it from what, and why would god need to make earth susceptible to it in the first place? I think we too often forget about the omnipotent nature of god when discussing these topics because, when true omnipotence is thrown into the equation, the rationalization of why god did something becomes extremely weak.
Here's a quote attributed to Galileo to ponder,
""Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle."
I enjoy this quote because at times it's used by atheists. However, Galileo was a man of science and deeply religious. He understood that the Bible teaches God is not a God of disorder.
What do you suppose he meant?
It's ironic that many today who cannot accept an omnipotent God use an argument that if he exists and is so powerful why didn't he just create everything with one miraculous stroke( aka birds with bones of gold, veins full of quicksilver, etc) . Why indeed, I suppose he could have made a stand of gold to support the earth and when we come to the point of going to space we would be in awe, "Yep, roger that Houston, the earth is sitting on a stand of gold. It's a miracle." "There must be a God."
Or perhaps some would demand of an omnipotent being a giant bubble made of lead with highlights of gold and pearly things as the earth's radiation shield. "Oh, there must be a God then."
Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe he established laws that govern the universe so that his creation could use its intellect to find out how creation works?
I firmly believe that the understanding of Genesis that leads Christians to believe in a 6 day creation is incorrect. The biblical account does not actually say that literally. Personally as a Christian I believe the belief in this 6 day creation brings disrepute to the bible and Christian belief in general. The whole problem started with the translation of the bible into Greek and the beginning of the understanding of these scriptures to be understood from a `Greek worldview`. The ancient Jews never understood these passages the way most modern evangelicals do. I believe that God created the universe and he did it just as stated in the bible over eons of time.
Just to be clear when you say Christians... it is important to distinguish those that are Creationists and those that aren't.
Interpreting a 6 day creation as literal is incorrect. However to then have some who don't believe in a Creator dictate the terms by which we should interpret Genesis and declare it a fallicy based on how some intrepret it? not reasonable.
Actually The creation of Adam and Eve who became God first attempt to make man His family and engage into His eternal life plan this was 6000 year ago , where the earth and animal in the earth are far older............ Plus I do not believe that DNA would survive after 5,000 to 10,000 years as it would be just a copy in stone and the carbon would have changed
WOW! I have nothing after reading that demonstration of willful ignorance in the extreme. Clearly you find the discovery's made by science to be heresy and fantasy, yet you're posting on a forum using a computer.
This is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, poops on the board and then struts around like it won the game.
No knowledgeable individual "believes" DNA is the result of chance. Its chemistry is well understood. Its function as the blueprint for all earthly life is well established.
First...DNA is real. Either one holds to the basic belief (article of faith) that DNA (human or otherwise) is the result of chance...or one holds to the basic belief that it was designed by a creator. I personally believe that DNA was created by The Word of God, Namely Yeshua Messiac.
Second...oops...maybe?
DNA did not come about by chance. It like all of evolution is a result of natural selection processes...No god involved or needed.
The evolution of DNA is described by a theory (in the scientific sense, as in "theory of gravity") that explains how evolution works. This theory is borne out by conformity to what we observe in nature and is confirmed by scientists worldwide. This is hardly an article of faith.
The choice is between a scientifically validated and approved system of understanding and the unsubstantiated assertions of various religions.
Holy books and theological treatises are not a good source of information about how the natural world works.
It is your presupposition that DNA evolved...a presupposition that requires a basic belief borne out by conformity to to what scientists worldwide believe that what they observe in nature explains their theory of how evolution works. You are free to choose between the choices you provided...much like a theological treatise. Your belly button has lint in it.
First...DNA is real. Either one holds to the basic belief (article of faith) that DNA (human or otherwise) is the result of chance...or one holds to the basic belief that it was designed by a creator. I personally believe that DNA was created by The Word of God, Namely Yeshua Messiac.
Second...oops...maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
The evolution of DNA is described by a theory (in the scientific sense, as in "theory of gravity") that explains how evolution works. This theory is borne out by conformity to what we observe in nature and is confirmed by scientists worldwide. This is hardly an article of faith.
The choice is between a scientifically validated and approved system of understanding and the unsubstantiated assertions of various religions. Holy books and theological treatises are not a good source of information about how the natural world works.
You are correct about the best source of information about how the world works, mordant. But you seem to be missing the main point about the existence of DNA. It is a code . . . a very specific code that is at the heart of all the life we know about. I understand why science uses the perverse reliance on chance and "natural selection" as its explanation for how the code came into existence . . . but it is perverse. You have to really wish NOT to acknowledge a "Coder" or intelligent source for the intelligibility of our reality. The existence of ANY consistent code implies a consistent source. The existence of consistent processes implies a consistent source. I understand why you have created the words "natural" and "chance" to describe the source . . . to avoid using God . . . but it is a preference and NOT a scientific basis. Having a scientific theory to explain how the EXISTING source operates says nothing about the source other than your preference.
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.
