Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[the_fallen_azreal]

There is also the theory of spontaneous chemical reaction which on a new planet such as ours where the temperature is very high(which tends to act as a catalyst) can lead to the combining of the right chemicals to create a simple life form.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is also the theory of spontaneous chemical reaction which on a new planet such as ours where the temperature is very high(which tends to act as a catalyst) can lead to the combining of the right chemicals to create a simple life form.

That is abiogenesis and has nothing to do with biological evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

The Bible doesn't say that plants were created before the sun. Nor does it say that all creation was crammed into a boat. Genesis 1:1 simply and accurately states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When was "the beginning?" Science claims the universe is billions of years old. The Bible doesn't contradict those estimates. The sun came into existence when the earth did. The creative "days" or epochs in Genesis discuss God's preparation of the earth for his human children, not the creation of the physical planet.

 

[camanintx]

The Bible doesn't say that plants were created before the sun. Nor does it say that all creation was crammed into a boat. Genesis 1:1 simply and accurately states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When was "the beginning?" Science claims the universe is billions of years old. The Bible doesn't contradict those estimates. The sun came into existence when the earth did. The creative "days" or epochs in Genesis discuss God's preparation of the earth for his human children, not the creation of the physical planet.

But it does say that seeds and fruit were created two days before animals when we know that is not the case.

 

[rusra02]

But it does say that seeds and fruit were created two days before animals when we know that is not the case.

What makes you think so?

 

[camanintx]

What makes you think so?

Genesis 1:11 & 1:20 versus the fossil record.

 

[rusra02]

Genesis 1:11 & 1:20 versus the fossil record.

Many who have studied the fossil record do not believe it contradicts Genesis.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible doesn't say that plants were created before the sun. Nor does it say that all creation was crammed into a boat. Genesis 1:1 simply and accurately states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When was "the beginning?" Science claims the universe is billions of years old. The Bible doesn't contradict those estimates. The sun came into existence when the earth did. The creative "days" or epochs in Genesis discuss God's preparation of the earth for his human children, not the creation of the physical planet.

If you believe and agree with science that the earth is billions of years old, then the bible still contradict science. Because clearly the sun was created on one of those 6 creative days - the 4th day - after the creation of the Earth.

Because according to your claim, the Earth is billions of years old and created before the creative days, and since Sun wasn't created until those creative days, then the Earth is older than the Sun by billions of years, hence the Sun was not created at the same time as the Earth.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bible doesn't say that plants were created before the sun. Nor does it say that all creation was crammed into a boat. Genesis 1:1 simply and accurately states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When was "the beginning?" Science claims the universe is billions of years old. The Bible doesn't contradict those estimates. The sun came into existence when the earth did. The creative "days" or epochs in Genesis discuss God's preparation of the earth for his human children, not the creation of the physical planet.

Whatever you want it to say is fine with me. From other posts, I take it you are a strong believer in Jesus, but you don't take Genesis literal? That's great. To me Creationist Christians are responding to the threat that the Bible can't be taken literally and seriously. They need it to be historically accurate. If Genesis didn't happen as written, their whole belief system crumbles. What do you say to those Christians that believe in a young Earth and an exact six-day Creation?

 

[McBell]

Many who have studied the fossil record do not believe it contradicts Genesis.

really?
List them by name.

 

[camanintx]

Many who have studied the fossil record do not believe it contradicts Genesis.

We have fossils of fish (day 5) dating back over 500 million years. Show me a seed or fruit (day 3) fossil over 450 million years old.

 

[rusra02]

If you believe and agree with science that the earth is billions of years old, then the bible still contradict science. Because clearly the sun was created on one of those 6 creative days - the 4th day - after the creation of the Earth.

Because according to your claim, the Earth is billions of years old and created before the creative days, and since Sun wasn't created until those creative days, then the Earth is older than the Sun by billions of years, hence the Sun was not created at the same time as the Earth.

I think you are misinterpreting what the Genesis account says. Verse 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning." On the fourth creative period, God said "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens (or earth's atmosphere) to shine upon the earth." On the first creative day, God allowed light to penetrate to the Earth, doubtless by clearing the atmosphere, which atmosphere or expanse was further cleared on day two. The atmosphere continued to clear so that by day four, the sun, moon, and stars,already in existence, could be seen in earths atmosphere.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are misinterpreting what the Genesis account says. Verse 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning." On the fourth creative period, God said "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens (or earth's atmosphere) to shine upon the earth." On the first creative day, God allowed light to penetrate to the Earth, doubtless by clearing the atmosphere, which atmosphere or expanse was further cleared on day two. The atmosphere continued to clear so that by day four, the sun, moon, and stars,already in existence, could be seen in earths atmosphere.

The first creative day say absolutely nothing about the sun already existing.

You are completely ignoring verse 1:16, on the fourth day:

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.

The definitive word here is "MADE".

Made, as in "to create" or "to make". God made 2 great lights, which is the sun and the moon, on the fourth day.

This translation that i used, is from JPS (1985); the other translations - KJV, NIV, NRSV, etc, all use the word "made". With KJV and NIV, god also "made" the lesser lights - the stars - while JPS and NRSV were more implied.

Your claim that the sun, moon and stars were already made on the first day or before it, but this is mere speculation, nothing more, because 1:16 contradict your baseless claim.

I did not misinterpret anything here. If anyone is misinterpreting anything or making things up, then I'd suggest that you look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[fantome profane]

I think you are misinterpreting what the Genesis account says. Verse 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning." On the fourth creative period, God said "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens (or earth's atmosphere) to shine upon the earth." On the first creative day, God allowed light to penetrate to the Earth, doubtless by clearing the atmosphere, which atmosphere or expanse was further cleared on day two. The atmosphere continued to clear so that by day four, the sun, moon, and stars,already in existence, could be seen in earths atmosphere.

It is your interpretation of Genesis that requires more redefinitions and reworking of what is said there. Why should we believe that your interpretation is correct? How do we know that you have not misunderstood?

 

[rusra02]

The first creative day say absolutely nothing about the sun already existing.

You are completely ignoring verse 1:16, on the fourth day:


The definitive word here is "MADE".

Made, as in "to create" or "to make". God made 2 great lights, which is the sun and the moon, on the fourth day.

This translation that i used, is from JPS (1985); the other translations - KJV, NIV, NRSV, etc, all use the word "made". With KJV and NIV, god also "made" the lesser lights - the stars - while JPS and NRSV were more implied.

Your claim that the sun, moon and stars were already made on the first day or before it, but this is mere speculation, nothing more, because 1:16 contradict your baseless claim.

I did not misinterpret anything here. If anyone is misinterpreting anything or making things up, then I'd suggest that you look at yourself in the mirror.

You stopped one verse (16) too soon. Verse 17 states: "thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." The pre-existing sun, moon and stars were made to appear in the expanse over the earth. If not, where did the light come from on creative day one? (Verse 3)

 

[gnostic]

You stopped one verse (16) too soon. Verse 17 states: "thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." The pre-existing sun, moon and stars were made to appear in the expanse over the earth. If not, where did the light come from on creative day one? (Verse 3)

The creation myth of Genesis is contradictory and unscientifically flawed, and they have no understanding of space beyond the Earth's atmospheres.

Again, I need to remind you that there are no mention of the sun or moon in DAY ONE. It only state LIGHT was created.

As to verse 17, I see only that it follow 16, which are the creations of sun, moon and stars. You forgot that there were no SKY at DAY ONE. The EXPANSE or the SKY wasn't even created until DAY TWO. Hence, the sun, moon and stars were placed in the sky after and not before DAY ONE and DAY TWO.

It is the author who don't understand the reality of astronomy or the Sun. And Genesis 1, is based on nothing more than the earlier Babylonian Enûma Elish, which was adapted by the Israelite.

 

[CG Didymus]

Creationism seems to me to be an attempt to try and salvage a literal interpretation of the Bible mainly by Fundamentalist Christians. Even if they get proof of a young Earth and a world-wide flood, they have to keep proving all the other magical things in the Bible. So forget Creationism, there doesn't seem to be any hard-core Creationists that are getting involved in the debate anyway. But can there still be a mysterious spiritual reality behind it all? Only because for all this to be here by random chance, seems just as unlikely.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Has anyone figured out why this god created man with nipples if there is no need for them?

If "God" created Adam and Eve (brother and sister/twins/clones same DNA...:faint

Then why is there so much biodiversity amongst humans?

 

[McBell]

Has anyone figured out why this god created man with nipples if there is no need for them?

If "God" created Adam and Eve (brother and sister/twins/clones same DNA...:faint

Then why is there so much biodiversity amongst humans?

"Because Allah loves wondrous varieties."
~Azeem

 

[CG Didymus]

Has anyone figured out why this god created man with nipples if there is no need for them?

If "God" created Adam and Eve (brother and sister/twins/clones same DNA...:faint

Then why is there so much biodiversity amongst humans?

Aren't men and women only a "Y" chromosome apart? Add a few hormones and that's pretty much it? And speaking of biodiversity, some Christian/Creationist are saying that all Noah needed was a "kind" of animal. That way he didn't need all dog-like creatures, he only needed one pair and the rest of the species evolved, micro-evolution, out of them. So wolves, foxes, chihuahuas, hyenas all came from a common ancestor? That's pretty big micro-evolution. If that's true then where are the intermediary species? Half wolf, half hyena? Why aren't coyotes giving birth to a new species of dog-like creature every so often? Where's the transitional animals in the fossil record? I think those Christians are grabbing for straws, because they realizing there wasn't enough room on the ark for all of the animals. It's terrible what lengths they will go to just to try and prove their theory.