In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[excreationist]

We all live in God's creation. We can see that it works. If the Bible record of how it was done doesn't conform to what we understand about orders of operation, we are still living in God's creation, and we can still see that it works.

I guess I don't understand; it seems like this thread wants to make cornbread from sand. What am I missing?

If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.

 

[Unfettered]

If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.

Thank you. I do not yet understand the purpose of this thread.

 

[excreationist]

Thank you. I do not yet understand the purpose of this thread.

It is to point out that in the creation story the plants (and fruit trees) were created before the Sun, Moon and stars and this conflicts with mainstream science. So it seems that a literal reading of it is not true even though old earth creationists try to make it fit with science.

 

[Eli G]

If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.

The order of appearance that scientists attribute to the same things mentioned in the Genesis story of the creation, is practically the same.

How can someone from 4 millennia ago invent the order of appearance of things as conceived today by scientific discoveries developed only with modern advanced technology?

 

[Unfettered]

It is to point out that in the creation story the plants (and fruit trees) were created before the Sun, Moon and stars and this conflicts with mainstream science. So it seems that a literal reading of it is not true even though old earth creationists try to make it fit with science.

OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?

 

[excreationist]

The order of appearance that scientists attribute to the same things mentioned in the Genesis story of the creation, is practically the same.

How can someone from 4 millennia ago invent the order of appearance of things as conceived today by scientific discoveries developed only with modern advanced technology?

No it is roughly something like this:

Stars (day 4)
Sun and moon (day 4) and more stars
Underwater creatures (day 5)
Dry land (day 3)
Land creatures (day 6)
Fruit trees (day 3)
More land creatures (day 6)
Birds (day 5)
Humans (day 6)

 

[excreationist]

OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?

Old earth creationists - not young earth creationists.

 

[Unfettered]

Old earth creationists - not young earth creationists.

Yeah, but what about them?

 

[excreationist]

Yeah, but what about them?

Old earth creationists think that Genesis 1 fits mainstream science really well but not so much.... see post #146.

 

[Unfettered]

Old earth creationists think that Genesis 1 fits mainstream science really well but not so much.... see post #146.

Oh. I see. Thank you.

 

[Eli G]

Old earth creationists think that Genesis 1 fits mainstream science really well but not so much.... see post #146.

Just clarifying my position: I am not, nor any other Jehovah's witness is, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

 

[shunyadragon]

Just clarifying my position: I am not, nor any other Jehovah's witness is, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

True, but that is not the problem with the belief of JW. Jw rejects the sciences of evolution based on their interpretation of Genesis,

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Watch Tower Society teaches a combination of gap creationism and day-age creationism, with an extended period between the initial creation of the universe and the subsequent 'creative days' in relation to the earth, which are said to have taken "thousands of years".[91] It dismisses Young Earth creationism as "unscriptural and unbelievable",[92] and states that Jehovah's Witnesses "are not creationists" on the basis that they do not believe the earth was created in six literal days.[93][94] Watch Tower Society publications attempt to refute the theory of evolution, in favor of divine intelligent design.[95] The Society teaches that the first human, Adam, was created in 4026 BCE.[96]
'
This neglects the problem that the authors of the Pentateuch, the NT and the Church fathers believed in a literal Genesis.

Jehovah Witness also believes in a basically literal Pentateuch and a literal world flood at the time of Noah. There is basically no evidence for this impossible world flood based on basic Physics and Geology.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/great-flood-noahs-ark-story/

• Bible writers believed that Noah was a real person. For example, the Bible writers Ezra and Luke were skilled historians who included Noah in genealogies of the nation of Israel. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) The Gospel writers Matthew and Luke recorded Jesus’ remarks about Noah and the Flood.—Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27.
  Also, the prophet Ezekiel and the apostle Paul cited Noah as an example of faith and righteousness. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Hebrews 11:7) Would it make sense for these writers to point to a mythical person as an example to follow? Clearly, Noah and other men and women of faith are examples to imitate because they were real people.—Hebrews 12:1; James 5:17.
• The Bible gives specific details about the Flood. The Bible account of the Flood does not begin with anything like “Once upon a time,” as if it were a fairy tale. Rather, the Bible states the year, the month, and the day that events connected with the Flood happened. (Genesis 7:11; 8:4, 13, 14) It also gives the dimensions of the ark that Noah built. (Genesis 6:15) These details show that the Bible presents the Flood as a fact, not as a fable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all live in God's creation. We can see that it works. If the Bible record of how it was done doesn't conform to what we understand about orders of operation, we are still living in God's creation, and we can still see that it works.

I guess I don't understand; it seems like this thread wants to make cornbread from sand. What am I missing?

This is in the Evolution vs. Creationism part of the forum. You do not get to assume that there is a creation. You do not get to assume that there is a God. Yes, life works. The scientific evidence does not show a hint of God. Where are you getting your God claims from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just clarifying my position: I am not, nor any other Jehovah's witness is, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

If you believe the Noah's Ark myth and think that it made the sedimentary layers then you are for all practical purposes a YEC.

 

[Audie]

You choose what to believe, of course.

No. That's the behavior of the intellectuallly dishonest.
Not everyone is in your box.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that whenever things are said to have been made (eg plants and fruit trees), that probably means that the evolution of those things began at that time.
It is like when in Gen 1:1 it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that does not mean that it was all created and stayed the same as when created,,,,,,,,,,,,, it changed, evolved, into what it became after it was created.
So it was much longer than 200 Million years ago that plants were created and began to evolve. At that time there was light reaching the earth through the clouds, but the heavenly bodies could not be seen distinctly until day 4. (and of course there were no animals to see the heavenly bodies till day 4 also)

Your thoughts here make sense as far as I am concerned, Brian2. If God thought it was important for us to know all the genetic details of creation and how He put them all together, I think He would have told us. He allowed Moses to know in a way that Moses could understand without becoming a biochemist. Even biochemistry is limited in its scope, but I'm sure you understand what I mean. And was it important at that time? ok, enough said.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Brian2 besides, I doubt too many people were wondering about that at the time Genesis was written. I don't think too many people wonder how their skin came about -- in a general sense -- like "How did my skin get here"? Molecular science usually isn't a big concern to many people. Why we are alive is more of a concern, and how can we be happy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd like to say that, looking at your avatar, the creation is so fabulous that any argument against creation by God has now become useless as far as I am concerned.

Just calling everything "creation" doesn't make it so.

Good to know you can admit that your mind is closed, I guess.

Some people just like to argue, and that's apparent with some here...they call it "logic," but it's actually -- stupidity.

No, it's just logic. You should give it a try sometime.

That includes the theory of evolution as if it's an absolute no-dispute fact and people want to show why they believe it.

This isn't an example of logic. Rather, it's an example of an extremely well-evidenced scientific theory.

Evolution is a demonstrable fact of life. Allele frequencies change in populations over time. The theory of evolution is the compilation of facts that explains evolution. Of course you already know this, because I've pointed it out to you countless times.

Just looking at the way things grow is beyond anyone's comprehension, DNA included.

Just yours. Scientists understand DNA. Many on this thread and others have tried to explain it to you countless times before.

I have become convinced from these posts and looking at the way things grow and develop in general that there is no solid argument against what the Bible says or whether God as creator exists.

Let's be honest here, you had that belief long before you got to this forum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting. What I'm getting from you is that you've never found any significant value in fiction. iirc the puritans hated fiction and they said that since it was not true it should be shunned. My understanding from you is that you're not really saying how you feel about fiction other than you want to disagree w/ anything I say.

You're not saying that every single one of the billions --most of the human race-- report seeing value in the Bible because of "coercion, physical and mental" are you? Please let me know what you think after mulling this through.

Approximately 2.38 people in the world are Christians. The human population of earth is 8.1 billion people.
Sorry, but that's not "most of the human race."

Do you realize that earlier you were saying "bibles" as in many different bibles? Now it seems you're saying "book" like there's one underlying common book. Is it possible for us to pick one position here?

You've expressed this opinion and I thank you for your input.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?

Old earth creationists - not young earth creationists.

But why? Have you scanned the Evolution Vs Creationism directory? Did you find anything that led you to believe the thread would be productive?

The one thing that is absolutely clear in Genesis 1 -- irrespective of translation -- is that when God said be fruitful and multiply it was not referring to evolution versus creationism debates.