matthew.william
Member
I'd be curious to know the cost of making sense of Genesis 1: 21 in light of 1:24 ...
What about it doesn't make sense?
~matthew.william~
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'd be curious to know the cost of making sense of Genesis 1: 21 in light of 1:24 ...
I notice that the two verses together imply that birds were created before land animals. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense when taken literally.What about it doesn't make sense?
It's rather sad that you need to ask, but Genesis would have you believe that the early bird not only gets the worm but predates it.What about it doesn't make sense?
I notice that the two verses together imply that birds were created before land animals. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense when taken literally.
I note that it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that plants (Gen. 1:11) or "day" (Gen. 1:4-5) would be created before the Sun (Gen. 1:16).
And your idea about years being shorter in the past would seem to me to make it more difficult, not easier, to reconcile Genesis with the evidence we have for the history of the Earth.
It's rather sad that you need to ask, but Genesis would have you believe that the early bird not only gets the worm but predates it.
That's fine, but the issue just raised was the idea of interpreting Genesis literally, but in such a way that it allowed for acceptance of evolution.Perhaps the source of 'day' wasn't the sun? I don't know and frankly, I don't interpret the whole thing literally.
I was wondering why ocean life and bird life before land animals wouldn't make sense.
You didn't. That was in the post from theDamagedOne that we've been discussing:I would like to know where I stated anything about me having any idea as to the length of years though. Please show me where I stated anything about that.
My Pastor also explained to me that the "calendar" that was used in the Old Testament was not 365 days- it was MUCH shorter, meaning a person who in our time is 30 years old, would have been maybe 300 (or whatever #) in Old Testament time.
Birds evolved from land animals. This precludes the possibility of birds existing before the first land animals.
Please don't ascribe another persons quote to me then.You didn't. That was in the post from theDamagedOne that we've been discussing:
I assumed you were asking about the subject at hand, which was reconciling the sequence given in those two verses with other evidence, i.e. the history of life. If I had known you were intentionally making a non-sequitir, I wouldn't have made my post.Okay, but the question was about reconciling one verse to another, not the two verses to a scientific theory.
And I didn't. Like I said, my only assumption was that you were continuing the discussion of the subject at hand. Now that you've made it clear that you weren't, I can acknowledge my mistake in doing so and we can get back to creationism vs. evolution.Please don't ascribe another persons quote to me then.
I suppose creationism gives people an exaggerated feeling of self importance when they say God created them, instead of saying that they are one of the many products of the evolution process.
Why do people think a theory is something you dream up after being drunk all night.
Gravity is just a theory, as is the earths revolution around the Sun. They, just like evolution, are theories backed up by an extraordinary amount of evidence.
Therefore creationism doesn't stand on just scientific fact and experiments
Why do people think a theory is something you dream up after being drunk all night.
Gravity is just a theory, as is the earths revolution around the Sun. They, just like evolution, are theories backed up by an extraordinary amount of evidence.
It is because they are mixing up the common usage definition of the word with the scientific usage of the word.Ah ye good point, i mean i guess it comes down to the parameters we set, parameters that vary between people. A lot of the debate on this forum can summerised as questioning the acceptability of these various boundaries. But i personally dont like to bring a language limiting factor into these debates, otherwise we might aswell be discussing the word 'theory'.
Knowing that a diamond was produced by a chance convergence of carbon, pressure, heat and time instead of being placed in the ground by angels doesn't make the diamond any less beautiful.I suppose creationism gives people an exaggerated feeling of self importance when they say God created them, instead of saying that they are one of the many products of the evolution process.