Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments

[matthew.william]

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~

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

 

[matthew.william]

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.

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. 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.

~matthew.william~

 

[matthew.william]

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.

Hmmm, perhaps the birds ate the seeds, fruit, and nectar of plants instead of worms? Perhaps the early bird ancestors ate aquatic life and then evolved into species that ate primarily land-based animals?

~matthew.william~

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps the source of 'day' wasn't the sun? I don't know and frankly, I don't interpret the whole thing literally.

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.

I was wondering why ocean life and bird life before land animals wouldn't make sense.

Birds evolved from land animals. This precludes the possibility of birds existing before the first land animals.

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.

You didn't. That was in the post from theDamagedOne that we've been discussing:

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.

 

[matthew.william]

Birds evolved from land animals. This precludes the possibility of birds existing before the first land animals.

Okay, but the question was about reconciling one verse to another, not the two verses to a scientific theory.

You didn't. That was in the post from theDamagedOne that we've been discussing:

Please don't ascribe another persons quote to me then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, but the question was about reconciling one verse to another, not the two verses to a scientific theory.

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.

Please don't ascribe another persons quote to me then.

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.

 

[theDamagedOne]

I'm the one who posted the theory in question regarding Genesis and the actual time frame in which the earth was created. I've been out of town for a week. Hmmm.. maybe that was a year in OT time!

 

[Somkid]

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.

I agree with you 100% who wants to be alone and insignificant in the universe, to have a god as your invisible friend and super power is the coolest thing and I honestly wish I could buy into it because then I wouldn't be as miserable in my existence as I am (but I am well adjusted).

 

[[email protected]]

I think creationism is a waste of time, the facts arnt justified properly, theres no proof, and its just a completly rediculous idea, if "GOD" made the world, made everything, why is there bad things in our world, and you think this GOD is a good man, yes? What good man puts children, and in fact people through poverty, And terror, If GOD was real, he wouldnt be a very kind person now, if he was in control, yet still let these horrible things happen?

 

[Alex_G]

wow, my thread has grown so much since i was last on, and im far too lazy to try and read through it all at once i see a lot of ***** slapping posts aroung the place, awsome lol

If anyone would like my view on any recent arguments/ideas nows the time, while i have enough spare time to concentrate on the forums a bit

As for the most recent debate, as far as im concerned its foolish to take the bible literally. It seems no more wise than believing any random literature u come across. (all literature being a human product remember ).

 

[Jesse Dawkins]

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.

 

[Alex_G]

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.

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'.

 

[Soldano16]

Therefore creationism doesn't stand on just scientific fact and experiments

This is big news to the scientific community. They claim that creationism contradicts scientific fact.

Creationism has it's own definition of science but it's not science as defined by scientists.

 

[McBell]

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.

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'.

It is because they are mixing up the common usage definition of the word with the scientific usage of the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

 

[Alex_G]

But would the diamond mean the same coming from a crack dealer rather than a grandmother
for example?

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate - Oppertunity to squeeze out one of my fav quotes by Einstein