...and if any one of our great grand parents weren't feeling frisky at the exact moment that they were then our entire family tree that stemmed from them would have been non existent.
Precise outcomes that weren' t planned ;)
Listen you bizarre moron nowhere does the Bible teach the earth was created before the Sun. People when Genesis was written were worshipping rocks.
Plum is you were at all addressing this question to the plank rooijackass rather ask him how many fingers he has. Bwhahahaha
Rooitwit read the testimony of Antony Flew carefully and many times.
Learn from your better chump.
"Also, bear in mind that whoever wrote the book of Genesis lived in a time when people believed the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth rather than vice versa."
Maybe those people thought that. There is enough evidence to show that other people, before that era, understood the earth to be round.
Rooi, here's an interesting one for you.
If I presented you with the following sequence, what springs to mind?
Fish, turtle, small mammal, large mammal, man, man with farming tools.
You reckon that an ancient civilisation would carve large works out of stone where this order is depicted, by accident?
The works I'm talking about were created in Sri Lanka by a group that is still unknown. They are carved onto large pillar type structures.
Then there is a piece, on the same site as the ones mentioned above, that was stopped half way through.
Strangely this piece was halted at the exact phase of production where an animal was placed in the wrong order. There was no more work done on it after that. It's the only one with an error in evolutionary chronology and it's the also the only uncompleted one.
Have a guess how many centuries these works predate Darwin's birth.
Everybody ignores India and Sri Lanka when looking at ancient history, but as far as I've seen, that area has some mind blowing artifacts and structures.
Underestimating what people in ancient times understood about the world is just not something I'm prepared to do.
Edit: this particular structure is in India, not Sri Lanka.
Got a link to these carving s, never heard of them and google isn't bringing them up.
Days of creation list Day 1: Light.
Day 2: Atmosphere / Firmament.
Day 3: Dry ground & plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon & stars.
Day 5: Birds & sea animals.
Day 6: Land animals & humans.
Day 7: The Sabbath of rest.
And four and a half odd billion years later..... Voila!!!!
Sader
Here's a link.
Edited the original post. These are actually India, not Sri Lanka. My bad, it was late :)
Please ignore the title of the video.
The guy that makes these is a real gem, despite being a tad out there at times.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cZYiH5snMYU
Indeed, great post Blue
Honestly, if one really questions most people, you discover they're somewhere on the agnostic spectrum.
When an argument is made to teach children theistic creationism at the expense of evolution then I have to stand up.
When children are taught that science will explain everything, it's just as problematic.
Parties at both ends need to stop polarizing the debate out of their need to cling to one set of ideas.
It becomes more about ego than about truth. That's the real problem.
Here, the people that interpret monotheistic religions to determine such narratives as "science is a false God and thus evil," must take responsibility.
"Listen you bizarre moron nowhere does the Bible teach the earth was created before the Sun."
Indeed, great post Blue
Honestly, if one really questions most people, you discover they're somewhere on the agnostic spectrum.
When an argument is made to teach children theistic creationism at the expense of evolution then I have to stand up.
When children are taught that science will explain everything, it's just as problematic.
Parties at both ends need to stop polarizing the debate out of their need to cling to one set of ideas.
It becomes more about ego than about truth. That's the real problem.
Here, the people that interpret monotheistic religions to determine such narratives as "science is a false God and thus evil," must take responsibility.
Excellent post plum. Science is the glasses through which I view Creation. If one starts to look at the order in the universe and what we know about science, the probability that everything was pure random chance is just unimaginable. The Fibonacci Sequence, DNA, etc ...order from chaos...simply does not make sense to me.
Where religion and science conflict most is evolution. The young earth creationists such as Beeno reject evolution and believe God made him out of clay.
The Big Bang may have been random or created by God/s - but there are certain areas where religion and science try to disprove each other.
Evolution from Apes (Chimpanzees in particular) is a scientific fact. The only people that refuse to consider the facts, and accept the evidence as conclusive are still living in Babylon. Most of these people probably have IQ's less than 70%.
A comparison of genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives (Chimpanzees) share 96 per cent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.
Young earth creationist/ literal believers in the bible cannot accept evolution simple because it it is in diect conflict with their beliefs and proves the bible is wrong.
No matter how many facts you put in front of these people they will not or cannot change their minds. Thankfully most christians are not young earth creationist
First off, Day 4 always puzzled me and seemed out of order of the rest of the events. The author below tries to explain it, bu I can understand that non believers would call BS on this. However, we are dealing with a thousands of years old manuscript that tries to explain something to people who lived thousands of years ago. So much has changed since then that it's actually a miracle in itself that it does make a bit of sense.
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation
by Rich Deem
Genesis vs. Science
The most common Genesis interpretation promulgated in the U.S.A. is young earth creationism, which claims that the earth and the entire universe were created within the last 10,000 years. However, this interpretation suffers both biblical and scientific problems.
Rich Deem
Introduction
I believe in what has been called the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis one - that is, that each "day" is actually a long period of time during which God created life. This interpretation is not figurative in any way, but adheres to the scientific method in its analysis of the biblical texts. At its foundation is a literal translation of the Hebrew word, yom, which can mean a twelve hour period of time, a twenty-four hour period of time, or a long, indefinite period of time. The biblical basis for the translation of the word yom as long periods of time appear on another page.
Purpose of the creation account
I would first like to point out that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. Many events in the creation account of the Bible have been intentionally left out (unicellular life forms, dinosaurs, etc.), I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence (i.e., only understandable in the last two centuries). The interpretation of the Genesis creation account should not be made independently of the remainder of the Bible, as many "young-earth" creationists do. The interpretation presented here is based upon the creation accounts found throughout the entire Bible (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.1) as it relates to God's creation of the heavens and the Earth, and is consistent with all the biblical texts in addition to the revelations of science.
The Bible was the first written work to describe the expanding universe model for the universe (indicated by verses stating that God spreads out the heavens, 2), which is consistent with the Big Bang model.
Day-Age Genesis Interpretation
Interpretation Day Genesis text (NASB)
Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.
What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~14 x 109 years ago). Science tells us that the entire planet was covered in a global sea soon after its creation (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4). In Genesis 1:2, God was "hovering or brooding" over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8 x 109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.
DAY1
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Both science and the Bible (8) have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).
1 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Genesis 1:6-10 describe the initiation of a stable water cycle (9) and formation of continents (10) through tectonic activity (~2.7 x 109 years ago) (11).
Continent Formation / Formation of Continents
1:6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
1:7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0 x 109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) vegetation and fruit trees bearing fruit. The English word translated "vegetation" on the third day comes from the Hebrew word deshe', which refers to small plants, such as grasses and herbs. The other word, ?es?eb, translated "plants" is even more generic, referring to any kind of green plant. So, the "day" encompasses the time from the formation of the first plants until the formation of the angiosperms. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third "day" could not possibly be just 24 hours long, as claimed by young earth creationists. Recent scientific evidence shows that plant life began on the land ~1 billion years ago (12)
DAY 3
1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.
DAY 4
1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Birds (13) (~70 x 106 years ago), whales (14) (~50 x 106 years ago) and sea mammals ("swarms of living creatures," where "creatures" is the Hebrew word nephesh, referring to soulish animals - those that can form relationships with humans) were created on the "fifth" day (Genesis 1:20-21), which would correspond to the end of the Cretaceous period/beginning of the Tertiary.
The fifth day describes a period of time longer than 24 hours as swarms of living creatures are multiplying in the sea.
DAY 5
1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
1:21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis 1:25 the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals (15) (the extinct families Miacidae and Viverravidae, appeared ~50 x 106 years ago or current families Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Viverridae appeared ~30 x 106 years ago ) and the cattle (the Hebrew word is behemah, from which we get the word behemoth, the artiodactyls (large grazing mammals) appeared ~15 x 106 years ago) and the rodents (mammals that "creep on the ground"). Therefore, the wild and domesticated mammals and rodents were created on the sixth day.
DAY6
1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The last creation of God was mankind, who was also created at the end of the sixth day. What about humans and three million year old fossil remains of bipedal primates? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, although I do not believe they lived millions of years ago. The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God (Genesis 2-3) and the text says that unique among all the animals, humans are endowed with a spirit (Hebrew, ruach, Greek, pneuma), by which they are able to communicate with and love God. Scientists have found no evidence of religious artifacts before about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago (16), which is the point at which I propose God created Adam and Eve. The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (17). A biblical generation, described as being 40 years, would represent at least 40,000 years of human existence. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Therefore, I believe that bipedal primates that existed before Adam and Eve, were just part of the animal kingdom, and were not endowed with the characteristics that make humans distinct from animals. 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
So now a day is not actually a day. Why not called it a month or a year, or a millennia etc
So a cat is actually a dog, and a dog is a horse.
While the Bible can be interpreted figuratively, for a long time it was taught literally.
The problem with figuratively is that everything can be interpreted in any way you like. This makes us all Priests and Rabbi's interpreting the holy scripts to be what we want them to be. When I watch religious people (in particular Muslims) they interpret what Ali meant, and they elevate themselves above other people - especially non-believers. When in a Mosk - it is when the happy-clappy brainwashing begins - when people start to quote scriptures and give their own interpretation of what Ala meant etc. This is self-delusion because it is a subjective opinion. This is the danger of fanatical religion.
To live on a planet in a galaxy with upward of 40 billion planets that are within the Goldilocks zone from their star and believe that the evolution of species on your planet occured in a vacuum, that takes some doing.
Especially when one considers various existing evidences from numerous ancient civilisations that talk about influence from outside. In fact, almost all ancient cultures, in ther own way, refer to a plural intervention from outside. Or rather...from the stars, sky, heaven/s.
To be part of a species that has its most profound change, IE the developement of the modern brain in the case of humans, entirely missing from the fossil record should also raise serious questions. Even more so when you consider that that change occured over a very short time in evolutionary terms and that the result was the most complex mechanism that we know of, either biologically or mechanically.
For me, one has to take all possibilties into account, and the list of posibilities is very very long. Logically, you should never land on an answer unless that answer is accompanied by a further question.
Also, it would be nice to hear from the christians on this thread what their thoughts are as regards the fact that in the translation of the bible that they follow God is always referred to in the singular while in reality the correct translation more often than not refers to gods.
For example...
Let ME make man in MY image.
Versus...
Let US make man in OUR iamge.
That one fact alone brings almost everything into question.
Suddenly Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not that far from Hinduism or Ancient Greek mythology. Why do most modern religions tend to favour one God over many? It's very difficult to find a monotheistic ancient religion. Have we moved further way from the truth as time has separated us century after century from our origin? That's what usually happens with stories isn't it? The more time passes the more the original story morphs into something else.
Does one ignore that and continue to be a monotheist in spite of literal evidence leaning towards polytheism?
Does it matter? To me, personally, it doesnt. Im not attached to any singel idea. So it makes my position comfortable, or open. It changes nothing. But to christians it would obviously make all the difference.
When you talk about one God, then it's somewhow easier to imagine a singular enternal and all powerful being. One divine force seated at the centre of the singularity that is all existence.
Yet when you talk about a group of gods, one considers a community or a race, which indefinitely anthropomorphises the creators and seemingly makes them less supreme. If they need a team, then surely there must be one strongest God among them and even that one is not ALL powerful since he would not need the others if he was. If you take that to its conclusion you end up with the idea that Gods are just superior beings, but not all powerful and all knowing. A huge difference.
Also, if there is a group of them, then its easier to understand that they belong to a larger group. That might make understanding the origin of the gods a lot simpler.
And where does all this leave the trinity?
Hello? Plum?
It's not a trick question and I'm not trying to catch anyone out, who said anything to prompt this comment:
"To live on a planet in a galaxy with upward of 40 billion planets that are within the Goldilocks zone from their star and believe that the evolution of species on your planet occured in a vacuum, that takes some doing. "
Hmmm?
Rooi
The point is that we go at it like this...either god made life OR everything or everything evolved here on earth.
Its the equivalent of assuming that the anthill exists entirely on its own and is uninfluenced by the land around it.
Nobody seems to consier the fact that we live in a vast galaxy and that non-divine influences from outside are just as likely to have contributed to life one earth as the other two options. For my money, its probably the most likely of the three.
How about teraforming? We wanna do it and will do it as soon as we can. Why would no body else want to?
Wehe . . . the fool who thinks a day is measured by the speed of the sun's rotation wanting to discuss science?
That would be like asking Michael Jackson to be your baby sitter . . . or Walder Frey to be your wedding planner!
LMAO!
If it helps, Moffie, I have stated repeatedly on this forum that my own beliefs do not require any form of creation. No beginning and no end. I've said this on several occasions. Do try to keep up . . . and also, let me know what it was that was "poured over the bible". That sounds quite interesting.
Rooi
Never said that anyone was claiming that.
Most books one reads or lectures one listens to, tend do deal with evolution in a vacuum though. They explain life without considering external influences.
I'm just adding more possibilities to the debate.