**************************************************** You are trying to say science proves both fish and birds were created at the same time - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says the record is that fish came into existence long before the first birds do. **************************************************** I think the confusion here is over the idea of a "day". The Hebrew word for day is transliterated "yom" and can mean any of the following three things: a) sunrise to sunset, b) sunset to sunset or c) a segment of time w/o any reference to solar days from weeks to years or an age or an epoch. The latter is similar to our usage in English of "the Day of the Dinosaurs" or "in my grandfather's day". In our language, a day does not always mean 24 hours and it did not in Hebrew either. A great example agreed upon by I think all Hebrew scholars is Hosea 6:2 for general interest. So of course there is absolutely no reason to think that Genesis 1 is referring to literal 24 hour periods. To me it is very ironic that your interpretation of Genesis is probably based off of previous conversations you have had with young earth creationists and now I am getting lumped in with them. I'm not trying to slam any Christians out there of course, but just to be clear: I do not hold in any way to young earth creationism or literal 24 hour days, so you'll have to save up this argument for them.
**************************************************** You are trying to say science proves atmosphere was created before plants were created - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says plant life is essential for an atmosphere. **************************************************** I assume you are referring to v. 11. This verse clearly is talking about advanced land plant life. Grass, seed bearing herbs and fruit trees is what my transaltion says. The Hebrew nouns here are zera and peri meaning "semen" or "the embryos of any plant species" or "any large plant contianing woody fiber", etc. These nouns definitely do not include the relatively primitive plant species that scientists have identified as the first land vegation. More importantly, this verse does not include algae and other primitive aquatic plant life, which to this day is still responsible for most of our atmosphere. Genesis 1 was never intended as a wildlife encyclopedia and does NOT have a complete list of all animals and plants. If you examine Genesis 1, you will notice that the categories of life given do not cover every possible order and genus, etc. So imo it's not fair to take a category it does not mention and lump into any verse that you want to.
**************************************************** You are trying to say science proves marine life was created all at once - as Genesis states, when science and evolution says marine life developed gradually. **************************************************** I don't think you'll find this a pleasant subject because The Cambrian Explosion, a dramatic event in lifeâs history (about 540 million years ago) occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time, 2-3 million years or narrower. At the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla ever to exist on Earth (more than 70) suddenly appeared. Since that time, arguably no new animal phyla have arisen. Evolutionary biologists find the Cambrian Explosion one of biologyâs greatest enigmas. The Hebrew words for the different animals mentioned in this verse are sheres, nephesh and op. Sheres refers to swarms of small or minute animals. This same word appears frequently in the Pentateuch with reference to all the smaller animals that are neither birds nor ammmals. When used for land creatures, it usually includes insects, amphibians and reptiles. When used for water creatures, it usually includes mollusks, crustaceans, fish and amphibians. So, again, Genesis 1 is not a wildlife encyclopedia and one day does not mean a 24 hour period. And furthermore it is interesting that most of the creatures actually mentioned in these verses actually exploded onto the earth so quickly that science has no explanation for its alleged mutational velocity, i.e. how 70 animal phyla could occur in 3 million years.
One thing that I thought might help is another high level summary of these events and creatures involved. Again, this shows that not by any stretch of the imagination was he intending to include all creatures (or plants): 1. creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) 2. transformation of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent 3. formation of a stable water cycle 4. establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s) 5. production of plants on the continent(s) 6. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (sun, moon, and stars became visible for the first time) 7.production of small sea animals 8. creation of sea mammals (nephesh) 9. creation of birds (more nephesh, perhaps simultaneously with #8) 10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents-still more nephesh) 11. creation of mankind (adam) And let me back up my "broad generalization": that the order here is impressive. The odds that he could have guessed the correct order, even if he were given the events, amount to only 1 chance in llxlOx9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2xl, or I chance in roughly 40 million. We must credit him, too, with scoring three for three in stating the initial conditions. And again, with one exception, all of the other creation stories read like a fairy tale whereas Genesis is much more like a log book or series of journal entries.
Shoeshine, Your creativity in defending genesis in amusing. But what is the point really? Your asserting that genesis is accurate, but the problem here, is that ONLY YOUR CREATIVELY INTERPRETED version of genesis is accurate. We have no way of knowing that the author meant what YOU are saying. Stu has pointed out MANY apparent flaws in genesis, which would be easily accepted by a critical thinker, because he does not have to make the vast assumptions which you do in an attempt to defend genesis. What if a scientist wrote a theory in a book, and every time someone showed a problem with the theory, I simply changed what the author MEANT ??? It doesn't hold water. Here is a japanese creation story, and my comments in bold. ---------------------------------------------------------- Before the beginning of the new-making, Ãwonawilona (the Maker and Container of All, the All-father Father), solely had being. at first there was only god There was nothing else whatsoever throughout the great space of the ages save everywhere black darkness in it, and everywhere void desolation. wow...a perfect description of space! In the beginning of the new-made, Ãwonawilona conceived within himself and thought outward in space, whereby mists of increase, steams potent of growth, were evolved and uplifted. Wow.... space dust and clouds which form stars! Thus, by means of his innate knowledge, the All-container made himself in person and form of the Sun whom we hold to be our father and who thus came to exist and appear. The sun appeared With his appearance came the brightening of the spaces with light, and with the brightening of the spaces the great mist-clouds were thickened together and fell, whereby evolved water in water and the world-holding sea. The huge dust/mist clouds were seen as coming together by the forces of gravity and forming planets. With his substance of flesh outdrawn from the surface of his person, the Sun-father formed the seed-stuff of two worlds, impregnating the great waters, and behold! in the heat of his light these waters of the sea grew green and scums rose upon them, growing wide and weighty until, behold! A perfect description of how life evolved on earth with the energy of the sun heating the oceans!! HOW could he have know this!?!? ----------------------------------------------------------- Simply amazing... the author of this japanese creation story had NO WAY of knowing how evolution works, or that it created life on earth. He had no way of knowing about space dust clouds, and gravity and how these can be pulled together for form planets! The odds of him having this kind of advanced future knowledge is 1 in 40 million! Ok... i'll remove my tongue from my cheek now The point is... as long as im ALLOWED creative license I can make any creation story quite impressive souding. Now you may attack this creation story and my explanation of it, but it wont matter, because I will simply CHANGE what I meant, or explain to you what the AUTHOR meant when he used certain words. In any case, I can easily defend this with all kinds of semantic excuses. In the end.... it doesn't make it any more valid. Because if only MY creative interpretation holds any water, and we can't prove this is precisely what the original author meant, then MY creative interpretation is merely a fiction. peace axeman
Hey, I forewarned everyone this stuff can get aggravating. Of course, I object to the "creative" part of it as I feel that I am taking it with the author's intended meaning and I wasn't sitting around saying, "How can I twist this to prove my point?". But, yes, I admit interpretation issues are much more subjective.
Here is what I find when I pull up the Japanese creation account: "At last, the Creator made a little bird and sent him down from his far place in the sky. "Produce the earth," he said. The bird flew down over the black waters and the dismal swamp. He did not know what to do. He did not know how to begin. He fluttered the water with his wings and splashed it here and there. He ran up and down in the slush with his feet and tried to trample it into firmness. He beat on it with his tail. After a long time of this treading and tail-wagging a few dry places began to appear in the big ocean which now surrounds them-- the islands of the Ainu people." And the above shows my point. The Genesis account has no little birds stomping the earth into existence. It's a nice story but it's not scientific like Genesis.
There are MANY japanese creation stories. You can't dismiss the other one with this one. "And the above shows my point. The Genesis account has no little birds stomping the earth into existence. It's a nice story but it's not scientific like Genesis" The Genesis account also has no account of dinosaurs stomping around either. They were around a lot long than we were, and yet no mention? Real scientific. peace axeman
Your comment baffles me. I try to "get into your heads" and just don't understand. Stu did the same thing. He seemed bothered by the fact that not every category of living organism was mentioned. I don't get what the concern or thinking is. Let me put it this way. If someone gave their testimony in court and you read the transcript, would you throw them out if they correctly identified many correct details and yet did not mention the one or two events you were most interested in. The issue is their accuracy and reliability not their encyclopedic regurgitation of everything around them.