It says nothing of the sort. But evolution is obviously not your strong point so until you learn what it actually is you won’t be able to produce any coherent arguments against it.
The statement that “all life began as a chemical” does nothing to make the distinctions you are hoping. All creationists would agree that we are made of dust (that involves chemicals).
You obviously show a bit more familiarity at least with Genesis (or I suppose so, anyway, - since your list appears to have jargon or foreign characters in it I don’t recognize.) From the parts that do appear to have a theme, it would seem you are eager to establish that “day” means 24 hour day. Okay. Suppose it does. A lot of people here would agree that a normal meaning of “day” is actually in play here, but they don’t then draw from that all that you apparently do: that it is all supposed to be a modern blow-by-blow mechanical account of how it all went down.
Mr Del Ray, thank you. It appears then that the idea of living things changing over time with the guidance of God is not a problem for you? Is it more of a concern of jiving with the Bible?
I think you are right that the Gen 1 most likely refers to 24 hours, but I think that it was not meant to teach that point. However, here’s a paper you might find interesting discussing it.
In my opinion, God was using the science of the day to communicate that He was the Creator, not the ancient gods of Sumer (who killed each other and didn’t care a fig for the humans). For example, sometimes He has used the images of the Sun rising and standing still–when He knows very well that the Sun doesn’t even move in the first place–but would really confuse us 4000 years ago if He said “By the way, I love you and created you–but you should know that the Earth spins on its axis and the Sun is still.” Am I making any sense?
Thanks.
Science determines that age of the Earth through circular reference and ignores the fact of the flood.
========================================
It looks like I have been shutdown because of the number of my posts for 12 hours, so I will have to get back later. Just in case Mervin_Bitikofer reads this.
The “jargon” is Hebrew from which the knowledge of creation of all things comes from. Lets just say that I am a little more familiar with the basis of creation than those who have been swayed by those who deny God.
You appear to know as much about geology as you do evolution. Which is to say not much.
Are you aware that it was geologists that where seeking to prove Noah’s flood that found the evidence that says the earth is more than 10,000 years old? This was well before Darwin’s theory.
We’re actually CST here. It’s more that I’m not all that inclined to put much time into explaining evolution from scratch to someone who doesn’t seem all that interested and just wants to tell me what I think. If @Del_Ray wants to believe every objection to evolution put out in the propaganda fifty years ago, that’s his/her prerogative. If an actual question comes up in the middle of all the uninformed pronouncements about what science says, I may come back to the conversation.
You’re at trust level 1, so you shouldn’t have any limitations on your posts. PM me if you are still having problems posting, and I will try to figure it out.
side note: if you’re running up against system maximums that don’t like you posing more than x amount of times in a day, then feel free to combine some of your responses to multiple people into one post (as you already did just above.)
Well sure - but now you’re talking about real evolutionary claims where birds slowly and over many generations descended from prior dinosaurs (or shared a common ancestor with them). That is a real evolutionary claim. I’m happy to learn then that I was mistaken in thinking you were promoting the “hopeful monster” caricature of evolution that is found in some creationist textbooks (where in one generation one thing gives birth to something entirely different).
There have been plenty of Christian scholars around here that, if not trained in Hebrew themselves are yet able and have availed themselves of those language resources. And not only do they pay attention to God’s word, but they also attend to God’s works allowing our understandings to be mutually shaped by both. I think I’ll continue to trust both God’s word and God’s works as being a unifying whole without following you back into a place that attempts to pit those things against each other as if God was somehow unfaithful or the author of deceit.
There have been lots of scientific papers written concerning the flood, I’m amazed you don’t know of any. Personally, I absolutely believe that there was a real historical flood that the genesis account was based on. It was fifteen cubits deep and covered all the hills in the area. “The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.” So we can assume the area Noah lived in was pretty flat. The flatness of the land Noah lived in is even supported by what we know of the real world!
To me, that makes much more sense than imagining that God guided the Ark to hover right over Mount Everest and told Noah it was the highest mountain and that he should take a measurement there for history because the flood waters were the highest they were ever going to be at that moment. I just think that’s not the most natural reading of the text.
Absolutely right. Thank you for the correction. Mutation may account for novel changes which can actually change the genomic variability of a species over time. But it the variability already available to the species which gets expressed in the variability of the offspring which is the major evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction over those that rely on asexual reproduction alone.
It’s not thought that ‘two of the same species’ (i.e. male and female) need to evolve at exactly the same time. Here’s a reference for speciation from Wikipedia.