|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,278 Year: 6,535/9,624 Month: 113/270 Week: 26/83 Day: 12/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
"1.Genesis says God created the Earth in 6 days."
Not so. The creation chapter does not infer 24-hour days, but cosmic days, namely these are epochs of time. The sun's luminosity came on the 4th cosmic day, thus 24-hour days are clearly out. In fact, the Genesis calendar, the oldest and most accurate one, begins with the birth of Adam, which is the New Year in the OT calendar, and its calculation of some 5700 years does not include the creation days of chapter one.
quote: The sun was created in v.1, ['The Heavens'/ galaxies], as was everything in creation, but each factor was actualised later, in its due time. Thus, the light which genesis mentions is not star light, but its essential pre-sun light [essence of what light constitues]; the stars could not produce light unless this was a pre-existing entity. Stars do not give light in their embryotic phase, but only till they develop to a critical stage. Thus the star of the earth's solar system was already created in V.1., and is thus older than the earth, but it became 'luminous' at a point when the earth experienced rains.
quote: Not so: dinosaurs are bird derived, and not from animals. Genesis marks the first chronological listing of life forms, from where Darwin got his ToE. This listing is correct, namely fish, fowl, animals, humans. This list is more comprehensive than any other, and includes the vital pre-separation of the elements, required for life, namely the separation of water/land; day/night; etc., with representations for mammals, insects [creepy crawlies], bacteria and virus [swarms]. the genesis description must cater to all genrations of mankind in its understanding; thus even quarks are represented ['dust']. The species are also better represented than in ToE, which cast humans along with animals, by focusing only on the skeletal and biological imprints - thereby totally ignoring the most powerful factor of speech. Genesis correctly seperates the species ['kinds'] by allocating speech endowed humans varied from all other life firms. This is vindicated: despite the premise of ToE's adaptation and speciation, no other life form has evolved to acquire speech for 4.5 B years - speech being the single most powerful factor for any life form, and this despite that animals and birds are older, and possess a far more dexterious array of sound pitch criteria. Evolution is a process, not a causative factor, and begins only 'after' a life form is already pre-existing it. The variance of the genesis and Darwin modes of evolution is the 'seed' factor, which is totally disregarded from ToE, while this is the only factor which can evidence ToE. Namely, ToE must subsist without the seed factor to prove its viability. This problem is not suffered by genesis, which posits that all transmissions, including DNA and biological impressions, are able to be represented by the seed factor alone. The seed represents an outgrowth of a male and female duality. The flood is a regional, not a global event, and refers only to the then known world. The animals listed are also domestic animals, with the preamble in this story being limited to 'Noah's household'[Genesis] - namely his possessions, animals and family. This we find no mention of tigers, snakes, elephants, etc in the ark contents listing. Grammer was introduced in the OT, which rules require the most coherent path be applied - namely it would be grammatically incorrect to include Tasmania and the Amazons in Noah's space-time, same as it would be unfeasable to include Jupiter in today's known world, despite it being possible that Jupiter may be conquered and accoutned 500 years from now. Noah is 5,500 years ago - before the Pyramids, Egypt and Babylon were yet evolved. A careful study of the exacting words in the texts will expose the correct and coherent position here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 'Primitive' is qualifiable. The hebrews were subjected to the most advanced laws of that time, many being controversial and novel upto today, 1000s of years before the rest of humanity could even digest these. These had to be inculcated over a 40 year period, including the first introduction of one day per seven of rest from work, animal and women's rights, intricate judiciary rights, cencus counts in the millions, democracy, Liberty, inalienable human rights, creationism, monotheism, etc. To boot, all this was in what is the world's first alphabetical 'books', which had to be understood. With regards 'time', they had to be able to account for sunsets and sunrises, exacting dates of annual festival observances based on harvest, and the first lunar-solar calendar. Thus, primitive must be factored accordingly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I'm certain we did this before?
quote: quote: Today's birds were Jurasic dinousaurs, is my understanding. Animals did not come before birds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Chellenge: care to post any other document with 5% of the scientific stats listed previously? Which other document stated the universe is finite - before genesis, or how long after?
quote: Really? Care to evidence your claim? As I said before, grammar was inroduced in the OT, and there is no science w/o correct comprehension. My comprehension of this text says the firmament refers to the bottom of earth, not the sky, and relates to the separation of land from water, a vital pre-action for life. Please consider:
quote: This too is wrong:
quote: Yes, the point made by genesis is, the sun produces light, because light pre-exists the sun - else the sun could not produce light. Analogy: water; tap. Does the water pre-exist the tap?
quote: No, I never said that. Only the luminocity appeared later. The lighting fixtures you speak of, came from the greeks, a 1000 years later, which produced the flat earth scenario via christianity. In fact, when one examines the OT calendar, there is no other concluding other than that the earth is a spherical, moving body. There is no hint or remote inference of a flat earth in the OT!
quote: Yes, I've seen those greek drawings. You are displaying a poor history knowledge here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No contest - with qualification.
But the species that fly ['fowl'/Genesis] came after fish, chronologically. Then came mammals. ToE lists humans as animals too, while genesis lists humans as a seperate species, and shows that skeletal and biological factors do not rule here: Adatation never produced speech, despite animals and birds being older life forms, and speech being the most powerful adaptation tool. Obviously, Adaptation is not limited to the time factor in this instant, and became possessed by the most recent, last life form: an anomoly. Yes/No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You are correct that Genesis does NOT say the universe was created in 6 days, and that there is clearly a source listed for the effect of light, in the same verse light is introduced. It is the anti-creationists who are the unsceintific ones here, giving no cause for their effect. But we have a problem here: it is a taboo for a assumed scientific person to admit being wrong, and be whipped by an assumed mythical theology. I fully symphatise, but science itself was introduced in this mythical theology: follow the thread of history, and ask if we would have cosmology or astronomy today, w/o the recording of a finite universe - which compelled man to ask further subsequent and relevent questions? It certainly compelled one to ask questions - and the most scientific premise of Monotheism was born.
quote: The sun was creaed in V.1: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS' - this refers to the galaxies and stars. When we check further, only the sun's luminosity is referred to:
quote: The word, 'LIGHT' [Luminosity] is used here, to give such luminocity at night.
quote: Correct, and this was first stated in genesis. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Propostrous. You are wrong on two counts: the word 'source', or result, etc are not in the text, while it is contextually posited only with light as in lumonosity; making the night bright; etc. The second wrong count is that the sun was created along with the galaxies [heavens], in V.1., making your premise superfluous. There is not single grammatical error in the OT, which says something for a 3,500 year document.
quote: The word 'olam' = world in generic, while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter. It would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.
quote: The point here is, a source is named, while its antithesis has no source, thus no cause for effect.
quote: Its not confusng. science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT. Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science? I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names. Remember, the most controversial and risk prone stat today is that speech endowed humans are some 6000 years old, and that the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: we cannot disprove these today, despite every advancement. There is an unscientific display by the anti-creationists, who have much to loose: they cannot acknowledge what is blatant, because it is the document which spurred their premises. But my pursuit s truth, and this is nly possible via truthfulness. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: My bad - I only gave you about 50 quites from the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: My bad - I only gave you about 50 quotes from the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: "FROM"
quote: My bad - my version says V.1.: 'Gen. 1/1:"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH'.
quote:'Its a heading, like a preamble, to the follow-up context, which expands on the chronological aspect of how the creating process was made - the reason I say this is a scientific document. "Everything" occured in the one instant - but was revealed later in its due time. The entire OT writings follow this correct mode: 'AND I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAINS AND THE LATTER RAINS" 'THERE IS NOTHING NEW'. The hit songs to be written tomorrow already exists. Else they could not be written. Your reading makes the first verse superfluous - a no go.
quote: Eretz = earth, also used as land. Olam = world, generically, as in the world to come ['olam haba']. The term planet is a recent knowledge, and would be inappropriate here, notwithstanding there is no evidence of another populated world elsewhere.
quote: Yes. There is both the object and the subject which must be regarded. It would be inappropaite to talk to a new born baby about the universe. Later generations can conclude its relevancy today by deliberating the texts correct.y - by intergrating all other verses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I gave these. When the relevent verses are examined, it forms the basis of a calendar, devised and active for 3,500 years. Unlike other calendars, the OT calendar required counting days of the year - for annual festival observances; years passed for the 50 year jubilee; and days of the week, and critical times of the day of the sun sets for the sabbath. Thus this the first calendar based on solar [for years], lunar [for seasons], and earthly movements [for days and time measurements]. It was a new thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: V3 refers to light per se, as an independent entity, as opposed to starlight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
"b'" = IN; "yom" = DAY. So you get, IN THAT DAY. It can be employed as 'THEN', 'WHEN', etc, depending on its contextual usage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Of course, language, thus grammar, is hard wired, and this says language did not/could not, be a result of accumulated evolution from grunts and hisses. That the OT introduced grammar refers to only what it says, without contradictions, that this faculty was introduced here, and is alligned with speech [as opposed communication], and is inherent only with one life form. This was not an original premise of Chomsky, who exploited some ancient lessons and passed it on with some embelishments to the world; he also admits speech poses a great difficulty for evolution: its sudden emergence, without evidential imprints throughout all past times, denies adaptation of the most powerful tool in the universe: speech.
quote: Not true. We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old. A 'book' is a multi-page, continuous narrative, and alphabeticals is an advanced writing form which displays the inclinations of grammatical expressionisms, as opposed picture writings. The OT writings also self contain numerals, whereby it can be verified for its grammar as well as its accuracy. You will note that with the giving of the Ten Commandments, for example, there is a verse which says 'REMEMBER *THIS* DAY AS THE SATURDAY. If you check *THIS* day, it alligns with the entire 2,500 year period of 1000s of dates and life spans displayed in the OT, and when calculated, we see the 10 Cs were indeed given on a Saturday. What has this to do with grammar? If you don't know maths and the history of what your saying, there is a good chance your grammar is wanting too.
quote: In every verse, in its mode of adopting the closest distance between two words, and using the most applicable words. The OT verses cannot be reduced to a shorter form without loss of grammar, nor can it be said better by elongations, and this represents the epitomy of this faculty - far ahead of, and pre-dating Shakespear, aside from its verses and slogans being the world's most utilised portions of languages by poets, authors, science and other theologies and beliefs. Try to better: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'? Or starting a book on Creation [origins of the universe], with a better first line preamble than 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH' - guess why heavens is plural and earth singular - obviously because the OT is speaking in the language of the peoples it addresses as the subject? Try making your language understandable to all generations of mankind - would you use the word 'DUST' or Quarks as a basic sub-atomic [small] building element? What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter, replaced with 'FORMED' in the rest of the five books. Because 'something from nothing' can only happen once, and therafter we can only derive something from something else. The OT appears to understand human minds with unequalled anticipatory responsa: when Moses asks God who God is, what is his power, we find the answer is one which transcends time and space, namely the God of Abraham - who lived 400 years before Moses and in another country. Genesis is also the first document which introduced the premise of a finite universe [There was a BEGINNING], and that infinity refers to NO CHANGE [all other depictions fail the infinity test, including any attempted by science]. This is supreme, unequalled grammar.
quote:Note to self: order replacement irony meter. An eye for an eye? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3897 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is a distortion. There is a deflective claim that speech cannot be proven without writings, which seeks to ignore the blatant fact we have no proof of speech pre-6000, and which cannot be a mere co-incidence in Genesis. The writings has no impact here, as earlier speech can be recalled. My test for this issue is let them produce a 'NAME' - the true evidence of human speech, and there is 100s of 1000s years of alledged speech periods to come up with one. In fact, we have no wars, nations, kings, folk songs, recipies - nothing which accounts for human speech or what the human mind can easilly recall. And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains or doctored scratchings in caves, a primal error by Darwin in using this criteria to place humans in the animal species - these also contradict the speech endowed human population and their mental prowess imprints. To cast this response as not believing in science is some stretch! The first scientific statement on the universe being finite comes from genesis - well before the term was invented.
quote: Not from the POV genesis's statements predated him, and he largely comes to the same conclusion: the advent of speech is a unique occurence in the known universe, and we cannot account, explain or define its occurence - while also maintaining the factor of adaptation, which is time dependent. Birds are older and have greater phonation dexterity than humans, the last [recent] life form: no elevationary adaptation here, no?
quote: Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence. There is only so much of spin and manourverings one can make without definitive proof, while ignoring the amazing, inexplicable specificity of genesis deeming speech less than 6000 years old, and being vindicated to the exact year. There is only OT-phobia and paranoia in this blindness.
quote: Really!? - did they explain why we have not a single 'name' pre-6000, or did they say human minds also alligned with writings on that exact date too? Maybe they have better excuses than before?
quote: 'How' it is said.
quote: Yes it does. It means you cannot say Sanskrit grammar predates the OT grammar. And to be grammatical, at least alphabeticals apply.
quote: No, it does not refer only to numerals. The word 'THIS DAY' also applies to a pointed addressing it is connecting history with a contemporary time - 'ironically'; expressionism like that is fully vested in grammatics.
quote: This depends if you come up with something new or contradicting to Genesis. Did you - so why sic?
quote: How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'? Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications? It never came from Sancrit either?
quote: I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis. You have not made any new input by your response, other than affirm my point. Let's hope you now understand there is a difference between bara and all other words which denote form! Remember where this thought came from.
quote: Yes it does. If the texts is correctly comprehended, it very clearly says there was 'nothing' else around at one time, and then there was 'something', as with 'light'. Appears your grammar is being hampered by a lack of contextual comprehension.
quote: Again, this is not reflected in the Genesis texts, which you appear to ignore in a deficient manner. Isaiah does not relate to genesis; genesis relates to genesis.
quote: Its 'writings', specifically the first occurence of grammatical books. Using the deflective, cowardly term of theology does not get you a win here, but it will get other cowardly deflectors a horrah for you. The term theology is recent, and should not apply to Genesis, which predates today's theologies more than 2000 years. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024