spin

That's redefining three simple terms, lee_merrill, for no obvious reason based on the text. While you're at it, you need to redefine "night" as well.

Also, while you're at it, you might like to say what turning days into ages does to the institution of the Sabbath which is an integral part of the significance of the passage. If a day is really an age, then what is the importance of god resting on the seventh age?? Obviously a day is a day, lee-merrill, otherwise you turn the institution of the Sabbath into gibberish.

Obviously a day is a day, otherwise the creation of light needn't have been at the beginning of the first day: you need light for a day, not an age.

If a day is a day, then you don't need the wholesale distortion of the text, by changing the meaning of several terms. It means though that you should stop trying to turn the Genesis creation into some warped pseudo-science.


spin

Sauron

Except that isn't what the text says.

Also not what the text says. So you feel free to re-arrange the text and add material, whenever you need to do so?

You claimed amazing correspondences between Genesis and science. Given that you can alter the text at will, it's not surprising that you can manufacture correspondences.


Except that the atmosphere reaches all the way down to the water. It's still not separated. It's a continuous fluid body - you do realize that fluids do not have to be liquids, right?

In those days, there wasn't anything like seas or oceans anyhow. Temperatures would have been too hot to form liquid water.

Making this up as you go definitely has drawbacks for your argument, lee.


Which is why they made so many mistakes in Genesis.

As well as with other creatures, including simpler organisms.

Except that Genesis does not start with the simplest organism.

Genesis first creates three environments: water, air and land. Then it fills those three environments with living things to occupy them: fish/whales, birds, and finally "creeping things". It does not progress from simple to complex. It progresses from environment to environment, without regard for the simplicity or complexity of the organisms being created in that environment.

Many creation myths have man as the last act of creation. There is nothing special about that; it merely shows our self-importance as well as the reason for such myths: a search for the meaning of life.

The problem, of courses, is that Genesis has insects and amphibians and reptiles all coming on Day 6 - along with mammals. Totally, absolutely wrong.

However, that is not what the text says. It says:

GEN 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Land creatures didn't come along until Day 6. But birds came in Day 5. But since birds are descended from a variety of "creeping things" (terrestrial dinosaurs), then Genesis does indeed create birds in the wrong order.

1. Lack of breeding with Neanderthals is not a firm conclusion yet.

2. Not even sure why you brought that up; it does not answer the point that the poster raised. Humans are part of a continuum of evolution; the idea of special creation is not supported by the fossil record. Breeding (or not breeding) with Neanderthals has zero to do with the topic.

Ah. So you know biblical Hebrew now, do you? Is this similar to your expertise in ancient maritime practices and siegecraft?

Why wouldn't we? That's how common descent works.

Except that you are rearranging the verses in Genesis, and adding new text and conditions wherever the existing text gets in the way of your creationism. In that environment, you are rigging the test to create the desired outcome. Probability doesn't apply.

Moreover, you have not shown that the original events are 1% chances, instead of 42% chances, or 15% chances, or 98% chances. Did you think you would be allowed to simply pull that 1% number out of your ass, without demonstrating how you arrived at it?

lee_merrill

Why is it that I always feel like I need a bath, after reading posts by Sauron and most others?

Sauron

Probably because -- unlike some of the other posters -- I've grown wise to the tricks you play, the shifting goalposts, and the double-standards you use in these debates. I simply don't tolerate them.

I'm sure the others will eventually come around to my way of thinking as well; it's only a matter of time.

Gamera

None of this requires or even supports a literalist reading of Genesis. And again, why would you think that the authors of Genesis were interested in writing a textbook on astronomy/geology/biology. None of these appear to be of any interests to authors.

SophistiCat

<edit>

EarlOfLade

Probably to get rid of the itching feeling of truth that is creeping all over you.

xaxxat

That would be the stench of the demons of ignorance being exorcised from you...

BE HEALED NOW!!!

and be sure to leave a nice love offering in the plate...

lee_merrill

But could it be the earthy language?

:Cheeky:

RAFH

This is true of nearly every mythology. So what?

The Earl's point is not whether these people were advanced or not 3 millenia ago, but whether or not what any culture believed 3 millenia ago is of any value regarding scientific understanding of reality. One could take it a bit further and suggest their concept of culture, civilization, politics, societal mores and values, relationships and so on has any significant value in today's civilization.

The bible may be a rich source of semi historical value, but even in that aspect, its clear there's been a lot of screen writing and editing involved over the centuries. Until it was actually written down and enough copies were in enough different hands (one reason for having one temple is the same as the RCC's essential ban on translating the bible to common languages - loss of control of the document and in particular of editing control to suit the current needs of those in control or who wanted to be in control) to make it difficult to edit them without anybody being able to question such, those in official possession of the TRUTH, could make it anything that suited their purposes. They could interpret, amend, delete and edit at will and nobody could question their authority.

The OT stands as a record of the story that survived. Ditto the NT.