IamJoseph

Everything in the universe was created instantly, as in a poof action, as per the opening verse in Genesis. Everything unfolded from its potential to actual states later, in graduations, when its time came, and this goes on now.

Genesis is correct, and there is no logical alternatives here. The notes which make up a song someone writes today existed millions of years ago, and the sun could not produce light if it never pre-existed the sun.

The issue of which came first, plants or fish, is thus limited to which 'appeared' first, while the essence of both existed since the beginning of the universe. Here, I would rely on Genesis. Vegetation would have come first, and fish could not exist without it. All of the order of life forms mentioned in Genesis is correct, which caters to sub-atomic and transitory life, and the last kind - speech endowed humans. And all these life forms emerged only after critical separation actions of the elements, as listed in Genesis, but totally disregarded in ToE. Basically, this is the principle which applies with science, and this is also what applies with Genesis:

'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS'. [aka 'CAUSE AND EFFECT'].

ToE relies on magic, or even worse - NO CREATOR, NO PRECEDENT CAUSE, EVERYTHING JUST STARTED, THEN EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CAUSE AND EFFECT - BUT NOT SO IN ITS FOUNDATION! Worse than magic - and no science here.



There is no error, and you have not stated one. Evolution [the graduated emergence of life form groups] is a premise introduced in Genesis, later distorted in ToE with an unproven embellishment, making the process transcendent of its precedent factors. Darwin made observations in this process, then shouted Eureka! - that the observations rule and there is nothing behind it. Its like someone figuring out a car runs on gas, and concluding there is no car maker. The diety here is the car manual.

Both ToE, and Christianity's depictions of Genesis, will fall away, while Genesis will stay, able to stand up to far more advanced premises than today. There is a precedence factor here which says so, and these imprints will be seen throughout history.

aChristian

It appears to me that you have 'educated' yourself to the point that you miss the obvious.

IamJoseph

One who sees an alliance of correct science with the Hebrew bible is really more wise than one who does not, or cannot, and is in good company: both Einstein and Newton concurred with this in their later years. Science itself comes from the Hebrew bible. Note that these scientific observations come from Genesis, all are sceintific, and science falls when in contradiction of any of these constants:

That the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING.

That the universe was unformed, then form appeared.

That Light was a primodial trigger force in turning the formless to the formed.

That on earth, prior to life emerging, a host of critical, anticipatory separation factors had to occur, including the measured seperations of light from darkness and water from land. Here, the nomination of light and water as pivotal for life is noteworthy, and manifestly applicable only with one planet in the known universe.

That the first life was immobile [Vegetation], then graduated to different life forms, culminating in speech endowed life.

That the construct of life per se predated the LIVING factor of life, and this was triggered by a host of mechanisms coming into play simultainiously, including the focus of sun and moon light in a focused, measured dose - represented on earth by the rains cycle. Genesis is saying here, that life was first already made existant in its potential form, and became as LIVING life only after this life sustaining cycle was triggered.

That the stars are unaccountable, and responsible as ASTRONOMY [SIGNS] and ASTROLOGY [omens], impacting on weather patterns, moods, tides, science [observed probables factoring].

That the first life forms appeared in a positive/negative [male/female] duality, containing a chip [seed] with both aspects, and able to reproduce its kind, passing on the same reproductive faculty to its offsrping.

Genesis is entirely scientific, and wherever a science differs, Genesis wins.

IamJoseph

The Hebrew constitutes the world's most scientific and pristine writings. Yours is an error of comprehension. Shall we examine the texts?

Nowhere does it say the sun was created. The verse in its entirety is only talking about 'LUMINOSITY' - a critical, measured focus of light. Better, if you asked a more applicable question, namely how is vegetation listed as pre-dating this light? Here, there is a very logical answer as well, but you won't find this with christian analysis of the Hebrew texts, as they are more focused on the Gospels, making all else incidental.

Amaleq13

That is just more evidence of your confusion.

And a more explicit statement of willful ignorance and circular reasoning one will never find.

Johnny Skeptic

Please state an example that suggests a reasonable possibility that the Hebrew God exists.

rizdek

I have heard bible apologists claim that while all the statements in Genesis are true, they are not necessarily in the right order. It has Eve being created after the edict not to eat of the fruit, but she get's blamed and women from then on have to perform the hard part of reproduction. But of course, someone will say that isn't true, i.e. Eve made before the edict, because that is the second acct of creation, not the first. So the sequence of the statements are not necessarily the sequence of the events.

Go ahead and do your youtube, but the point is, the only people that you'll phase are those of us who have a critical mind and don't just want to accept ancient texts as god's word when they appear to be primitive myths. You might do just as well to admonish children to just "read the bible" themselves. That's what I did and it was my first step to freedom.

lpetrich

Yawn. The Argument from Design again. That tired god-or-chance dichotomy.

How are you sure that the Universe was not designed by the Great Green Arkleseizure?

Except that there are oodles of evidence for Biblical errancy.

How would that be? Seems like it would make one's head explode.

I know of oodles of such alternatives.

How is that supposed to be the case?

Only in some Platonic sense, perhaps. But I think that that is cheating.

But do fish need fruit trees???

What separations of elements?

And the Bible explicitly states that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, right?

Einstein???

I'm surprised that you are not foaming at the mouth that he was really an atheist, and that what he called "God" is no God at all.

Horseshit. The writers of the Bible had little scientific curiosity and they were not very big on assessing hypotheses. Despite all their fulminations about various sorts of misbehavior, they never did anything like identify various kinds of fallacious reasoning, like circular reasoning or equivocation.

The Bible is far from alone in asserting that the Universe has a beginning, so why would discovery of some beginning time support the Bible instead of (say) Hesiod's Theogony?

LOTS of creation stories assert versions of that. In the beginning was the Void or the Cosmic Egg or something like that.

Why do you claim that?

Darkness is the absence of light; it does not need to be separated from light.

Water is separated from land by gravity. No God needed.

But the Sun was present the whole time, unlike what the Bible clearly states.

Horseshit. The most primitive organisms reproduce asexually.

I sometimes marvel at how some creationists do not seem to have heard of asexual reproduction.

(IamJoseph's sidestep of Genesis 1 stating that the Sun was created after the plants -- he claims that there was plenty of light for them)

That's horseshit. The Sun is a little bit OLDER than the Earth, because the Earth formed in orbit around the Sun.

IamJoseph

The applicable factor is that a complex entity or process must have a transcendent complexity behind it. There is no such thing as graduated, accumulative layers of complexity, where this is absent in its primal foundation. Ask your PC which winds bumped into which particles randomly for 4.5B years.

Depends what one calls 'bible' - if the original Hebrew one - I'd ask compared with which other bible or science manual: shall we measure by period of time, volume of works and dependable impacts?




.

Just one will suffice.

No perhaps and no cheating. If you see a green marble, then you can be assured there was a precedent entity which contained 'GREEN' - else, no green marbles. Stars cannot produce light unless light was pre-existant in some form. Science #101. Stop laffing at Genesis.

Do lions need hay? If your disputing that veg predated fowl and fish, your wrong.


Have you actually studied genesis? Prior to life emerging, a list of separations of the elements are made, as anticipatory actions. Light from darkness; day from night; water from land. Can you have life w/o those separations? Genesis is right - ToE is deficient here.

When genesis explicitly states something, I found it as vindicated. Genesis does not give a time factor for the universe - and remains the only writings in a sea of others which did not say the earth is flat. However, Genesis does give explicit datings for speech endowed humans and history per se - this is vindicated - precisely!

Not in his later years. Not Newton either. ead their bio's.

Only the Hebrew was able to call the universe finite, and who's laws turn the world today.

Put up?

Cosmic egg does not signify finite.

No sir. These are separate entities displaying different attributes. They do not appear as one because they were 'separated'; the same can be seen with land and water - they cannot be made into one.

The vehicle does not matter here - the critical measure of the gravity, and its precise equation of life forms - does matter. Gravity is pervasive in the universe - life is not.

The sun predates the earth, but life here is dependent on a host of factors, including the precise distance of the sun's luminosity.

This does not negate the duality factor. A postive/negative impact will still apply in all cases, and in all actions. There is no alternative to the duality factor - and there is no ONE in the universe.


That the sun came first is first stated in Genesis. Its critical luminosity came later.

lpetrich

Human technology is a very clear case of "graduated, accumulative layers of complexity", it did not get poofed into existence all at once.

Worshipping a book is no substitute for studying it.

(Me: oodles of alternatives to Genesis...)
Hesiod's Theogony. It states that the Universe has a beginning and that it originated from "Chaos" or "The Void". Which is in fact what had actually happened. So let's worship the Greek gods.

More like Platonist metaphysics.

After you stop laffing at everything else.

It's not one big group then another, it's members of those groups evolving side by side.

Fruit trees are long after the first land animals, for instance.

Evolutionary biology != geology and astronomy.

In any case, such separations did not need to be made -- they occur naturally.

But it states that there is an ocean of water above the sky, which is absurd.

The Genesis-1 supercelestial ocean DOES NOT EXIST.

Where are its numbers.

(Einstein allegedly endorsing Genesis...)
Isaac Newton didn't believe in the Trinity.

And Einstein? Quote for me where he stated what you claim that he had stated. He stated more-or-less the opposite:
Prove it. How much counterevidence do I have to show you?

The last I've seen, eggs are finite in size, and the same would be true of a cosmic egg.

Interesting the Big Bang is a cosmic-egg cosmology, where the "egg" is the initial quantum fluctuation or other departure from the initial strong-quantum-gravity state.

(Darkness the absence of light...)
Bullshit.

Turn a light on and off -- when it's off, there is darkness, and when it's on, there is light.

There is a continuum of light intensity, just as there is a continuum between land and water. What do you call mud? Or muddy water?

Pure natural selection.

(asexual reproduction)
Asexual reproduction lacks such a duality factor.

IamJoseph, you have a LOT to learn abount science. That some organisms reproduce asexually is very elementary biology.

Read Genesis 1 again. It plainly states that the Sun was created on Day 4.