Alan the Atheist

The bible doesn't allow theistic evolution. Heres my proof:

(1) The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.

The word "day" appears over 200 times in the Old Testament with numbers (i.e., first day, second day, etc.). In every single case, without exception, it refers to a 24-hour day. Each of the six days of the creation week is so qualified and therefore the consistency of Old Testament usage requires a 24-hour day in Genesis 1 as well.

(2) The terms "evening and morning" require a 24-hour day.

The words evening (52 times) and morning (220 times) always refer to normal days where they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Jewish day began in the evening (sunset) and ended with the start of the evening the following day. Thus it is appropriate that the sequence is evening-morning (of a normal day) rather than morning-evening (= start and finish). The literal Hebrew is even more pronounced: "There was evening and there was morning, day one. . . . There was evening and there was morning, day two," etc.

(3) The words "day" and "night" are part of a normal 24-hour day.

In Genesis 1:5, 14-18, the words day and night are used nine times in such a manner that they can refer only to the light and dark periods of a normal, 24-hour day.

(4) Genesis 1:14 distinguishes between days, years, and seasons.

And God said, "Let there be light-makers in the expanse above to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years.

Clearly the word days here represents days, years represents years, seasons represents seasons. It is a red herring to claim that, if the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there could be no days and nights on the first three days. The Bible clearly says that there was a light source (apparently temporary in nature, Genesis 1:3), that there were periods of alternating light and darkness (1:4-5), and that there were evenings and mornings for those first three days (1:5, 8,13).

(5) Symbiosis requires a 24-hour day.

Symbiosis is a biological term describing a mutually beneficial relationship between two types of creatures. Of particular interest to us are the species of plants that cannot reproduce apart from the habits of certain insects or birds. For example, the yucca plant is dependent upon the yucca moth, and most flowers require bees or other insects for pollination and reproduction. The Calvaria tree, on the Mauritius Islands, was totally dependent upon the dodo bird to ingest its seeds, scarify its hard coating, and excrete the seeds before germination could take place. Since the dodo bird became extinct in 1681, no reproduction of this tree has taken place. In fact, the youngest trees are 300 years old! Many additional examples could be cited. According to Genesis 1, plants were created on the third day (vv. 9 - 13), birds on the fifth day (vv. 20 - 23), and insects on the sixth day (vv 24-25, 31). Plants could have survived for 48 or 72 hours without the birds and the bees, but could they have survived 2-3 billion years without each other according to the day-age scenario? Many birds eat only insects. Could they have survived a billion years while waiting for the insects to evolve?2 Hardly.

(6) The survival of the plants and animals requires a 24-hour day.

If each day were indeed a billion years, as theistic evolutionists require, then half of that day (500 million years) would have been dark. We are explicitly told in verse 5 that the light was called day and the darkness was called night, and that each day had one period of light-darkness. How then would the plants, insects, and animals have survived through each 500 million year stretch of darkness? Clearly a 24-hour day is called for.

(7) The testimony of the fourth Commandment.

It is a marvelous thing to observe the unity of the Scriptures and the orderliness with which God carries out His plans. Have you ever wondered why there were six days of creation, rather than some other number? In the light of the apparently instantaneous creation of the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21, and the instantaneous nature of the miracles of the New Testament, why is it that God takes as long as six days to create everything? And why is it that God rested on the seventh day? Was He tired after all this exertion? No, Psalm 33:6-9 state that "the heavens were made by the Word of the Lord . . . He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." There is no hint of exertion here. Genesis 2:2-3 merely means that He ceased working because the created order was completed, not because He was tired.

Now, when you agree that Creationism is the only biblic way, we can prove Creationism wrong.

Please try (in vain) to rebbutal

From Alan

Worldtraveller

Good post Alan, although you might tone down the rhetoric a bit. No reason to taunt the theists.

Cheers,
Lane

Ponzi

I hate to break this to you, but not all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Some of them look at Genesis' importance being its spiritual message, like God's relationship to the world, instead of looking at it as literal history or shoehorning evolution and cosmology into it.

Besides, why are you bothering with the more liberal christians and theistic evolutionists? It's the crazy fundamentalist literalists who have a problem with evolution.

Oolon Colluphid

I disagree. Theists have -- mostly -- long since ditched literal adherence to the bible. At least, the better educated ones have.
Don't need the bible for that. A few telomeres, KNM-WT 15000 and a hyaena's pseudopenis will do .
It's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.

There, done .

Alan the Atheist

Worldtraveler - Yeh, im just practicing linguistic devices for my english GCSE in a week.

Ponzi - I am not attacking creationism. I am saying that a literal interpritation is the only intelligent reading of the text. I am saying that Genesis can't co-incide with evolution, and a spiritual spin can therefore not be taken.

Plognark

There is the stance that the texts are simply inspired by god, and therefore subject to human error or limits of conception/interpretation. I think this is where some liberal Christians are coming from. That might make it a moot point.

Nice Squirrel

The Bible is not infallible.

But days were a different length millions of years ago.


Who on Earth would care enough to count. Is this cut and paste spam?

Yes, it is.
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/AboutChr...volution1.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm
http://www.layhands.com/EvidenceAgainstEvolution.htm

Plagerism isn't looked highly upon.




Once again you have made the assumption that all Christians believe the Bible is infallible.


Correct, but your plagerized explanation does not address 24-hourness.
In fact it contradicts the claim:
The rest are unsupported claims. Nice.

But no evidence is presented that counters this. Plants grow in greenhouses and on the arctic tundra where days and nights can last for months. Polar bears and fish do well in the perpertual darkness.

And hence the fallibility of the bible as to not to take into account the arctic regions.

Could your plagerized copy actully list the fourth commandment? Didn't think so. It never even adresses it. Let me try a similar argument.

Assertion: Hemingway says rock salt is sentient.
Argument: Squirrels are cute.

Naw it can be proved wrong in many ways.

Please post your own words and actual arguments.

animus

Alan,

While many of us have problems with theistic evolution (namely, the theistic part), attacking those who accept it robs us of a potential ally in the ongoing battle between science and Creationism.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. ~ Sun Tzu

Alan the Atheist

Plagerism= Any excuse to get out of a debate. Where do you think I learn this stuff? I have to get my information from somewhere. This is just subject matter for a debate.

-->>Now, for my rebbutal,

Easy way out, come on, are you saying the whole of Genesis is wrong? Every time they said day, they ment century? Mabe the coppied every error wrong?

Well they certainlly wern't millions of years long were they?

Yes, but one cannot go on without the other for millions of years can they?

--------
Sidenote: no need to get offended!

chieftain

Alan,

To be picky, it's you who are a bit rusty on your Hebrew...

Look closer: only the first day is described as "day one" (yom echad). The rest are all perfectly normal ordinals: second day (yom sheni), third day (yom shlishi), etc.

But the rest of your post, and your answers to some of the comments, betrays a fundamental (sic) misunderstanding of the non-literalist position. Even if you do believe in God and the bible (which I don't, but never mind), much of the bible is obviously metaphorical, including this passage. That's no reason (if you're a believer) not to think that there isn't any "truth" in the passage, that's to say to believe that it tells you something important about God and his relationship to the universe.

From another of your posts:
No, they obviously didn't mean day or century. They were telling a story about God. They didn't particularly care whether or not it was "accurate".