dangin

What about the second creation story? It's right after the first. Not only is man made before all the animals, but man is the only gender (asexual?) and then the woman comes along. What gives with two stories, and what gives with the order of events being different, and what gives with humans living on earth with no other life forms?

Evolutionists have it so wrong. Single celled life evolved from Adam.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jack,
I’ve grown weary of this. No, I cannot see my argument as circular.

You assert:
How about this basis: “the earth… the large object we’re standing on” did not exist among the ancient Hebrews as either a concept or a word.

How about this basis: the most plentiful atom in the universe, Hydrogen, and the most necessary atom for human metabolism, Oxygen, did not exist among the ancient Hebrews as either concepts or as words. But together, these two atoms did exist in the form of water, the concept for which and the word for which DID exist among the ancient Hebrews. Ergo, water was the only word God could have them use to make sense to them and to us in describing the formation of hydrogen into suns in which oxygen and the other atoms were formed whereby creation as we know today, occurred.

You assert:
I re-post the list here for clarity’s sake:

2) Be light made.
3) He divided the light from the darkness.
4) Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
5) Let the dry land appear.
6) Let the earth bring forth the green herb etc.
7) Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven
8) Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life.
9) Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind.
10) Let us make man to our image and likeness.

If you mean that some form of animal life preceded plant life, I must disagree. I’ve always thought that blue algae was the earliest form of life on this Earth, er, I mean, on this ocean that once passed for Earth..

But if you mean to say that marine plant life came before earth plant life, you are correct. But God’s word does not contradict this fact, it passes over marine plant life in silence. Ditto for birds, your other objection. Ditto for a million other aspects of creation we can come up with that are not mentioned in the 10 things Genesis does mention.

No one is arguing that Genesis is the COMPLETE story of creation, only that it is completely accurate. The 10 aspects of creation Genesis details conform in sense and sequence to what science presently believes about the creation of our universe and solar system. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

dangin

Your big bang = light theory aside. Other people are equally valid in interpretting light to mean (ready for the shocker) light. And there is no sun or stars to cause said light. That alone derails you. Unless you force everyone to comply with your light = big bang theory, which not even many christians would do.

It is an interpretation of yours that you are trying to force people to accept as fact. You cannot do that, and from there you fail on all other points.

Jack the Bodiless

And yet it is. You (or rather, apologists in general: I have seen this stuff before) have attempted to portray Genesis as scientifically accurate by a combination of tactics: assuming obscure metaphors where none are warranted, simply ignoring parts that still don't fit, and so forth. It is no surprise that you have produced an approximate correlation. This does not constitute evidence for supernatural inspiration of Genesis.
Yes, it did. The Hebrews believed in a flat Earth supported by pillars and covered by a solid dome to which the stars were attached.
But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that God imparted any information. Other creation myths mention water: do you assume that therefore these gods also exist?

And, from the outset, hydrogen and oxygen are mentioned together as water. But oxygen was produced later, by nuclear fusion. According to your timescale, both hydrogen and oxygen predate the Big Bang! So you then assume "water" means something else. And so it goes...
Then you are mistaken. Photosynthetic algae are relatively sophisticated. We still have simpler anaerobic lifeforms that cannot metabolize oxygen or photosynthesize: in fact, the chloroplasts in plant cells (where photosynthesis takes place) were once bacteria that evolved photosynthetic ability and became incorporated into cells which lacked this ability, in a symbiotic relationship. We can even identify their closest living relatives among bacteria via DNA.
But it doesn't pass over birds in silence. YOU passed over the Bible's mention of birds in silence! Because they don't fit.

And it specifically mentions late plant forms that came after animals.
Except that they don't. They don't even come close. Hence the strained metaphors.

You are beginning with a preconcieved notion that this MUST be true. There is no other justification for assuming that these phrases mean what you WANT them to mean.

This is a logical fallacy, a circular argument.

K

Albert Cipriani:

My point exactly. You see the other creation myths as cartoons (and I'd agree with you on that one), but you stretch your own cartoon beyond reason in order to force it to jibe with a model science now puts forth. The same "interpreting" can be done with any creation myth.

Why do you think people still believe in astrology? It isn't because of precise predictions. It's because vague words and concepts are interpreted after the fact in order to match reality.

If the scientific theories or the origins of the universe are refined or changed, will you stand by your current interpretation and insist that science is wrong - or will you just change your interpretation to match the latest theories of reality?

Albert Cipriani

OK, K,
I think we've taken this as far as it will go. You think that other creation myths are just as cartoonish as Genesis and can just as easily be contorted into the latest science. I'd love to see you try. I'll eat all the pixels of every post on this subject if you can get any other creation myth to get 10 out of 10 facts right.

You ask:
A good question. If I were convinced of the new science, I'd suffer cognitive dissonance over Genesis and place my hope in newer science to save me. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

K

Albert Cipriani:

Do you want salt with those pixels?

1. In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one (Here heaven is energy and earth is matter. This indicates that matter and energy were initially the same stuff.)

2. and all was chaos. (Chaos is the big bang which gave rise to all matter and energy).

3. The universe was like a big black egg (The black egg indicates a singularity at the point of the big bang.)

4. he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. (The big bang originated from within the singularity.)

5. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, (One of the results of the big bang was energy.)

6. the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. (Another result was matter).

7. Pan Gu stood in the middle, (This indicates that the universe radiated outward from the point of the big bang.)

8. heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, (Heavens and earth are the universe. This indicates that the universe is expanding)

9. Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again. (This indicates that the universe will not collapse in a big crunch because the mass of the universe isn't great enough to reverse the expansion of the universe.)

10. When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, (energy created from the big bang still powers the wind on earth)

11. the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind. (This is clearly referring to evolution)

Oops, you only wanted ten. Now how exactly do you plan on eating those pixels?

Albert Cipriani

Way to Go K!
Good job. Quite a creative way to prove your point. It’s well taken. Never knew pixels could taste this good.

In all sincerity, this Big Bang topic is pooped. I’ve made my case and you’ve made yours well. What separates us at this point is merely an aesthetic argument. You feel the Pan Gu myth is as profoundly accurate and expressive of creation as I feel the Genesis myth is.

Let us leave it at that… and I promise not to leave a single pixel behind. – Cheers, Albert (Withdrawing to His Cave to Sharpen Another Stone-aged Tool to Battle Again Another Day) the Traditional Catholic

Albert's Rants

K

Albert:

You're a good sport. It's been fun. See 'ya round.

Albert Cipriani

K:
You're OK yourself. I hope to lock horns with you again. -- Albert