independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
| Author | Message |
Evolution - Fact or Theory? I have encountered this question many times on here, particularly from christians who quite reasonably claim that it it called the theory of evolution, not the fact.
| |
Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
razor said: I have encountered this question many times on here, particularly from christians who quite reasonably claim that it it called the theory of evolution, not the fact.
So, in the spirit that knowledge is always a good thing, I direct you to this short, but succinct article which gives a general answer to this debate. Of course, there is lots more to it than that and i hope it made lead some onto further reading. If not though, I hope it may help to clear up the confusion some on here have. Enjoy: 
http://www.talkorigins.or...-fact.html ps please read it all, not just the 1st paragraph! ahhhh talkorigins. Reminds me of the good ol' days when ED would post his answersingenesis articles and they would be promptly debunked, then the argument would spiral downhill to levels of comedy which I would never tire. But I must never post in them, oh no. That's when they would stop becoming fun for me. I'm only in it for the music. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
savoirfaire said: razor said: I have encountered this question many times on here, particularly from christians who quite reasonably claim that it it called the theory of evolution, not the fact.
So, in the spirit that knowledge is always a good thing, I direct you to this short, but succinct article which gives a general answer to this debate. Of course, there is lots more to it than that and i hope it made lead some onto further reading. If not though, I hope it may help to clear up the confusion some on here have. Enjoy:
http://www.talkorigins.or...-fact.html ps please read it all, not just the 1st paragraph! ahhhh talkorigins. Reminds me of the good ol' days when ED would post his answersingenesis articles and they would be promptly debunked, then the argument would spiral downhill to levels of comedy which I would never tire. But I must never post in them, oh no. That's when they would stop becoming fun for me. lol. I know, but the idea is to provide an answer to an often asked question. I think the article does it quite well for the non-scientists among us.. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: savoirfaire said: ahhhh talkorigins. Reminds me of the good ol' days when ED would post his answersingenesis articles and they would be promptly debunked, then the argument would spiral downhill to levels of comedy which I would never tire. But I must never post in them, oh no. That's when they would stop becoming fun for me. lol. I know, but the idea is to provide an answer to an often asked question. I think the article does it quite well for the non-scientists among us.. I agree, it's a good web site. Just brings back memories, is all, back to a simpler time... I'm only in it for the music. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
savoirfaire said: razor said: lol. I know, but the idea is to provide an answer to an often asked question. I think the article does it quite well for the non-scientists among us.. I agree, it's a good web site. Just brings back memories, is all, back to a simpler time...  official org politart.  |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Fact and theory. |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
savoirfaire said: razor said: I have encountered this question many times on here, particularly from christians who quite reasonably claim that it it called the theory of evolution, not the fact.
So, in the spirit that knowledge is always a good thing, I direct you to this short, but succinct article which gives a general answer to this debate. Of course, there is lots more to it than that and i hope it made lead some onto further reading. If not though, I hope it may help to clear up the confusion some on here have. Enjoy:
http://www.talkorigins.or...-fact.html ps please read it all, not just the 1st paragraph! ahhhh talkorigins. Reminds me of the good ol' days when ED would post his answersingenesis articles and they would be promptly debunked, then the argument would spiral downhill to levels of comedy which I would never tire. But I must never post in them, oh no. That's when they would stop becoming fun for me.  I hear ya. And it is always funny, at least to me, that threads like this would get multiple pages. I use to get dizzy from all of the spin on this topic.
Oh, I agree with Tremolina; Evolution is a Fact and Theory. “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” John Stuart Mill | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Evolution is fact, the mechanisms that make it so a progressive theory. Decent website and article that sings to the choir of informed thought.
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dsoul said: Evolution is fact, the mechanisms that make it so a progressive theory. Decent website and article that sings to the choir of informed thought.
Wonder if those lacking the information ths far in life even clicked the link let alone read the first paragraph?  Lets hope so. No-one need be afraid of more knowledge. Espeially when that knowledge is so relevant to their world view.. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Seems to me they have this idea of the process. Why don't they like make the soup mixture, zapp it with electricty and create a cell, put some more stuff in the soup for the cell and make a creature of some sort? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rodman2 said: Seems to me they have this idea of the process. Why don't they like make the soup mixture, zapp it with electricty and create a cell, put some more stuff in the soup for the cell and make a creature of some sort?
Well, cloning has already been acheived i.e. creating a life form from cells. Whats the name of that guy who is close to replicating the big bang i.e. creating matter from only the basic ingridients. Ventnor is it? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: rodman2 said: Seems to me they have this idea of the process. Why don't they like make the soup mixture, zapp it with electricty and create a cell, put some more stuff in the soup for the cell and make a creature of some sort?
Well, cloning has already been acheived i.e. creating a life form from cells. Whats the name of that guy who is close to replicating the big bang i.e. creating matter from only the basic ingridients. Ventnor is it? Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rodman2 said: razor said: Well, cloning has already been acheived i.e. creating a life form from cells. Whats the name of that guy who is close to replicating the big bang i.e. creating matter from only the basic ingridients. Ventnor is it? Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? Science has not yet replicated the evolution process from sctrach no, but it wouldn't surpise me if in scientific circles this was believed acheivable in the future. Can someone with more specific expertise or knowledge in this area come on and help answer the question on where current science is on this? I imgaine stem cell research will be the next great leap in knowledge for biological science... | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rodman2 said: razor said: Well, cloning has already been acheived i.e. creating a life form from cells. Whats the name of that guy who is close to replicating the big bang i.e. creating matter from only the basic ingridients. Ventnor is it? Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? Just to be clear though, we do not need to relpicate the evolutionary process in a lab to know that it is the truth. Evolution has long been proven. i find it interesting that you would demand such uncompromising evidence to believe science (which in may ways I admire: one should always question before coming to conclusions) but can hold faith with, by default, not anywhere near the same level of inquiry or evidence? [Edited 7/20/08 16:44pm] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
razor said: rodman2 said: Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? Just to be clear though, we do not need to relpicate the evolutionary process in a lab to know that it is the truth. That sounds just like a christian saying: we don't need to prove God exists, because it is written in the Bible, so it's true. Rodman is saying scientists only have a theory on how it all began. You know that's what he is saying. And he is right, scientists have nothing but a theorie on how it all started. A theory on the origins of the universe is something else than proving that primitive life forms evolve into more sophisticated ones. So Rodman asks you what it all originated from. Can you answer it? Nope. |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rodman2 said: razor said: Well, cloning has already been acheived i.e. creating a life form from cells. Whats the name of that guy who is close to replicating the big bang i.e. creating matter from only the basic ingridients. Ventnor is it? Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? check out the work of Venter http://www.jcvi.org/cms/r...s-release/ They're almost there. Can I assume that when they finally do create synthetic life you'll start believing in evolution? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
yxl1 said: rodman2 said: Thats not the same dude, I mean start from scratch, the soup you guys say it all began in. Thats where you gotta begin, you want me to believe it all came from a soup, and we crawled out of it and stood up and bought a bluetooth. Well even in a controlled lab with all they know they can't make a complete cell that can go on to being anything. Am I right? check out the work of Venter http://www.jcvi.org/cms/r...s-release/ They're almost there. Can I assume that when they finally do create synthetic life you'll start believing in evolution? I believe in evolution. I think it's pretty apparant. But that article doesn't say anything about the "soup" / the genesis of the universe and life. There is not a single scientist that can offer anything more than theories on that. Just like believers can't. -- [Edited 7/21/08 3:41am] |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: yxl1 said: [/b]
check out the work of Venter http://www.jcvi.org/cms/r...s-release/ They're almost there. Can I assume that when they finally do create synthetic life you'll start believing in evolution? I believe in evolution. I think it's pretty apparant. But that article doesn't say anything about the "soup" / the genesis of the universe and life. There is not a single scientist that can offer anything more than theories on that. Just like believers can't. -- [Edited 7/21/08 3:41am] No, but the evolutionary process of life is different somewhat than the theories of life to non-life... I think Razor is trying to say that the actual process of evolution is a theory and a fact at the same time. The origin of the first living cells is another matter. Now, if one starts with the absence of belief in God, they have to make the conclusion that life did at some point, begin on its own. But, if one can't explain how this happened, or even if one has some good theories that can't be proven, the absence of proof does not require the insertion of God to make everything kosher. People inserted God into explaining why thunder existed, why the sun appeared to leave at night, and many other things. But they just didn't have enough knowledge to understand those things. God can't be a placeholder for lack of evidence, if one is to believe god exists it should be because there's compelling reason for him/her to do so, not because the absence of god makes it harder to answer questions. IMO I'm only in it for the music. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
savoirfaire said: Tremolina said: I believe in evolution. I think it's pretty apparant. But that article doesn't say anything about the "soup" / the genesis of the universe and life. There is not a single scientist that can offer anything more than theories on that. Just like believers can't. -- [Edited 7/21/08 3:41am] No, but the evolutionary process of life is different somewhat than the theories of life to non-life... I think Razor is trying to say that the actual process of evolution is a theory and a fact at the same time. That's what I said above. I also think its both fact and theory. The origin of the first living cells is another matter.
Not exactly. If evolution is fact then the first living cells, or bacteria, or "life building blocks" must have evolved from something/somewhere too. They don't know from where or what. Now, if one starts with the absence of belief in God, they have to make the conclusion that life did at some point, begin on its own.
That's an assumption, not a conclusion, and thus THEORY too. But, if one can't explain how this happened, or even if one has some good theories that can't be proven, the absence of proof does not require the insertion of God to make everything kosher. I agree.
People inserted God into explaining why thunder existed, why the sun appeared to leave at night, and many other things. But they just didn't have enough knowledge to understand those things. God can't be a placeholder for lack of evidence, if one is to believe god exists it should be because there's compelling reason for him/her to do so, not because the absence of god makes it harder to answer questions.
IMO I agree with that too. -- [Edited 7/21/08 5:32am] |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Scientists have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words. For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The one thing I find fascinating about the Evolution is the evolution of Earth's atomsphere, how after the first life form (photosyntheic) transformed Earth's 2nd atomsphere (very Venus-like) to Earth's 3rd atmosphere (the one we enjoy today), before the major explosion of diverse life. Idk, that kind of intrigued me a little, thought I'd share. I see his lips movin' and I don't feel nuthin' but a breeze. "Lackawanna Blues"
XI 
 4 more years pledging allegiance to the oil companies | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
savoirfaire said: Tremolina said: I believe in evolution. I think it's pretty apparant. But that article doesn't say anything about the "soup" / the genesis of the universe and life. There is not a single scientist that can offer anything more than theories on that. Just like believers can't. -- [Edited 7/21/08 3:41am] No, but the evolutionary process of life is different somewhat than the theories of life to non-life... I think Razor is trying to say that the actual process of evolution is a theory and a fact at the same time. The origin of the first living cells is another matter. Now, if one starts with the absence of belief in God, they have to make the conclusion that life did at some point, begin on its own. But, if one can't explain how this happened, or even if one has some good theories that can't be proven, the absence of proof does not require the insertion of God to make everything kosher. People inserted God into explaining why thunder existed, why the sun appeared to leave at night, and many other things. But they just didn't have enough knowledge to understand those things. God can't be a placeholder for lack of evidence, if one is to believe god exists it should be because there's compelling reason for him/her to do so, not because the absence of god makes it harder to answer questions. IMO Well mainly I was just trying to give people a clear idea of where science is at i.e. evolution is a fact, but its processes are still open to theory. That of course doesm not disprove a diety, but it most definately does disprove genesis, which I think for some on here would be a fairly major point. I agree though that god has often been used to fill the gaps of human knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: savoirfaire said: No, but the evolutionary process of life is different somewhat than the theories of life to non-life... I think Razor is trying to say that the actual process of evolution is a theory and a fact at the same time. The origin of the first living cells is another matter. Now, if one starts with the absence of belief in God, they have to make the conclusion that life did at some point, begin on its own. But, if one can't explain how this happened, or even if one has some good theories that can't be proven, the absence of proof does not require the insertion of God to make everything kosher. People inserted God into explaining why thunder existed, why the sun appeared to leave at night, and many other things. But they just didn't have enough knowledge to understand those things. God can't be a placeholder for lack of evidence, if one is to believe god exists it should be because there's compelling reason for him/her to do so, not because the absence of god makes it harder to answer questions. IMO Well mainly I was just trying to give people a clear idea of where science is at i.e. evolution is a fact, but its processes are still open to theory. That of course doesm not disprove a diety, but it most definately does disprove genesis, which I think for some on here would be a fairly major point. I agree though that god has often been used to fill the gaps of human knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.. How can you come up with that? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: savoirfaire said: No, but the evolutionary process of life is different somewhat than the theories of life to non-life... I think Razor is trying to say that the actual process of evolution is a theory and a fact at the same time. The origin of the first living cells is another matter. Now, if one starts with the absence of belief in God, they have to make the conclusion that life did at some point, begin on its own. But, if one can't explain how this happened, or even if one has some good theories that can't be proven, the absence of proof does not require the insertion of God to make everything kosher. People inserted God into explaining why thunder existed, why the sun appeared to leave at night, and many other things. But they just didn't have enough knowledge to understand those things. God can't be a placeholder for lack of evidence, if one is to believe god exists it should be because there's compelling reason for him/her to do so, not because the absence of god makes it harder to answer questions. IMO Well mainly I was just trying to give people a clear idea of where science is at i.e. evolution is a fact, but its processes are still open to theory. That of course doesm not disprove a diety, but it most definately does disprove genesis, which I think for some on here would be a fairly major point. I agree though that god has often been used to fill the gaps of human knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.. Why does the theory of evolution disprove Genesis (you're talking about the bible Genesis right?)? Is it because the bible says that it was created in 7 days, is that what science is trying to disprove about creation? The 7 days is not literal, a day to God could mean 1000's of years. But that the '7 days' were catergorized into days is to show that each of the processes came about in steps. For us, we count the days by the turning of the earth, from light to dark, not so with God. And when God created humans, he did so with an inborn spiritual consciousness, that is why humans have searched out God throughtout history. . [Edited 7/21/08 15:26pm] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rodman2 said: Scientists have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words. For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.
The bible explains many things besides genesis account. If man were not on this earth, I'm sure the animals and the planet conditions would be much better. The bible explains why man is on a crash course, and I'm watching it happen before my eyes, the last 100 years has been a big eye opener for me. Well, evolution is exactly a serious of "chance" (i.e low probabilty) events. So, this much we know is irrelevant to the ID idea. Whilst science has yet to broach the full origins of the universe (although it's close), I do not see (even from a perfectly balanced viewpoint) that the only logical explination is ID. If anything, given what we know, the balance of probability lies away from ID and towards a "natural" beginning. Again, this is just based on what we know, not a subjective viewpoint. The religious have been claiming the end of days for 2000 years (as you know, this is documented after all), so i think you may be guilty of "presentism" (yes, I just made that word up, but its a good one...) To get back to the point, all I wish to do is present what we (humans) know to be true i.e. that the world is more like 3 billion years old, not the 6 thousand as thought by christianity, that humans evolved from an exitence close to bacteria and did not arrive fully formed as per the OT. None of this disproves the existence of god, I would just prefer not to see any more claims that the genesis is factually correct. When we have fact, even faith doesn't get a look in. I simply hope to encourage people to learn all about their origins and make their judgements based on knowledge... [Edited 7/21/08 15:33pm] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't buy any of that shit.
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dance said: I don't buy any of that shit.
The creator: 
This is what really happened: Before God, there was Grace. And she spoke: "Let there be God." And there was God. And Grace said, "Let there be darkness." And there was darkness. And God uttered, "Let there be light." And there was light. And lo, for God had spoken against Grace's wishes, he was smitten. And Grace laughed with such masculine might that her angels quivered in fear. With a swift blink of her piercing eye, Grace created everything in Heaven and on Earth and beyond. Within six minutes, the world was perfect. 
I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wildgoldenhoney said: razor said: Well mainly I was just trying to give people a clear idea of where science is at i.e. evolution is a fact, but its processes are still open to theory. That of course doesm not disprove a diety, but it most definately does disprove genesis, which I think for some on here would be a fairly major point. I agree though that god has often been used to fill the gaps of human knowledge, and those gaps are getting smaller.. Why does the theory of evolution disprove Genesis (you're talking about the bible Genesis right?)? Is it because the bible says that it was created in 7 days, is that what science is trying to disprove about creation? The 7 days is not literal, a day to God could mean 1000's of years. But that the '7 days' were catergorized into days is to show that each of the processes came about in steps. For us, we count the days by the turning of the earth, from light to dark, not so with God. And when God created humans, he did so with an inborn spiritual consciousness, that is why humans have searched out God throughtout history. . [Edited 7/21/08 15:26pm] I won't argue with you about whether god got 8 hours or 8 thousand hours sleep
However, science has disproved (catagorically, not subjectively, hence the word proof): Adam and Eve, Naoh and the flood, the age of the universe (earth) etc. Perhaps i should have been more prescriptive and said that science has proved large parts of genesis false, rather than every aspect... [Edited 7/21/08 15:39pm] | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: wildgoldenhoney said: Why does the theory of evolution disprove Genesis (you're talking about the bible Genesis right?)? Is it because the bible says that it was created in 7 days, is that what science is trying to disprove about creation? The 7 days is not literal, a day to God could mean 1000's of years. But that the '7 days' were catergorized into days is to show that each of the processes came about in steps. For us, we count the days by the turning of the earth, from light to dark, not so with God. And when God created humans, he did so with an inborn spiritual consciousness, that is why humans have searched out God throughtout history. . [Edited 7/21/08 15:26pm] I won't argue with you about whether god got 8 hours or 8 thousand hours sleep
However, science has disproved (catagorically, not subjectively, hence the word proof): Adam and Eve, Naoh and the flood, the age of the universe (earth) etc. Perhaps i should have been more prescriptive and said that science has proved large parts of genesis false, rather than every aspect... [Edited 7/21/08 15:39pm]
Funny. But he doesn't sleep. We're actually still living in that 7th day (of rest), where he's waiting for his last creative action to come to fruition, that the whole earth be populated with healthy, perfect, happy offspring of the first man and woman. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: rodman2 said: Scientists have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words. For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.
The bible explains many things besides genesis account. If man were not on this earth, I'm sure the animals and the planet conditions would be much better. The bible explains why man is on a crash course, and I'm watching it happen before my eyes, the last 100 years has been a big eye opener for me. Well, evolution is exactly a serious of "chance" (i.e low probabilty) events. So, this much we know is irrelevant to the ID idea. Whilst science has yet to broach the full origins of the universe (although it's close), I do not see (even from a perfectly balanced viewpoint) that the only logical explination is ID. If anything, given what we know, the balance of probability lies away from ID and towards a "natural" beginning. Again, this is just based on what we know, not a subjective viewpoint. The religious have been claiming the end of days for 2000 years (as you know, this is documented after all), so i think you may be guilty of "presentism" (yes, I just made that word up, but its a good one...) To get back to the point, all I wish to do is present what we (humans) know to be true i.e. that the world is more like 3 billion years old, not the 6 thousand as thought by christianity, that humans evolved from an exitence close to bacteria and did not arrive fully formed as per the OT. None of this disproves the existence of god, I would just prefer not to see any more claims that the genesis is factually correct. When we have fact, even faith doesn't get a look in. I simply hope to encourage people to learn all about their origins and make their judgements based on knowledge... [Edited 7/21/08 15:33pm] The way JW's see it: The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began. Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text. What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion? No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long. How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved. Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so? A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere. On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually. The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19. Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.” Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time. Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries. Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge. This gives weight to the Bible’s claim that it is “inspired of God.” | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Add a reply to this topic
Create new topic
Printable version
" ~CallMyName
