Theistic Evolution Challenged
- Thread starter Aman777
- Start date
Gaps in knowledge and understanding. Much of ID literature consists in pointing to areas on the fringe of scientific investigation where there are still more questions than answers and saying "Since we don't understand this, God (sorry, the Designer) must have done it."
So, what happens then when we do come to understand it?
ID never seems to allow for the possibility that we will come to understand some things we do not understand now.
You see, there it is, plain and clear, an appeal to the gaps.
You can't, of course, but we already know that most species leave no fossil record. So this is a case where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot assume that a failure to find an intermediate fossil between two species means there never was one. That would be rather like assuming that a person who left evidence of residence in New York in January and evidence of residence in London in March never crossed the Atlantic because you cannot find evidence of the purchase of a ticket on any airplane or ship.
Well, Stanley was an early spokesperson for Punctuated Equilibriium and his remarks should not be taken out of that context as Johnson has evidently done.
Why?
See? There you are arguing God-of-the-gaps.
There are two problems with God-of-the-gaps thinking.
The first and most obvious is that gaps have a way of shrinking, even disappearing, as more is learned. So where does that leave God?
The second is that people are encouraged to look for God in what they, or humanity in general, are ignorant of, and to assume that precisely in those places where we have our best understanding of nature, God is absent.
You know, when Newton demonstrated the physical explanation of how rainbows are formed, he didn't stop believing that God made the rainbow. Indeed, I expect that he found more reason to praise God for rainbows after he understood them than before.
There is no difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species in history, but there can be a quite a significant time-gap between the first appearance of a species in history and the first appearance of the species in the fossil record. At its origin, a species is a small population in a limited geographic area. But most fossils come from large populations spread over a large geographic area. It is naturally much rarer to find fossils that are both less numerous and less spread-out than to find fossils from large, wide-ranging species. And it may take many generations before a new species is large enough and wide-spread enough to start showing up in the fossil record. Fossils from small populations are possible, but very rare. We certainly cannot expect to find a fossil from the first generation of every new species.
And that is what makes her a different person than Mitochondrial Eve who did have female relatives of her own and preceding generations.
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
Upvote
0
Reply to gluadys
Gaps in knowledge and understanding. Much of ID literature consists in pointing to areas on the fringe of scientific investigation where there are still more questions than answers and saying "Since we don't understand this, God (sorry, the Designer) must have done it."
So, what happens then when we do come to understand it?
ID never seems to allow for the possibility that we will come to understand some things we do not understand now.
You misunderstand me. It is unreasonable to assume that the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution is an appeal to gaps in the theory. The theory has no evidential basis at all; there is only fanciful speculation.
You see, there it is, plain and clear, an appeal to the gaps.
Same comment as previous.
You can't, of course, but we already know that most species leave no fossil record. So this is a case where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot assume that a failure to find an intermediate fossil between two species means there never was one. That would be rather like assuming that a person who left evidence of residence in New York in January and evidence of residence in London in March never crossed the Atlantic because you cannot find evidence of the purchase of a ticket on any airplane or ship.
Similarly, you cannot assume that because there is no evidence of intermediate species, that there ever was any. To believe that no evidence is a basis for believing there is some evidence takes a great deal of misguided faith.
We actually have a good many intermediate species in the fossil record, but most connect groups larger than species themselves; they connect orders or classes. So we may not have the immediately preceding or immediately following species in fossil form, but we do have a good idea of where the intermediate species connects in terms of its ancestral group and of groups which are derived from it or its close cousins.
Hypothetical intermediate species are not solid evidence for evolution.
Connection of supposed pan-specie intermediate groups is mere speculation.
Well, Stanley was an early spokesperson for Punctuated Equilibriium and his remarks should not be taken out of that context as Johnson has evidently done.
Same comments as 2 previous.
See? There you are arguing God-of-the-gaps.
To say that life requires left molecular rotation amino acids is not gaps thinking. It is stating the universal facts of what life forms require; there are no right molecular rotation or combination left-right form molecular rotation life forms.
There are two problems with God-of-the-gaps thinking.
The first and most obvious is that gaps have a way of shrinking, even disappearing, as more is learned. So where does that leave God?
As noted above, what I've stated is based on the best evidence-based scientific thinking; what you've given are mere speculations.
The second is that people are encouraged to look for God in what they, or humanity in general, are ignorant of, and to assume that precisely in those places where we have our best understanding of nature, God is absent.
Where Science shows evidential and theoretical impossibility of a natural explanation, invoking the scientific notion of life and species big bangs, and the philosophical notion of God, is what makes sense.
You know, when Newton demonstrated the physical explanation of how rainbows are formed, he didn't stop believing that God made the rainbow. Indeed, I expect that he found more reason to praise God for rainbows after he understood them than before.
If God had chosen spontaneous creation and evolution as how to bring about life and different species, I would accept it. If that were the case, there would be corroborating scientific evidence. However the scientific evidence is non-existent in actuality and theoretically, as indicated in my original posting.
kenblogton
No, he does not document the origin of species in an abrupt manner, but the first appearance of species in the fossil record in an abrupt manner--a very different matter. It is also a misrepresentation of the work done by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge to say there is a virtually complete absence of intermediate species. This is only the case when looking for an transition from one species to the immediately following species. That is a very fine-grained transition which is almost impossible to capture on scales of geological chronology. Intermediate fossil species in a larger time-frame are not uncommon at all.
What is the difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species. To say the first appearance is not the origin is mere speculation.
There is no difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species in history, but there can be a quite a significant time-gap between the first appearance of a species in history and the first appearance of the species in the fossil record. At its origin, a species is a small population in a limited geographic area. But most fossils come from large populations spread over a large geographic area. It is naturally much rarer to find fossils that are both less numerous and less spread-out than to find fossils from large, wide-ranging species. And it may take many generations before a new species is large enough and wide-spread enough to start showing up in the fossil record. Fossils from small populations are possible, but very rare. We certainly cannot expect to find a fossil from the first generation of every new species.
You have actually left out a significant qualifier here. Mitochondrial Eve is a single female who is the common ancestor of all LIVING human women, and Chromosome-Y Adam, likewise the common ancestor of all LIVING human men. Mitochondrial Eve was not the ancestor of all human females for she was not the ancestor of her own mother or aunts or sisters or cousins or any human females contemporaneous with her or preceding her. Same goes for Chromosome-Y Adam.
It should also be noted that these individuals lived centuries apart and so are not to be confused with the biblical Adam and Eve.
The biblical Eve was also a single female without mother or aunts or sisters.
And that is what makes her a different person than Mitochondrial Eve who did have female relatives of her own and preceding generations.
It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by "evolution across species". I know you think this is impossible, but I wonder if you could pretend to be an evolutionary biologist for a moment and provide a biologist's explanation of what would be happening if evolution across species is possible. If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?
Horses and donkeys is the best known example of human-attempted cross species evolution: mules are sterile.
kenblogton
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
Gaps in knowledge and understanding. Much of ID literature consists in pointing to areas on the fringe of scientific investigation where there are still more questions than answers and saying "Since we don't understand this, God (sorry, the Designer) must have done it."
So, what happens then when we do come to understand it?
ID never seems to allow for the possibility that we will come to understand some things we do not understand now.
You misunderstand me. It is unreasonable to assume that the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution is an appeal to gaps in the theory. The theory has no evidential basis at all; there is only fanciful speculation.
You see, there it is, plain and clear, an appeal to the gaps.
Same comment as previous.
You can't, of course, but we already know that most species leave no fossil record. So this is a case where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot assume that a failure to find an intermediate fossil between two species means there never was one. That would be rather like assuming that a person who left evidence of residence in New York in January and evidence of residence in London in March never crossed the Atlantic because you cannot find evidence of the purchase of a ticket on any airplane or ship.
Similarly, you cannot assume that because there is no evidence of intermediate species, that there ever was any. To believe that no evidence is a basis for believing there is some evidence takes a great deal of misguided faith.
We actually have a good many intermediate species in the fossil record, but most connect groups larger than species themselves; they connect orders or classes. So we may not have the immediately preceding or immediately following species in fossil form, but we do have a good idea of where the intermediate species connects in terms of its ancestral group and of groups which are derived from it or its close cousins.
Hypothetical intermediate species are not solid evidence for evolution.
Connection of supposed pan-specie intermediate groups is mere speculation.
Well, Stanley was an early spokesperson for Punctuated Equilibriium and his remarks should not be taken out of that context as Johnson has evidently done.
Same comments as 2 previous.
See? There you are arguing God-of-the-gaps.
To say that life requires left molecular rotation amino acids is not gaps thinking. It is stating the universal facts of what life forms require; there are no right molecular rotation or combination left-right form molecular rotation life forms.
There are two problems with God-of-the-gaps thinking.
The first and most obvious is that gaps have a way of shrinking, even disappearing, as more is learned. So where does that leave God?
As noted above, what I've stated is based on the best evidence-based scientific thinking; what you've given are mere speculations.
The second is that people are encouraged to look for God in what they, or humanity in general, are ignorant of, and to assume that precisely in those places where we have our best understanding of nature, God is absent.
Where Science shows evidential and theoretical impossibility of a natural explanation, invoking the scientific notion of life and species big bangs, and the philosophical notion of God, is what makes sense.
You know, when Newton demonstrated the physical explanation of how rainbows are formed, he didn't stop believing that God made the rainbow. Indeed, I expect that he found more reason to praise God for rainbows after he understood them than before.
If God had chosen spontaneous creation and evolution as how to bring about life and different species, I would accept it. If that were the case, there would be corroborating scientific evidence. However the scientific evidence is non-existent in actuality and theoretically, as indicated in my original posting.
kenblogton
No, he does not document the origin of species in an abrupt manner, but the first appearance of species in the fossil record in an abrupt manner--a very different matter. It is also a misrepresentation of the work done by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge to say there is a virtually complete absence of intermediate species. This is only the case when looking for an transition from one species to the immediately following species. That is a very fine-grained transition which is almost impossible to capture on scales of geological chronology. Intermediate fossil species in a larger time-frame are not uncommon at all.
What is the difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species. To say the first appearance is not the origin is mere speculation.
There is no difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species in history, but there can be a quite a significant time-gap between the first appearance of a species in history and the first appearance of the species in the fossil record. At its origin, a species is a small population in a limited geographic area. But most fossils come from large populations spread over a large geographic area. It is naturally much rarer to find fossils that are both less numerous and less spread-out than to find fossils from large, wide-ranging species. And it may take many generations before a new species is large enough and wide-spread enough to start showing up in the fossil record. Fossils from small populations are possible, but very rare. We certainly cannot expect to find a fossil from the first generation of every new species.
You have actually left out a significant qualifier here. Mitochondrial Eve is a single female who is the common ancestor of all LIVING human women, and Chromosome-Y Adam, likewise the common ancestor of all LIVING human men. Mitochondrial Eve was not the ancestor of all human females for she was not the ancestor of her own mother or aunts or sisters or cousins or any human females contemporaneous with her or preceding her. Same goes for Chromosome-Y Adam.
It should also be noted that these individuals lived centuries apart and so are not to be confused with the biblical Adam and Eve.
The biblical Eve was also a single female without mother or aunts or sisters.
And that is what makes her a different person than Mitochondrial Eve who did have female relatives of her own and preceding generations.
It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by "evolution across species". I know you think this is impossible, but I wonder if you could pretend to be an evolutionary biologist for a moment and provide a biologist's explanation of what would be happening if evolution across species is possible. If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?
Horses and donkeys is the best known example of human-attempted cross species evolution: mules are sterile.
kenblogton
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
Upvote
0
G
GratiaCorpusChristi
Guest
You're assuming that Genesis is a literal, chronological account of God's historical acts of creation. It is not. Most of the church fathers did not assume so, and both liberal and conservative biblical exegesis well demonstrates that it is not.
Many of us theistic evolutionary believers subscribe to a view called the framework hypothesis, which reads Genesis 1 as poetic account of the underlying structure of creation. It's pretty obvious that it's there once you hear it.
Days one, two, and three are parallel to days four, five, and six, like six stanzas in a poem finished up with an all-important, unparalleled seventh stanza. Like a poem, there's a refrain: "And God saw that it was good; and it was evening, and it was morning, the nth day...."
On day one God creates the realms of day and night; on day four he creates the sun as a subordinate creature-king to rule over the realm of the day, and the moon to rule over the night. On day two, he creates the sky and sea; on day five he creates the birds and fish to rule over them, respectively. And on day three he creates the land realm and day six he creates the land animals, which us as the pinnacle.
Then, on day seven, he tops it all off with his own day, his own realm, and commissions humanity to keep and till the garden in order to usher all of creation into his realm by keeping the Sabbath.
Just look how important these themes are to ancient Israel. The creature-kings aren't gods, and there is only one God, Yahweh. The sun isn't Ra, the moon isn't Artemis, the fish isn't Chemosh, the bull isn't Marduk. One God, the Lord. And isn't of creation being the accident of a cosmic sperm bath or a primordial battle among the gods, it it's God's purposeful, structured, ordered, lovingly created duality of realms and rulers.
Monotheism. Structure. Order. Sabbath. Israel's Vocation. These are the themes that ancient Israel had to hammer home time and again. These are the things that the creation account was skillfully designed to hammer home in the form of a beautiful poem.
And we make nonsense out of it by reading it as a literal, chronological account.
Upvote
0
It is completely unreasonable to assume the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution. This theory has one of the most complete bases of evidence of any scientific theory. To describe it as a "complete absence of concrete evidence" is either ignorance or deceit.
When people tell me they have never seen evidence of evolution, I wonder just what they think evolution is (or is supposed to be) and what evidence they think would be needed to show it is happening and has happened.
Can you describe what you think scientists say evolution is?
We can on two or three grounds.
First, although instances of species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, they are not non-existent. So, since we know that there were some cases of species-to-species transitions, we have no reason to rule that out in cases where it did not get recorded in the fossil record.
Second, we also have instances of species-to-species transitions in the present, so we cannot rule them out in the past.
Third, we do have a good number of intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels, whose existence implies the existence of numerous species-to-species transitions on either side of this fossil.
Obviously, in all these cases, we are inferring the existence of unrecorded species-to-species transitions, rather than observing them directly, but it is a logical inference that what happens in the present and what we sometimes find a record of happening in the past was probably occurring even when we don't have direct evidence of it.
Actual fossils which you can go see in a museum are not hypothetical.
True, but to say the preference was "obviously established by God" is.
Well, He did. Everything we know about biology present and past makes the case for that.
There is. Lots of it, if you choose to study it.
By the way, there was a question in my last post which you did not reply to; I would like to know what your answer is. So I repeat it here with the introductory conversation that instigated it. The question is in bold.
gluadys said:
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
Upvote
0
Reply to gluadys
It is completely unreasonable to assume the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution. This theory has one of the most complete bases of evidence of any scientific theory. To describe it as a "complete absence of concrete evidence" is either ignorance or deceit.
When people tell me they have never seen evidence of evolution, I wonder just what they think evolution is (or is supposed to be) and what evidence they think would be needed to show it is happening and has happened.
Can you describe what you think scientists say evolution is?
There's lots of paleological evidence of past species. Past species are not evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution, which states that all species are evolved from prior species, provides NO demonstrated evidence of evolution. Darwin maintained there must be many intermediate species; there is no such evidence, as I showed in my original posting. Evolutionary logic tells us intermediate species would not be fit enough to survive.
You believe in evolution and so are unable to, in a scientifically unbiased manner, assess the evidence, because you believe it to be true and will not entertain any alternative.
We can on two or three grounds.
First, although instances of species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, they are not non-existent. So, since we know that there were some cases of species-to-species transitions, we have no reason to rule that out in cases where it did not get recorded in the fossil record.
Second, we also have instances of species-to-species transitions in the present, so we cannot rule them out in the past.
Third, we do have a good number of intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels, whose existence implies the existence of numerous species-to-species transitions on either side of this fossil.
Obviously, in all these cases, we are inferring the existence of unrecorded species-to-species transitions, rather than observing them directly, but it is a logical inference that what happens in the present and what we sometimes find a record of happening in the past was probably occurring even when we don't have direct evidence of it.
1./2. Name one documented instance of species to species transitions, both past and present, with references.
3.To take intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels as evidence of evolution of species is fanciful speculation - a indicator of how desperate evolutionists get.
Science without evidence is speculative hypothesizing.
Actual fossils which you can go see in a museum are not hypothetical.
What fossils in what museums are proven intermediate species?
True, but to say the preference was "obviously established by God" is.
The physical universe did not arise spontaneously, but was created by a non-physical entity, which I choose to call God. The fact is, all life forms consist of left-rotation amino acids. To say that it was God is not science, but it is philosophical truth. Science is unable to explain the cause of the big bang because, since it precedes the existence of the physical, it is not a matter for scientific inquiry.
Well, He did. Everything we know about biology present and past makes the case for that.
The established scientific basis for your assertion is non existent, as my original posting documented. You, of course, are free to conjecture as you will regarding spontaneous creation and evolution.
There is. Lots of it, if you choose to study it.
There is no solid evidence, as my original posting documented. You make grandiose claims for evolution, for which you do not specifically provide documentary evidence.
By the way, there was a question in my last post which you did not reply to; I would like to know what your answer is. So I repeat it here with the introductory conversation that instigated it. The question is in bold.
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
I'm sure they don't. They would no doubt use the same dishonest data manipulation to which you subscribe.
kenblogton
It is completely unreasonable to assume the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution. This theory has one of the most complete bases of evidence of any scientific theory. To describe it as a "complete absence of concrete evidence" is either ignorance or deceit.
When people tell me they have never seen evidence of evolution, I wonder just what they think evolution is (or is supposed to be) and what evidence they think would be needed to show it is happening and has happened.
Can you describe what you think scientists say evolution is?
There's lots of paleological evidence of past species. Past species are not evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution, which states that all species are evolved from prior species, provides NO demonstrated evidence of evolution. Darwin maintained there must be many intermediate species; there is no such evidence, as I showed in my original posting. Evolutionary logic tells us intermediate species would not be fit enough to survive.
You believe in evolution and so are unable to, in a scientifically unbiased manner, assess the evidence, because you believe it to be true and will not entertain any alternative.
We can on two or three grounds.
First, although instances of species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, they are not non-existent. So, since we know that there were some cases of species-to-species transitions, we have no reason to rule that out in cases where it did not get recorded in the fossil record.
Second, we also have instances of species-to-species transitions in the present, so we cannot rule them out in the past.
Third, we do have a good number of intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels, whose existence implies the existence of numerous species-to-species transitions on either side of this fossil.
Obviously, in all these cases, we are inferring the existence of unrecorded species-to-species transitions, rather than observing them directly, but it is a logical inference that what happens in the present and what we sometimes find a record of happening in the past was probably occurring even when we don't have direct evidence of it.
1./2. Name one documented instance of species to species transitions, both past and present, with references.
3.To take intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels as evidence of evolution of species is fanciful speculation - a indicator of how desperate evolutionists get.
Science without evidence is speculative hypothesizing.
Actual fossils which you can go see in a museum are not hypothetical.
What fossils in what museums are proven intermediate species?
True, but to say the preference was "obviously established by God" is.
The physical universe did not arise spontaneously, but was created by a non-physical entity, which I choose to call God. The fact is, all life forms consist of left-rotation amino acids. To say that it was God is not science, but it is philosophical truth. Science is unable to explain the cause of the big bang because, since it precedes the existence of the physical, it is not a matter for scientific inquiry.
Well, He did. Everything we know about biology present and past makes the case for that.
The established scientific basis for your assertion is non existent, as my original posting documented. You, of course, are free to conjecture as you will regarding spontaneous creation and evolution.
There is. Lots of it, if you choose to study it.
There is no solid evidence, as my original posting documented. You make grandiose claims for evolution, for which you do not specifically provide documentary evidence.
By the way, there was a question in my last post which you did not reply to; I would like to know what your answer is. So I repeat it here with the introductory conversation that instigated it. The question is in bold.
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
I'm sure they don't. They would no doubt use the same dishonest data manipulation to which you subscribe.
kenblogton
Upvote
0
SayaOtonashi
Newbie
Also god as stated in the O.T he will give his commandants for 1,000 generations. a biblical generation is at least 40 so 40,000
Upvote
0
SayaOtonashi
Newbie
1.He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (Psalm 105:8)
2.Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (1 Chronicles 16:15)
3."Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; (Deuteronomy 7:9)
So how could it be 6,000 if god himself thousand generation the earth is much older.
2.Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (1 Chronicles 16:15)
3."Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; (Deuteronomy 7:9)
So how could it be 6,000 if god himself thousand generation the earth is much older.
Upvote
0
SayaOtonashi
Newbie
Also Yom which is used in Genesis on the creation days does not refer to actually days. Also does the bible state gods days are 1,000 of ours
Genesis 2:16-17, 5:5 900+ years And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. (Genesis 5:5)
Daniel 8:26 3000+ years "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
Genesis 2:2, Hebrews 4:4-11 6000+ years The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the morning and the evening, the n day."
And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (Genesis 2:2)
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest, which continues to this day. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
Genesis 2:16-17, 5:5 900+ years And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. (Genesis 5:5)
Daniel 8:26 3000+ years "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
Genesis 2:2, Hebrews 4:4-11 6000+ years The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the morning and the evening, the n day."
And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (Genesis 2:2)
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest, which continues to this day. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SayaOtonashi
Newbie
The creation of the universe, the earth, and life on it is described in the first chapter of Genesis. The account is ordered on the basis of what God did on each "day" (the Hebrew word yom2). Although Yom is usually translated in our English dictionaries as "day," its meanings are much more broad than what we (English speakers) tend to associate with the word "day." Yom actually has three main meanings; daylight portion of a solar day (i.e., sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour solar day, or a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as "year," "lifetime," and "time, period (general)."2
Claim 1: Occurrences of yom with the words "evening" or "morning" outside Genesis 1 always refers to 24-hour days
The Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb3 (the word for "evening") and boquer4 (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word evening or morning 23 times. Evening and morning appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary daywhy would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Actually, they don't even get their facts correct. There are 42 verses (not 23) outside Genesis 1 in which yom is used in combination with either "evening" or "morning" (or both).5 The Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" are juxtaposed only 12 times outside Genesis 1.6 In seven of those verses, the word order is reversed from that found in Genesis 1.6 Most of these verses do refer to 24 hour days, since they discuss the sacrificial system. However, a verse from the Psalms does not refer to a 24-hour day:
They who dwell in the ends of the earth stand in awe of Your signs; You make the dawn [boqer] and the sunset [ereb] shout for joy. (Psalm 65:8)
Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationMoses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalm 90.7 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night.8 In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time:
You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalm 90:5-6)
Later, in the same Psalm, Moses includes a plea that God satisfy us with His love in the morning (boqer) that we may sing all our days (a lifetime of days, again, is usually longer than 24 hours):
O satisfy us in the morning [boqer] with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days [yom]. (Psalm 90:14)
Another verse, from Daniel, refers to a period of prophecy:
He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer]; then the holy place will be properly restored." (Daniel 8:14)
Some interpret the period of 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 days, while other calculate it as 1,150 days (2,300 divided by 2).9 Still others interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 years.10 It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to 24-hour days.
Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:
"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.
"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning".11 The order of "evening morning" is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by "evening" (ending) juxtaposed with "morning" (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next.
Claim 2: Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days
The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary daywhy would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13
In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.
A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!
There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)
For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)
"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)
If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.
Claim 3: Other biblical Hebrew words could have been used to designate long periods of time
The claim is made that other Hebrew words could have been used to represent long periods of time:
"There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1."1
Olam19 and qedem20 were not used in biblical Hebrew to represent long periods of time. Olam is almost always translated "eternity" "eternal" or "forever" in ancient Hebrew.21 Obviously, this would not be used to represent long periods of time. Qedem has the usual meaning of "east."22 Alternatively, it has the meaning of "old", "eternal" or "past." It is not used to represent a period of time in ancient Hebrew. It is interesting that not one example is given to substantiate the claim that either olam or qedem is used to represent a long period of time in biblical Hebrew.
Claim 1: Occurrences of yom with the words "evening" or "morning" outside Genesis 1 always refers to 24-hour days
The Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb3 (the word for "evening") and boquer4 (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word evening or morning 23 times. Evening and morning appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary daywhy would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Actually, they don't even get their facts correct. There are 42 verses (not 23) outside Genesis 1 in which yom is used in combination with either "evening" or "morning" (or both).5 The Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" are juxtaposed only 12 times outside Genesis 1.6 In seven of those verses, the word order is reversed from that found in Genesis 1.6 Most of these verses do refer to 24 hour days, since they discuss the sacrificial system. However, a verse from the Psalms does not refer to a 24-hour day:
They who dwell in the ends of the earth stand in awe of Your signs; You make the dawn [boqer] and the sunset [ereb] shout for joy. (Psalm 65:8)
Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationMoses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalm 90.7 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night.8 In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time:
You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalm 90:5-6)
Later, in the same Psalm, Moses includes a plea that God satisfy us with His love in the morning (boqer) that we may sing all our days (a lifetime of days, again, is usually longer than 24 hours):
O satisfy us in the morning [boqer] with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days [yom]. (Psalm 90:14)
Another verse, from Daniel, refers to a period of prophecy:
He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer]; then the holy place will be properly restored." (Daniel 8:14)
Some interpret the period of 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 days, while other calculate it as 1,150 days (2,300 divided by 2).9 Still others interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 years.10 It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to 24-hour days.
Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:
"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.
"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning".11 The order of "evening morning" is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by "evening" (ending) juxtaposed with "morning" (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next.
Claim 2: Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days
The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary daywhy would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13
In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.
A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!
There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)
For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)
"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)
If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.
Claim 3: Other biblical Hebrew words could have been used to designate long periods of time
The claim is made that other Hebrew words could have been used to represent long periods of time:
"There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1."1
Olam19 and qedem20 were not used in biblical Hebrew to represent long periods of time. Olam is almost always translated "eternity" "eternal" or "forever" in ancient Hebrew.21 Obviously, this would not be used to represent long periods of time. Qedem has the usual meaning of "east."22 Alternatively, it has the meaning of "old", "eternal" or "past." It is not used to represent a period of time in ancient Hebrew. It is interesting that not one example is given to substantiate the claim that either olam or qedem is used to represent a long period of time in biblical Hebrew.
Upvote
0
Sorry for the late reply. I missed it the first time round.
First, you have not answered the question at all. I asked you to describe what evolution is (or, if you prefer, what scientists mean when they refer to evolution) and given that description what evidence would be necessary to show that it has happened and is happening.
Instead of answering that question you provide comments about the paleontological record. There is much more to evolution than palaeontology and much more evidence for evolution (even stronger evidence) than palaeontology. Further, if one is going to look at palaeontology, you need to be able to answer the question: What are evolutionary scientists expecting to find in the fossil record?
Now to your comments: you say "past species are not evidence of evolution". As a simple collection of artefacts without analysis that might be true. But palaeontologists are not simply collecting fossils of past species. They are studying and analysing them. What would a palaeontologist who accepts evolution be looking for in these fossils individually and collectively? IOW, if the theory of evolution is correct, what sort of characteristics would the fossil record display? (And there is more to it than intermediate fossils as well.)
You say "Darwin maintained there would be many intermediate species" Yes he did, but he did not maintain that all of them would leave a fossil record. In fact, the vast majority of species leave no fossil record at all. So, given that the fossil record only contains a small % of past species, what do evolutionary scientists look for in the fossil record? You cannot say there is no evidence until you know what the evidence is supposed to be.
You say: "Evolutionary logic tells us intermediate species would not be fit enough to survive." Actually it tells us precisely the opposite. Only intermediate species that can survive can have descendants. One reason Darwin insisted there must be many intermediate species is that evolutionary change cannot be drastic in any one generation. Changes must be relatively small and harmless and occur in sequence over many generations so that the intermediate species can survive.
Here are links to speciations with evidence both past and present:
Inclusion of a near-complete fossil record reveals speciation-related molecular evolution - Ezard - 2013 - Methods in Ecology and Evolution - Wiley Online Library
Speciation in real time
You say: "to take intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels as evidence of evolution of species is fanciful imagination". Not at all. What else explains why such intermediates exist at all? As I said earlier, because we know the fossil record is incomplete, we know the data will be incomplete: but we also know that if there is data, it should include examples of intermediate species provided there was evolution. And it does. So if there was not evolution, why are they there?
You say: "science without evidence is speculative hypothesizing." I think you may not understand the relationship between hypothesizing and evidence. Observations are not evidence at all unless they relate to a hypothesis and give us an indication whether the hypothesis is true or false. IOW, the speculative hypothesizing must come first because it tells us what observations to look for and what observations would falsify it. So there is no evidence until there is a hypothesis. Only a collection of meaningless observations. A hypothesis or theory is what makes sense of the data observed.
The most famous are Archeopteryx (8 fossils) and Tiktaalik (2 fossils I think).
You miss the point. I am not disputing your theology; in fact I agree with it. But what you did was insert a theological doctrine into a scientific discourse as if it explained an observation for which scientists do not currently have an explanation. You filled a gap in scientific understanding with God. That is using God as a gap-filler which is what "god-of-the-gaps" refers too. It is a defective theology. It overlooks completely that God is mostly to be found in what we know and do have explanations for. And it overlooks that one day this gap in scientific knowledge may be filled in by new information.
If your faith depends on using God as a gap-filler, what happens to your faith when the gap is filled with understanding?
I am glad you agree it is not science, but the lack of a scientific explanation, even the possibility of a scientific explanation does not justify inserting God into the gap. Let science be science and faith be faith.
I am sorry but one post cannot undocument most of the biological studies of more than a century. There is plenty of solid evidence and my best advice to you it to go study it before claiming it doesn't exist.
Oh, so now we go to conspiracy theories? Can you provide documentation for that accusation? How many cases of dishonest documentation of data can you substantiate? Also, btw, how many cases of dishonest scientific work have been exposed by non-scientists as compared to scientists? If there is a grand conspiracy, why do any dishonest scientists get exposed at all?
You are right that biologists do not explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization. There are some instances of new species produced in this way, mostly among plants, but most evolution involves the opposite of hybridization, namely cladistic speciation. Instead of two existing species producing a third, one species divides into two or more species.
Upvote
0
Since the bible tells us what happened in very broad terms, one can believe that THE WAY man was created has been through a directed evolutionary process. God created man in a certain way, perhaps with limited versions of him created first.
Father Eugen Spierer
Father Eugen Spierer
Upvote
0
Genesis 1:27, 2:7, 21-23 speak of the creation of Adam & Eve. Acts 17:26 speaks of Adam as the original man, as the first sinner in Romans 5:12-21 & 1 Corinthians 15:45-50, and as a literal ancestor of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38. But what about scientific evidence for the biblical Adam and Eve?
From the mitochondrial or non-chromosomal DNA of cells in women, which is passed down from generation to generation of women, it is known that all women on earth are descended from a common ancestor, called mitochondrial Eve, based on a study published by scientists Cann, Stoneking and Wilson in 1987. The best estimates today are that she originated not more than 70,000 years ago in the area encompassing Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East. Based on a study of the Y-chromosome of men, which is passed on from generation to generation of men, it is known that all men on earth are descended from a common ancestor, called Y-chromosomal Adam, based on a study published by scientists Dorit, Akashi and Gilbert in 1995. The best estimates today are that he lived not more than 50,000 years ago in the same region as Eve. So there is genetic support for the biblical Adam and Eve in the general location and during the general timeframe suggested by the Bible, thus generally supporting where and when the Bible suggests they originated.
Your treatment of the biblical account of the creation of humankind is popular but inadequate both biblically & scientifically.
kenblogton
Upvote
0
Just one picky technical point about your description of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam.
These are the common ancestors of all living women and men today--not of all who ever lived. I am sure you are aware of how branches of a family die out because some people died childless. Same on a larger scale.
If we could gather samples of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA from people who lived say 7,000 years ago, we would find that the female and male common ancestor of that generation was not the same woman and man who are the female and male common ancestors of today's men and women.
Why? Because that long ago, it is possible that a few family branches that have since died out were still in existence. And they would trace their ancestry to a different female or male ancestor than those who became our nth-generation great-grandparents. The data would then point to an earlier mitochondrial Eve and an earlier Y-chromosome Adam as the common ancestor of the all the women and men of that generation--both those who do and those who do not have descendants alive today.
Similarly, if we could get the mitonchondrial DNA of our mitochondrial Eve from 70,000 years ago, and a sampling of that from her contemporaries, they would have a common mitochondrial Eve of their own perhaps some 20-40 thousands of years earlier than them. Same with our Y-chromosome Adam. He shared a common male ancestor with the other human males of 50,000 years ago. And of course, that common ancestor lived quite a bit earlier.
IOW, the common male and female ancestors of any generation are specific to that generation. So it doesn't really fit to equate them with the biblical Adam and Eve.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Archie the Preacher
Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
- Apr 11, 2003
- 3,171
- 1,011
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Gluadys, I'm so glad you post as you do. You really do this better than I do, at least with the living critters side of it.
Thank you and God bless you.
Thank you and God bless you.
Upvote
0
You say "it is possible that a few family branches that have since died out were still in existence" This is speculation. I gave you evidence and you gave me speculation. Without evidence, my comments still stand without serious challenge.
kenblogton
kenblogton
Upvote
0
Of course it is speculation. But the evidence is experience so common to humanity it shouldn't need to be cited. Consider, for example, those who enter religious orders and take vows of chastity. If they keep their vow, they die childless. If they have no brothers or sisters, the family has died out. One summer we learned that a neighbour of ours, father, mother and only child had all been killed in a car accident. That family has died out. Consider the numerous young men who have died in wars within my lifetime (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, etc.). Many were childless themselves and a proportion of them were only children (or had brothers who also died in action). More families who died out.
And that is all in a tiny sliver of time. It would be foolish to think that over a period of 7,000 years and considering all of humanity, not a single family ceased to exist because of wars, epidemics, accidents and infertility.
You don't need specific evidence that some families which existed 7,000 or more years ago have no living descendants today. It is simple common sense that some have, especially when you remember episodes like the Black Plague which wiped out over a third of the population of Europe.
btw, this sort of reasoning is called inductive logic and is frequently used when dealing with experiences so common there is no disputing them.
The main point is to distinguish between "first woman" (or man)--a fixed point that does not change over generations and "last common ancestor (male or female)"--a movable point which can differ from generation to generation.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,500
- 10,724
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Genesis 1 -- the 5th day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
6th Day -
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.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
And as for Genesis 2 --
1. no timeline at all there.
2. it only describes the farm/crops/farming as something that had not been created before Adam. So this is not the third day in Genesis 1.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The "fields" in Genesis 2 - are a reference to farming - farms and tilling the ground as in farming.
But in Genesis 1 the text is not about fields for farming- it is about all plants on all the earth - all grass, all fruit trees, all herbs no nothing about tiling the ground or fields, or "plants of the field" which is the sole focus of the plants in Genesis 2..
Day 3 -- Genesis 1.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You are entitled to your speculative opinion, just as I am entitled to my previously stated evidential opinion that the human race has one common ancestral stream originating with Mitochondrial Eve & Y-chromosomal Adam.
Best wishes kenblogton
Best wishes kenblogton
Upvote
0
Similar threads
