Nezdragon
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Over there.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Mod Notevergiss said:What the hell? Did someone accidentally delete my post?
vergiss said:If you believe in a God, then yes - it could certainly work. However, die-hard atheists will never agree with such a suggestion.
Sorry, but it's an old idea. One probelm is that there is still no proof for anything other than natural processes. No evidence for a god.
Also, the die-hard biblical literalists won't buy it... ;P
Mod Note
No, actually, there were two threads of the same post. I've merged the two threads together now.
/Mod Note
It still leaves problems inherent in Genesis. The order of occurences is not exact. The flood story doesn't fit with anything we know. etc. Even if you fix the time issue, the Bible still doesn't make it as a Science Text Book.Nez Dragon said:My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.
What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.
Indeed. Science is about the "what" and the "how." Religion/God is about the "why." They complement each other for a greater whole, but they are lousy in each otehr's sphere.galenrox said:I think that the creationist interpretation of science as being an abomination against God is stupid, cause I've always felt that science is one of the best ways to show God love, to show an interest in better understanding the depths of his works.
Nez Dragon said:I think I have a solution. Please look at the whole thing with an open mind, then look at what I talk about and think about it. Then make your decisions free of bias. It makes things easier for all of us.
In Genesis, God made the Earth in 6 days (resting on the seventh). This apparently conflicts with science, which states that Earth was created 4.2 billion years ago, life started 2 billion years later, yadda yadda yadda.
My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.
What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.
Evolution could have taken place as well. As He changed the earth, God would have made modifications to the plants and animals inhabiting there, i.e. evolution.
I would like to hear any comments on this. I don't see why it can't work!
alex said:The problem with this is that if it is accepted as truth, then all of the Bible must be thought of as uninterruptible by people. If one of a god's days does not equal one of our days then how do we know that one of a god's thoughts on sin are our way of interpreting it?
steen said:It still leaves problems inherent in Genesis. The order of occurences is not exact. The flood story doesn't fit with anything we know. etc. Even if you fix the time issue, the Bible still doesn't make it as a Science Text Book.
dogger807 said:The day explanation does try to rationalize how biblical fiction might actually fit with the evidence collected. And your right , the original spoken heritage of the bible doesn't specify one earth day as the unit of time. I can respect this view much more than a literal interpreting.
That being said, the different time scale isn't the only unreconcilable difference between the scientific theory of creation and the mythology of creationism. Look at the order in which light and plant life were created . For plant life to exist for as long as it did in your new definition of day would take... hmm it would take divine intervention. Oh wait.. that's on the calling card of creationism. " If you can't find evidence to support your view say that god did it in an unconceivable manner. "
Nez Dragon said:Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
But the SUN was created after plants. What we are getting at here nis photosynthesis.Nez Dragon said:Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
Nez Dragon said:Not necessarily. Light was created first. Then came plants. I see no problem with that.
Nez Dragon said:It's not meant to be taken literally. The bible is symbolic. The stories within are meant to be taken symbolically. And there are other forms of the flood story in many different cultures, most notably the numerous Indian cultures across the Americas.
The Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook.
Nez Dragon said:That is a different issue. God is talking about our (human) sins. It never says that one of God's days is one of our days, or vise versa, whereas God does directly refer to us when He talks about sin. The two issues are seperate.
Question, have you ever read the Bible? All of it?
A potential solution to the evolution/creationism debate.
SKILMATIC said:You wanna solution here it is.
Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet
alex said:If one of a god's days does not equal one of our days then how do we know that one of a god's thoughts on sin are our way of interpreting it?
Ah, yes. Lets teach that the Earth is Flat. Lets teach that Pi is 3.0. Lets teach all the quack ideas out there and let kids figure out for themselves. Lets teach that 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5 and that 2+2=6. The kids can decide what they want to believe, right?SKILMATIC said:You wanna solution here it is.
Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?