What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Then you have misread the Bible. It states right in the beginning, void, water, land, plants, animals etc...It does not say all at once but in order...

Actually, even on the order of creation there is no solid agreement between chapter 1 and chapter 2 either. The Creative order in both chapters is a bit different. The normal literalists answer to this is chapter two is simply a restatement of some of the work done and recorded in chapter 1. However, that simply skips around answering why the different chronologies are there and logically it would seem that even with chapter 2 going into the account of Eve's creation or formation from Adam's rib that the rest of the order should have been exactly the same. Don't buy my word on this read the two chapters and write down the order of creation to see yourself what it says. Rather begs the question which earth are we on since the accounts do not match up or that as the liberals have been saying all along these two accounts where written at different times by different authors.

Also the Hebrew word translated as day,"Yom" actually in itself does denote an exapnse of time. However, in chapter 1 after the creation of the Sun and Moon and stars, by rights the term day does tend to denote something akin to a regular day whatever the length of such was then because its now qualified as day being marked by the Sun and night by the moon and stars. And Adam and Eve in chapter 1 where the last creation, not anywhere near the first.

The 7000 or actually, 6000 year old earth estimate comes up by Usher who tried to date creation via the accounts of the linage from Adam onward. Two problems exist with this:

1.) There is no mention in the Bible how long Adam and Eve where in Eden before the fall.

2.) The chronology has known and accepted gaps in it even recognized by literalists fundamentalists like Creation Science Research.

Last current young earth articles I've seen tend to support an earth far older than 6000 years now. Basically the Usher date is now no longer an accepted one even for the majority that hold to the Bible.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Why should anyone even bother to look for scientific evidence of Biblical stories? By definition they happened with devine intervention so no other explanation is needed.

I think it depends on which ones you're lookin' at. Some of us just think of the Bible as a very interesting source of historical novel. "History" is really a fairly modern invention, so just about every written document going way back has to be interpreted and investigated in order to weed out the myth from the truth. This goes for not just the Bible but all documents. The thing I love most about Biblical archeology is how often it seems to show strong indications that certain things happened due to natural rather than mystical causes. Do you have any idea how common pillars of salt are in the area around the Dead Sea (which is salt water)? There's zillions of em...

Cheers,
Buffy

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Why should anyone even bother to look for scientific evidence of Biblical stories? By definition they happened with devine intervention so no other explanation is needed. Miracles are by definition physical impossibilities. It's silly to tri fitting them into a scientific framework. Why would a god do something impossible and then fool people into thinking it happened naturally? defeating the purpose of faith.

One thing Linda you need to do is quit assuming everyone thinks the way you do or that someone is suggesting a God did such in the first place. I'm not. I'm suggesting that if some of the people out there actually use a little logic they will discover that such does not make any sence. Personally, being an agnostic I do not believe there is some God who did all this. But having been a believer at one time unlike you I also know what are some of the things that caused me to take a hard look in the first place and eventually realize that the story of the Flood, and of creation just does not have any evidence in its support. Being negative on everything does not help people to use their heads for once. I think perhaps getting one person out there to use there head is worth a bit of mental exercise and patience. Or are you beyond patience? Scratch that, I forgot you tend to the robotic everything is predetermined camp. From that perspective perhaps it would be a waste of time.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I think it depends on which ones you're lookin' at. Some of us just think of the Bible as a very interesting source of historical novel. "History" is really a fairly modern invention, so just about every written document going way back has to be interpreted and investigated in order to weed out the myth from the truth. This goes for not just the Bible but all documents. The thing I love most about Biblical archeology is how often it seems to show strong indications that certain things happened due to natural rather than mystical causes. Do you have any idea how common pillars of salt are in the area around the Dead Sea (which is salt water)? There's zillions of em...

Cheers,
Buffy

I'd agree about the natural cause issue which is one reason I personally no longer am a believer and hold the agnosticism line.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

I can understand the use of the word "day" as being vague. Although, it is put into context when used in conjuction with the sun and the moon, also including the usage for a time table for man. Remember, God said "let there be light" even before there was a sun or moon...

I really don't mean to be evasive, but this is a long discussion, and I am not sure this is the right forum to have the discussion.

Clearly the discussion of "light" in Genesis was not talking about visible spectrum waveforms. Further, the use of the word "day" before the sun shows up suggests strongly that there was no time-oriented day definition, at least for several "days".

This passage has all of the earmarks of Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is often not even chronological, much less technically complete. This characterization strongly applies to almost all of the text in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. It is very difficult to read these passages with a view toward technical detail.

[eMTee]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Clearly the discussion of "light" in Genesis was not talking about visible
spectrum waveforms. Further, the use of the word "day" before the sun shows up
suggests strongly that there was no time-oriented day definition, at least for
several "days".

If you had only one time to choose...would you stick to this answer?...Probably. Tell me, what other natural light is there? God is creating nature in this chapter...this is the simpleness of my beliefs, call me simple minded, call me unlearned...say that I have no proof to what I believe, when the morning comes, what do you see first? light.

Some say that I am bias toward evolution. look at "before death expeariences", I would say you are bias toward god. Sorry.

[orbsycli]

when the morning comes, i see light. hear birds, smell breakfast, taste plaque and feel cold all around my legs.
but if you were refering to death, i think the better analogy would be NIGHT, because it's like sleeping. falling beneath your subconcious ALL THE WAY INTO DEATH! it's like eternal slumber, except, you die. so you're not really sleeping, you're rotting and ceasing to exist.

[eMTee]

OK...so those experiences are like nothing...the people who had them never had them, and how they responded where stories told by people, and themselves, who wanted to make you think that it's true.

[orbsycli]

we have discussed "the white light" in fact i created a thread called "The white light" search for it and read it there is a lot of amazing information in it!

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by eMTee

God is creating nature in this chapter...this is the simpleness of my beliefs, call me simple minded, call me unlearned...say that I have no proof to what I believe, when the morning comes, what do you see first? light.

Many scholars think the reference to light in Genesis 1:3 is not a reference to luminance, but rather to goodness. This is a similar usage to Jesus saying He was the "light of the world" in the gospel of John. In this view, verse 4 when God "separated the light from the darkness" would be a reference to the separation of good from evil, possibly a vague reference to Satan. This style is somewhat common in Hebrew postry. Again, this is a very difficult to interpret.

Some say that I am bias toward evolution....I would say you are bias toward god.

Well, I am certainly a theist. But the issue here is interpreting a difficult section of Genesis. I am not discussing whether it is true. I am just discussing what it might have meant to a Hebrew reader 4000 years ago. In that narrow sense, this is purely an academic discussion. In any case, interpreting details of this passage is a very difficult job.