toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[noguru]

You need light and dark.

So if it's light its day, and if its dark its night? Is this always true?

Are you saying there does not need to be a source of light?

 

[organiccornflake]

If you refuse to accept tangible FACTS about our universe that contradict the literal creation story, then lets look at the biblical account, and see if it is common sense.
Even you literal interpretationists must take some of it figuratively.

Lets do a simple test.

God spoke the universe into existence, right? "God said" this, or "God said" that.

Try to speak something into existence right now.

.....Did it work? Of course not. Therefore you must assume that god just didn't "speak." The bible mentions nothing of his voice being special during creation; just that he spoke. I can speak. You can speak. So this doesn't make sense.

 

[noguru]

If you refuse to accept tangible FACTS about our universe that contradict the literal creation story, then lets look at the biblical account, and see if it is common sense.
Even you literal interpretationists must take some of it figuratively.

That is exactly right. They allow themselves to take some things as literary device when there is absolute certainty in their own mind, yet they will not allow others to accept the probability that other things in Genesis are literary devices. This is the game they play, and it is transparent.

YECs want to monopolize the word of God and call the shots. In a lot of cases that is because they lack the intellectual skills to develop a clear reasoned argument for themselves. So they compensate by claiming "divine authority", ignoring the fact that even understanding their claimed "plain reading" requires at least some level of reasoning and interpretation. It really is just a bunch of hogwash, yet since they have fooled themsleves so easily, they think the same is true for everyone else.

 

[some other dude]

Without the Sun, there's no indication of how long a "day" is.

Genesis uses the same word for day before the creation of the sun as it does after the creation of the sun.

Why on earth would you assume that the length of the day changed?

 

[noguru]

Genesis uses the same word for day before the creation of the sun as it does after the creation of the sun.

Why on earth would you assume that the length of the day changed?

Why on earth are you trying to force a round peg into a square hole?

It is only when YECs try to force an accurate historical account into this that this problem surfaces. Who do you think you are fooling?

The length of a day is relative, based on the earth's rotation in relationship to the sun. The literary device in Genesis is a play on the well known use of light as the same thing as understanding. It is as obvious as the noon sun in the sky to the rest of us. Why on earth are you so befuddled by this? Is it your age?

 

[Stripe]

One would have to wonder why that is if creationism actually fits the evidence. Global conspiracy?

The best arguments of the evolutionists. :chuckle:

As it turns out the YEC view is based upon a refusal to ackowledge that the 6 days of creation might not be an accurate historical account. So they have closed themselves off to a broader scope. The evidence is vast for this view, if one is not stringently tied to a literal interpretation of "the 6 days of creation" in Genesis.

:think: So what are these evidences? That would be a nice response to the OP. :thumb:

Only if one is stringently tied to a literal "6 days of creation".

Show good reason why six days does not mean six days and you might have a case.

But since the Sun was not even created on the first day, there was no way to say what a day was. It could have been billions of years as the scientists say.There was no Sun until the fourth day, and thus no way to measure how long a day is.

All that is needed for evening and morning is a light source and a rotating Earth.

 

[organiccornflake]

Why on earth are you trying to force a round peg into a square hole?

It is only when YECs try to force an accurate historical account into this that this problem surfaces. Who do you think you are fooling?

The length of a day is relative, based on the earth's rotation in relationship to the sun. The literary device in Genesis is a play on the well known use of light as the same thing as understanding. It is as obvious as the noon sun in the sky to the rest of us. Why on earth are you so befuddled by this? Is it your age?

However; there is an answer to this... PERHAPS, just perhaps, they are not "days", but "stages" or "ages". Suddenly science and Genesis don't contradict so bad.

 

[noguru]

:think: So what are these evidences? That would be a nice response to the OP. :thumb:

This has been exposed for many years and many times in this forum. It is futile to cover this ground with you again. I tell you what, why don't you put your YEC evidence on the table, then I will show you how you have distorted that exact evidence and it is actually evidence for an old earth?

Show good reason why six days does not mean six days and you might have a case.

 

[organiccornflake]

All that is needed for evening and morning is a light source and a rotating Earth.

There was no "rotating earth" at the end of "Day" 1 in the creation story.... So I assume you agree?

 

[noguru]

However; there is an answer to this... PERHAPS, just perhaps, they are not "days", but "stages" or "ages". Suddenly science and Genesis don't contradict so bad.

Yes, but one has to ask themselves "Why does God need to explain all the scientific detail to make His point?" That would only be a necessity for people who lack the grace of faith. If God were to tell me a story that never really happened just to illustrate a point, who am I to expect that the story must have happened exactly as in the story for me to accept the truth in it? To expect that would seem rather arrogant on my part. If I could not see how the story applied to reality, there are many redundant parts of scripture to drive the message home.

 

[some other dude]

Show good reason why six days does not mean six days and you might have a case.

What I'm seeing is a desire to read Genesis as the following:

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first daybut it wasn't really a day, it was a couple billion years or so.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second daybut it wasn't really a day, it was a couple more billion years.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And 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.

12And 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.

13And the evening and the morning were the third daybut it wasn't really a day, it was several hundred million years.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth daybut it wasn't really a day, it was a whole bunch longer and god got it wrong anyways because He shoulda created the sun before plants and stuff.

20And 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.

21And 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.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth daybut it wasn't really a day, even though we've got the sun now and a day usually means sunup to sunup, it was really several hundred million years.

24And 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.

25And 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.

26And 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.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And 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.

29And 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.

30And 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.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth daybut it wasn't really a day, even though we've got the sun now and a day usually means sunup to sunup, it was really several hundred million years.

 

[noguru]

What I'm seeing is a desire to read Genesis as the following:

Again you are trying to force a round peg into a square hole. It is not a scientific treatise, so to try and make it one is a misuse of scripture.

And at least in my case, it is only a committment to being honest about what can be ascertained from the physical evidence. As well as being honest that any such conclusion is not 100% certain.

 

[genuineoriginal]

God spoke the universe into existence, right? "God said" this, or "God said" that.

Try to speak something into existence right now.

.....Did it work? Of course not. Therefore you must assume that god just didn't "speak." The bible mentions nothing of his voice being special during creation; just that he spoke. I can speak. You can speak. So this doesn't make sense.

Your test fails, for the reasons noted below.

Man cannot speak without air, since our vocal cords work by creating vibrations in the air.
God can speak without air, since air was not available until He spoke it into existence, so when God speaks it must cause vibrations at the quantum physics level or it causes vibrations in the aether.

 

[some other dude]

Again you are trying to force a round peg into a square hole. It is not a scientific treatise, so to try and make it one is a misuse of scripture.

It sez what it sez :idunno:

And at least in my case, it is only a committment to being honest about what can be ascertained from the physical evidence. As well as being honest that any such conclusion is not 100% certain.

And I respect you for that.

 

[noguru]

It sez what it sez :idunno:

And?

If I say to you "Don't put the cart before the horse. " Does there need to be a cart and a horse in front of you to understand what I am saying?

And I respect you for that.

 

[some other dude]

And?

If I say to you "Don't put the cart before the horse. " Does there need to be a cart and a horse in front of you to understand what I am saying?

There has to be one somewhere in my experience for it to make sense.

 

[noguru]

Your test fails, for the reasons noted below.

Man cannot speak without air, since our vocal cords work by creating vibrations in the air.
God can speak without air, since air was not available until He spoke it into existence, so when God speaks it must cause vibrations at the quantum physics level or it causes vibrations in the aether.

I kind of agree with you here. Isn't that strange? Although I think the use of "spoke" in scripture is really just a way of trying to express how speech and intention are from the same source for a being that has integrity.

 

[noguru]

There has to be one somewhere in my experience for it to make sense.

Exactly. So if Adam had not experienced billions of years, how would God explain creation to him?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nog asks:
If I say to you "Don't put the cart before the horse. " Does there need to be a cart and a horse in front of you to understand what I am saying?

Sod admits:

There has to be one somewhere in my experience for it to make sense.

Precisely. That is what St. Augustine wrote. The "days" were used as a metaphor for the categories of creation. It made God's creation understandable thereby.

 

[Stripe]

However; there is an answer to this... PERHAPS, just perhaps, they are not "days", but "stages" or "ages". Suddenly science and Genesis don't contradict so bad.

And if you change a whole lot of other things you can believe anything you like. :idunno:

This has been exposed for many years and many times in this forum. It is futile to cover this ground with you again.

If you don't have anything, feel free to say so. :thumb:

I tell you what, why don't you put your YEC evidence on the table

Try my first post. :thumb:

then I will show you how you have distorted that exact evidence and it is actually evidence for an old earth?

I know. It's pretty funny seeing evolutionists insisting that six days means billions of years. :chuckle:

There was no "rotating earth" at the end of "Day" 1 in the creation story.... So I assume you agree?

:AMR: You think the Earth was once not rotating? What started it?