jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
 
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 15, 2024 0:20:29 GMT
I'm always puzzled on why some places in the south where there is hostility towards evolution and want the myth of creation taught instead. They are exactly the same story, with some minor differences.
Creationists think the world was created in seven days, while science argues it was several billion years.
For the creationists, I have one question - what exactly is a day?
Most will answer it's the time it takes for the Earth to complete one complete rotation - about 24 hours. But when you think about it, it hasn't always been 24 hours. Millions of years ago, the earth rotated faster. At one time it used to be 20 hours. It has been slowing down ever since - a second or so every few years. Scientists say in a million years or so, it could take 25 hours for an Earth day.
That's just Earth. Jupiter has a day of ten hours. Venus's day is longer than it's year. For all we know, when God woke up this morning, She could have been wiping out the dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 15, 2024 22:44:48 GMT
Even when taken literally, the first two "days" as written in Genesis could not possibly have had anything to do with the Earth and Sun given that they weren't created until the 3rd and 4th "days." And when someone says "in the day of..." or "back in my day..." I don't think there are many who take that to mean 24 hours aside from YEC's. Maybe that's why they're confused when they visit the Grand Canyon. At any rate, evolution only addresses how things change over time and doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of those things. So there is no "creation vs evolution." Incidentally, if the Earth's rotation slows down by 5 days every million years, how fast was it spinning 4 billion years ago?  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2024 10:58:38 GMT
Even when taken literally, the first two "days" as written in Genesis could not possibly have had anything to do with the Earth and Sun given that they weren't created until the 3rd and 4th "days." And when someone says "in the day of..." or "back in my day..." I don't think there are many who take that to mean 24 hours aside from YEC's. Maybe that's why they're confused when they visit the Grand Canyon. I think it is too easy to over-analyze the Christian origin myth. The ancients were likely not that sophisticated, and my bet is that they simply attributed a day to each stage of things since it was the most easily understood and easily relatable time-period for their audience. The Torah for instance states that Adam Harishon was created about 6000 years ago and the creation of the rest of the universe took 6 days before that. So does the Qu'ran. Do we really say all three used a different reckoning of what made up a 'day' here? What about when Genesis refers to a 'morning' and an 'evening'? They simply had no concept of the massive time scales modern science now knows are required for the cosmos to work. An interesting account of this, and the special pleading which can be involved to make things work in a more enlightened and informed age, can be found here: rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Torah-and-the-Age-of-Universe-2019.pdf There is no shame on the ancients for going with what they knew to explain things and accepting superstition as truths. The embarrassment is with those who, with the benefit of modern knowledge and hindsight persist in taking the old myths literally, perform intellectual somersaults to accommodate them. |
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 18, 2024 0:11:47 GMT
Even when taken literally, the first two "days" as written in Genesis could not possibly have had anything to do with the Earth and Sun given that they weren't created until the 3rd and 4th "days." And when someone says "in the day of..." or "back in my day..." I don't think there are many who take that to mean 24 hours aside from YEC's. Maybe that's why they're confused when they visit the Grand Canyon. At any rate, evolution only addresses how things change over time and doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of those things. So there is no "creation vs evolution." Incidentally, if the Earth's rotation slows down by 5 days every million years, how fast was it spinning 4 billion years ago? According to Wikipedia, the Earth slows by 1.7 milliseconds per century. A million years ago, a day on Earth was 28 minutes, 20 seconds shorter (0.0017*1,000,000 = 1700 seconds/60 = 28.33 minutes). So if you want to know what that is for 4 billion years ago, 4 billion/1 million is 4000 x 28.33 = 113,320 minutes shorter. Earth today has 1,440 minutes per day (assuming 24 hr/day). It was rotating 78.69 times per minute. At any rate, evolution only addresses how things change over time and doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of those things. So there is no "creation vs evolution."
True to a certain extent. Creationists deny that todays creatures changed over time; they assume humans were put on the earth as they are today and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2024 15:10:40 GMT
According to Wikipedia.. It was rotating 78.69 times per minute. Stop the world, I want to get off! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2024 21:58:49 GMT
Even when taken literally, the first two "days" as written in Genesis could not possibly have had anything to do with the Earth and Sun given that they weren't created until the 3rd and 4th "days." And when someone says "in the day of..." or "back in my day..." I don't think there are many who take that to mean 24 hours aside from YEC's. Maybe that's why they're confused when they visit the Grand Canyon. At any rate, evolution only addresses how things change over time and doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of those things. So there is no "creation vs evolution." Incidentally, if the Earth's rotation slows down by 5 days every million years, how fast was it spinning 4 billion years ago? According to Wikipedia, the Earth slows by 1.7 milliseconds per century. A million years ago, a day on Earth was 28 minutes, 20 seconds shorter (0.0017*1,000,000 = 1700 seconds/60 = 28.33 minutes). So if you want to know what that is for 4 billion years ago, 4 billion/1 million is 4000 x 28.33 = 113,320 minutes shorter. Earth today has 1,440 minutes per day (assuming 24 hr/day). It was rotating 78.69 times per minute. At any rate, evolution only addresses how things change over time and doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of those things. So there is no "creation vs evolution."
True to a certain extent. Creationists deny that todays creatures changed over time; they assume humans were put on the earth as they are today and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That's would be the YEC's I mentioned. I once asked one about things such as the fossil records, carbon dating, and the Grand Canyon. She said God made it look older than it is. Not all YEC's are Christian, but I wonder how many believe God is a trickster. |
|
ihm
Sophomore
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 18, 2024 23:00:00 GMT
Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
(A: iii) 24 God said, “Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2024 1:00:41 GMT
Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution. 20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day. (A: iii) 24 God said, “ Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “ Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.” Don't be silly. Haven't you heard? People back then were morons. They didn't know anything about evolution.  |
|
ihm
Sophomore
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 19, 2024 1:48:46 GMT
Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution. 20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day. (A: iii) 24 God said, “ Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “ Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.” Don't be silly. Haven't you heard? People back then were morons. They didn't know anything about evolution. Those "morons" gave us; astronomy, mathematics, democracy, the scientific method, theatre, philosophy, and pythagorean theorem. Evolution is just common sense. Darwin was just the first to make the theory mainstream. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2024 2:04:27 GMT
Don't be silly. Haven't you heard? People back then were morons. They didn't know anything about evolution. Those "morons" gave us; astronomy, mathematics, democracy, the scientific method, theatre, philosophy, and pythagorean theorem. Evolution is just common sense. Darwin was just the first to make the theory mainstream. But Darwin said the Old Testament's "false history of the world" is not to be trusted. |
|
ihm
Sophomore
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 19, 2024 2:11:31 GMT
Those "morons" gave us; astronomy, mathematics, democracy, the scientific method, theatre, philosophy, and pythagorean theorem. Evolution is just common sense. Darwin was just the first to make the theory mainstream. But Darwin said the Old Testament's "false history of the world" is not to be trusted. It's definately written with an agenda. That's why Joshuah, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called Deuterocanonical books. Because they present Israel's history to fit the theology of the book of Deuteronomy; if you do good you get blessed, if you do bad you get cursed. All the curse conveniently match the problems Israel was going through at the time. And then you learn the inspiration for the Torah's laws and curses was actually the Code of Hammurabi. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2024 4:15:11 GMT
But Darwin said the Old Testament's "false history of the world" is not to be trusted. It's definately written with an agenda. That's why Joshuah, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called Deuterocanonical books. Because they present Israel's history to fit the theology of the book of Deuteronomy; if you do good you get blessed, if you do bad you get cursed. All the curse conveniently match the problems Israel was going through at the time. And then you learn the inspiration for the Torah's laws and curses was actually the Code of Hammurabi. If you're saying the Bible doesn't teach us anything we didn't already know and that Jesus was most often just pointing out the obvious - at least in terms of morality - then I agree. (Ironically, so do most atheists.) But the same can be said for the Code of Hammurabi as well as the Code of Ur-Nammu. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 19, 2024 21:02:21 GMT
One if a fact, the other is a made up story.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2024 11:11:25 GMT
Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution. 20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day. (A: iii) 24 God said, “ Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “ Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.” None of this describes natural selection, descent, nor indeed any of the other widely accepted processes of evolution; more the spontaneous creation of everything in a small amount of time. One also notes that God entirely forgot to create the earliest ancestors, www.sci.news/biology/last-universal-common-ancestor-13093.html#:~:text=The%20last%20universal%20common%20ancestor,well%20as%20us%20humans%20%E2%80%94%20descend. the simple life forms from which we all descend. So, no then. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2024 21:58:48 GMT
Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution. 20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day. (A: iii) 24 God said, “ Let the earth bring forth each kind of living creature — each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast”; and that is how it was. 25 God made each kind of wild beast, each kind of livestock and every kind of animal that crawls along the ground; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “ Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.” None of this describes natural selection, descent, nor indeed any of the other widely accepted processes of evolution; more the spontaneous creation of everything in a small amount of time. One also notes that God entirely forgot to create the earliest ancestors, www.sci.news/biology/last-universal-common-ancestor-13093.html#:~:text=The%20last%20universal%20common%20ancestor,well%20as%20us%20humans%20%E2%80%94%20descend. the simple life forms from which we all descend. So, no then. So those simple life forms are the Primer Movers? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2024 22:11:04 GMT
So those simple life forms are the Primer Movers? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2024 22:12:28 GMT
So those simple life forms are the Primer Movers? No. Oh. Well in that case, why not just say we all descended from our mothers? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2024 22:18:26 GMT
Oh. Well in that case, why not just say we all descended from our mothers? That is true but, er, our mothers do not represent the last universal common ancestor from which all modern cellular life on Earth originated. For the female line in particular we can consider 'Mitochondrial Eve' "the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman." Estimated 155,000 years ago. (She would never have met the 'Adam' equivalent) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2024 22:45:01 GMT
Oh. Well in that case, why not just say we all descended from our mothers? That is true but, er, our mothers do not represent the last universal common ancestor from which all modern cellular life on Earth originated. For the female line in particular we can consider 'Mitochondrial Eve' "the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman." Estimated 155,000 years ago. (She would never have met the 'Adam' equivalent) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
But those simple life forms you mentioned do? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2024 22:47:44 GMT
That is true but, er, our mothers do not represent the last universal common ancestor from which all modern cellular life on Earth originated. For the female line in particular we can consider 'Mitochondrial Eve' "the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman." Estimated 155,000 years ago. (She would never have met the 'Adam' equivalent) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
But those simple life forms you mentioned do? Yes. Do you really not understand the difference between your mother and an ancient simple lifeform? |
|
