Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, for one thing, it directly contradicts the book of Genesis, if that's your source.
He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.
He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.
Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.
He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.
Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.
That's the only real problem I have with a lot of christian churches. I experienced the same treatment when I was growing up and mentioned the alien life thing. At first they were like "hmm ... could be, but then ...", after I got a little older they outright ranted to me whenever I mentioned the fact that the bible doesn't discount alien life.
Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.
That's the only real problem I have with a lot of christian churches. I experienced the same treatment when I was growing up and mentioned the alien life thing. At first they were like "hmm ... could be, but then ...", after I got a little older they outright ranted to me whenever I mentioned the fact that the bible doesn't discount alien life.
Well, they're not all like that, but the ones who are do seem to speak loudly.
How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.
How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.
The most obvious reason would be the time constraints placed on the Week of Creation, which specify days, the time frame of "days" being literal 24 hour periods as specified by Genesis 1:14 and confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, which is an obvious contradiction of the timeframe of evolution, the Cambrian Explosion alone lasting seventy to eighty million years.
However you must recall the time period the original version of each story was writ, in the time that the Genesis story was written a "day" was a very subjective time frame, which had no definitive amount of time. Thus the word they used could represent 1 hour or 1 million years ... or even more. They were using it in reference to a god, which by all definitions would live in a completely alien time frame. So sorry, but it still does not discount evolution or any form of scientific creation, all it offers is a why, not a how and when in reality.
However you must recall the time period the original version of each story was writ, in the time that the Genesis story was written a "day" was a very subjective time frame, which had no definitive amount of time. Thus the word they used could represent 1 hour or 1 million years ... or even more. They were using it in reference to a god, which by all definitions would live in a completely alien time frame. So sorry, but it still does not discount evolution or any form of scientific creation, all it offers is a why, not a how and when in reality.
I anticipated that objection and intended to forestall it by referring to passages that specified "day" in the sense of a 24 hour period. We could refer to the mention of "the evening and a morning" in Genesis 1:2, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, though if "day" is discounted, that reference could be also. The Hebrew terminology which is used also specifies a 24 hour period, although one could argue that this is contradicted by Genesis 2:4. But as I already noted, the strongest evidence comes from Exodus 20:8-11, which makes it clear that God's "six days" of creation are equivalent to conventional days, the origin of the Sabbath being that God also rested on the "seventh day."
I used to be a theistic evolutionist, and I certainly understand its appeal. But it's simply not consistent with Scripture.
Aaaah ... but you are making a very common mistake, even among christians, the bible itself is a combination of a bunch of stories from many different places across the world, each written by different authors, some of the books in the christian bible specifically were written by one person, other books in it written by many people. The wording came from different languages, so the translation to our limited language of Shakesperean English has created many inconsistencies. The time frame in the particular story of creation was written, as I said, subjectively from the perspective of a being so alien to us that it could represent anything. One may argue this was originally done in case of such a discovery as to the origin or the universe, thus it would fit regardless of what science discovers, a lesson taken from the Ancient Egyptians who's whole religion was built around the chance that science may advance to a point in which the stories would be challenged by it. Here's the thing, religion is the why, but it does nothing to approach the how for a reason, thus why in many places it says you are not suppose to assume you know the power of their god. Science is merely a more detailed understanding of the world, it is not a religion and does not conflict with religion, ever, in spite of both extremist arguments on both sides. <snip> We know evolution is fact, it happens every day, we see it and without understanding it we would not have any of the vaccines we do now.
If you take the christian bible literally you cannot even say that evolution of humanity is not fact, because then you are assuming you know for sure that it is not the christian god's power, thus breaking the same commandment.
Aaaah ... but you are making a very common mistake, even among christians, the bible itself is a combination of a bunch of stories from many different places across the world, each written by different authors, some of the books in the christian bible specifically were written by one person, other books in it written by many people. The wording came from different languages, so the translation to our limited language of Shakesperean English has created many inconsistencies. The time frame in the particular story of creation was written, as I said, subjectively from the perspective of a being so alien to us that it could represent anything. One may argue this was originally done in case of such a discovery as to the origin or the universe, thus it would fit regardless of what science discovers, a lesson taken from the Ancient Egyptians who's whole religion was built around the chance that science may advance to a point in which the stories would be challenged by it. Here's the thing, religion is the why, but it does nothing to approach the how for a reason, thus why in many places it says you are not suppose to assume you know the power of their god. Science is merely a more detailed understanding of the world, it is not a religion and does not conflict with religion, ever, in spite of both extremist arguments on both sides. <snip> We know evolution is fact, it happens every day, we see it and without understanding it we would not have any of the vaccines we do now.
I'm well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bible. Their existence necessitates dilution of the allegedly inerrant or infallible text by liberal Christians who wish to diverge from their more conservative brethren. However, as is the case with conservative Christians' same behavior, it's simply not consistent to abandon the literal aspects of some portions of the Bible and claim that they remain intact for others if it's an allegedly "holy book."
If you take the christian bible literally you cannot even say that evolution of humanity is not fact, because then you are assuming you know for sure that it is not the christian god's power, thus breaking the same commandment.
No, it wouldn't. It would simply assert that he chose not to cause evolution, despite theoretically having the power to do so.
So then you are assuming that you know his will and power ... that's a direct violation of what was written in the christian bible.
Also, are you suggesting that it was written in English first? Many other languages have more variable words available, so translating to English from any other language would create natural inconsistencies. Another factor is that there are many versions of the same book in English to add to the inconsistencies.
However, all that aside, the word "day" could mean a million years, if you take the book literally then even it's own time-line is impossible as it says elsewhere that the world is only about 6K years old.
