@viaro
waoh, what an intellect u got there.
Lets move on pally.

mazaje:

Actually my style is to say it as it is and leave it. . .I know you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief is deriding or mocking it. . . .This applies to all religions actually. . . take a look at the moslem section when christians point to some things to them that are written in the koran they say christians are mocking islam. . . . .I had a christians tell me that I am the son of satan he just because I said that the bible god accepts human sacrifice. . . .I just say it as it is and if you feel so sad that I come across the way i do then so be it. . . I don't have time pandering to people's delusions. . . .I just state it as it is. . . .

In just the same way, I say it as it is for you. Did that get you on the wrong side? I just say it as it is, regardless your hyperventilating trash here. First, I did not call you the son of satan; and I'm sure not every Christian would address you that way even where you might have derided their faith and called them unpalatable names. You don't use that one example to write off every Christian, just as I don't think that everyone who asks questions is necessarily a bitter little peacock! Second, I'm not wired the way you have assumed - which is why I doubt you got a dot of understanding my previous reply to yours.

You see where the problem lies? You guys claim that you have this trancendantal being that is perfect and whom is above all human knowledge and conception. . .You believe a part of these perfect, all good and trancendental being lives in you guides you all in all you do. . . you believe that this being does not behave like humans (some of you even claim that you are not of this world because a part of this trancendental being resides in you and guides you in all you do) but when we look around we see you are just as confused as every body else. . . .All the various sects of christians that disagree with each other all point to the bible when making their case against each other and all of them claim that the same holy spirit whom they claim is perfect and trancends all human ways of doing things is what inspires them. . .so is that possible?. . .

Yes, mazaje, that is very possible, but that does not mean that everyone is right. This again has nothing to do with the thread or what I was discussing with modupe01 - which was why I summed you up for the cheap interjection you tried to introduce for a yapping that would take you nowhere. Like I said, there are people who argue endlessly within the same system, whether it is Politics, Sports, Economics, Social interactions, even your most cherished Evolution, or Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, or Scientific theories and hypotheses. Most of us know these scenarios occur every single week - and I asked you to point out just a single one where the players in them are all perfect clones without a shade of disagreement. Did you address that? No. Rather, you jumped again to yap on and point fingers at Christians disagreeing with one another wile making claims here and there. This, mazaje, is why I often don't take people like you seriously - not because I cannot discuss with people, but because you come off making all sorts of pitiful arguments and yet have never been able to see your own problem.

So I  maintain that since there is no god all you guys have to do is to self project yourselves as god and tell each other what you want others to believe about the bible based on your own personal interpretations. . . .Hard facts to justify faith in god is not forthcoming from any area of the world all you guys have to hold unto are only stories and cultural mythologies. . . . .

I hear a weakling crying in you. Hard facts to tell the world that there is NO God is not forth coming from you either - that much we can agree on. The point now in yours is widening to the same grandiloquent style of carping dunces who think you can be smart enough to hurl insults at others and then fail to deliver. Christians (as far as I know) do not assume the ridiculous assertion you made about "your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts". .  who ever said such rubbish in this thread about any god/gods "depending" ONLY on debates about texts, mazaje? This is why cacophonies from twerps like you do not pass for celebrating your assumed scholarship. You don't stand to ridicule people and misrepresent them, only to turn back like some buffoon making wild assertions in the market place.

Politicians, sports analyst, musicians, atheist do not claims to be guided or recieve inspiration or information from an all perfect and trancendental being that knows everything and has a perfect plan for humanity. . .you guys on the other hand do and when we look around we see that you guys behave like every body else. . .despite your claims of being guided by this being you are yet to agree on his basic nature and who he is. . . .

Nice try. They may not make any claims (buffoon, they do, dude . .  they do!) You have relied only on your small cubicle for far too long for your own good. I know of politicians who have made claims of supernatural guidance. .  as well musicians, and atheists who belief in what some of you lazy buffoons are too scared in your pants to investigate. That still does not answer the question I asked you before:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

I have not claimed that these guys are making claims of the sort of inspiration as you have switched onto - that is simply the most stupid way to put you argument forward. In case you still live in a remote part of the world where the radio or other frequency waves do not reach you, please grow up and reason. Most idiots parading themselves as 'smart heads' have stopped using those same lines of pitiful  retired arguments after seeing that they do not add anything to their intelligence. They are often used by pals who are the least intelligent in any classroom, because in the first place, they are not focused on the questions asked. as in this case, I did not ask you whether those examples make claims of any inspirations as in your twist - and to have repeated that pitiful comment is grand comedy. let me ask it again, incase you're too desperate to think:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

Just like the idiots that continue to be at each others throats in the myths you subscribe to but still ridiculosly claim that their opinion does not come from this world but from an imaginary sky daddy that lives out side of space time. . .You guys just invent things and ascribe to you imaginary father figure. . .Some people say, for example, that "God is love".  Well, if god is identical to love, then I do think that god exists.  Yet, the same people will start to apply extra bits to the "God is love" -- showing that they don't think that god is identical to love but is some kind of aware force that has many attributes that aren't love.  In that case, why use a loaded word like God when there is a perfectly valid word like love already available?  god isn't love, love is love.

You know how you sound - like the shameless Dawkins whose cacophony not many atheists like to parrot today. When he started mooting the idea of a 'man in the sky', he was allowed to run off cheap on that fuel. . until he made the stupid mistake of the 'FSM' - flying spaghetti monster - as if anyone who knows has spoken of any deity being such! Not even himself with his makeshifts knows what he's talking about, and retired idiots who don't know better are too much in a hurry to parrot him. I wished better for you. . but no, I'm not surprised you couldn't rise beyond that level while parroting the same engine works of idiocy that the likes of new atheism has given you like left-overs.

Other people assert more generally that "God exists", yet they can't describe either part of that phrase.  What's god?  How does it exist?  I'm greeted with either babbling dogmatic quotes or smug silence. . . . . .

That's them - and you may not want to reason with them. I've heard that same line before, so there's nothing grand or novel in that statement. Let me ask you (while not derailing this thread) - how does evolution prove conclusively your claim that there is no God?

I have frends from all faiths in life so i do not even understand what you are saying here. . .

Dude, you should have tried to discuss, then it would not have been difficult for you to understand what people are saying here. When your friends think the best way to keep them as friends is to ridicule them, I have much to say to those "friends". I also have friends in many faiths (not all, because I don't know all faiths); but at least we can live in mutual respect of one another without passing for the buffoon you displayed of yourself here.

VALIDATOR:

@viaro
waoh, what an intellect u got there.
Lets move on pally.

My good pal. . . You're in my good books. Thank you for your genial response. . . and yes, let's move on (although I'm not an intellectual, lol). Please forgive my strong responses to yours earlier. Cheers.

Thanks to the  emergence of the telescope and the microscope,religion can no longer offer an explanation of anything important.

Atheists:

Thanks to the  emergence of the telescope and the microscope,religion can no longer offer an explanation of anything important.

That, probably, is because you do not know what the differences are. Has the microscope or telescope told you about your soul? Have those things told you everything about your total makeup as a person?

That, probably, is because you do not know what the differences are. Has the microscope or telescope told you about your soul? Have those things told you everything about your total makeup as a person?

Microscope has told me there is no reason to believe that l got a soul.

Guys, why not let's stop all dis bull sh!t and let's not derail the thread.
The thread says Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution
I think it is because of the following reasons

1 Accepting it means that you agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old ---- since many fossils are more than that age
2 Accepting it means that you agree that man was not made from sand/dust on the sixth day(Friday i.e the day b4 sabbath).---- although many christians now take the 6 days to mean 6 "stages"
3 There will be a possibility of relegating the importance of Jesus to the background- Evolution says that there was never any perfect Adam who sinned.So,remission of sin will not be necessary.
4 The theory of evolution does not solve most human problems.


There may be more. Guys please stop taking things personal. Let's learn

Hello Viaro,

You will remember that in the not-too-distant past, we were chatting about the explanation for why whales could be born with fully developed hindlimbs, on this thread; https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=334556.msg4705593#msg4705593.

I said, this can only be explained in terms of evolution.  If evolution is false, and animals were made immutably, can you explain why an aquatic animal came to have the gene for making the legs of a terrestrial animals?

huxley:

Hello Viaro,

You will remember that in the not-too-distant past, we were chatting about the explanation for why whales could be born with fully developed hindlimbs, on this thread; https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=334556.msg4705593#msg4705593.

Hallo huxley, yes I have had that thread in mind all along and was waiting for a period when I know I'd not be too busy to engage deeply on that subject/topic. I have not forgotten, believe me; but I shall look into it in an opportune time - thanks for the reminder.

I said, this can only be explained in terms of evolution. If evolution is false, an animals were made immutably, can you explain why and aquatic animal came to have the gene for making the legs of a terrestrial animals?

No, I cannot explain why (nor how, nor even when) - and I cannot explain why it "came to have" that gene. I can appreciate some theories that attempt to describe this, but I do not necessarily agree with them. Just-say-so stories are not in my domain, no matter how widely circulated; and I think that is a whole lot of what many people do and parade as "science" with a lot of ancillary claims. For example, when people begin to reproduce the arguments of others without having tested out those theories for themselves, the best we can do is argue on endlessly and arrive nowhere - that is not what I'd like to engage in; because I know that not many of those people believing anything about them can categorically produce a water-tight argument as to WHY and HOW and WHEN those aquatic animals came to have the genes they do.

When I have the time (at about Dec or Jan, as I hinted Krayola), I shall gee you a shout and revisit that thread. I may or may not argue endlessly there, though.

This thread has taught me that you can't argue rationally with religious people. Science fits the theory to the evidence. Religion fits the evidence to the theory.

VALIDATOR:

There may be more. Guys please stop taking things personal. Let's learn

You're a good dude! Again, I over-reached myself where there was no need for me to have played to mazaje's gallery.  

_{And mazaje, if you're there reading this, please let it pass. I will not try to even address your comments as replies to my penultimate rejoinder if you come off in the same manner.}


Now, my comments on yours, VALIDATE:

1 Accepting it means that you agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old ---- since many fossils are more than that age

I understand why many Christians (particularly the fundamentalists) feel that way. Especially those who are struggling with the concept of a 'young earth' theory (the YECs), it would come as a deep shock for them to see that the earth (and indeed the universe) is older, far older, than they had traditionally interpreted.

For many other Christians (as I have demonstrated), we do not even imagine the Bible teaches that the earth (or the "planet" is 6,000 years old. That is not how we read the creation narratives, as I've demonstrated in the previous page (post #24). Again, there are several indicators that the 'Adam' we read of in Genesis may not be the first human ever to exist! That could be argued, not to bend the Bible to fit fossils, but to show indeed that even the Genesis accounts and what we find in the Prophets indicate that homo sapiens might have preceded 'Adam'.

I know that this claim may upset many religious minds (such as some muslims, etc); but I would like to restrict myself to what I'm comfortable sharing from my understanding, rather than delving into other people's religions that I know very little about.

2 Accepting it means that you agree that man was not made from sand/dust on the sixth day(Friday i.e the day b4 sabbath).---- although many christians now take the 6 days to mean 6 "stages"

I don't know whether evolution has confirmed indeed that man was not made from inanimate material like the dust of the earth. If evolution has indeed confirmed such, then some scientists would not have been trying to experiment to demonstrate that life arose from non-life material like rocks.

3 There will be a possibility of relegating the importance of Jesus to the background- Evolution says that there was never any perfect Adam who sinned.So,remission of sin will not be necessary.

Again, I don't know if that was the original intent of the evolution theory (I'm not saying that it has been so). However, I don't think we should confuse evolution theory with any other human endeavour; because to maintain that would be a huge problem for evolutionists themselves. First, it would mean that evolution is NOT a scientific theory, because scientific theories are not articulated on the basis of any claims of religion whatsoever - whether theism or atheism. Second, for some people to try to use evolution every time to argue against theism or other worldview is confusing matters and cheapening the arguments for monkeys! Science has not yet found its own justification to make categorical statements on religious or teleological matters; and people who cry that science is the "best" means of acquiring knowledge are not doing science but scientism.

4 The theory of evolution does not solve most human problems.

That much we can agree on.

Atheists:

This thread has taught me that you can't argue rationally with religious people. Science fits the theory to the evidence. Religion fits the evidence to the theory.

This thread has taught me a valuable lesson since coming to NL - that people who like to bash religion are often a confused lot who have lost their self-identities. Science does not try to fit any theory to any sort of "evidence" - that is not science but stupidity! Don't let any loud and cheap professor deceive you on that. Scientific theories are not made to fit anything; but rather, theories arise from hypotheses which have to be tested for their values rather than "fit" them to anything. Dude, who sold you so cheaply?

Religion on the other hand does not have any "theory", in as much as a religion is not an enterprise with theories to be fitted into any hypothesis. Rather, religious inquiries are founded on teleology - where you find even non-religious people discussing the nature of all sorts of realities. They do not try to "fit" anything into anything, but attempt to analyse things in philosophical ways.

The difference between the two is that the former tries to investigate things through a set of systematic protocol, while the other tries to analyse things through various types of logical paradigms.

This thread has taught me a valuable lesson since coming to NL - that people who like to bash religion are often a confused lot who have lost their self-identities. Science does not try to fit any theory to any sort of "evidence" - that is not science but stupidity! Don't let any loud and cheap professor deceive you on that. Scientific theories are not made to fit anything; but rather, theories arise from hypotheses which have to be tested for their values rather than "fit" them to anything. Dude, who sold you so cheaply? Undecided

Religion on the other hand does not have any "theory", in as much as a religion is not an enterprise with theories to be fitted into any hypothesis. Rather, religious inquiries are founded on teleology - where you find even non-religious people discussing the nature of all sorts of realities. They do not try to "fit" anything into anything, but attempt to analyse things in a way philosophical way.

The difference between the two is that the former tries to investigate things through a set of systematic protocol, while the other tries to analyse things through various types of logical paradigms.

Why have so many scientists been persecuted by religion  ?  Why was the father of modern science Galileo Galilei  persecuted by the Roman catholic church ?

It is very easy to be hurt and take things personal when your belief system is attacked. However, the reason why same threads but names slightly changed have been circulating for years is because we easily derail threads by taking it personal.
However, i think if we stick to the thread, we can make a lot of progress in our search.

Atheists:

Why have so many scientists been persecuted by religion  ?  Why was  the father of modern science Galileo Galilei  persecuted by the Roman catholic church ?

To be honest, I don't know why so many scientists have been persecuted by religious people (not by religion). In the same way, I don't know why many young scientists have been persecuted and ostracized by the so-called 'scientific establishment'. I am sure that not every religiously minded person joined in persecuting Galileo; so it's not my style to make sweeping categorization as in your assumptions.

Meanwhile, your questions, while interesting, have absolutely no bearing on the fact that you made wrong inferences about "fitting" theories to evidence either way. That is not genuine and honest science, and I would not like you to hold unto that mistaken idea.

Edit:

---

By the way, Atheists, I did not mean this directly at you:

Science does not try to fit any theory to any sort of "evidence" - that is not science but stupidity!

I apologise about the bold word there and should have tried to let you know earlier that it was not meant as a jab at your person. I happen to read that idea so many times and forgot myself there when I typed that reply. Please don't take it personal.

Now, lets continue dudes.Here is the thread:

"Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution"

VALIDATOR:

Now, lets continue dudes.Here is the thread:

"Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution"

Yes, and thank you for your calm mediation.

I should add a few to what you have already given (and I trust that some more brilliant posters can critique them):

There are various reasons why some Christians "ignorantly" oppose the theory of evolution -

[list][li]Some are ignorant of what a 'theory' actually is before they try to critique it. For example, we have read many people make the mistake of saying that the TOE is a "mere" theory; or that the reason why it is not a scientific "law" is because it is a "theory" like someone has been guessing for 150 years and has been undetected. I bet that if more people on either side try to understand what science means by "theory", this mistake would be made less frequently.[/li]

[li]Another reason is that the claims by some zealous and enthusiastic evolutionists leave many people confused. This does not mean that only some 'Christians' are amused and bemused; but even skeptics also are put off by some of the claims of people who try to defend evolution. An example is when evolutionists try to apply evolution theory to matters which are far beyond the domains of evolution itself. The result is mass derision and condemnation, with many people shouting one thing and others shouting other things.[/li]

[li]Thirdly, many people (not just Christians) are too zealous to protect "something" - whether it is their evolution or religious beliefs, or the grants they receive in their cherished appointments; or the fear that certain challenges might upset the cart that they've been traveling on for too long and not willing to develop beyond that comfort zone. This happens to religious people at large as well as non-religious and atheistic evolutionists - the result of which you see demonstrated in one form of fundamentalism or the other. Yes, some atheists are actually fundamentalists, nothing appeals to them unless everyone is saying what these fundamentalists like to hear! Such attitudes accounts for why some Christians oppose the TOE out of being reactive than of being reasonable in their criticisms.[/li]
[/list]

There are many other reasons, but those few for now.

@post
i doubt if any christians bought up in developing countries will know much about any other religion (other than the religion they were brought up to believe) talkless of evolution. Ask the average African what is a dinosaur? He or she wouldn't have a clue about what your talking about, because just like any other religion they not used to it, thier not familiar with it and they just want to stay within the comfort zone of thier own religion. Hope that makes sense

manmustwac:

i doubt if any christians bought up in developing countries will know much about any other religion (other than the religion they were brought up to believe)

I'm not so sure that is widely true. There are many people who have been brought up in developing countries that know much about other religions than the ones they were brought up to believing in.

Hope that makes sense

For me, yes.

In the same way, I don't know why many young scientists have been persecuted and ostracized by the so-called 'scientific establishment'.

Could you give us the names of young scientists who have been persecuted by the scientific establishment ?

@viaro
I think the main reason Why Christians reject the theory of evolution is that although the theory of evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creator. However, by implication,it rules out the need for a Messiah/Jesus that will save us from our sins since there was no perfect Adam.
Can we thrash this out ?

Atheists:

Could you give us the names of young scientists who have been persecuted by the scientific establishment ?

I could do so. I just first need to know if you're categorically saying that the scientific establishment has never at any time persecuted or ostracised any scientist in any way? If you adamantly argue that there is no such event, then I shall post you a few names to go investigate for yourself and then return so we can discuss further.

But if you already understand that there are such events that have been well documented, then your request is unnecessary in the first place.

Hello VALIDATOR,

VALIDATOR:

Can we thrash this out ?

Yes, we can.

We know there are a lot of reasons why people choose to believe whatever they want to, and that is not peculiar or limited to religious beliefs. At the same time, even where they believe anything as such, they have reasons for rejecting a lot of other stuff that do not square with their beliefs. I'd try to limit my observations within the context of the topic of this thread (Why Christians oppose the theory of evolution).

I think the main reason Why Christians reject the theory of evolution is that although the theory of evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creator. However, by implication,it rules out the need for a Messiah/Jesus that will save us from our sins since there was no perfect Adam.

I would respect that view, afterall that is just one possible reason for some people and not for everyone. Even so, such a postulation is froth with problems.

1.  If the question is asked: 'how does evolution rule out the need for a Messiah?', your answer was: 'there was no perfect Adam'. Put in another way, should we assume that if and only if (iff) there was a 'perfect Adam', then the need for a Messiah could not be ruled out? What that argument assumes is this:

         (a) since there was no perfect Adam - it rules out the need of a Messiah

                                            BUT, by the 'iff' -

         (b) if there was a perfect Adam - it does not rule out the need for a Messiah

You see that the argument does not even arise in the first place, because the statement in (b) is equally true as the reflection for (a). This simply destroys that argument and establishes a necessity for a Messiah! How? The next point shows -

2. Salvation and redemption from sin are not predicated upon a 'perfect' Adam. In other words, even if there was a perfect Adam, it still does not rule out the question of redemption - because according to the Bible, God's plan of redemption predates the Adam you might be referring to. Thus, whether or not there was a 'perfect' Adam has nothing to do with the need for a Messiah.

3. The gravest mistake that many evolutionists make is to assume that it is a theory that tries to make any kind of statement about any religion. If that was what the evolution theory was about, then it beggars science and should not even be considered a scientific theory in the first place. Science does not make categorical statements about theology or religion, because that is not how science works.

viaro:

In just the same way, I say it as it is for you. Did that get you on the wrong side? I just say it as it is, regardless your hyperventilating trash here. First, I did not call you the son of satan; and I'm sure not every Christian would address you that way even where you might have derided their faith and called them unpalatable names. You don't use that one example to write off every Christian, just as I don't think that everyone who asks questions is necessarily a bitter little peacock! Second, I'm not wired the way you have assumed - which is why I doubt you got a dot of understanding my previous reply to yours.

I personally don't have time pandering to your ridiculous delusions. . . I just say it as it is and leave it you If you don't like what I say then go break your neck. . . I do not have time to pander to your senseless delusions. . . .

Yes, mazaje, that is very possible, but that does not mean that everyone is right. This again has nothing to do with the thread or what I was discussing with modupe01 - which was why I summed you up for the cheap interjection you tried to introduce for a yapping that would take you nowhere. Like I said, there are people who argue endlessly within the same system, whether it is Politics, Sports, Economics, Social interactions, even your most cherished Evolution, or Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, or Scientific theories and hypotheses. Most of us know these scenarios occur every single week - and I asked you to point out just a single one where the players in them are all perfect clones without a shade of disagreement. Did you address that? No. Rather, you jumped again to yap on and point fingers at Christians disagreeing with one another wile making claims here and there. This, mazaje, is why I often don't take people like you seriously - not because I cannot discuss with people, but because you come off making all sorts of pitiful arguments and yet have never been able to see your own problem.

The stupid and pathetic lies you goons tell yourselves so that you can sleep at night while holding unto the myths you have been conditioned and brought up in and made to believe in since childhood. . . You think I care if you take me seriously or not?   who cares if you take me seriously or not? Do you think any body takes you seriously?. . . .Pls stop giving your self credit that you do not deserve at all. . .

I hear a weakling crying in you. Hard facts to tell the world that there is NO God is not forth coming from you either - that much we can agree on. The point now in yours is widening to the same grandiloquent style of carping dunces who think you can be smart enough to hurl insults at others and then fail to deliver. Christians (as far as I know) do not assume the ridiculous assertion you made about "your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts". .  who ever said such rubbish in this thread about any god/gods "depending" ONLY on debates about texts, mazaje? This is why cacophonies from twerps like you do not pass for celebrating your assumed scholarship. You don't stand to ridicule people and misrepresent them, only to turn back like some buffoon making wild assertions in the market place.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence until you provide any evidence for you god then he like all others gods(Zeus.,Thor,Ra, Amun, Vishnu etc) are mythical characters simple. . . .The fact remains that those that talk about your god use ancient text full of stories that have no basis in reality to debate about his existence and that is a fact. . . By the way who is talking about scholarship here? I am not a scholar and I do not claim to be one. . .I state things the way they are and I do not have time pandering to your stupid delusions. . . 

Nice try. They may not make any claims (buffoon, they do, dude . .  they do!) You have relied only on your small cubicle for far too long for your own good. I know of politicians who have made claims of supernatural guidance. .  as well musicians, and atheists who belief in what some of you lazy buffoons are too scared in your pants to investigate. That still does not answer the question I asked you before:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

I have not claimed that these guys are making claims of the sort of inspiration as you have switched onto - that is simply the most stupid way to put you argument forward. In case you still live in a remote part of the world where the radio or other frequency waves do not reach you, please grow up and reason. Most idiots parading themselves as 'smart heads' have stopped using those same lines of pitiful  retired arguments after seeing that they do not add anything to their intelligence. They are often used by pals who are the least intelligent in any classroom, because in the first place, they are not focused on the questions asked. as in this case, I did not ask you whether those examples make claims of any inspirations as in your twist - and to have repeated that pitiful comment is grand comedy. let me ask it again, incase you're too desperate to think:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

You know how you sound - like the shameless Dawkins whose cacophony not many atheists like to parrot today. When he started mooting the idea of a 'man in the sky', he was allowed to run off cheap on that fuel. . until he made the stupid mistake of the 'FSM' - flying spaghetti monster - as if anyone who knows has spoken of any deity being such! Not even himself with his makeshifts knows what he's talking about, and retired idiots who don't know better are too much in a hurry to parrot him. I wished better for you. . but no, I'm not surprised you couldn't rise beyond that level while parroting the same engine works of idiocy that the likes of new atheism has given you like left-overs.

That's them - and you may not want to reason with them. I've heard that same line before, so there's nothing grand or novel in that statement. Let me ask you (while not derailing this thread) - how does evolution prove conclusively your claim that there is no God?

Dude, you should have tried to discuss, then it would not have been difficult for you to understand what people are saying here. When your friends think the best way to keep them as friends is to ridicule them, I have much to say to those "friends". I also have friends in many faiths (not all, because I don't know all faiths); but at least we can live in mutual respect of one another without passing for the buffoon you displayed of yourself here.

I don't even know what to make of this ridiculous and pathetic rambling and meaningless rants that are all talk and NO substance at all. . .I do not pander to people's delusions(And I will not pander to your own delusions) I state things the way the are if you don't like it go break your neck. . . . That's your business. . .

@viaro,
I see you got the idea but may have missed my main point.The need for a messiah was anchored on these: w

1 The first man (Adam) was perfect
2 Adam acquired a sinful/imperfect nature i.e sin entered the world through one man
3 Only a perfect messiah(Jesus) can restore today's man to being perfect again. i.e sin can only be taken away through one man-- a perfect messiah
4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).

So,it means that the reason for the messiahship of Jesus is to restore man to being perfect

But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature and needs a perfect Jesus for redemption of sin to restore the man to perfection. That is my main point.That is why christians reject the theory of evolution.

mazaje:

I personally don't have time pandering to your ridiculous delusions. . . I just say it as it is and leave it you If you don't like what I say then go break your neck. . . I do not have time to pander to your senseless delusions. . . .

The stupid and pathetic lies you goons tell yourselves so that you can sleep at night while holding unto the myths you have been conditioned and brought up in and made to believe in since childhood. . . You think I care if you take me seriously or not?   who cares if you take me seriously or not? Do you think any body takes you seriously?. . . .Pls stop giving your self credit that you do not deserve at all. . .

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence until you provide any evidence for you god then he like all others gods(Zeus.,Thor,Ra, Amun, Vishnu etc) are mythical characters simple. . . .The fact remains that those that talk about your god use ancient text full of stories that have no basis in reality to debate about his existence and that is a fact. . . By the way who is talking about scholarship here? I am not a scholar and I do not claim to be one. . .I state things the way they are and I do not have time pandering to your stupid delusions. . . 

I don't even know what to make of this ridiculous and pathetic rambling and meaningless rants that are all talk and NO substance at all. . .I do not pander to people's delusions(And I will not pander to your own delusions) I state things the way the are if you don't like it go break your neck. . . . That's your business. . .

"And mazaje, if you're there reading this, please let it pass. I will not try to even address your comments as replies to my penultimate rejoinder if you come off in the same manner." - post #42

VALIDATOR:

@viaro,
I see you got the idea but may have missed my main point.The need for a messiah was anchored on these: w

1 The first man (Adam) was perfect
2 Adam acquired a sinful/imperfect nature i.e sin entered the world through one man
3 Only a perfect messiah(Jesus) can restore today's man to being perfect again. i.e sin can only be taken away through one man-- a perfect messiah
4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).

So,it means that the reason for the messiahship of Jesus is to restore man to being perfect

But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature and needs a perfect Jesus for redemption of sin to restore the man to perfection. That is my main point.That is why christians reject the theory of evolution.

Lol, I understand that the above is put forward by some people - and since that's not my idea, I can't answer roll-call on their behalf.

However, there are two huge issues with such reasoning. In addition to the outline I gave earlier, here are a few observations that would help wrap this up:

[list](a) 4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).[/list]

As regards (a) above taken from your quote, I wonder what some people who hold that view have to say about those who never heard anything about any Messiah because they lived in very far places from the Jewish lands, and also had very diverse cultures from Jewish society, as well lived long before the emergence of the Jews?

As Christians, we have long dwelt on the idea that every thing must begin and end within the epoch of a convenient 6,000 years - from Adam to Abraham to Moses and the Jews to Jesus. That is not even what the Bible teaches. .  nada, zilch. I have tried to hint that when we Christians open our Bibles and study it carefully, we cannot deny the fact that there are indications of a world older than 6,000 years counting backwards from the present, as well the fact that there are indications of other beings closely resembling humans before even Adam was created. Now, all this may come as a shock to many Christians holding a conveniently traditional interpretation of the creation accounts in all 66 books of the Bible, but such traditional views are not what viaro believes.

[list](b). "But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature"[/list]

Okay; but how does 'evolution' come to such conclusions? How does the evolution theory begin to test for sin and perfection on spiritual and moral issues? Where does evolution begin to argue about matters that are completely outside its domain? How does evolution tell you anything about the spiritual nature of anybody for that matter?

When people make conclusions in such niggardly manner, it's probably best to let them continue to pamper themselves on such vacant assertions. .  until serious questions begin to surface for them to answer. Of all the arguments that could be offered for evolution with regards to the question of sin, spirituality, morality, etc., one needs to calmly think through about how any acclaimed evolutionist came to such conclusions about issues that he has no clues about.

viaro:

Lol, I understand that the above is put forward by some people - and since that's not my idea, I can't answer roll-call on their behalf.

However, there are two huge issues with such reasoning. In addition to the outline I gave earlier, here are a few observations that would help wrap this up:

[list](a) 4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).[/list]

As regards (a) above taken from your quote, I wonder what some people who hold that view have to say about those who never heard anything about any Messiah because they lived in very far places from the Jewish lands, and also had very diverse cultures from Jewish society, as well lived long before the emergence of the Jews?

As Christians, we have long dwelt on the idea that every thing must begin and end within the epoch of a convenient 6,000 years - from Adam to Abraham to Moses and the Jews to Jesus. That is not even what the Bible teaches. .  nada, zilch. I have tried to hint that when we Christians open our Bibles and study it carefully, we cannot deny the fact that there are indications of a world older than 6,000 years counting backwards from the present, as well the fact that there are indications of other beings closely resembling humans before even Adam was created. Now, all this may come as a shock to many Christians holding a conveniently traditional interpretation of the creation accounts in all 66 books of the Bible, but such traditional views are not what viaro believes.

[list](b). "But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature"[/list]

Okay; but how does 'evolution' come to such conclusions? How does the evolution theory begin to test for sin and perfection on spiritual and moral issues? Where does evolution begin to argue about matters that are completely outside its domain? How does evolution tell you anything about the spiritual nature of anybody for that matter?

When people make conclusions in such niggardly manner, it's probably best to let them continue to pamper themselves on such vacant assertions. .  until serious questions begin to surface for them to answer. Of all the arguments that could be offered for evolution with regards to the question of sin, spirituality, morality, etc., one needs to calmly think through about how any acclaimed evolutionist came to such conclusions about issues that he has no clues about.

The bold part is particularly interesting!
Truly,evolution can not rule out the fact that one particular homo-sapien had a God-like nature (made in His image) since it is beyond the scope of science.
I don't have issues with your views because they imply to me that you do not take biblical records literarily (I hope I am right). I however have issues with people who insist that the records in the bible are literally true.

If something is literarily true,why should it not be subjected to literary examination. the records in the bible doesnt make literary sense to me.
It is more correct to say that literarily they are myths/half truths/fantasies/exaggerations.

VALIDATOR:

The bold part is particularly interesting!
Truly,evolution can not rule out the fact that one particular homo-sapien had a God-like nature (made in His image) since it is beyond the scope of science.
I don't have issues with your views because they imply to me that you do not take biblical records literarily (I hope I am right). I however have issues with people who insist that the records in the bible are literally true.

For me, there is a difference between literarily and literally:

* literarily - in a literary manner, in regards to literature

* literally - in the exact manner that cannot be interpreted any other way

The Biblical records in many places are both literary and literal to me; but not so in some other parts. These other parts may be parabolic, symbolic, or allegorical (in which case they are addressing general truths in principle). What I believe does not have to be authority for anyone, for the views I have are based on my own understanding and deductions from what I read in the Biblical texts. Certainly, you may have issues with many people, and that is especially based on what they read and how they interpret those texts.

If something is literarily true,why should it not be subjected to literary examination. the records in the bible doesnt make literary sense to me.

I think you might have meant to say "literally true", rather than literarily true - the latter would be saying that something is true according to the style of literature. . . which is not the same as literality. Either way, it is not only the literature that should be examined - but the examiner himself ought to be scrutinised as well. This is true especially where we all are reading the same set of data and yet coming up with diverse interpretations (this is also the case even in science). Some people may see things differently from others, or a few other people might have missed some small details which led them to draw shaking conclusions. Either way, it is not the documents or texts that might be at fault, but rather the interpreters also might have a problem understanding a certain point due to any number of things. . including personal bias.

It is more correct to say that literarily they are myths/half truths/fantasies/exaggerations.

No, it is not "more correct" to draw that kind of assumption, because you may be doing so hastily where you have not understood anything in them yourself.

Quote by: viaro

Quote from: modupe01 on Yesterday at 12:50:09 PM
I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours).   I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures.  Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?  He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

Lol, modupe01. .  maybe He did not leave it open to human interpretation; but I would rather that He Himself would have us both interpret and understand what He meant by what He gave us. If that were not so, then other scribes and prophets would not have tried to explain anything from the law to others in order to make them understand anything - Ezra and Nehemiah come to mind as an example:

It will be interesting knowing what our Lord Jesus Christ has to say about what Moses wrote or said.  Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts such as the creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish.  He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1-9).  In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (amongst others) affirmation showing that Jesus was a young earth creationist.  He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old.  So, if Jesus was a young earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

Nehemiah 8:8 -
They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly,
and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Surely, "gave the sense" would remind us of the fact that those who read were trying to interpret the reading, not so?

If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for "day" found in Genesis 1 which is qualified by a number, the phrase "evening and morning" and for Day 1 the words "light and darkness" which obviously means an ordinary day (approximately 24 hrs).

During Martin Luther's era, some of church fathers were saying that God created everything in only one day or an instant, which is the other extreme of what some people are saying today.  This is what he said in response to them:

"When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been done in six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day.  But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.  For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written.  But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go. "

This I believe raps up what is going on today on the other extreme of billions of years.

Now, back to your inquiry proper:

Quote
Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?

Yes, I can see that; and I don't think that contradicts with what I hinted at earlier. This was what I stated:

        "I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days."

But does Exodus 20:11 teach the opposite to my assertion and lead us to think that God created the planet in 6 days? No. here's how.

(a) In Genesis 1:1, God had already created the heavens and the earth.

(b) Then in Gen. 1:2, there was an epoch that is not defined, where the earth became void.

(c)  but according to Isaiah 45:18, God did not create the earth in the state of being "void" - something had occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to make the earth "become" void.

(d) so, between both verses, there are distinctly two periods that can be understood there:
       * the period where the heavens and the earth were already created
       * the period after the initial creation, where all things were made.

Genesis 1:2 reads "And the earth was without form, and void"

This reads that the earth was and not became as the Gappists translate it to mean.  At stake is the translation of the Hebrew word hayetah, which is a form of Hebrew verb, hayah, meaning "to be."  The meaning of a word is controlled by its context, and verse 2 is sequential to verse 1.  Therefore "was" is the most natural and appropriate translation for hayetah.  It is rendered this way in most English versions as well as the Septuagint.  In Genesis 1:2 hayetah is not followed by the proposition le, which would have removed any ambiguity in the Hebrew and required the translation "became."  Therefore, the correct reading is: "And the earth was formless and void . . ."

Let us consider Exodus 31:12 and see what God commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel:

"Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord.  Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.  Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant.  It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever.  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed" -- Exodus 15-17

Then God gave Moses two tablets of stone upon which were written the commandments of God, written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18).

If we are observant enough we would realise that the seven-day week that we use today has no basis outside of Scripture.  If you know of any nation that uses more or less than the seven day week can you please bring it to my attention?  In this OT passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one, thus giving us a reason why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything.  He set an example for man.  This is why our week is patterned after this principle.  And you were right by saying that it was a command to the Israelites and a principle to us today.  Now if you are to be consistent and project your interpretation of billion of years by saying that God created everything in six thousand/million/billion years, followed by a rest of one thousand or million or billion years, then we would have an interesting week indeed.

(e) the Bible uses both these words and several others (eg., create, make, form, renew) to show that they are not referring to the same things in the same periods; these words are also different in the Hebrew language.

(f) the differences in the words are these:

                 *  create    -     בּרא   (bara')

                 *  make      -    עשׂה   (‛aśah)

                 *  form       -     יצר    (yatsar)

                 *  renew    -    חדשׁ   (chadash)


(g)  in some verses, we see how they are used differently, like in -

           *  God himself that formed the earth and made it  - Isaiah 45:18

           *   thou renewest the face of the earth  - Psalm 104:30

(h) so, while in Genesis 1:1, we read that God created the heavens and the earth, we also see that there are other verses where He speaks about having made, formed and renewed the earth.

It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word as you said, bara, used with "God" as its subject, which means to create like in the production of things which did not exist before.

However, according to Exodus 20:11, God "made" (asah) the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days.  If God made everything in six days, then there is clearly no room for a gap.  I know that you allege that asah does not mean to "create," but "to form" or even "re-form" and that you believe that it refers to reforming a ruined world.  But is there such a difference between bara and asah in biblical usage?  I don't think so.  It (asah) can also mean "to create," which is the same as bara.  For example, Nehemiah 9:6 states that God made (asah) "heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them."  This reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, but the word asah is used.  Do you want to tell me that Nehemiah 9:6 refers to the supposed reconstruction? if you do then you will have to include the geological strata in the reconstruction which will invariably deprive the whole theory of any power to explain away the fossil record.

The fact is that the words bara and asah are often used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).  Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11; 31:17; and Nehemiah 9:6 we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.

What about Exodus 20:11?

Please read that verse well, even as you quoted it:

         'in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth'

Here, Exodus was speaking of events that occured from Genesis 1:2 onwards, not from the initial epoch of creation in Genesis 1:1.  We don't know how long ago creation occured; but the Bible speaks about several epochs of what God did after the initial creation - that is why we read of His making and renewing the earth.

It is for this reason that even the orthodox Jews believe in 974 generations before Adam.

The most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses, that is, 3 statements that further describe the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1.  The grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 rules out a time gap between the events in verse 1 and the events in verse 2.  Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth: "And the earth was without form and void" (Genesis 1:2).

@modupe01, thank you for your reply and observations. Very interesting, and I understand where you're coming from. I only wish that you had taken a closer look at the distinctions I made between those words - that is how Scripture declares them in those verses.

modupe01:

It will be interesting knowing what our Lord Jesus Christ has to say about what Moses wrote or said.  Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts such as the creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish.  He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1-9).  In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (amongst others) affirmation showing that Jesus was a young earth creationist.  He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old.  So, if Jesus was a young earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

It is true and healthy that faithful followers of Jesus Christ should not be deviating from what He declared and affirmed. In that vein, I'm happy to note that my observations have not deviated from His, at least in so far as I read all the verses together for a coherent picture.

Now, Mark 10:6 is interesting (as is the synoptic in Matthew 19:4) - but do passages like that make Him a "YEC" - young earth creationist? No, I don't think so.

(1) In the first place, we know that the complete picture of the thinking of our Lord Jesus Christ does not lead to the idea that He saw the earth as a young or recent creation of some 6,000 years old. When the phrase "in the beginning" is used in Scripture, it does not necessarily all point to a dating system beginning with the 'first day' - they are used differently.

(2) If we look prophetically in Proverbs 8:23 (which many Christians believe is pointing to the prophetic declaration of Christ), we find that even the Lord Jesus Himself spoke about an age of existence long before even the earth was - and in that passage, He mentions "the beginning" as a time before the creation of the earth:

     "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was"

(3)  That verse speaks about "the beginning" as a time when even the earth was not yet existing! Thus, we have to be very careful when we're talking about "the beginning" - it does not necessarily refer to the time when Adam was created - because even before Adam, life in biological forms in animate beings were clearly distinguished in male and female forms, which is not merely a matter of "man and woman".

(4)  When Jesus spoke of "the beginning" in such passages as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, he said 'male and female' - not 'man and woman'. I contend that He clearly was pointing out creation in broad terms rather than an idea presupposing a theory of YEC-ism.

(5)  Now,  the point in (4) above might startle many of us Christians - but that is only if we have been thinking that the phrase "in the beginning" always refers to the creation that occurred within the time frame as interpreted to support YEC. That is not true - because if that were true, it would mean that even John 1:1 translates into an idea that the Divine Word was 6,000 years old! Afterall, that verse also mentions 'in the beginning' . . "in the beginning was the Word". Is that clause there ("in the beginning" also pointing to a YEC? Clearly not - rather, in harmony with Prov. 8:23, it was a "beginning" that was much, much earlier than our traditional YEC-6,000 years old!

(6)  Another thing we have to understand: when Scripture speaks about the creation of the world including the earth, God does not set the date as recent as 6,000 old. Read Hebrews 1:6 where it is said that He "bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world" - when did this happen, modupe01? When the God bring in the firstbegotten into the world? The answer is in what follows - at the very time when He asked the angels to worship the Son! Do you know when that very thing happened? No, not after Adam was created - rather, there are some verses right in the Bible that shows that such a thing occured LONG BEFORE Adam was created! The point is that the world (including the earth) predates Adam such that there was a time when the Son of God Himself stepped into the mystery of the creation - "when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world".

(7)  Now, maybe I would find the opportunity to open this subject in detail; but focusing on Mark 10:6, we should not confuse "male and female" for 'man and woman' - no. Even the animals also appear as 'male and female' without being human beings (see Gen. 7:16 - "male and female of all flesh". As such, Christ was laying down a cardinal truth: animate life in the flesh (including those that predated Adam and those that came after) were created in distinct sexes - "male and female".

From the foregoing, we see why the idea of a 6,000 year-old YEC theory is an assumption that caters for traditional interpretations of Scripture and is froth with many problems. The YE Creationist has to account for those verses that show that "in the beginning" is also a time epoch that is far older than 6,000 years - otherwise they would have to say that John 1:1 ('in the beginning') is also 6,000 years old! Can they gamble on that?

If these would help to stir your thinking, then I shall be back much later to share on other comments you made.

Cheers.

modupe01:

If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for "day" found in Genesis 1 which is qualified by a number, the phrase "evening and morning" and for Day 1 the words "light and darkness" which obviously means an ordinary day (approximately 24 hrs).

It is possible for 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' to be taken as a literal 24hrs. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case - not because we are looking for excuses from outside influence to stretch the days and nights in Genesis 1 into eons and epochs.

There are a few reasons why the time there (at least for me) does not necessarily refer to a 24hr time frame:

(1) Genesis 1 does not tell us anything about when certain things were created. It just mentions them and takes them for granted. An example? Water. You will not find any verse in that chapter telling you that God created water on any particular day. . count them: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th day - none! The 7th is not included because He rested on that day. Rather, it just takes it for granted from as early as verse 2 - " the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

(2) Turning to the NT, the apostle Peter makes a remarkable statement in 2 Peter 3:5 --

'by the word of God the heavens were of old,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

Notice, please: Peter was describing the primordial condition of the earth and noted that it was standing "out of" the water - and also "in" the water. Many people have assumed that Peter was describing a situation akin to the second day Genesis 1. However, it is strongly implying (to me, at least) that he was thinking more in terms of the primordial condition of the earth which Gen. 1:2 describes as "the face of the deep".

(3) To this end, would it be accurate to infer a 24hr period for the primordial condition of the earth? I don't think so - especially because no one knows just how long "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" in Genesis 1:2 before light appeared in verse 3.

(4) Again, let us think a little deeper: we have noted the example of water as taken for granted in Genesis 1 - we are not told just when God created water in all those days (1st to 6th). Another example is the Sun - we are not told when the Sun was created. We know that many people read Psalm 136:7-9 take for granted that the greater light refers to 'the sun' and the lesser light refers to 'the moon' in Genesis 1:16 - but that is just conveniently plugging holes. The earlier verses from 3 and 14-15 of Genesis 1 already spoke about lights even before talking about the lesser light and greater light in verse 16!

(5) From the above, we see that there are certain elements taken for granted in Genesis 1 (such as water and the sun) - nobody knows when in all those days they were created. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that tells us anything about the very day they were created.

(6) Consequently, we understand that there are also so many other things described in the Bible that were already created and established, but which are not described in the epochs or 'days' in Genesis 1!

These are some very small matters to help us think when we form our thoughts about creation. The universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years old - and all these I've shown without any outside influence like paleontology or archeology.