Poor reading comprehension, a lack of understanding of logic and inference, and a presupposition that the Bible isn’t true usually creates “contradictions” that don’t exist.

So, I'm guessing that some here believe that the building blocks of life rode in here on a comet. Said building blocks were incinerated on the way and slammed in with a mega g force. Soon to fleck off the face of said meteorite and begin to wiggle, multiply, divide, and populate the world for it to be as we know it today. All beginning at a time when the atmosphere was inhospitable due to its acidic makeup.

How did this loaded meteor find its way here? My guess if the shotgun theory is to be deployed, that would take a little looking into. I mean, how much "shot" would be required to hit a barn ten miles away with at least ONE bb sized pellet? (Provided there was plenty of range and no drop). Using scientific language, I'd say about 3 giraffes in size just MIGHT do it.

 But how about the origination being from millions of light years away? To take a practical look at such impractical odds, it seems that with as much "shot" out there and with such monumental ability to overcome conditions that some scientists say are impossible, wouldn't it be easy to find something out there? Since conditions everywhere else is different, the very idea stands to reason that the "shot" has capabilities beyond our understanding, something should be out there even if it doesn't match what is here on earth.

I mean, if that is to be believed.

I'll stick to the Word of God. Much of it I may not understand, but it's right anyway.

Side note: These aliens that are superior to us, they travel unknown light years to our earth, using navigation nearing the capabilities of Elon Musk (lol), CRASH in some farmer's field! I don't get it!

But seriously folks, I'm not saying that our elected officials, armed with leading scientists and highly decorated military dignitaries are flat earthers. They just want to propagate exactly that.

 

I read your post, that is closer to how I might interpret things than some of the more literal surface interpretations.
If we are going with it doesn't say so x is possible then pretty much any interpretation has validity.
and if the 2nd chapter is specifically refering to eden and it doesn't say God never created man before it could just as well be referring to a specific important person and not the first person ever.

the point was that you were focused on a short very specific phrase for your interpretation in disavowing evolution but then the next chapter gives a very different telling which evolution could easily be accommodated in to.

i never said it wasnt true

Nature is magical, chemicals rearranging themselves into living things. I'm amazed it isn't happening today.

i am not trying to get anyone to believe anything and am mostly asking thought provoking questions. I have my own ideas of the answers but really none of us can know.

it probably is. Would that somehow negate the existence of God?

Life from a nonliving clump of chemicals?

Yeah, I was kidding around. Chemicals don't change into living things.

Probably isn't. Its impossible. There is zero evidence of any such process.

because you can observe the entire universe or even disprove it on the nearest planet let alone the countless planets in the universe?
I'd leave out the possibility of multiverses but then what are heaven or hell?

whether it is happening or not is kind of irrelevant though. If it were happening, would that mean there is no God?

Then disregard my post

One piece of shot is required. You might need a ton of shot to make it likely that at least one piece will hit, but only one is actually necessary. This basic fact does not indicate support for any weird alien origin of life theory.

IDK exactly what you believe regarding this, but your saying this makes me want to point out - you can know what a text means and says. You are using text and language and (I'll assume) expecting others to know what it means. Let's apply the same standard to the text that is at hand and respect those authors the same way.


Cool - something of a progress towards understanding.

So, are you saying that even though the one text doesn't allow for it, the other (does, might, could)?

If one text clearly rejects soemthing, and another one doesn't...

If the two don't contradict each other, why assume that the author rejects this thing here and than accepts it there?

You have to show that the text the author gave does that. We don't get to assume the author did that.

Basically, all you're left with ATM is "but he doesn't reject it over here."

Which would only mean this other passage doesnt' reject it.

Does the other passage say you have to have what the other passage says you can't have?

As far as I know evolutionary theory doesn't even pretend to explain how life came from non-life.

I believe it just tries to explain the great variation that we see in life came to be.

It's helpful to not mash the two topics together.

(Not saying yall are, just trying to make the distinction clear).

If it was happening somewhere else, it wouldn't be a problem for theism in general. It would be an issue for the biblical account. As far a we know, the only life we know God created were the angels and what's on the earth. No one has observed the chemical to life process by natural means, no one knows how that is even possible.

What if you use a Bible that says "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened:"? Or one that says "Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so."?

I would tell you that if you can read that text and think that text says, or in any way contains the meaning "can reproduce offspring that's not it's own kind" ...

you could also read the 2nd amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

and think that it means the rights of the people SHALL be infringed, if we want to, if it just saves one life.

No, we go with what the text says and means. Not what it doesn't.

it is only your assertion that each after their own kind outright rejects any possibility of evolution or that evolution excludes creationism.
It's possible the author meant he made an ox then a bison and then a cow not necessarily that there is no possibility for any sort of mutation in subsequent generations. I don't think it is disrespectful to look at thousands of years old text and question what they actually meant by each after their own kind. That is not something we would say today and who really knows how it was originally written or worded and what version of the bible we are pulling it from today.
If we look to another argument posited in this thread we would see an insistence that Cain and Seth were fine with procreating with their sisters and we didn't see any deformities but later God said it was taboo and we now see that close relatives procreating has a high probability of birth defects. Young earth creationists will argue that this is due to genetic defects or mutations...
This is a bit of a departure from the topic of young earth anyway.

When I read all three versions I don't see anything about reproduction one way or the other. My assumption is that you're reading quite a bit into "fruit after their kind"; namely that you're using that particular phrase to reach conclusions about reproduction. Thus my question about translations that don't include that particular phrase.

But this is only your assertion.

If all we have is assertions and we can't know what the text means, be consistent.

Shut up. Because nobody can communicate.

If you didn't mean that all we have is assertion, why use any language that could mean that?

Just stick with showing what the text means, by using the text itself. That actually works and doesn't destroy itself.

Evolution by definition means that life can repoduce not after it's own kind.

The text bluntly says that each reproduces after its own kinds.

NOWHERE does the text (anywhere) ever say it can also reproduce not after it's kind. Open invitation for anyone to quote where it does say / mean that.



No, this needs to be pointed out for what it is. That's a shellgame, don't pull that.

I very specifically said not it's kind, I did not say "can't reproduce offspring without variations."

Even evolutionists who are honest point out that evolution can and does mean not just their proposed process(produce offspring with variations), it also means the results (enough variations pile up to make a different kind of life). I'll dig up the goods and reciepts on this if I have to. It's not very hard.

The biblical text rejects the one, not the other.


You tried the "but that's just your interpretation" thing in this very post I'm replying to.  


We don't speak or write like they did at the founding, that was 200 years ago, who really knows how it was originally written or worded, and what version of the constitution are you pulling it from today?

You are trying to use a universal acid selectively. That never works.

You read it the same way you read anything else: according to the meaning of the words they had at the time and the grammer they followed back when it was written. It's not magic. We call it "reading" and "translation."

Yes, I just picked on you for trying to blow that up into more than what it is. That sort of stuff is political and theological leftist stock and trade and it's dumb, please don't do it.

We can know what ancient texts said. Please don't wander off topic.

The texts you quoted that started this discussion between us doesn't contradict what I posted and doesn't allow for reproduing not-its-kind. We have to go with what's in the text and what it means. Not anything else, ... if we are trying to figure out what that text means.




Not my monkeys, not my zoo.

This would be where you tell what translation you are using so people can check your math.

ETA:
nasb
(Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

(Genesis 1:24) Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

eta2:

used similarly

[NASB] Genesis 6:20
“*xAOf the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

[NASB] Genesis 7:14
they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after *n1their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, *n2all sorts of birds.

you are adding in the word reproducing.

and hey look at this version NRSVCE that doesn't even say each after their own kind, it says of every kind.



this version KJV says after his kind



NIV says each according to their kind


and those are just different interpretations from various hebrew scholars of the same text.

It also says in that chapter that God created all of humankind man and woman after he had created the animals.

then in the next chapter it says he created all the animals at once after he had already created a man so that he would not be alone.

yet you stand on one translation of one chapter to exclude an entire theory because reasons?

eta imho the nrsvce actually offers the translation that makes the most sense in all uses.

eta2 just updated the versions so as not to exclude any particular lines that are included in another version

I've seen theories that mineral deposits attract more minerals like it and if broken off will continue attracting more of the same minerals. Then perhaps some of those mineral deposits form dams to block the flow of water / allow it to siphon off minerals before other deposits have a chance to take them. This was the basics of replication and selection.


It was just a theory. But the alternative of hey here is a book and it's true because I said so doesn't have much to stand on either.

Incorrect. Daniel 8:26 uses it in the exact same fashion, and it is commonly and obviously interpreted to mean an unspecific long period of time.

The pattern is with the number, nothing more.

And you are wrong on your thoughts on my position. I'm not afraid of science because I'm rational, and there is no conflict with Scripture and science unless one is irrational. When I speak of science, I'm referring to the actual process in its purest meaning, not the religious aspects, or "$science."

This is an important distinction. Real science essentially means questioning everything in an attempt to better understand it.
"Science" as of late has taken on quite a dogmatic approach which is heavily financially influenced.

Finding data that seems to refute a current theory should be considered a great discovery and not buried by multinational corporations and their pocket politicians or by a church because they think it refutes their teachings.

[*StrongsHebrew*]
1876 dasha daw-shaw' a primitive root; to sprout:--bring forth, spring.





Why yes it does. It says (gasp) How does saying tha God created every kind of creature mean the creature can reproduce not it's kind?

Kind, btw:



If you're going to use the third setting for machine gun, you have to be able hit your target.


You also weren't quoting the same text, you were jumping around - did you think nobody would see that?

How does the fact that you can say the same thing with different words and the fact that people translate things differently make understanding impossible here? Are you just being selectively skeptical?

eta: "to not be alone" Go ahead and go to the text and show how it means "no other living beings were around" when it says alone.

Work really hard to ignore the passage where it obviously talks about no mate after his kind was found for him, just like the spox in the briefing room ignores hard questions.

I think there is a respect for tradition among humans. Some guy that follows "the old ways" and not the new fangled thing is respected. Doing something the old fashioned way sounds nice to us. There are a lot of euphemisms we have for this. For example, if a piece of art was "hand-crafted" it is generally a mark of something superior. When you buy a bottle of nice whiskey it always has some hand-crafting or old-fashioned methods involved, not a statistical process control with pFMEA's and control plans. That doesn't sound very nice does it?


So now we get to the bible which was solidified a few thousand years ago. People who follow it completely and ignore all the modern noise are the true believers. They must be onto something, especially if it involves personal sacrifice. Believing in everything in the book no matter how outlandish it may seem shows that they aren't corrupted by modern day perversions.


Nobody likes to think about what if the bible is wrong. What if it is all made up and has no bearing on the world. That truth would be ugly. We like the story of the person that is devoted to a cause and gives their entire life to it. We don't want to talk about the possibility that was a wasted life. We like the story of the person that resists until the very end and never gives up. I think that is the trap that ensnares so many minds with any ideology. I wonder if there was no bible, would OP insist the world is a few thousand years old.

I all but have to beg people to get into the text and show how what they say it says is in the text, and trying to get people to explain how they know by sensory observation or science is like trying to find an honest politician.

Everyone talks, barely anyone puts the cards down.

Daniel 8:26  And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

So, this scripture is dealing with a vision, that's the first problem with your usage. Visions aren't correlated one for one concerning something like Genesis 1, which is history, not a vision. Secondly, the vision just speaks of many days, not billions of years. If God wanted to convey billions of years I'm sure there is a Hebrew for many years . I would say that the "morning and evening" comports nicely with the many days that follow, indicating actual days are being spoken of.

The two versions I quoted were the NAB and the NSRV-CE. No matter which version we use, none of them use the word "reproduce", much less "bluntly says that each reproduces after its own kinds."

i wasn't jumping around I just left out some of the whale and water bits at first. I already added them so they all include the same verses. which is irrelevant to the matter.

saying he brought forth every kind of creature is silent on different species being able to evolve from there or for that matter the manner in which he brought them forth beyond speaking.
The inferences you are making exceed the meaning of the text. We can definitely say that God is responsible for their existence but not specify how they were crafted.

Again though we should probably try to bring this back to young vs old earth.

This is a fair observation. I think OP is defending the earth is less that 10k years. I don't think the bible explicitly states that, but if you follow the genealogies in Matthew 1 and add up the timelines of the old you get the more or less <10k year old earth.

yet you look at the text, add words and claim it means something beyond what it says.

So, we are going to delve into the inner mind of Tom? What if, what if. If there was no bible, no revelation from God, who knows what my path would have been like, maybe I would have said screw it, let's put some action in my life and live a real life Heat movie. What if.

but the morning and evening of the first day were just the separation of light and darkness before there was an earth or sun so how can that even mean a day as we describe it now?

Exactly which verse are you saying I added the word reproduces to?

Which did I say meant something the text doesn't?

Quote the specific verses, because I'm not seeing it and this just looks to me like you're being petulant.

you know what word you are adding, show me where that word is included?

we already covered the verses gen 1 20 - 25

or if you want gen 2 19

Who knows? Maybe you are right and I'll burn in hell. Maybe you are wrong and wasted a lot of your finite life on something that isn't true. I look at human behavior and I think there is an allure to sticking to ideologies in the face of resistance.

It says "evening and morning", not sun rise and sun set, God can and did distinguish the parts of a day as He saw fit. He doesn't need the sun for that. The sun and moon were added later again as He determined the created order. We look at things from our perspective, try looking from God's perspective.

i feel like we are rapidly approaching flat earth.

I am trying to look at it from the perspective of a timeless omnipotent omniscient omnipresent God. With that perspective the concept of 24 hours on earth is irrelevant in separating matter and nothing in the whole universe.

So you can't show where I am.

Yet you are forcefully saying I am.

You made the claim, I'm not going to prove it for you. Lie in the bed you made.

eta: or just take a mulligan.

If I'm wrong it won't matter one way or the other. We came about by accident, the universe (matter and energy) couldn't care less about us, and we're just bags of molecules bumping into each other. Vanity, vanity...all is vanity.

Maybe you've been conditioned to think that a sun and moon are necessary items before you can have evening and morning. God could had done it in anyway He wanted, He chose to do it that way. Men have always fancied themselves smarter than God. But God's way tends to confound the wise of this world. And no, we're not heading to a flat earth.

The moon is kind of erroneous to the whole situation anyway. It's day now and I can see it.
God could have done it any way he wanted and thus your assertion that your understanding is the way it was is fraught with error. You are interpreting the morning evening to mean a 24 hour day.
It doesn't say that.
It says

My interpretation is very different from yours. I would look more closely at separating all of the light from all of the darkness rather than a literal 24 hour day on a formless void earth.

Maybe it does imply the creation of time itself but that doesn't seem correct to me. Time is sort of subjective and variable and doesn't even exist at a small enough scale.

Pretty much nailed it.

There are a lot more complications (fine tuning and quantum multi-verses) but requiring faith is fundamental.

I interpret literal day there because that's what it says. How do you get millions or billions of years from the text? Day with an ordinate number..one...in this case, means an ordinary day. The whole problem with OE creationists is that they take the so called proof of billions of years of atheistic science as gospel truth, and then ravage the text by shoe horning in. At that point they have rejected thee authority of God and replaced with the authority of fools. The text is really simple if you're not trying to foist some agenda on it.

The bible does not embrace young earth creationism. Science and the bible to tend to point to an old earth.

Not reading 9 pages.