Posted on 08/06/2005 7:44:39 PM PDT by Crackingham
It wasn't My quandry, it was yours. - see your post #60.
In answer to your other question, about light. I guess you didn't notice but that was the second thing he created after the waters. In fact, it is Genesis, Chapt. 3. Just in case you don't have the same Bible I have, I'll be a pal and give it to you according to the King James Version of which I prescribe:
Genesis
Chapter 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Skip to chapter 5 and God has created Day and Night and it goes on to say that:
And god called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night and the evening and the morning were the first day.
Please take note, The First Day. So now what were you saying about the plants not being able to live without sunlight?
Sorry, but you are pretty vague on what you are talking about.
Thank you for your thoughts. I'll start out by saying that you have some good reasons to believe what you do.
Doesn't it strike you a little peculiar, though, that ever since the beginning of time people have believed in a literal 24 hour day creation period, whilst, only until recently has the long-day theory been advanced and popularized?
As far as the passage, you mention that most Bibles footnote it as became, I would assume that there is a debate here based on textual science. So I would guess that the debate is valid. I don't, however, think you can, out of this, pull an absolute claim that this word has been hijacked for centuries and that the passage's presumed established meaning throughout history has been masked by the recent translations. The Bible has many words that can be translated one way or the other, as far as sense and tense and other grammatical situations, similar to this situation. You cannot absolutely conclude, based on the textual evidence alone that became is the proper translation.
2 Peter 2:4-5 (NASB) 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
All I see in these two verses are the fall of Satan and his angels and the Genesis flood. There is no indication of an earth inhabited between eternity and Gen. 1:1.
Well, actually that #3 was my point, and I don't think you did exactly. After reply #31, I may have become more smarmy than I prefer...
In #3 You wrote "I've never seen that, especially since science has nothing to say about morals." in response to what your recipient had written about "science worshippers", a seemingly derogatory term for "scientists" or "supporters" of evolution.
In effect, you changed the subject. That had been my point. The writer to which you responded never made any claims about "science" itself, but about those who espouse it as something more than it is (in his/her view). That's a key diversion in my humble opinion.
In sixty years in applied science, I have never met, or heard of, a "science worshipper" and, I strongly suspect, the fool I posted to never has either and wouldn't know one if it bit him in the ass. He posts his non-sequitur strawman construct and I call him on it - is that something new in your experience?
I see the label as derogatory, while conveying a point valid of many who are active in this type of debate. It is still derogatory and incites responses which detract from the debate.
I would expect and support your argument that a debate tactic was used. I took the opportunity to point out that interchanging "science" with "those who support a specific theory as above scrutiny" is not accurate. My point may have engaged semantics, but they are important as well.
It is not new to me.
I agree with you. But those who post such tripe are rarely interested in a debate at all and, from time to time, all of us get weary of dealing with them. Here's an excerpt of how Longshadow put it a few days ago.
... The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that many anti-Evo posters are disingenuous in their denial of Evolution. They proclaim their open-mindedness, their neutrality, their willingness to follow the evidence, yet when it comes to acting upon it to find out the truth of what they are arguing about, they won't lift a finger to do five minutes worth of research online to get an answer to the the question at hand.It seems to me that this sort of willful, disingenuous ignorance is not deserving of graceful behavior by the opposition, and no amount of satire used to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of such mendacity is too much.
A similar investment of five minutes worth of online Googling would reveal the utter bogusity most of the overly simplistic anti-Evo arguments that get trotted out here; even some of the better Creationist sites warn against using these laughably incorrect arguments. That the poster does not bother to do so BEFORE posting it is prima facia evidence that he is not interested in truth or accuracy, but rather in revelling in his own ignorance while disrupting the dialogue among those who are.
Forgot to ping you to your own quote in #109.
Your points are well made. The thoughtful from either side of the debate may, with conviction, fairly make the claim of some or many on the other.
Unfortunately, the claim is often made of all. Emotion of any kind detracts.
Have a great week.
You too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.