Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?
As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.
The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
Actually, it's my observation that "day" in Genesis is figurative, not literal. I take great foundational truths from Genesis, I just don't see the point in laboring under an unnecessary fealty to one interpretation of "the" literal interpretation, that is, that "day" means a literal 24 hour time period in Genesis.
You can't have it both ways unless you reject the law of noncontradiction and the logic that goes with it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems to me that those who insist a literal day in Genesis 1 but concede a figurative day in Genesis 2 are the ones who want it both ways.
So which would you rather be, wrong or illogical?
Nonfallacious.
Then why do so many literal Creationists claim that of Genesis 1?
You're absolutely right. But it's a sound, well written argument against a belief I don't have and didn't mean to imply that I do have.
Your link specifies a rule, not a generalization.
Therefore, I'm sure.
For many reasons, one of which is a link in post #160.
The entire purpose of the page is to say that had God intended anything other than twenty-four hours he had plenty of words from which to choose. The only conclusion one can draw from that argument is that every use of yom denotes one twenty-four-hourish period.
Griggs doesn't address Genesis 2, so you're left with making an exception in chapter 2 for the Griggs' rule you're relying on for chapter 1. Doesn't seem like much of a rule.
I'm not sure you are understanding the claim of Fatalis or my response. The author of the piece to which you linked claimed that the word means a 24-hour period when combined with a specific number. He did not claim that yom must always mean a 24 hour day.
Here are the words of Fatalis:
If "day" (the Hebrew "yom") must always be translated as a single 24 hour period,
Now tell me, who claims that yom must always be translated as a literal 24 hour period? No one... except the evolutionists who feel the need to mischaracterize creationists.
Have we switched our discussion to an analysis of the linked article? I am not inclined to do so. I merely pointed out his mention of how to tell whether a 24 hour period was meant. If you are seriously interested in how Hebrew works, you might want to consult BibChr who has taught the language at the graduate level.
If you think the only reason for holding to 24 hour days is the structure of Genesis, you are mistaken.
Gen 2:4 is and always has been figurative. To acknowledge that is not a concession. But you know that.
Griggs doesn't address Genesis 2, so you're left with making an exception in chapter 2 for the Griggs' rule you're relying on for chapter 1. Doesn't seem like much of a rule.
If you read Gen 2:4, you'd quickly realize that there is no number associated with "day." I believe that was the rule. Did you read it? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Fatalis says the Hebrew word "yom" is usually translated into the English word "day".
Fatalis rightly recognizes that there are many creationists who take this word to mean a twenty-four hour period... in the context of Genesis 1... and therefore reject many basic tenants of evolution.
Fatalis then pointed out that the very next chapter of the very same verse used the very same word to mean something other than a twenty-four hour period. The implication, therefore, that he silently shares is that the first chapter's use of yom might not mean a twenty-four hour period.
Not sounding like a bumbling idiot yet, am I?
Your response was that no one believes that every use of yom should be taken to mean a twenty four hour period.
I thought that was a very profound statement. No one? Nobody? Not even some first-year Hebrew student who never read Genesis?
I tend to hate absolutes, so it didn't take me long to google-up a page wherein someone made the argument that the Hebrew word yom only meant twenty-four hours in Genesis 1 because had the author (God) intended something other than a twenty-four hour period He would not have chosen the Hebrew word yom.
Though it is never stated outright, if I am to believe what is written at that link I can only conclude that the word yom in Genesis 2 must mean twenty-four hours because (I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb for this assumption) God had the same set of words to use to express Himself in Genesis 2 as he did in Genesis 1.
You start with one cell. That cell is not resistant. It divides. You have two cells. In all probability neither is resistant. Ditto four cells. As the population grows exponentially, the small probability of a favorable mutation is multiplied by the large number of cells (and perhaps increased by the presence of mutagens). Eventually, in a culture of a billion cells, a few have become resistant. Expose the culture to antibiotics, and the resistant cells survive, and eventually take over the culture.
The possibility of a mixed culture is eliminated by making sure the culture is monoclonal; i.e. - you start with a single bacterium. Any diversity after that has arisen by mutation.
You jumped on a comment I made to someone else. That's certainly fair, but it's curious that you're complaining about us discussing it now.
If you read Gen 2:4, you'd quickly realize that there is no number associated with "day." I believe that was the rule. Did you read it? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Griggs' rule is altogether too convenient. It enables you to insist on one meaning for yom in Genesis 1 and another for Genesis 2. Once you've painted yourself into that corner, you're forced to insist that things like radiometric clocks are some sort of trickery, and insisting that there are no transitional fossils in the face of thousands of them.
All for what? Ironically, so that you can agree with the atheistic materialists about the stakes of the debate over evolutionary theory.
Evolution informs us not at all about Salvation, as much as literal Creationists and atheists wish it would.
Creationists do a great service to the Devil by insisting that disbelief in evolution is necessary for Salvation, or that belief in evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
I'm not offended, but if you'd like to know why this wasn't an intelligent question, let me know.
I used to. I don't do it any longer. I have lots of battles of my own to fight. I'll resume standing up for the religious rights of my Christian fellow-conservatives when they stop trying to intrude their beliefs into an area I consider of paramount importance.
They are just the same way if one blames Evolution.
Word pictures of how something COULD HAVE evolved, do not make it true that it DID evolve, does it?
Uh... so would Evolution.
I understand your point. I'm not an evolutionist or a creationist. I'm stuck trying to make up my mind and I've ridden the pendulum several times. Too many times, I guess. I've argued against every option so many times that I don't know what to believe anymore. None of the options seem to really make sense up close.
How do you rectify the sequence of events proposed by evolution with those presented in the bible? Do you really believe that God chose to mention grasses before the sun as some sort of figurative literary device? What is that supposed to teach us?
Is every biblical event that contradicts scientific evidence to be regarded as figurative? Even the resurrection? Where does that leave us?
Are you talking about post #35?
Not always so, go study the history of science. Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts. One could say, some/many of them have almost a religious attitude towards evolution, amoung other things.
So what you're saying is that when science behaves like proponents of ID behave, science is wrong. What does that say about ID?
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.