• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

excreationist

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Unfettered said:
We all live in God's creation. We can see that it works. If the Bible record of how it was done doesn't conform to what we understand about orders of operation, we are still living in God's creation, and we can still see that it works.

I guess I don't understand; it seems like this thread wants to make cornbread from sand. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.
 
Unfettered

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
excreationist said:
If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I do not yet understand the purpose of this thread.
 
excreationist

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Unfettered said:
Thank you. I do not yet understand the purpose of this thread.
Click to expand...
It is to point out that in the creation story the plants (and fruit trees) were created before the Sun, Moon and stars and this conflicts with mainstream science. So it seems that a literal reading of it is not true even though old earth creationists try to make it fit with science.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
excreationist said:
If there was evidence for the miraculous 6 day creation story then that would be evidence for God. Otherwise where is the evidence for God's existence? Apparently more physicists and scientists are atheists or agnostics compared to the general population. They should be more qualified to determine whether there is good evidence for God's existence. And the evidence for the miraculous Christian God would be even harder to find than a vague god.
Click to expand...
The order of appearance that scientists attribute to the same things mentioned in the Genesis story of the creation, is practically the same.

How can someone from 4 millennia ago invent the order of appearance of things as conceived today by scientific discoveries developed only with modern advanced technology?
 
Unfettered

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
excreationist said:
It is to point out that in the creation story the plants (and fruit trees) were created before the Sun, Moon and stars and this conflicts with mainstream science. So it seems that a literal reading of it is not true even though old earth creationists try to make it fit with science.
Click to expand...
OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?
 
excreationist

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Eli G said:
The order of appearance that scientists attribute to the same things mentioned in the Genesis story of the creation, is practically the same.

How can someone from 4 millennia ago invent the order of appearance of things as conceived today by scientific discoveries developed only with modern advanced technology?
Click to expand...
No it is roughly something like this:

Stars (day 4)
Sun and moon (day 4) and more stars
Underwater creatures (day 5)
Dry land (day 3)
Land creatures (day 6)
Fruit trees (day 3)
More land creatures (day 6)
Birds (day 5)
Humans (day 6)
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Eli G said:
Just clarifying my position: I am not, nor any other Jehovah's witness is, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).
Click to expand...
True, but that is not the problem with the belief of JW. Jw rejects the sciences of evolution based on their interpretation of Genesis,

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The Watch Tower Society teaches a combination of gap creationism and day-age creationism, with an extended period between the initial creation of the universe and the subsequent 'creative days' in relation to the earth, which are said to have taken "thousands of years".[91] It dismisses Young Earth creationism as "unscriptural and unbelievable",[92] and states that Jehovah's Witnesses "are not creationists" on the basis that they do not believe the earth was created in six literal days.[93][94] Watch Tower Society publications attempt to refute the theory of evolution, in favor of divine intelligent design.[95] The Society teaches that the first human, Adam, was created in 4026 BCE.[96]
'
This neglects the problem that the authors of the Pentateuch, the NT and the Church fathers believed in a literal Genesis.

Jehovah Witness also believes in a basically literal Pentateuch and a literal world flood at the time of Noah. There is basically no evidence for this impossible world flood based on basic Physics and Geology.



  • Bible writers believed that Noah was a real person. For example, the Bible writers Ezra and Luke were skilled historians who included Noah in genealogies of the nation of Israel. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) The Gospel writers Matthew and Luke recorded Jesus’ remarks about Noah and the Flood.—Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27.
    Also, the prophet Ezekiel and the apostle Paul cited Noah as an example of faith and righteousness. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Hebrews 11:7) Would it make sense for these writers to point to a mythical person as an example to follow? Clearly, Noah and other men and women of faith are examples to imitate because they were real people.—Hebrews 12:1; James 5:17.
  • The Bible gives specific details about the Flood. The Bible account of the Flood does not begin with anything like “Once upon a time,” as if it were a fairy tale. Rather, the Bible states the year, the month, and the day that events connected with the Flood happened. (Genesis 7:11; 8:4, 13, 14) It also gives the dimensions of the ark that Noah built. (Genesis 6:15) These details show that the Bible presents the Flood as a fact, not as a fable.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unfettered said:
We all live in God's creation. We can see that it works. If the Bible record of how it was done doesn't conform to what we understand about orders of operation, we are still living in God's creation, and we can still see that it works.

I guess I don't understand; it seems like this thread wants to make cornbread from sand. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
This is in the Evolution vs. Creationism part of the forum. You do not get to assume that there is a creation. You do not get to assume that there is a God. Yes, life works. The scientific evidence does not show a hint of God. Where are you getting your God claims from?
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Brian2 said:
I think that whenever things are said to have been made (eg plants and fruit trees), that probably means that the evolution of those things began at that time.
It is like when in Gen 1:1 it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that does not mean that it was all created and stayed the same as when created,,,,,,,,,,,,, it changed, evolved, into what it became after it was created.
So it was much longer than 200 Million years ago that plants were created and began to evolve. At that time there was light reaching the earth through the clouds, but the heavenly bodies could not be seen distinctly until day 4. (and of course there were no animals to see the heavenly bodies till day 4 also)
Click to expand...
Your thoughts here make sense as far as I am concerned, Brian2. If God thought it was important for us to know all the genetic details of creation and how He put them all together, I think He would have told us. He allowed Moses to know in a way that Moses could understand without becoming a biochemist. Even biochemistry is limited in its scope, but I'm sure you understand what I mean. And was it important at that time? ok, enough said.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@Brian2 besides, I doubt too many people were wondering about that at the time Genesis was written. I don't think too many people wonder how their skin came about -- in a general sense -- like "How did my skin get here"? Molecular science usually isn't a big concern to many people. Why we are alive is more of a concern, and how can we be happy?
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
I'd like to say that, looking at your avatar, the creation is so fabulous that any argument against creation by God has now become useless as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Just calling everything "creation" doesn't make it so.

Good to know you can admit that your mind is closed, I guess.
YoursTrue said:
Some people just like to argue, and that's apparent with some here...they call it "logic," but it's actually -- stupidity.
Click to expand...
No, it's just logic. You should give it a try sometime.
YoursTrue said:
That includes the theory of evolution as if it's an absolute no-dispute fact and people want to show why they believe it.
Click to expand...
This isn't an example of logic. Rather, it's an example of an extremely well-evidenced scientific theory.

Evolution is a demonstrable fact of life. Allele frequencies change in populations over time. The theory of evolution is the compilation of facts that explains evolution. Of course you already know this, because I've pointed it out to you countless times.
YoursTrue said:
Just looking at the way things grow is beyond anyone's comprehension, DNA included.
Click to expand...
Just yours. Scientists understand DNA. Many on this thread and others have tried to explain it to you countless times before.
YoursTrue said:
I have become convinced from these posts and looking at the way things grow and develop in general that there is no solid argument against what the Bible says or whether God as creator exists.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest here, you had that belief long before you got to this forum.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Pete in Panama said:
Interesting. What I'm getting from you is that you've never found any significant value in fiction. iirc the puritans hated fiction and they said that since it was not true it should be shunned. My understanding from you is that you're not really saying how you feel about fiction other than you want to disagree w/ anything I say.

You're not saying that every single one of the billions --most of the human race-- report seeing value in the Bible because of "coercion, physical and mental" are you? Please let me know what you think after mulling this through.
Click to expand...
Approximately 2.38 people in the world are Christians. The human population of earth is 8.1 billion people.
Sorry, but that's not "most of the human race."

Pete in Panama said:
Do you realize that earlier you were saying "bibles" as in many different bibles? Now it seems you're saying "book" like there's one underlying common book. Is it possible for us to pick one position here?

You've expressed this opinion and I thank you for your input.
Click to expand...
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
excreationist said:
Unfettered said:
OK, but I still don't understand why you made this thread. Are you trying to reach, or reach out to, creationists?
Click to expand...

Old earth creationists - not young earth creationists.
Click to expand...

But why? Have you scanned the Evolution Vs Creationism directory? Did you find anything that led you to believe the thread would be productive?

The one thing that is absolutely clear in Genesis 1 -- irrespective of translation -- is that when God said be fruitful and multiply it was not referring to evolution versus creationism debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top