I have looked, & found no such law.
Since you're familiar with it, I thought you'd be
better able to search for that which you claim.
-
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!
The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Since you're familiar with it, I thought you'd be
better able to search for that which you claim.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As I mentioned, you simply cannot answer the question I posited to you, so the only thing you can come back with is just another insult. So, you have proven my point, namely that you simply do not know what you're talking about, and all you're doing is posting pseudo-science garbage.
BTW, that which I was referring to is called "infinity", which should have been both simple because it's logical, and that is what most cosmologists, according to researcher Leonard Susskind, are leaning towards. Of course there's no way of knowing if it is correct, but one promising sign is that it does work out mathematically.
So, next I'm sure you'll respond and tell us just how ignorant cosmologists are and how you know so much more than they.
BTW, I was not indoctrinated by the "public schools", especially since I went on and got a graduate degree in anthropology. But if it makes you feel better, you can believe in whatever you want to believe, as you obviously are doing-- no studying needed.
Also, on a different point, you actually might what to google "speciation", and even Wikipedia has both information and links to studies to help lead you out of your informational "black hole" on this matter of genetics that you're lost in.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Yes they do... The problem that you have is you're expecting someone to show you a single grand mutation, like a squirrel growing wings or some other equally nonsensical thing, in a single lifetime. You've asked for as much in previous responses and it shows your utter lack of understanding in the field.
Like I said before, you're looking at mutations as a single, whole, species-altering change. And that's practically never how they work. You're wanting X-men, and no one is going to be able to provide that for you. I'm sorry that biology doesn't work that way.
I find it odd that someone with such a vast knowledge of The Laws of Genetics, and who has spent 20 years reading scientific articles on Evolutionary Theory wouldn't have already known that...
Except for those times when they do...
Tell me, what biological process is responsible for the drifting genetic populations of finches, for example? Why are some finch populations, separated only by a few kilometers of ocean, so varied from one another and unable to mate? What natural mechanism causes the Large Ground Finch and Green Warbler Finch to be so different? If they aren't mutations among populations which are found to be beneficial in differing environments, then what are they?
(If you're knee-jerk response to me is that "they're both still birds!" then it just further shows that you know nothing about evolutionary biology.)
Your explanations of things reveal your ignorance on this topic, and you seem completely unaware of it...
In the span of a single sentence you've incorrectly made a claim about my belief system and you've misused the nomenclature of a Scientific Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."
First, which species of Squirrel are you referring to? That makes a big difference.
If you want the first known example of a squirrel-like creature, you'll have to travel back to the Eocene period. Before that, you won't find much of anything that looks like a modern "squirrel". Why do you think that is? Where did they come from? How did they get there? If not for the biological processes that drive evolutionary change, how do you account for new species showing up in the fossil record, like the squirrel does? Was it a magic invisible entity than poofed a new organism into existence by breathing life into some dirt? Or was it a natural biological process that allowed a similar creature to make slow and gradual adaptations to its environment over time, eventually becoming a population of rodents that looked familiar to a creature that you would recognize as being a squirrel?
Which of those two scenarios seems most logical, based on your everyday observations of reality?
Ask for a realistic bit of evidence that isn't based on ridiculous straw-man that you've invented and I'll be happy to.
One of the things that I hope you, and others, are noticing is that unlike your refusal to supply links or references to your arguments and claims, most of the people who are responding to you are actually citing their sources. We are paraphrasing, where necessary. We are cutting and pasting sections that are pertinent to this conversation, just as you've asked. We aren't telling you to "do your own research". We also aren't refusing to read citations based on our vast knowledge and experience with other people or other forums for the last 20 years. We aren't denying everything that's being put in front of us because it "can't be proven!". I hope you see the difference in how you're making your argument versus how we are making ours...
What you're saying here makes about as much sense as those people who think Evolution is disproven by "Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"...
I'm sure he thinks he sounds smart - but this guy doesn't even know why his question makes him look stupid... and I don't know which is worse.
So, sgain, please cite for me which Law of Genetics rejects the evolutionary process. Thus far, I've only seen you claim something about boneless parents never having offspring with bones...
Stand behind your position by reasonably arguing for it, with references to support you. Do that, or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and just move on.
If anything, Evolutionary understanding has been enhanced by genetic testing - not challenged.
I can see that you're just digging in deeper as you get called out on things, and I'd urge you to stop doing that. Your pride is keeping you from learning anything in these conversations, as I imagine it has hindered you in all of your previous debates on this topic.
I gave you a list of 12 earlier that you deemed "too long to read" - but here are some more...
Evolution - Populations change over time.
Evidence:
- Descent with Modification = You are not your grandmother.
- Changes occur in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. (Laws of Genetics, right?)
- Biochemical similarity
- Comparative Anatomy (Vestigial Organs, anyone?)
- Biogeography - (in the past, parent population loci were incorrectly referred to "centre's of Creation" by the Naturalists of the day - they maintained the belief of Aristotle that species were immutable. They were wrong.)
- Comparative Embryology
- Molecular Biology (Hox Genes and Pseudogenes?)
- Germ Theory uses Evolutionary Theory in the development of new drugs daily.
- Paleontology and Anthropology have found nothing to dispute the understanding of common descent - they've enhanced it.
- Homology
- Artificial Selection (This has been explained to you already - but why not list it once more?)
- Natural Selection is observable through localized ecological impacts on broader populations. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404) These wasps did not exist 160 years ago. Where did they come from?
Hilarity is about to ensue...
Wait for it...
Here it comes...
And there it is!
You've accused me of bringing religion into this conversation, apparently forgetting all of the references that you've already made to it to this point. I can only assume that you've done so unwittingly, which is ironic.
Tell me, dear friend, where does your idea of "AFTER THEIR KIND" come from if not from your Christian Creationist faith?
Before you answer, I will remind you of a passage from Proverbs, which says that lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. (12:22)
This is a completely nonsensical post.
The organism that you're referring to shows morphological and biochemical similarities that only align with the modern whales of today. It's placement in the geologic record objectively places it's existence before that of any modern whale. The Paleontological findings show that it only lived near shallow and wet areas, meaning that it was not entirely land-based nor entirely water-based. If not for common descent, please explain how and why those similarities exist...
Telling me that organisms only produce after their own kind does not answer the question. Loosely referencing the "Laws of Genetics" does not answer the question. Telling me that you've read a lot of articles over a twenty year period does not answer the question.
What I've listed above are facts. What conclusions can you draw from them?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, as no such "law" exists, which is one reason why I recommended @omega2xx google "speciation".
As you're obviously aware of, we have known for a long time now that mutations can cause variation within genes whereas new characteristics can emerge. But maybe he's not quite up to speed on this as geneticists have only known this for just over a century, and there was evidence that this was likely true even the century before that.
I think you'll likely agree with this, at least in part, but any religious position that denies the primacy of science to obtain, study, and teach objectively-derived evidence has to be considered bogus.
I'm more diplomatic....
I just prefer the scientific method(s) to loopy magical thinking.
There.....that won't offend anyone.
Yes they do... The problem that you have is you're expecting someone to show you a single grand mutation, like a squirrel growing wings or some other equally nonsensical thing, in a single lifetime. You've asked for as much in previous responses and it shows your utter lack of understanding in the field.
Like I said before, you're looking at mutations as a single, whole, species-altering change. And that's practically never how they work. You're wanting X-men, and no one is going to be able to provide that for you. I'm sorry that biology doesn't work that way.
I find it odd that someone with such a vast knowledge of The Laws of Genetics, and who has spent 20 years reading scientific articles on Evolutionary Theory wouldn't have already known that...
Except for those times when they do...
Tell me, what biological process is responsible for the drifting genetic populations of finches, for example? Why are some finch populations, separated only by a few kilometers of ocean, so varied from one another and unable to mate? What natural mechanism causes the Large Ground Finch and Green Warbler Finch to be so different? If they aren't mutations among populations which are found to be beneficial in differing environments, then what are they?
(If you're knee-jerk response to me is that "they're both still birds!" then it just further shows that you know nothing about evolutionary biology.)
Your explanations of things reveal your ignorance on this topic, and you seem completely unaware of it...
In the span of a single sentence you've incorrectly made a claim about my belief system and you've misused the nomenclature of a Scientific Theory.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."
First, which species of Squirrel are you referring to? That makes a big difference.
If you want the first known example of a squirrel-like creature, you'll have to travel back to the Eocene period. Before that, you won't find much of anything that looks like a modern "squirrel". Why do you think that is? Where did they come from? How did they get there? If not for the biological processes that drive evolutionary change, how do you account for new species showing up in the fossil record, like the squirrel does? Was it a magic invisible entity than poofed a new organism into existence by breathing life into some dirt? Or was it a natural biological process that allowed a similar creature to make slow and gradual adaptations to its environment over time, eventually becoming a population of rodents that looked familiar to a creature that you would recognize as being a squirrel?
Which of those two scenarios seems most logical, based on your everyday observations of reality?
Ask for a realistic bit of evidence that isn't based on ridiculous straw-man that you've invented and I'll be happy to.
One of the things that I hope you, and others, are noticing is that unlike your refusal to supply links or references to your arguments and claims, most of the people who are responding to you are actually citing their sources. We are paraphrasing, where necessary. We are cutting and pasting sections that are pertinent to this conversation, just as you've asked. We aren't telling you to "do your own research". We also aren't refusing to read citations based on our vast knowledge and experience with other people or other forums for the last 20 years. We aren't denying everything that's being put in front of us because it "can't be proven!". I hope you see the difference in how you're making your argument versus how we are making ours...
What you're saying here makes about as much sense as those people who think Evolution is disproven by "Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"...
I'm sure he thinks he sounds smart - but this guy doesn't even know why his question makes him look stupid... and I don't know which is worse.
So, sgain, please cite for me which Law of Genetics rejects the evolutionary process. Thus far, I've only seen you claim something about boneless parents never having offspring with bones...
Stand behind your position by reasonably arguing for it, with references to support you. Do that, or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and just move on.
If anything, Evolutionary understanding has been enhanced by genetic testing - not challenged.
I can see that you're just digging in deeper as you get called out on things, and I'd urge you to stop doing that. Your pride is keeping you from learning anything in these conversations, as I imagine it has hindered you in all of your previous debates on this topic.
I gave you a list of 12 earlier that you deemed "too long to read" - but here are some more...
Evolution - Populations change over time.
Evidence:
- Descent with Modification = You are not your grandmother.
- Changes occur in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. (Laws of Genetics, right?)
- Biochemical similarity
- Comparative Anatomy (Vestigial Organs, anyone?)
- Biogeography - (in the past, parent population loci were incorrectly referred to "centre's of Creation" by the Naturalists of the day - they maintained the belief of Aristotle that species were immutable. They were wrong.)
- Comparative Embryology
- Molecular Biology (Hox Genes and Pseudogenes?)
- Germ Theory uses Evolutionary Theory in the development of new drugs daily.
- Paleontology and Anthropology have found nothing to dispute the understanding of common descent - they've enhanced it.
- Homology
- Artificial Selection (This has been explained to you already - but why not list it once more?)
- Natural Selection is observable through localized ecological impacts on broader populations. (Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species) These wasps did not exist 160 years ago. Where did they come from?
Hilarity is about to ensue...
Wait for it...
Here it comes...
And there it is!
You've accused me of bringing religion into this conversation, apparently forgetting all of the references that you've already made to it to this point. I can only assume that you've done so unwittingly, which is ironic.
Tell me, dear friend, where does your idea of "AFTER THEIR KIND" come from if not from your Christian Creationist faith?
Before you answer, I will remind you of a passage from Proverbs, which says that lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. (12:22)
This is a completely nonsensical post.
The organism that you're referring to shows morphological and biochemical similarities that only align with the modern whales of today. It's placement in the geologic record objectively places it's existence before that of any modern whale. The Paleontological findings show that it only lived near shallow and wet areas, meaning that it was not entirely land-based nor entirely water-based. If not for common descent, please explain how and why those similarities exist...
Telling me that organisms only produce after their own kind does not answer the question. Loosely referencing the "Laws of Genetics" does not answer the question. Telling me that you've read a lot of articles over a twenty year period does not answer the question.
What I've listed above are facts. What conclusions can you draw from them?
Pass the mustard. Until you can explain how a nose can genetically become a blowhole, you are just blowing smoke to hide your ignorance of genetics.
You might want to take a refresher course in what the ToE preaches---change.
Now if you can understand that theology, it will help you understand that a salamander remaining a salamnder is not a change of species. DUUH
Lets focus on one thing. Take as many generation as you need and explain how a mutation can change anything but a characteristic that will change the species. Your problem is that you do not understand mutations. They can only change a characteristic in the gene pool of the parents. They can't add a gene to the offspring that would result in a change of species.
So don't they can unless you can explain HOW.
Lets stick to science and keep religion out of the discussion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm no longer going to waste my time with you as you keep posting trash and calling it "science". I outgrew fairy tales long ago, so we simply are not using the same process.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
What had the beginnings of an actual conversation has reverted back to the same tired claims and statements from a week ago. I think we're done here.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, sorry to say.
That's fine, I get weary of asking you and the other for evidence and you NEVER provide any.
Question:Exactly my point...
Statement 1 :
Because you're a Christian, you judge Christianity in a certain way, and it's basically a given that Christians are monogamous, don't do drugs, don't fight, and are generally polite and humble.
Of the group you define as true Christians, 100% of them are monogomous, don't do drugs, don't fight, and are generally polite and humble. Amazing, right?
If we had more people like that, and less average folk, I envisage decreased levels of marriage breakup, decreased drug usage, lower levels of violence and a more humble society.
Statement 2 :
A humanist may judge humanism in a certain way. It's basically a given that a humanist doesn't fight, helps others, and is generally a caring and giving type of person.
Of the group defined as true humanists, 100% of them don't fight, help others, and are generally caring and giving type of people. Incredible co-incidence, I know.
If we had more people like that, and less average folk, I envisage less violence, a more helpful society, and one in which people care for one another.
Statement 3 :
Society would be better off with more people who are not violent and try to help those around them.
Indeed it would.
If a person calling themselves a humanist did rape someone, would you still consider them a humanist?
The Devil "is misleading the entire inhabited Earth." (Revelation 12:9) Your statement adds credence to this verse.
It's "clearly obvious and even common sense" that the Cambrian Explosion accurately represents a creative epoch, described in Genesis 1.
Hmmmm...."well substantiated"? I don't see any real substantiation except in the minds of those who conveniently interpret "evidence" to fit their theory.
"Acquired through the scientific method"? What method is that? The one where scientists get to put words in the mouths of long dead fossils to support what they cannot prove?
"Repeatedly tested and confirmed".....and note this bit...."preferably using pre-defined protocol of observation and experiments".
Can I ask in what way macro-evolution can be "tested and confirmed"? It can be assumed and evidence can be interpreted to infer that it has been tested, but we all know that anything that happened in pre-historic times is at best a guess. There can be no "confirmation" because no human was around to witness any of it.
It is supposed or assumed, which is nothing like actually being able to confirm by evidence that anything suggested by the scientists, ever happened. Without their jargon and diagrams and graphics, what has science actually got by way of real evidence?.....nothing but supposition....not to be confused with fact.
What about that "pre-defined protocol of observation and experiments"?
What has science actually observed in their experiments? They have seen adaptation.....nothing more. Anything beyond a creature's natural ability to adapt to a changing environment, science has again no real evidence to back up its claims.
They assume that there is a timeline of evolving creatures that have branched out to become completely different creatures when adaptation has only been observed to take place within one taxonomic family. There is no evidence that anything can become something completely unrelated to the original creature, yet here we have the whales beginning as four legged land animals.
There is not one iota of real evidence linking these creatures except suggestion. You would think that millions of years would have turned up creatures in between these, but none have ever been found. Where are they all?....there must have been millions of the transitional species? Why are they all still missing? Could it be because they never existed? What is to prevent each of these creatures from being individually created in their own time?.....Only science's denial of a Creator. Something they cannot disprove but fight vehemently against. Is it really that threatening?
Or is it that they don't like being caught out claiming what they cannot prove. "Where did they come from"? "How did they get here"? If not for the biological processes that drive evolutionary change, how do you account for new species showing up in the fossil record, like the squirrel does?"
You really want us to answer that?
There was no "poofing"....the Bible never said that creation took place that way. We have an old earth beautifully positioned in the right galaxy with just the right atmosphere, just the right size, just the right rotation and tilt of its axis for life to thrive. Was all that just a fluke? Our atmosphere produces just the right amount of oxygen to sustain living things. Too much, and every lightning strike would cause an explosion. Water also sustains all life on this planet but that is just a fortunate co-incidence as well I assume? None of that involves evolution.
Not a drop of water exists on this earth that is not recycled. Nature recycles everything except the poisons produced by science. Funny that.
The major part of our planet is covered by water, yet none of it can sustain the life of land dwellers. Is it just another fortunate co-incidence that precipitation just happens to take condensed water from the oceans and drop it on land so that non marine creatures can survive? How many co-incidences does it take to come to the conclusion that this home of ours was beautifully designed by someone who knew what they were doing?
The creation of living things was a slow and very deliberate act on the part of the Creator to fashion each creature to his own satisfaction. By the time of man's arrival on the scene, the Creator had already chosen the creatures that we wanted his humans family to share this planet with. The "natural biological processes" were programmed into every single one of them to ensure that their species was preserved without his direct intervention.
The most logical scenario is the one that can be observed with our own eyes. I know which scenario makes perfect sense to me.
Yes we can see that. You don't need actual proof for what you believe yet you are the ones claiming you don't have a belief system. You have way more of a belief system than we do IMO. We don't claim to be able to show evidence for our Creator other than what has been under our noses all our lives. Creation itself speaks of its Maker.
Yes we do. You have no real evidence for anything you believe....and neither do we.
Lets examine that evidence.....
- Descent with Modification = You are not your grandmother. (Wow! what a revelation! And yet we are both humans and if we traced our ancestry back, no matter how far, I will wager that all of them were humans, not apes.
- Changes occur in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. (Laws of Genetics, right?) But still each creature remains within their taxonomic family. The law of genetics will not allow them to become anything else. Adaptation can give us variety within a species but never do they cross over in to a higher taxonomy. Using adaptation as a proof for evolution is dishonest. Science cannot demonstrate that what it suggests is even possible.
- Biochemical similarity. "Similarity".....what does similarity prove? Relationship? No it doesn't. Are beavers and platypus related? Lots of similarity....not related at all.
- Comparative Anatomy (Vestigial Organs, anyone?) I believe that science is finding out that a lot of what they thought were vestigial organs turned out not to be vegestial at all, but part of the design of the creature. e.g. whale pelvic bones are now found to be used in mating. Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises | Science | Smithsonian
- Biogeography - (in the past, parent population loci were incorrectly referred to "centre's of Creation" by the Naturalists of the day - they maintained the belief of Aristotle that species were immutable. They were wrong.) And science has never been wrong I suppose?
- Comparative Embryology. The fact that various creatures look similar in their embryonic development means what? Every one of their cells is programmed to produce whatever it was that produced them. Amazing, isn't it? Fish will produce fish, reptiles will produce reptiles, birds will produce birds and humans will produce humans.
No exceptions.
- Molecular Biology (Hox Genes and Pseudogenes?) Sounds serious...but meaningless in the big picture. More guesswork. If the Creator used the same raw materials to fashion all we see on this planet, then of course we are going to see similar biology and genetics. Carpenters make more than one thing out of wood.
- Germ Theory uses Evolutionary Theory in the development of new drugs daily. Germ theory? I believe it has passed out of the theory definition and on into fact nowadays. (like gravity) Microscopes are amazing things and when they find a particular bacteria or virus infecting more than one patient and they exhibit the same symptoms, I guess they do the math. When bacteria or viruses mutate, what do they become? New strains of bacteria or viruses.....rocket science that.
- Paleontology and Anthropology have found nothing to dispute the understanding of common descent - they've enhanced it. Really? Do paleontologists and anthropologists look for anything that will not confirm what they are expected to find? How many of them are not evolutionists?
- Homology The fact that we can see similar bone structure in various species is no proof of relationship. It is more likely that the structural design is so sound that it was used in more than one creature. Architects use the same principle in the construction of buildings.
- Artificial Selection (This has been explained to you already - but why not list it once more?) This does not occur in natural matings and produces hybrids. e.g horse > donkey = sterile mule. What does this prove? This I believe tells the opposite story....the end of the genetic line.
- Natural Selection is observable through localized ecological impacts on broader populations. (Scientists Observe Wasps Evolving Into New Species) These wasps did not exist 160 years ago. Where did they come from? LOL....what did these wasps evolve from? Other wasps. What are they likely to become?.....more wasps. Adaptation produces new species within a family. This is not macro-evolution....not even close.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, using that "logic", then maybe the Devil wrote the Bible you use.
Not at all. The Cambrian Explosion was a logic manifestation of single-celled organisms eventually grouping together to form multi-celled organisms, and once that happened myriads of combinations could and did result. And since the creation account have God stopping creating at the end of the sixth day that set up the seventh day, Shabbat, the Cambrian Explosion simply doesn't at all fit that narrative.
"Yom" in Hebrew almost always stands for just one day, and the fact is that since Shabbat is mentioned as being the day of rest after creation, then it makes no sense in that context to assume that it stands for an epoch. OTOH, if one considers the creation accounts as being allegorical, that approach makes much more sense and avoids the conflict of what we know through research versus what these creation accounts say in literal terms.
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that symbolism was and is a heavily-used form of Jewish writing and speaking when there's so many examples that one can show in the scriptures?
First off, it's what the Scriptures say. Did not Satan offer to Jesus, "all the kingdoms of the world"? Jesus did not contest that. John 5:19 states similar. And 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 indicates some wouldn't even be aware of it, because of Satan's influence as the "god of this world."Well, using that "logic", then maybe the Devil wrote the Bible you use.
Not at all. The Cambrian Explosion was a logic manifestation of single-celled organisms eventually grouping together to form multi-celled organisms, and once that happened myriads of combinations could and did result. And since the creation account have God stopping creating at the end of the sixth day that set up the seventh day, Shabbat, the Cambrian Explosion simply doesn't at all fit that narrative.
"Yom" in Hebrew almost always stands for just one day, and the fact is that since Shabbat is mentioned as being the day of rest after creation, then it makes no sense in that context to assume that it stands for an epoch. OTOH, if one considers the creation accounts as being allegorical, that approach makes much more sense and avoids the conflict of what we know through research versus what these creation accounts say in literal terms.
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that symbolism was and is a heavily-used form of Jewish writing and speaking when there's so many examples that one can show in the scriptures?
Interesting you mention Shabbat, the seventh "day". In Hebrews 4:4-9, Paul said God's rest day in Genesis was still continuing into his day. In fact we're still in God's rest day!
Genesis was written in the poetic style. You can see that, when reading about those creative days. If those were literal days, why did Moses state at their conclusion, "And there was evening and there was morning, a __ day"? Is that how the Hebrew day ran? Wasn't it 'from evening to evening'?
Clearly it was poetic, the days were symbolic, representing time periods.
If you look at all that was happening during the sixth day (God creating the domesticated and wild land animals; Adam created; Jehovah God planting a Garden in Eden and began bringing the animals to Adam there for him to name; God saying "it isn't good for the man to continue to be alone." And Jehovah creating Eve.) A reasoning person can see that too much was going on to fit into 24 hours!