sure, it sounds like the scientific explanation... if you transpose days 3 and 4, assume 'birds' meant 'insects', and ignore the vast stretches of time between 'days'. C'mon, that's like saying that if you rewrite Romeo and Juliet, it sounds like Macbeth. <<
It is more like the difference between a chimpanzee and you than the difference between Romeo+Juliet and Macbeth. Small changes in words or codons over long stretches of time... "eon" to "day", "flying creature" to "bird", etc.
If a deity tried to explain briefly in terms a prehistoric human could already understand how the universe came to exist, don't you think it would be a bit simplistic? And then if the story went through a telephone game over millenia, when average lifespan was under 30 years for most of the time, wouldn't many errors accumulate?
No more of a stretch than to suggest a chimpanzee gradually acquired mutations causing upright posture, larger brain, more complex larynx, less hair, etc. necessary to produce us.
Of course, that is not evidence that the creation myth is true, simply that it cannot be proven false by the best scientific data.
When you keep things very general and loose as you have done, it is possible to kind-of fit the two together. When you start looking at the nitty-gritty details, such as how Genesis itself contains two conflicting accounts of creation, or how many other questions of "why" -- some of them pretty disturbing, and which the Bible doesn't answer -- do rear their heads as science nails down the details of "how," then reconciling the two becomes a lot more difficult.
My point is that Genesis does not get into the nitty-gritty details that are Science's purview. I gave as much detail as it does about how the universe came to be, and none of it conflicts with current knowledge about what actually happened.
The second "conflicting creation story" is really a different perspective on the same story, focusing on the humans. It says humans began in northern Africa, which meshes with anthropological theory. What in the "second account" conflicts with the "first account"?
As far as what disturbs you about "why", have you checked for the answers in the four Gospels? Science cannot ask any meaningful questions about "why", no matter how deep its answers get about "how".
i know you didn't want to debate here so i apologize but i just HAD to state at least one comment - i studied American Consiututional Law and can tell you 100% without a doubt that the Constitution does not forbid the co-mingling of church and state. it doesn't even MENTION the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in its paragraphs or Amendments. The First Amendment serves to protect all speech, not prevent religious speech. The Constitution provides American's the right to make relgious speech and reject religious speech. It does NOT prohibit it
( ... )
I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying it should be taught in schools. 2 be honest, tho I'm christian, I prefer it be taught in sunday school/church. But the constitution does not prohibit a school from teaching it. The constitution has been misquoted. A town has the right under the constitution 2 not teach it for there shall be no forced religion but again, the constitution does not prohibit it. If a town chose 2 teach it it would not be in violation of the constitution. Perhaps I have failed 2 express my position properly.... And that's why I posted a link for reference.
Both stories go, more or less, from simple to complex. No surprise they jibe, in many ways. It's cute, perhaps inspirational, but not very informative.
The point is not to be informative to scientists, but to convince creationists that they are wrong to try to argue against science using their simplistic interpretations of vague passages in a book whose purpose is moral, not scientific.
Comments 15
Reply
If a deity tried to explain briefly in terms a prehistoric human could already understand how the universe came to exist, don't you think it would be a bit simplistic? And then if the story went through a telephone game over millenia, when average lifespan was under 30 years for most of the time, wouldn't many errors accumulate?
No more of a stretch than to suggest a chimpanzee gradually acquired mutations causing upright posture, larger brain, more complex larynx, less hair, etc. necessary to produce us.
Of course, that is not evidence that the creation myth is true, simply that it cannot be proven false by the best scientific data.
Reply
I'm tired of fear tactics.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The second "conflicting creation story" is really a different perspective on the same story, focusing on the humans. It says humans began in northern Africa, which meshes with anthropological theory. What in the "second account" conflicts with the "first account"?
As far as what disturbs you about "why", have you checked for the answers in the four Gospels? Science cannot ask any meaningful questions about "why", no matter how deep its answers get about "how".
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment