EoM, sorry, but I cannot follow your logic, since it's steeped in ignorance of biology and you're making many outlandish assumptions as a result. No insult meant, really, it's just that the differential in our understanding evolution means the gap is just too vast. If you want to be taken seriously on the topic, the onus is on YOU, the individual, to learn what evolution actually is saying BEFORE you can even begin to challenge it in a credible manner.
Here's a book I highly recommend you read, to at least obtain an overview of science vs theology in evolution:
Chapter One is available as a free download on that page, and it's likely available at your local public library (if you don't want to spend the money) since the author is Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education.
TEC said- On the matter of Genesis 1, the the creation 'days' do not state that they are any specific amount of time. The sun and the moon and the stars created to govern the day and the night are not even formed until 'day four'. These days are time periods that could have spanned thousands, even millions of years. The account also does not say HOW God created animals, sea-life, etc.... only that He did so. It is only some fundamental, literalist views that would state that each day was a set time and that God 'poofed' things into existence.
Adam said- Unfortunately, we have a 2,500 yr history of an ever-decreasing number of believers who've argued for a literal reading, even past the point when it became too outlandish to try. Here's Ken Ham, a famous fundamentalist Xian who is stillarguing for a literal interpretation, EVEN IN SPITE of the evidence against it, in 2013:
TEC said- So what? I mean, really, so what? We have people who argue all sorts of things. The account does not make the statements that some literal fundamentalists SAY that it makes. (which is ironic, since they are supposedly 'literal' fundamentalists) But it is just interpretation.
"So what? It's just interpretation"?
Holy Hades, TEC: you mean being wrong on interpetation for 2,500 yrs (and counting) doesn't present just a teensie-weensie problem for you?
That's a problem: if the Bible passages are open to interpretative errors and changes in language and human knowledge that happens over time (and YES, there ARE), then what's the point of bothering to claim any Divine inspiration on the front end (i.e. in the writing process), if God cannot be bothered to assure "Divine Interpretation" on the other end?
How do you know you're not wrong TODAY on ANY interpretation, just like the past believers were?
And how do you know the interpretation won't change again in the future (like it has many times in the past), after science makes the current interpretation silly or incredible, or believers try to insert modern concepts from science anachronistically (just as Darwin's evolution theory was fought for centuries by believers, but only NOW believers are trying to insert it into Genesis, since the evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelming)?
Such history of misunderstanding and interpretative FUBARs is a sign of an uninterested deity, at the very least. If any Gods exist, they clearly don't want to have a personal and intimate relationship with individual humans, or a desire to make their will for humanity known in a non-confusing unambiguous manner: the existence of 35k flavors of Xianity alone should confirm that.
And John ended up writing a bunch of goofy stuff, as a result, involving nothing even remotely resembling a prophecy of actual events that have occurred...
TEC said- Actually, some things have not yet occurred. Some things have. But you'd have to have some help in understanding. Revelation is... well... revealed. Not interpreted.
Absurd and classic excusiology for prophecies: "Don't worry, you just need to give it more time!" Yes, and THAT'S an effective line of reasoning to use on an ex-JW message board, where all participants KNOW the history of failed prophecies (Armageddon dating for 1914, 1975, before the end of the 20th century, etc). As usual, mere mortals take for fall for the prophetic failure, and of course, it's NOT like God or Jesus were wrong: humans simply misunderstood!
Jesus operated under the incorrect belief of his time period that disease resulted from sin, not germs. That was his schtick: he supposedly healed by forgiving sins (where the standard cure for leprosy performed by the Temple priests and recorded in Leviticus is tantamount to a voodoo ritual performed by a witch doctor in the Caribbean Islands, involving pigeon blood, shaking of rattles, etc.
Nowadays, humans understand that leprosy is caused by a bacteria, and 20 million cases have been CURED with free oral antibiotics, thus improving the lives of millions of people around the World with a treatment that actually works.
What a missed opportunity for Jesus to explain that leprosy DOESN'T occur due to sin, but instead is caused by tiny 'animals' that are too small to see, but that settle into the skin and cause the disfiguring skin condition. Sure, they'd laugh, but he'd present compelling evidence of having been sent from Heaven when modern people learned the truth. Remember, THAT is the entire basis of the gift of prophecy, being able to foretell future events. Jesus didn't even have to predict Louis Pasteur by name, but only the concept of diseases caused by micro-organisms (tiny animals; Greek would be 'microzoa').
Even if Jesus didn't tell HOW to treat leprosy, he would've presented some pretty compelling proof of having known of his Father's creations, due to having a Heavenly perspective that only someone associated with the "Intelligent Designer" would have. Instead, Jesus appears to be just another uninspired man who, although charismatic, believed exactly what everyone else in the region around Palestine believed, since it was the dominant concept of disease: caused by sin, either the patients, or their parents.
TEC said- And yet, He DID heal. So He knew what He was doing.
So simply writing that someone did something (eg "I just leaped 400 ft in the air, and flew around! I really DID! Honest!!") proves it? TEC, you cannot be THAT gullible and/or dense, can you?
TEC said- (The people might not have been able to understand about germs and genetics and such details. It would have been the ravings of a mad man to them, and they would not have listened. It would have been babble.)
TEC, can you try actually RESPONDING to what I wrote, rather than simply rewording your original statement? I won't continue in a 'discussion' with a parrot, who only repeats a limited range of responses. So Re-read my response (in the box), and try again to respond to what I WROTE, if you want to continue.
Nonsense: read the Genesis One account again, as God clearly created animals, "according to their kind". That means they were created in finished form, such that he looked at ALL of his creation and declared it as finished, saying it was "very good". He rested, taking a day off on the Sabbath.
TEC said- Why does it mean that, Adamah? Because I see NO REASON for it TO mean that, other than what your eyes have been trained to see. There is no word 'kind' in biological classifications.
Uh, no spit, Spar? Do you really think you're talking to someone who hasn't spent decades working in the field, having actually earned a doctorate in the subject before?
TEC said- On top of that... created according to their kind (assuming it means species or genus or family)... this still does not mean that they started out in their "finished form", like a 'poof' genie in the bottle snapping his fingers.
So, here's your chance to explain: what do YOU believe "according to their kind" means?
Are you familiar with ancient Hebrew, and the author's (Priestly source) concepts of animals?
(Oh, and in your response, please don't use a word or concept which the author wasn't even aware of yet, like 'species'. And unlike Cofty, I say you can talk to Jesus for help: let's drag him into the discussion, so we can benefit from his ignorance of science, as fully-revealed in the NT.)