Actually the word "day" in Genesis comes from the Hebrew word "yom" witch means 12-24 hour period. So that is actually NOT up for interpretation, unless you are debating the number of hours.
Actually the word "day" in Genesis comes from the Hebrew word "yom" witch means 12-24 hour period. So that is actually NOT up for interpretation, unless you are debating the number of hours.
Unless, of course, it's a symbol. You know, if I took your name literally, you would have to be an animal.
This is really disheartening to see you guys quarrel over this subject. Many threads, forums and sites contain the same subject and really gets..redundant. In fact i think 50% of this thread is arguing over what the last person who posted wrote and flaming each other for it. Then all of a sudden BAM the holy bible is the source of this arguing.
Oh, sure it's redundant for the most part. However, there's one catch to that definition. The unique part about these debates are the players, and if we by any chance successfully bring truth to the formerly ignorant, it's a successful thread in my opinion.
Oh, sure it's redundant for the most part. However, there's one catch to that definition. The unique part about these debates are the players, and if we by any chance successfully bring truth to the formerly ignorant, it's a successful thread in my opinion.
I do believe that that is the one point that evolutionists and creationists can agree on. It's all a matter of perspective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go then, there are other worlds than these. - Stephen King I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
Actually the word "day" in Genesis comes from the Hebrew word "yom" witch means 12-24 hour period. So that is actually NOT up for interpretation, unless you are debating the number of hours.
one "day" is a period of 24 hours, and also not open to interpretation(assuming we mean earth days). when they say "maybe 1 day represents a longer period of time for us" it would be the same as "maybe one yom represents a longer period of time for us."
*edit* just realized i posted this in the evolution thread and not the religion thread. is the current discussion actually related to evolution, or has the topic been heavily sidetracked? cause i could explain to the 13.17% that voted creationism anything that leads them to believe evolution isnt the obvious answer to our origins.
one "day" is a period of 24 hours, and also not really open to interpretation(assuming we mean earth days). when they say "maybe 1 day represents a longer period of time for us" it would be the same as "maybe one yom represents a longer period of time for us."
A day for the Jews was 12 hours. That's not really open to interpretation. Screw our modern calendars, we're talking about the Bible and Jewish society. That's like a Mayan coming in here and saying, "A year is 360 days, that's not open to interpretation."
A day for the Jews was 12 hours. That's not really open to interpretation. Screw our modern calendars, we're talking about the Bible and Jewish society. That's like a Mayan coming in here and saying, "A year is 360 days, that's not open to interpretation."
indeed the mayans answer would not be open to interpretation. he would be wrong. the guy i quoted said that the word used originally means that argument cant be used. people argue the same thing with the english day in mind, so obviously the actual length of a day doesnt play a factor in their mind.
indeed the mayans answer would not be open to interpretation. he would be wrong. the guy i quoted said that the word used originally means that argument cant be used. people argue the same thing with the english day in mind, so obviously the actual length of a day doesnt play a factor in their mind.
Okay, I understand what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.
So you're going to follow whatever without hesitation? You're not even going to check the facts? That seems horribly... stupid.
He agreed to follow the evidence, not "whatever". Facts are a part of evidence. Your questions make no sense. Perhaps you misread the post you are responding to.
If you are a Battletech/Mechwarrior geek you may enjoy my Timberwolf/MADCAT model (the source of my avatar) (warning: image-heavy link target) I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
He agreed to follow the evidence, not "whatever". Facts are a part of evidence. Your questions make no sense. Perhaps you misread the post you are responding to.
But he said he'd follow them without question. Meaning you present him with 'facts', and he'll follow them. He won't even stop to think about whether he thinks the facts are true or not.
But he said he'd follow them without question. Meaning you present him with 'facts', and he'll follow them. He won't even stop to think about whether he thinks the facts are true or not.
Hmm. I suppose. I reread the post and I can see your point. Blind following of anything is indeed foolish. I took the "I just follow the evidence." to supercede the other statements. Guess I am at fault for misreading it. Sorry. I support following the evidence where it leads.
Unfortunately, we are forced to place our trust in experts since life is too short and our minds too limited in capacity to allow us to become experts in everything. Much like Illford_Baker wrote, I trust the scientific method (and those who use it) because it is the most reliable method we have for gaining knowledge.
If you are a Battletech/Mechwarrior geek you may enjoy my Timberwolf/MADCAT model (the source of my avatar) (warning: image-heavy link target) I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
Evolution isn't the origin of life, we don't know exactly what happened to kickstart it. On the other hand, I think evolution by natural selection is how advanced life occured. I mean, we can actually observe natural selection happening in species with short generations, so denying it takes quite some doing. As of yet, the origin of life can be as validly explained by God as by a mundane event, although personally I favour the secular option.
Natural selection takes place as soon as there's life that benefits from being more well adapted than it's competitors. What you describe is a separate event known as abiogenesis.
Actually the word "day" in Genesis comes from the Hebrew word "yom" witch means 12-24 hour period. So that is actually NOT up for interpretation, unless you are debating the number of hours.
Unless, of course, it's a symbol. You know, if I took your name literally, you would have to be an animal.
You heard that, green and red.
Oh, sure it's redundant for the most part. However, there's one catch to that definition. The unique part about these debates are the players, and if we by any chance successfully bring truth to the formerly ignorant, it's a successful thread in my opinion.
You heard that, green and red.
I do believe that that is the one point that evolutionists and creationists can agree on. It's all a matter of perspective.
I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
one "day" is a period of 24 hours, and also not open to interpretation(assuming we mean earth days). when they say "maybe 1 day represents a longer period of time for us" it would be the same as "maybe one yom represents a longer period of time for us."
*edit* just realized i posted this in the evolution thread and not the religion thread. is the current discussion actually related to evolution, or has the topic been heavily sidetracked? cause i could explain to the 13.17% that voted creationism anything that leads them to believe evolution isnt the obvious answer to our origins.
A day for the Jews was 12 hours. That's not really open to interpretation. Screw our modern calendars, we're talking about the Bible and Jewish society. That's like a Mayan coming in here and saying, "A year is 360 days, that's not open to interpretation."
You heard that, green and red.
indeed the mayans answer would not be open to interpretation. he would be wrong. the guy i quoted said that the word used originally means that argument cant be used. people argue the same thing with the english day in mind, so obviously the actual length of a day doesnt play a factor in their mind.
Okay, I understand what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.
You heard that, green and red.
So you're going to follow whatever without hesitation? You're not even going to check the facts? That seems horribly... stupid.
You can't always check the facts because you do not have the expertise to understand it. I just trust the scientists because they know more than I do.
*there may or may not be cake
He agreed to follow the evidence, not "whatever". Facts are a part of evidence. Your questions make no sense. Perhaps you misread the post you are responding to.
I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
But he said he'd follow them without question. Meaning you present him with 'facts', and he'll follow them. He won't even stop to think about whether he thinks the facts are true or not.
Hmm. I suppose. I reread the post and I can see your point. Blind following of anything is indeed foolish. I took the "I just follow the evidence." to supercede the other statements. Guess I am at fault for misreading it. Sorry. I support following the evidence where it leads.
Unfortunately, we are forced to place our trust in experts since life is too short and our minds too limited in capacity to allow us to become experts in everything. Much like Illford_Baker wrote, I trust the scientific method (and those who use it) because it is the most reliable method we have for gaining knowledge.
I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
Natural selection takes place as soon as there's life that benefits from being more well adapted than it's competitors. What you describe is a separate event known as abiogenesis.