Was the world created in 7 days?

[Greg27]

St Bonaventure had a philosophy whereby every created being is essentially a creation of divine wisdom.

I don’t see why this idea can’t be applied to every object in the universe, though of course the human mind (as Kant realised) can’t comprehend the totality of the cosmos or what its purpose might be by the powers of its own reason and cognition.

I think a big problem is people see God is some kind of material cause like a material force (like gravity or electromagnetism) or the interactions of particles, which themselves are a part of the created universe. The laws of physics, which basically go down to how objects and their relations remain invariant in certain ways under transformations in spacetime, are also a part of the universe.

Hence people see any attempt to explain phenomena in terms of material causes as a rival to using God to explain everything. But to demonstrate the folly of this, would someone try and work out the mechanics of how a tennis ball moves in a parabola using the bible or using the laws of physics?

As the first cause of all things, God creates all things and beings from nothing by his creative wisdom, which gives beings their forms and structure which then become objects of our cognition in spacetime. I don’t see why this could not occur up to the scale of multiple universes of different kinds (physical, logically possible, mathematical, etc) and even into ways we can’t understand; after all, who are we to limit the creator’s infinite power? Yet in creating God does not suspend and over-rule the laws of nature in a haphazard and chaotic way, otherwise the world would be a mess and would be inconsistent with the one we experience.

So it comes to evolution; God creates and sustains the cosmos and over time life emerges in an organised way from material components, via natural causes, but these laws and causes are made in a beautiful and good harmony by God and sustained by him and subject to his will. Therefore what appears to merely involve chance and necessity is the creative activity of God.

In a way we need to see how the many comes from the one without simply invoking necessity in terms of self-sufficient natural laws or simply flowing from one substance (i.e. Spinozan pantheism). But we also need to recognise God is not merely one natural law-like cause amoung another but is a transcendant cause.

 

[Sixtus]

abukamoon posted:

Either the Bible is correct and each kind reproduces after its kind, or Darwin is correct and reproduction leads to evolution of new species. Ether one or the other is correct; you can’t have it both ways.

While I agree with you in principle, we cannot ignore the fact that our God has an incredible propensity for creating and allowing modification to environmental forces which then creates diversity within a single specie.

We know that animals and humans have adapted to survive on very little oxygen [that would suffocate the most of us]. They have also adopted to survive for long periods in intense heat, cold, liquid scarcity and survive with very narrow food sources.

This DOES suggest an element of evolution just that we call it a different name. I am not agreeing with Darwin as each specie is STILL the specie that God created.

 

[mich2]

We could use the scriptures to identify a 4.6 billion years old earth…would it be a correct interpretation is another question.

In Genesis, there are two different definitions for a Day. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The first definition is the time when light hits upon a place on the earth (God called the light “day,” ). This is the time when God
is actively creating, so we’ll call it a Lord’s Day. However a Genesis Day is twice as long as it involves the night time as well (And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.)

Now,if we take the words of Peter in one of his epistle: A Day for the Lord (Lord’s Day) is as a thousand years.

Since the Jews take this litterally, we ought to expect that Peter meant it litterally as well…

Taken from a Jewish site.

**“However, the Talmud states that there is a predestined time when Mashiach
will come. If we are meritorious he may come even before that predestined
time. This “end of time” remains a mystery, yet the Talmud states that it
will be before the Hebrew year 6000. (The Hebrew year at the date of this
publication is 5763.)”
**

And so 2 Peter 3:8-9 reads:

**“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like
a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow
in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness…”
**
He is speaking to the christians who are impatiently waiting for the coming
of Christ,having been told that they were living in the last Days…Here,
Peter seems to be claiming, the last Days, as meaning the next couple of
thousands of years, being in accordance with the Jewish Talmud. Therefore,
if 1 Day litterally can be 1,000 years, if we continue his statement,
“and a thousand years are like a day”. Either he is speaking of
timelessness, which is possible, or, if he takes a Day to be 1,000 years in
the litteral sense, then, 1,000 years equalling a Day ought to be taken litterally as well.
If so, he must be speaking of 2 separate and disntinct type of Lord’s Days. The first
being equal to 1,000 years.The second would be 1,000 years “of such a Day”… and let “this” be a “Genesis Lord’s Day”.
So, 1,000 years of a Day equalling 1,000 years = 364,000,000 years; this would be equal to a Genesis Lord’s Day; and 364 million
years x 7 = 2.5 billion years.Now, if the second definition of a Genesis Day speaks of a Lord’s Day plus “morning till evening”, then, the 2.5 billion is to be doubled into 5 billion years…Even closer to the present 4.6 billion years old earth theory,would be the hypothesis that we are still within the 7th Lords Day,not yet within the “evening to morning period” reducing 5 billion by 364 million years, which is equal to 4.636 billion years.

Certainly, I am speculating; however, it
matches one interpretation of scriptures with the most recent accepted scientifc theory.

Andre

 

[Kaninchen]

Since the Jews take this litterally,

This would be the Jews you quoted, the ones who believe that Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson was/is Messiah?

It’s wise not to take them too literally, I find.

 

[abu_kamoon]

We know that animals and humans have adapted to survive on very little oxygen [that would
suffocate the most of us]. They have also adopted to survive for long periods in intense
heat, cold, liquid scarcity and survive with very narrow food sources.

This DOES suggest an element of evolution just that we call it a different name. I am not
agreeing with Darwin as each specie is STILL the specie that God created.

---

It is not evolution, it is the survival of the fittest. We cannot evolve something that does not already exist. If 100 people are exposed to some lethal agent, and 99 out of 100 perish, the lone survivor did not evolve and immunity. He already had it. He was the fittest, and therefore, he survived.

Evolutionists like to point to bacteria and claim that they “evolve” an immunity. This is ridiculous. First, there is no mechanism to them to evolve an immunity. They are programmed. They have no way of changing. What happens is the some of the variation of the bacteria already have an immunity. They survive. They come the dominant strain.

Survival of the fittest is a fact. Evolution is a myth.

ابو كمون

 

[mirandajb]

This is not a requirement. Moreover, the use of seven days in the Book of Genesis is most likely associated with the meaning of the number “seven” as it is used in scripture. The number “seven” is associated with completeness and perfection. It is also associated with covenants. The day of rest is the seventh day. God rested on the seventh day, and God wants man to rest from his labors on the seventh day to worship God. Much more can be said about all of this, but this information will give you a start in that direction.

I agree totally. The number ‘7’ is also used a lot in OT - after seven years debts are canceled and slaves set free - jubilee year - year of rest.

 

[rossum]

It is not evolution, it is the survival of the fittest. We cannot evolve something that does not already exist. If 100 people are exposed to some lethal agent, and 99 out of 100 perish, the lone survivor did not evolve and immunity. He already had it. He was the fittest, and therefore, he survived.

Correct, individuals do not evolve. Populations do evolve. Your lone survivor from 100 will go on to have children, while the other 99 who died will not. Those children will tend to inherit thier parent’s immunity. Next time, of 100 people 5 will survive because they will have inherited the immunity and those five will go on to have yet more children with the inherited immunity. That is the operation of natural selection over the generations. It selects individuals with favourable mutations and over generations the favourable mutation spreads through the population through better reproductive success - having more children.

Evolutionists like to point to bacteria and claim that they “evolve” an immunity. This is ridiculous. First, there is no mechanism to them to evolve an immunity. They are programmed. They have no way of changing. What happens is the some of the variation of the bacteria already have an immunity. They survive. They come the dominant strain.

Exactly - the population evolves so that the strain with immunity to penicillin becomes the dominant strain, and the population is resistant to penicillin. You have correctly understood the mechanism of evolution. Individuals reproduce, populations evolve.

rossum

 

[freesoulhope]

Exactly - the population evolves so that the strain with immunity to penicillin becomes the dominant strain, and the population is resistant to penicillin. You have correctly understood the mechanism of evolution. Individuals reproduce, populations evolve.

rossum

That doesn’t explain why the organism has immunity in the first place. Natural selection might work with very simple organisms, but it doesn’t explain why larger, more sophisticated organisms, act in ways that work to preserve life; yet they are not conscious of it. Why develop nervous systems when one is not conceptually conscious of the world and cannot recognize the benefits of having such mechanisms? Why eat, why reproduction if an organism has no plan or reason?

How does natural selection alone, explain the animals defensive mechanisms, such as weapons or weaving webs that catch other organisms which fly around within a 3 demensional space; yet the spider has no concept of sky, space or time. Natural selection cannot explain these things. Allot of weapons that animals develop, presuppose a threat or creature, that the organism is not conscious of, yet these creatures have complex systems and weapons that work in away that appears to have intelligence behind it; yet I know that the creature does not think like you and me.

There are certain disguises that creatures have, that cannot be just a matter of accidental mutation; the mutation gives the creature an advantage, its true; but a “fake eye” on moth’s wing, to fool enemies, presupposes an enemy that will be fooled by such a thing, and yet it is not conscious of it. We see organisms acting intelligently in an organized manner; yet we cannot say they have intelligent and we cannot say that such a phenomenon is ruled purely by natural selection. Not to mention the fact that we have come to realize and “justify” certain organized mannerisms (such as appearing to have a desire to live and acting to preserve ones self), intellectively through perception and emotions, what animals have been doing for billions of years with out any concept or feeling.

Even simple Organisms, such as ants, seek to protect the life of a queen; Yet they are ignorant of the significants of what is happening; They are merely Atoms and Quarks, yet they act like creatures who have a “plan”(Coincidence? Mabey one or two, but billions of years of accidental mutations and coincidences just dont make sense); one would think that one would have to be conceptually aware of reality in order to act in such a manner. If they do not have a conceptual level of awareness, like us, then there actions presuppose I D. There are no other logical explanations. In addition to natural selection, all creatures have a basic underlying program which encourages life and certain mutations in so far as the development of D.n.a.

 

[rossum]

That doesn’t explain why the organism has immunity in the first place. Natural selection might work with very simple organisms, but it doesn’t explain why larger, more sophisticated organisms, act in ways that work to preserve life; yet they are not conscious of it. Why develop nervous systems when one is not conceptually conscious of the world and cannot recognize the benefits of having such mechanisms? Why eat, why reproduction if an organism has no plan or reason?

You ask: “Why eat?” Firstly there are organisms that do not eat as such. A filter feeder effectively breathes its food. Plants absorb their food or make it. Very early unicellular organisms probably absorbed their food through their outer membranes. So, lets look at organisms that actually do eat. There are two Mome Raths. One Mome Rath has a variation which means that it never feels hungry and so does not eat. It starves to death and has very few if any offspring. The other Mome Rath does not have this variation, it is a standard Mome Rath with a sense of hunger. It eats when it needs to and has the average number of little Mome Raths. The “hunger” variation will be much better represented in the next generation than the “no hunger” variation.

How does natural selection alone, explain the animals defensive mechanisms, such as weapons or weaving webs that catch other organisms which fly around within a 3 demensional space; yet the spider has no concept of sky, space or time.

There is a computer program which evolves spiders webs: Net Spinner. It builds a web using a few criteria: number of spokes, spacing of the spiral etc. It then fires some random flies at the web and counts how many flies the web catches. The value of the flies caught is compared to the cost of building the web. Webs with the best ration of catches to web cost get into the next generation. It can evolve a reasonable orb web in 20 or 30 generations.

Natural selection cannot explain these things.

Can show any evidence to corroborate your personal opinion?

Allot of weapons that animals develop, presuppose a threat or creature, that the organism is not conscious of, yet these creatures have complex systems and weapons that work in away that appears to have intelligence behind it; yet I know that the creature does not think like you and me.

Here is a piece on the evolution of the hot spray of the Bombardier Beetle: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design Just because something looks to be designed does not mean that it is designed. How many times have you seen a face in clouds? Were all those faces individually designed, or is it just that our brains are wired up to recognise faces from very little information?

There are certain disguises that creatures have, that cannot be just a matter of accidental mutation; the mutation gives the creature an advantage, its true; but a “fake eye” on moth’s wing, to fool enemies, presupposes an enemy that will be fooled by such a thing, and yet it is not conscious of it. We see organisms acting intelligently in an organized manner; yet we cannot say they have intelligent and we cannot say that such a phenomenon is ruled purely by natural selection.

You pick a very bad example. Start with a plain moth and a visual predator (fake eyes do not work against a predator which hunts by smell). Some moths get a mutation that pute white spots on their wings, not eyes - just white spots. Say 2% of the predators are startled by the spots so the moth escapes. A 2% advantage is enough for natural selection to work on and over many generations (think of compound interest). The white spots will spread through the population. Later individuals with white spots aquire other variations, some of which improve the eye-like appearance of the spots so increasing the chance of avoiding the predator. Natural selection can work on very small advantages and over time spread them through the population. Mimicry is one of the classic examples of natural selection in action.

Even simple Organisms, such as ants, seek to protect the life of a queen

Any ants which did not act to preserve the life of their queen would not be alive today, they would have gone extinct many years ago.

rossum

 

[abu_kamoon]

The believers in Evolutionism have yet to explain how organisms could have continued to live for the millions of years it took them to evolve a necessary defense mechanism.

How did arms that were evolving over millions of years contribute to survival while they were too small to function as wings, and yet incapable of grasping prey? Of what use was the eye as it slowly evolved to the point of where it could function?

At what point did fish get tired of swimming and decide to leave the water? And when did mammals decide that maybe living in the water wasn’t so bad after all, and return to the water to evolve into whales? How could anyone believe this stuff - and call it science??!!

ابو كمون

 

[rossum]

The believers in Evolutionism have yet to explain how organisms could have continued to live for the millions of years it took them to evolve a necessary defense mechanism.

Because over those millions of years, the predators were evolving the necessary attack mechanisms. Look up co-evolution.

How did arms that were evolving over millions of years contribute to survival while they were too small to function as wings, and yet incapable of grasping prey?

The arms would have been functional at all times, though not always for flight. A flying squirrel is a possible type of intermediate form where gliding and grasping are allowed for simultaneously.

Of what use was the eye as it slowly evolved to the point of where it could function?

You have not read Darwin have you. Have a look at Chapter Six of “On the Origin of Species”, in particular the section called “Organs of extreme perfection”. Our eyes cannot see the detail that an eagle’s eye can, are our eyes non-functional? There are eyes that can see less detail than ours, but are perfectly functional for the organism that carries them.

At what point did fish get tired of swimming and decide to leave the water?

The Devonian, between 416 and 359 million years ago. Google Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega and Icthyostega for more details.

And when did mammals decide that maybe living in the water wasn’t so bad after all, and return to the water to evolve into whales?

Ambulocetus was about 50 million years ago.

rossum

 

[freesoulhope]

Here is a piece on the evolution of the hot spray of the Bombardier Beetle: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design Just because something looks to be designed does not mean that it is designed. How many times have you seen a face in clouds? Were all those faces individually designed, or is it just that our brains are wired up to recognise faces from very little information?

A cloud is a cloud, and a complex organism, is a complex organism. You explanation is ultimately deceptive. Not even Darwin himself would make such a comparison.

You have unsuprisingly failed to concieve the point i was trying to make, and your explanations failed to to take in to account what it is i was really saying. You totally failed to explain why an ant blindly protects the queen and how natural selection accounts for this organised mannerism. The same for the spiders web.

Peace.

Gotta go, otherwise ill miss the last night bus home!

 

[rossum]

You totally failed to explain why an ant blindly protects the queen

1 Ants are driven almost entirely by instinct, they have little if any free will.
2 Ants’ instincts are encoded in their DNA and so are handed down from their parents.
3 Queens are not genetically identical and will produce workers with varying instincts.
4 Queens who produce workers with instincts not to care for the queen will on average have fewer offspring than queens who produce workers with instincts to look after their queen.
5 The advantage in natural selection goes to the queen who produces more offspring.

The same for the spiders web.

1 The shape of a spider’s web is determined by instinct.
2 Spiders’ instincts are encoded in their DNA and so are handed down from their parents.
3 Spiders are not genetically identical and will produce offspring with varying instincts.
4 Spiders whose webs are less efficient (too much silk, too few flies) will not produce as many offspring as spiders whose webs are more efficient (less silk, more flies).
5 The advantage in natural selection goes to the spider with the more efficient web.

You might also want to read Chapter Seven - Instinct of On the Origin of Species.Summary. I have endeavoured briefly in this chapter to show that the mental qualities of our domestic animals vary, and that the variations are inherited. Still more briefly I have attempted to show that instincts vary slightly in a state of nature. No one will dispute that instincts are of the highest importance to each animal. Therefore I can see no difficulty, under changing conditions of life, in natural selection accumulating slight modifications of instinct to any extent, in any useful direction.

Gotta go, otherwise ill miss the last night bus home!

Hope you caught it.

rossum

 

[freesoulhope]

natural selection accumulating slight modifications of instinct to any extent, in any useful direction.[/indent]

Natural selection explains why some behaviours, or intincts, survive through the genearations. What it does not do, is explain why those mannerisms have occured or why such a thing as Dna exists. Would you have me believe that the dna mechanism in place, and the fact the an organism would need such a thing to pass on preserved bennificial mutations, that has eventually resulted in us, is a matter of chance and coincidents?

We know as Intelectual beings that we can regognise why things are bennificail to an organism, but what you would have me believe, is that the absorbtion of energy( Something that is bennifcial to life), in to the most simple yet incredibly complex organism, is a mere conicidents; you want me to think that it is a mere coincidence that the absorbtion of energy or matter, is bennificial to the organism. Natural selection doesn’t seem to explain it.

The spider just happens to make a good web; natural selection passes on that bennifit. At the most; natural selections is a good reason for why certain mannerisms have survived and some have not; but it does not explain the mannerism. Evolution is incomplete as a theory.

 

[zackonattack]

Yes, in 6 24-hour days. Why does anyone doubt the Holy Scriptures? God could have created in 6 seconds. Those that claim each day is millions of years or some other such nonsense then have to deny the inerrant scriptures, original sin, Adam and Eve, etc. And since the Apostles and Jesus both quoted from Genesis I would not want to accuse those souls of not knowing what they are talking about.

I can see it now. Adam and Eve, BEFORE the sinned, are standing on millions of DEAD bones of animals that have killed each other, die of disease, or disasters or whatever. That can’t be, because death came into the world AFTER Adam sinned, not before. If you don’t believe that you don’t believe the bible and if you don’t believe the bible you aren’t Christian. Reject what all the liberal theologians and so-called “scholars” think. Their total value of their writings can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

 

[antimon]

Yes, in 6 24-hour days. Why does anyone doubt the Holy Scriptures? God could have created in 6 seconds. Those that claim each day is millions of years or some other such nonsense then have to deny the inerrant scriptures, original sin, Adam and Eve, etc. And since the Apostles and Jesus both quoted from Genesis I would not want to accuse those souls of not knowing what they are talking about.

I can see it now. Adam and Eve, BEFORE the sinned, are standing on millions of DEAD bones of animals that have killed each other, die of disease, or disasters or whatever. That can’t be, because death came into the world AFTER Adam sinned, not before. If you don’t believe that you don’t believe the bible and if you don’t believe the bible you aren’t Christian. Reject what all the liberal theologians and so-called “scholars” think. Their total value of their writings can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

it might have been more than 6 days… in promoting your opinion, you are ignoring verses such as 2 Pt 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I don’t doubt scriptures, I doubt your interpretation of scriptures

 

[zackonattack]

it might have been more than 6 days… in promoting your opinion, you are ignoring verses such as 2 Pt 3:8

I don’t doubt scriptures, I doubt your interpretation of scriptures

I’m not ignoring 2 Pt. 3:8. It says that with God a day can be AS a thousand years, NOT IS a thousand years. It is a simile. However, in Genesis no simile. Whenever the word “day” is preceeded by a numerical value, it is ALWAYS to be taken literally. Find a Greek or Hebrew scholar that disagrees with that. God could have said I will create the universe in 7 days consisting of one million years each. He didn’t do that. I can see it now. The Jews work for 6 days (of millions of years each), and rest on the 7th day (for millions of years). Utter nonsense. People don’t want to believe the bible as it is stated because they don’t want to be held responsible to the Sovereign God of the Universe. They want to “do their own thing.” And, of course, that’s what the first chapter of Romans talks about. Man sure has gone a long way by “doing their own thing.” We’ve even gone so far as to thing it is normal for homosexuals to marry. What a perverted society we live in.