> Fred Foldvary wrote:
> > If it's so clear, please explain to those of us who are ignorant
> > in such matters what "day" means in the original Hebrew and in
> > the other references to that word in the Bible. Some scholars
> > say that some terms in the Bible are symbolic or metaphors, so
> > explain why this incorrect, since it should be clear.
>
> Hmmm. Interesting. Why could not God have spent 6 billion years creating
> the universe? A day is day is a day right? But a day can indeed be
> metaphorical -- worth a billion years even. But, in the end, IMHO, to
> believe Darwin takes faith, just not as much as the faith it takes to
> believe the Bible. Who's right?
If you look at the beginning of Genesis, the sequence of events
is exactly they way evolution went. First, light - the big bang,
radiation, photons. Then the stars and planets. Then water on
earth. Then plants and animals. Finally, human beings.
The word "day" in many places in the Bible refers to years and
eras. A puzzle is why God rested on the seventh "day".
This was to set an example for humanity of having a Sabbath,
with is on the seventh day, Saturday (the Christians moved it
to Sunday, though a few still observe the seventh day).
> Well, given faith, the one with the
> right answer is the one that has more evidence ro make the argument.
No. Knowledge consists of theory and evidence together.
Evidence alone does not create theory.
Try this experiment. Draw three dots on a sheet of paper.
Now draw a line connecting them. The line is your theory.
I can draw a different line connecting the dots.
That's my theory. There are an infinite number of thoeries
that are consistent with the dots.
Evidence *tests* theory. It does not create theory.
> That's Darwin, you think?
There are a lot of unanswered questions with Darwinianism.
> Why is God not on this list?
How do you know God is not on this list, under some alias?
Fred Foldvary