Then 'splain me this: how come the account of creation in Gen 1 has God creating the animals first, then man: [all quotes NRSV Bible] - Gen 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things. . . '" - Gen 1:26-27 "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion. ..so God created humankind in his image. ..'"
- BUT -
Gen 2 has the order reversed:
- Gen 2:5 "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up. ..then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground"
- Gen 2:18 "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air. .."
Now, I'm not trying to invalidate the *message* or *general content* of Genesis. It's just not a LITERAL, EXACT ACCOUNT of the first few days.
IMHO, Christians should stop sticking to the 7-days-or-you're-not-really-a-christian guns. This interpretation allows consistency with science, i.e. carbon dating, dinosaurs, EVOLUTION, etc.
First off, the earth did not come to be by evolution (quoth the school board president). . . that would be the big bang. Evolution is a biological theory.
Anyway, it's an absurd debate to begin with. One side refuses to present arguments for and against evolution (the one taken by NM) - god forbid we teach our children to think for themselves. On the other hand, we could just turn our heads and ignore a scientific theory all together (as the bible camp would have us do).
Personally, I don't think the two "theories" are even mutually exclusive - argument goes something like this: god makes babies by sex/AI/whatever, pregnancy, birth, etc., god made man by the process of evolution. Many bible scholars in non-fundamentalist denominations take the book of Genesis (on which Christian creationism is based) as "poetic" literature, probably of symbolic nature, so evolution doesn't even necessarily contradict the Bible.
Final word: teach evolution and whatever else the locals want to teach; just be sure that *arguments* are given and *reason* is used. That's why schools are there, right?
Nope. . . it's quite a way to the left of the edge of the table where the other nobles live. You have to take the two series from the bottom and insert them in the bottom two rows of the "traditional" tables. Tables aren't usually displayed this way 'cause it's too big and disproportionate to fit on a page cleanly.
P.S. - I second that vote for slashdotium - ununoctium is just too boring. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Then 'splain me this: how come the account of creation in Gen 1 has God creating the animals first, then man: [all quotes NRSV Bible] .so God created humankind in his image. . .'"
.then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground"
."
- Gen 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things. . . '"
- Gen 1:26-27 "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion. .
- BUT -
Gen 2 has the order reversed:
- Gen 2:5 "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up. .
- Gen 2:18 "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air. .
Now, I'm not trying to invalidate the *message* or *general content* of Genesis. It's just not a LITERAL, EXACT ACCOUNT of the first few days.
IMHO, Christians should stop sticking to the 7-days-or-you're-not-really-a-christian guns. This interpretation allows consistency with science, i.e. carbon dating, dinosaurs, EVOLUTION, etc.
-SD
First off, the earth did not come to be by evolution (quoth the school board president). . . that would be the big bang. Evolution is a biological theory.
Anyway, it's an absurd debate to begin with. One side refuses to present arguments for and against evolution (the one taken by NM) - god forbid we teach our children to think for themselves. On the other hand, we could just turn our heads and ignore a scientific theory all together (as the bible camp would have us do).
Personally, I don't think the two "theories" are even mutually exclusive - argument goes something like this: god makes babies by sex/AI/whatever, pregnancy, birth, etc., god made man by the process of evolution. Many bible scholars in non-fundamentalist denominations take the book of Genesis (on which Christian creationism is based) as "poetic" literature, probably of symbolic nature, so evolution doesn't even necessarily contradict the Bible.
Final word: teach evolution and whatever else the locals want to teach; just be sure that *arguments* are given and *reason* is used. That's why schools are there, right?
-SD
That's what *I* get for not counting. . .
-sd
Nope. . . it's quite a way to the left of the edge of the table where the other nobles live. You have to take the two series from the bottom and insert them in the bottom two rows of the "traditional" tables. Tables aren't usually displayed this way 'cause it's too big and disproportionate to fit on a page cleanly.
P.S. - I second that vote for slashdotium - ununoctium is just too boring. . .