Surely since Genesis doesn't include the creation of bacteria, it is false. Since there is a gap, it is obviously not true.
2007-11-14 07:15:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Gaps, or "crap?"
It's craptacular
2007-11-14 07:20:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Would the underlying message change?
NOTE: Genesis is 50 chapters. Most people get hung up on the first 12 chapters, and have never even read the remaining 38, where the really interesting history is.
>>>OOOPS! I should shut my mouth! It's a SECRET that we Catholics READ the Bible!<<<
2007-11-14 07:30:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh for the love of pete, people! Genesis is CLEARLY meant to be treated as an allegory, NOT AS SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!
Okay, now that I've got that off my chest. It's really hard to deal with these kind of nit-picky bs questions that aren't really about discussing the REAL issues of theology or even theism v. atheism. They're "gotcha" questions, and they are really growing quite old (and the sad part is I just started looking at this section TODAY!)
Can both sides please dispense with the gotcha questions????
2007-11-14 07:22:04 · answer #3 · answered by KatJones37 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm willing to bet you're gonna have someone try to explain to you that an error of omission isn't really an error; or that the geneologies aren't meant to be taken literally. But seriously, how else is a cut and try list of names and numbers to be taken?! If not literal, one could then argue there are hidden meanings buried within the phone book; another list of names and numbers.
2007-11-14 07:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by Dashes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It didn't specifically mention the creation of penguins, either, but a lack of nit-picky detail hardly proves it false.
2007-11-14 07:20:54 · answer #5 · answered by Randy G 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If evolution were true, we would have transitional forms in geometry, like Squircles.
2007-11-14 07:21:36 · answer #6 · answered by Captain Cod 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is only an outline not a sciantific book. God's hand is in all.
2007-11-14 07:25:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree but it's a well-worded rebuttal.
Brightest Blessings
2007-11-14 07:20:56 · answer #8 · answered by Celestian Vega 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it only describe humans,with mentioning of plants ,birds and animals.remember they never had a microscope then
2007-11-14 07:19:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋