Is there anyone here who actually believes in Creationism? If so, why?
Everything went too right, its weird.
Yes. Faith.
Any other answer is wrong.
>>77820772
I done grew up from a little boy inta a big grown man! How comes I ain't grown into a beaver?!
Everything went too right, it's weird huh?
>>77820862
Why so limited anon?
>>77820772
I fucking hate this argument.
The human body is barely functional and filled with structures that don't do anything. Some even make life harder.
If the earth weren't hospitable to humans then we would never have fucking developed in the first place.
If it were any less perfect we wouldn't be here! And it's far from "perfect" in any fucking way. We just happen to be smart enough to live outside of our natural habitat.
The only way anyone can make this argument is by being mind-numbingly ignorant of the world around them.
>>77820862
Faith is knowledge for people who are too lazy to learn.
>>77820991
What else you need? Holy Spirit completes where your faith alone can't.
>>77821291
Spirits don't exist.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Also existence of consciousness
>>77821416
Demons exist and they take the form of heretical beliefs.
Holy Spirit is simply God.
There is no 'why'
It is a belief within and without, every believer who attempts to reason it with these garbage arguments and supports the rape of science should blow their fucking brains out
>hurr it's too perfect
The human body holds the soul, the soul is what is made in the likeness of God.
>>77821134
>what is atmospheric equilibrium?
But, like, who cares when humans are still evolving and happen to have organs from the grass eating days? If it ain't absolutely perfect then there's absolutely no chance of some sort of conscious intervention.
>b-b-but isn't God infallible
Nope, that's a strawman, Aquinas only did the omni god thing to appease the Catholic church who only did it to one up polytheists.
Face the fact, biological things are required to be imperfect so as survival and selection to actually work, some things need to fail for other things to succeed. Equality is unnatural. You bitching about imperfection is like a child bitching that it can't have ice cream for dinner.
And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
>>77821864
prove that. prove any part of that.
>>77821935
>And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
Yeah. There unironically isn't.
>>77820563
Yes, because there is as much evidence for Evolution as there is for the Holocaust, and they both follow a similar pattern:
1.) A bunch of Jews and shitlibs rabidly affirming its truth and viciously attacking any naysayers
2.) No actual definitive evidence exists, what does exist is at best circumstantial and thinly tangential
3.) The theory itself is highly implausible and completely improbable if you actually run the numbers
4.) Many "examples" that were put forth in support of it that have been proven to be hoaxes or deliberate fictions
5.) There are laws in place to prevent schools from teaching anything that deviates from its dogma
That being said, even if evolution were proven to be true, it would do absolutely nothing to disprove God.
>>77821416
My booze cabinet says otherwise. Checkmate atheists.
>>77820563
Creationism is a myth made by people that can't handle the idea of death and dying.
Fear is the mantra of the creationist and that's why they deny basic knowledge.
>>77822154
>The theory itself is highly implausible and completely improbable if you actually run the numbers
What numbers are you even referring to? Be specific if you have a specific point to make.
>>77820563
Me but not in its fullest.
>Why?
Because there is some math that doesn't add up. Its so coincidental that it makes you wonder. But it could also be influenced by one of the universal constants that work together to give you that result.
One example: the difference in size between the moon and the sun and the difference in distance between those two and the earth so we have eclipses. Its weird.
Could be God or it could be some species that we could consider godlike. Idk.
What i think happened: someone or something created the universe (i have no idea how you do that so don't ask) and then left it on its own to grow and evolve by a defined set of rules that they set up or are the fundamental constants of existence and what we see now is the result of billions of years of doing things by those rules.
>>77821594
>Demons exist and they take the form of heretical beliefs.
Then why does god tell mothers to put their babies in microwave ovens?
>>77822154
>A bunch of Jews
The creation myth comes from the Jews. Do you even use your brain?
>>77820563
I trust in the fact that I do not know how the world or universe was created and that i can only get a general idea.
I also accept the fact that I am not arrogant enough to assume that there is or is not a god or that human beings being as fledgling as they are, have an answer for any of those questions.
>>77821973
Prove that your consciousness is not an emergent property of natural laws naturally existing in our natural universe. Prove that the fact that consciousness isn't an inherent eventuality of evolving life.
Failure to do so is admitting that there's actually consciousness in this universe, which we're all part of.
>>77822094
So you don't exist?
>>77821134
>barely functional
>parts serve no purpose
Blatantly false.
>>77822367
There is nothing heretical about microwaving babies.
>>77822154
> I don't understand science
> MUH RUNNING NUMBERS
>>77822558
Not an argument.
>>77822154
>That being said, even if evolution were proven to be true
Proven so repeatedly to be true that evolution is already a rock solid science.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-the-everday-world/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-in-the-everday-world/
>>77822504
cancer
male nipples
>>77822453
>Prove that your consciousness is not an emergent property of natural laws naturally existing in our natural universe. Prove that the fact that consciousness isn't an inherent eventuality of evolving life.
Doesn't work like that. You're making that proposition. You have to prove it. But on the point of "inherent eventuality of evolving life": Why do you even believe that? There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
>>77822504
What purpose does the septum in your nose have?
>>77821134
You sound like a naïve teenager who thinks he has discovered the world and the truth, being atheist, vegan, whatever other shit.
Im no creationist, but saying that "the human body is barely functional and filled with structures that don't do anything"...
Prove that, prove that phrase.
>>77822376
No it does not. No you do not.
>>77822884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
As for barely functional, take Bio in college.
>>77822154
>Many "examples" that were put forth in support of it that have been proven to be hoaxes or deliberate fictions
Yes, by other scientists who also happens to believe in evolution.
>>77823151
>>77820772
If there's a 1 in trillion or more chance that things would have developed "too right", and the 1 in that trillion is the only one that can be around to observe this fact, it's not too strange that we're here talking about it, now is it?
I can't believe people still believe in this fucking nonsense. Creationists have been BTFO time and time again for years now.
>>77822805
Cancer is a mutation caused by external factors, not inherent in life.
Male nipples exist because they form before gender is decided.
Try again.
And no, you're the retard that out and said "hurr prove that," you haven't even made a proposition yourself whereas I have, whereas even "the soul is goddddd" kid even did.
>Why do you even believe that?
Because if it were otherwise, there would be absolutely no point. Are you an optimist?
>There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
Ad hominem.
>>77823118
vestigiality is not an argument for the futility of a structure. Lots, if not all, of vestigial parts have a function.
For barely functional, did you take bio in college? did you go to college?
>>77823553
this.
>>77820563
Yes. Kent Hovind.
>>77820563
>>>77822805
>Cancer is a mutation caused by external factors, not inherent in life.
It is inherent in life you fucking idiot! It doesn't have to be caused by external factors!
>Male nipples exist because they form before gender is decided.
What exactly is your point? They're still useless vestigial structures.
>And no, you're the retard that out and said "hurr prove that," you haven't even made a proposition yourself whereas I have, whereas even "the soul is goddddd" kid even did.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
>>Why do you even believe that?
>Because if it were otherwise, there would be absolutely no point. Are you an optimist?
So in other words "muh feels"?
>>There's no reason to other than being extremely antropocentric and having a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
>Ad hominem.
Are you pretending to be retarded? That's not even what that term means!
>>77822805
Cancer is a mutation you dumb nigger.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/why-do-men-have-nipples/
That only hurts your evolutionary argument.
>>77822864
Literally a simple Google search
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22028006
>>77824367
Cancer is a disease, and as a disease, it may be considered inherent to life. But is not an argument for saying it's "barely functional", it's an argument for saying that its not perfect.
>>77820563
Eh. I'm a soft creationist. The evidence is damning. Especially for young earth creationists. I choose to believe in a creator regardless. Religion has done nothing but enhance my life and give me purpose. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and I will die and turn to dust. Having gained nothing and lost nothing. Same as everyone else. If I am right I have gained everything and found truth. Perhaps it seems absurd, but life is absurd and there is no room in our short lives for half measures.
>>77822687
Yeh but all the science men are probably jews so.. so.. so it's all made up anyway!
>>77821419
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there god rather than no god?
>>77825154
kek, now that's a solid argument.
>>77823118
Dear God, heavenly father, are you incapable of making a post without a fallacy? You're not even using the good ones, just mostly ad hominem.
Of course not everything in human biology makes sense, it arose from genetic processes. Randomness is part of the process, of course some things exist for quite literally no reason.
Could you design a better method of designing biological creatures? I think God makes a lot more sense from a computer programmer who designs things for a living than a dreary biologist who analyses already designed things. Keep classifying and making up names for shit as if it's of any importance.
Actually, to be honest, you just shit me with your single line response to my opening post. Consciousness is a beautiful thing and the fact that it naturally emerges from laws defined either at the big bang or within the first 100,000 years of existence is enough "proposition" that I need.
You totally dodged that.
>>77824367
Did you just change your IP? Same posting style...
>It is inherent in life you fucking idiot! It doesn't have to be caused by external factors!
No, cancer is formed from carcinogens and mutations, like radiation. Nothing is designed to fail and if it were it'd be a very quick evolutionary dead end, thus the system itself seems to tend towards more and more complex things.
Again, from laws defined in the big bang. Spooky.
>What exactly is your point? They're still useless vestigial structures.
No, they're not, because they're useful in women.
>trying to say here?
That he has no proposition of his own and has consistently dodged mine with that one liner, my fault for sarcasm.
>"muh feels"
Very mature.
>That's not even what that term means!
He literally tried to discredit my point by implying a faulty understanding of evolution is of any importance to the argument. He did it against other posters as well, in fact he's kind of bad at forming arguments.
I'd sincerely hope he's not anyone's tutor or mentor.
>>77821935
>And remember, your consciousness just "randomly" emerged from natural laws. That's right, just a random emergent property, nothing to see here, absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
Read up on chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics. Synchronicity and chimera states develop in chaotic systems all the time, and it seemingly makes no sense.
>>77825290
I'm starting to become confused (and yes my ip did change).
Explain concisely what exactly your argument is. The more posts you make the less sense it makes.
>>77820563
It's Catholic teaching that the creation stories of Genesis all the way through Noah's Ark are myths. The creation stories are simply an attempt by early peoples to understand how things came about. They are NOT meant to be taken literally. If you take them literally then you are an idiot.
>>77824808
>>77822864
>>77824367
>>77823805
If we're talking about spandrels, the mother of all spandrels is the enormous human brain. It originally arose as an adaptation for some functions in humans' ancestral past, but the complexity of the human brain produces many by-products that are not properly considered to be functions of the brain. Religion, reading, writing, fine arts are all functionless uses or by-products rather than true fitness-enhancing, co-opted spandrels. These are features of interest to psychologists, but such by-products are a mountain to the adaptive molehill.
tldr - creationism = male nipples
>>77825740
This is very true actually, every priest with a brain also says this. The Bible is an allegory, not a history book. Sadly, many fools and fanatics didn't get the point.
>>77820563
Yes because God created the earth.
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm
>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Apollo 8 Christmas Message
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUx_KC1bHQ
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-31.htm
http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-1.htm
>but muh 6 days can't be real
YOM, means day but also age, eternity, period, forever, etc.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm
>>77825655
The natural laws of the universe lead to my consciousness, I think therefore I am, therefore my consciousness came from the universe and I can prove the universe has at least one naturally occurring consciousness. It emerged naturally from the laws of the universe, one of which being evolution. It therefore came from the universe and is part of the universe.
I have a theory that Gnostic arguments in favour for God's existence are naturally rejected to most people. You simply can't reject the matrix.
To really busy your nut, the exact same God I'm describing is found within exodus 3:14. I have reason to believe the same way I'm convincing you is how Moses convinced ancient Egyptian intellectuals.
>The more posts you make the less sense it makes.
Literally the incredulous fallacy. You still haven't addressed shit. You're still arguing horrifically.
And be kind, it's 330am where I am.
>>77826315
Well, I don't think that the whole Bible is an allegory.
The first ten or so chapters of Genesis are Myth while the rest of the Pentateuch is Legend.
However, there are books like Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles which have historical basis although they are not necessarily a literal account of historical happenings.
As for the New Testament, much of what is said about Jesus is at least partly based on fact which came down to the authors of the Gospel through the oral tradition. Mark's is probably the most historically accurate since it was written around 60 A.D I believe and presents Jesus in a more human sense. John's on the other hand is probably the least historical as it was written near 100 A.D.
tl;dr: Bible is not allegory and has some historicity to it.
>>77826373
>God created the heavens and the earth
I conceptualize God in a sense presented by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles 1:1, that is to say as a prime mover.
God did not literally make the Earth by snapping his fingers or something like that, but rather he set the universe in motion which would eventually lead to the creation of the Earth and humans by extension.
>>77825905
im still waiting for a proper argument on the futility of body parts and the "barely functional" human body.
Wiki about nipples:
Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them.
Nipples have a function for humans (as the subject of the discussion is about the human body and it's supposedly unfunctional parts, and not about the sexual dimorphism in humans).
>>77826315
As our knowledge of the universe increases, God's domain decreases--another part of the book becomes cherry picked as allegory.
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
I'm going to sleep but here. All the evidence anyone would ever want is out there for a young earth.
>>77827546
>Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them.
VERY contemporarily. Only within the last couple hundred years have life spans reached such a length that nipple cancer has a big impact. Certainly not far back enough to impact evolution.
>>77826960
im sorry, then it's not a complete allegory, but also should not be taken too literal. About Jesus and the Gospel, i fully agree.
>>77828025
I believe the Catholic understanding today is that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, but not controlled by him or something like that.
So, this leaves room for error since humans are fallible.
>>77827546
Yes.
Men have nipples. They are useless. We have them because women have them.
Women have orgasms. They are useless. They have them because men have them.
Not every trait has an adaptive explanation.
>im still waiting for a proper argument on the futility of body parts and the "barely functional" human body.
I don't know what you mean by this. Maybe I'm just getting to the party too late.
>>77820563
I don't belive in it at all, but they have good arguments like why the recorded human story began almost the same time as the Bible says the Earth was created and the unreliability of carbon method of measuring the age of things. Also, fossils don't take millions of years to develop.
>>77820563
why the hell should I give a fuck?
>>77826572
I'm actually not arguing horrifically. You're just not making much sense. There isn't a whole lot to argue.
The second paragraph onward is just for lack of a better word dumb. Not necessarily the content but the way it's presented that makes it difficult to exctract the content of the argument.
You have a theory of what? Exactly what the fuck are you trying to communixate to me and what the fuck does it have to do with the argument at hand. I have a suspicion that we're actually having two different conversations and perhaps we need to clarify what we're saying.
My argument is that the world isn't "too perfect" to have been the result of random processes for two reasons. The first being that it's far from perfect and the second being that once a set of rules have been defined a system will continue to operate under that ruleset and even a simple set of primatives can lead ro staggering complexity given enough time.
Evolution is observed every day in viruses and bacteria.
Just sayin.
>>77828486
>once a set of rules have been defined
Who defined the rules anon?
>>77828309
Tell me why you call the human body barely functional.
>>77828773
Nobody knows. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, an idiot, or a lying idiot. There are some thjngs that we legitimately just don't know.
>>77823805
>Lots, if not all, of vestigial parts have a function.
The plica semilunaris sure does play a huge role in our species.
>>77828846
you got the wrong anon, chilote
>>77828846
That's a different guy. Barely functional is hyperbole but it's obviously far from optimal even just given the form and functions already within. Also to answer your question yes im a college student. I majored in biology for 2 years before switching to mathematics.
>>77828486
No, it's difficult to extract a counter argument. How about you own up to that? As respectfully as possible, fuck you I'm going to sleep.
One day you will believe. That's my parting curse for you.
>>77821935
>absolutely no indication of another consciousness behind those natural laws.
You're just passing the buck, m8. Whence came the first consciousness, and why does your logic not apply to it?
>>77828938
Well, that goes without saying of course, but wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that God made the rules and set the universe in motion?
After all, everything must come from something, so the laws must have come from something.as well.
And since God is eternal and the universe is not, it seems to me that it is likely that God set down such laws upon setting the universe in motion.
>>77820563
>believes in Creationism
Not comparable with evolution
Creationism attempts to explain what happened before time and the universe began.
Evolution only explains what happened starting with the 2nd species on earth. It does not attempt to explain the origin of life in the mutiliverse
>>77829018
It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement.
and that is just wiki dude. it doesnt need a huge role, it just has a role.
>>77820563
The older I get, the more I believe there is a higher being or beings
>>77829167
oh dios mio
>>77820563
I believe in God making everything but not the young earth theory.
I just think it makes more sense that an all powerful being made everything instead of some random explosion. My theory is that the Big Bang and evolution are right, but God did it.
Just my opinion, take it as you will.
>>77829505
That's not uncommon. People start to fear death more as it approaches, and crave a way out through supernatural fantasies.
>>77829320
You're legitimately stupid.
>>77829169
Fat tissue management may be far from optimal, i'll give you that. But the rest of the systems work like a charm, pretty close to optimal.
Glad at least you studied biology a bit.
>>77829572
>My theory is that the Big Bang and evolution are right, but God did it.
You know that's the lamest, most retarded theory of all, right?
>>77829723
It's not a fear of death, it's a realisation of how well everything works in nature and how I into all of that, the things that have happened to me so far in life, it makes me more at ease at the thought of death
>>77827775
>All the evidence anyone would ever want is out there for a young earth.
>Can't tell the difference between real evidence and gibberish
>Hoping you're so stupid you'll fall for the same nonsense I did
>>77823198
That second comic is literally "I AM SILLY"
You're getting cucked because you turned your back on God, swede, and your people have nothing left, that's why you're going to die out.
>>77820563
>>>77828938
>Well, that goes without saying of course, but wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that God made the rules and set the universe in motion?
no. There's no evidence of that and tonnes of evidence to the contrary.
>After all, everything must come from something, so the laws must have come from something.as well.
Not necessarily. We don't understand enough to make a judgement about that.
>And since God is eternal and the universe is not, it seems to me that it is likely that God set down such laws upon setting the universe in motion.
That presupposes that god exists. rather than hypothesizing god as a being and then working backwards to flesh out its nature you've seen a gap between a hypothesis and an observation and filled it in with the same hypothesis. I could make up an entirely new set of rules for the unjverse to work under that would be consistent with reality and also incorrect if I simply started with the presupposition that my hypothetical theory was right abd explained every observation around it.
Humans are the only advanced sentient species out of millions of others...
Spacetime is non-linear, how long were days at the start of the big bang when matter itself was being injected into the void darkness? 7 of God's days to create the universe and all were billions of normal years each due to the low matter content of the universe and non-linear spacetime.
Face it heathens, Jesus is Lord.
>>77829478
What about the kiwi wings or the palmaris longus in some humans?
>>77829974
>>77830465
Did you mean non euclidian?
>>77830021
>how well everything works in nature
Things work in nature "well enough". That's the minimum criteria that needs to be met, and that's where it stops. Consider the thousands of species that go extinct through no fault of their own (or ours). Consider amazing adaptations that some species have (eg. avian respiratory system, tissue regeneration in some amphibians, etc.) that would make other species unstoppable, and yet they lack them because what they have was acceptable.
Consider how hostile our own planet was to life during the history of the earth. I see no evidence of intelligence in this, because if there was indeed a creator, planning ahead and taking care in his work was not his style. At best, he was a "let's try this and see what happens, lol" type of guy.
>>77830465
>Humans are the only advanced sentient species out of millions of others...
>advanced
What do you mean by advanced? What makes humans unique?
>species
Technically humans refers to a genus of which there exists only one species, however there have been many other human species on this planet previously. Guess what our "advanced" species did to any other human species (and 90+% of all other megafauna species) once we decided we were so much more advanced and deserved to inherit the entire planet...
>>77820563
Because the ark exists, I know people that have been to it and I also know the coordinates. I know several Chinese and an Armenian that have photos from the legal side of the mountain.
Ackbars will kill you if you get too close, literal turf ware from ISIS and the PKK going on.
>>77832198
Reason. That makes humans unique.
>>77832654
More like literal brain damage going on in your head
>>77830609
kiwi human wings? haha
palmaris longus is a flexor.
>>77832800
I figured you would just say that it was built there, there is no debate as to the existence. Historical and satellite evidence substantiate it.
Better arguments other than personal attacks:
>built there
>lifted naturally
>the carbon dating was wrong
>google wasnt actually manipulating the location
lots of better arguments.
>>77832688
Reasoning is not unique to human beings. Neither is language. Neither is self-awareness. Neither is tool-use. Not the ability to perform math nor the ability to conjecture abstraction.
>>77832688
Sorry, man. You'll have to be more specific than that. Reason is too broad of a term.
>>77833130
Prove me other being that has reasoning, math and conjeture abstraction.
Creationism is a truth that scientists refuse to accept since it does not fit their agenda of atheism. There is a lot of evidence that this earth is only thousands of years old and nowhere near the millions of years that scientists claim.
>>77833001
>kiwi human wings?
I meant the wings on the kiwi. Having appendages so small they can be barely seen isn't that much advantage
Also, some humans don't have the palmaris longus and I don't think it affects their mobility at all.
>>77833301
>Prove me other being that has reasoning, math and conjeture abstraction.
No. Read a book.
>>77833484
14% aprox of humans dont have the palmaris, that's right, and it's abscence doesn't affect them. But the other 86% aprox has it, and works as a flexor.
And about kiwis, i dont know, im talking and arguing about humans.
>>77833592
dat argument haha.
>>77822329
>there is some math that doesn't add up
>the difference in size between the moon and the sun
Well one is a star the other is a large rock
>>77822329
>One example: the difference in size between the moon and the sun and the difference in distance between those two and the earth so we have eclipses. Its weird.
Geometry 101 pal, the sun is at thousands of times the distance between the moon and the earth.
A body at 0.00257 AU will obviously appear larger than a body at 1 AU.
>>77833766
>prove to me...
is not a serious request. Because what you're asking is "prove it to my satisfaction to the point where I concede that you are correct." And you and I both know that you'll simply whine about sources, attempt to rationalize your way out of the fact and, if you can't do either, simply close the thread.
>prove to me
on /pol/, is bullshit. Educate yourself, if you want to be educated.
Or don't.
>>77833720
It works as a flexor. However, unlike the example of the eye membrane,its function is so redundant you can remove it and nothing happens.
Unless there is an experiment showing that there IS a certain advantage of having palmaris longus (additional force or whatever, have in mind that the frecuency does not equal always selection) it will remain as an irrelevant structure. Yes, it kinda has a role, but it insignificant.
>>77820563
That's a loaded question. Creationism doesn't denote the Young Earth Theory. The Young Earth Theory did not originate with Creationism. It originated from a sect of Christendom called Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalist believe in taking the Bible LITERALLY EVERYWHERE.
The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
Second, we also know that the days were not literal 24 hour days because the 7th day was God's day of rest.
>(Genesis 2:2) And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.
The length of that day of rest is portrayed in the Bible to have continued waaaay past 24 hours.
>(Psalm 95:11) Concerning whom I swore in my anger: “They shall not enter into my resting-place.”
This was a message given to the Ancient Israelites cursed to wander the desert for forty years for disobeying God after he released them from slavery from the Egyptians. This was atleast 3,000 years later from when Adam and Eve existed. Then it was mentioned again:
>(Hebrews 4:3, 4) For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: “So I swore in my anger, ‘They shall not enter into my rest,’” although his works were finished from the founding of the world. 4For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,”
This was 4,000 years later.
>>77834672
>This was 4,000 years later.
Translators probably mixed up day as a euphemism and gave it the literal autistic treatment.
>>77833301
There's tons of examples of animals thinking multiple steps in the future to solve problems, counting things and doing arithmetic, and other extraordinary tasks. However if you're looking for an animal that "thinks" like a human and applies "human reason", then you're looking at the question in the wrong way. When I ask "what makes humans unique", it's more a question of behavior.
Also here's some smart crows -
https://youtu.be/JY8-gP3Sw_8
https://youtu.be/ZerUbHmuY04
