Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Originally posted by DeepThought
The narrative in Genesis (1:20-21) has God saying "Let birds fly across the expanse of the sky" and then it attributes the creation of all winged birds to him. It does not say that all birds were flying at the moment of their creation - or even that any were. Given the longevity of the antediluvians, and the general problem of time within the book of G ...[text shortened]... ing population created simultaneously, in which case the chicken and egg race is a dead heat.

I am the one that interprets it, not you. Just as it states the plants were created with the seed within them, the animals were created with the seed within them, that is what we call the sperm and egg. Therefore, the chicken as a bird was created first with the rooster having the sperm within it and the hen having the egg within it. Upon fertilization, the egg is layed and after the required 3 weeks of incubation a new bird (chicken) is hatched.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are OK with everything from the humming bird to the ostrich evolving from a common ancestor in only 6000 years?

No, there was more than one variety of birds taken on the ark. If I remember correctly, at the end of the flood Noah let a couple different varieties of birds go out of the Ark and one brought back a leaf or twig.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, there was more than one variety of birds taken on the ark. If I remember correctly, at the end of the flood Noah let a couple different varieties of birds go out of the Ark and one brought back a leaf or twig.

The Instructor

So that's just two types of bird -and now there are hundreds of types of birds living today. Interesting.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am the one that interprets it, not you. Just as it states the plants were created with the seed within them, the animals were created with the seed within them, that is what we call the sperm and egg. Therefore, the chicken as a bird was created first with the rooster having the sperm within it and the hen having the egg within it. Upon fertilization, ...[text shortened]... and after the required 3 weeks of incubation a new bird (chicken) is hatched.

The Instructor

1) You are not entitled to a monopoly on biblical interpretation.
2) The biblical account does not specify that there were only two of each species at the start, the ones that are created are simply expected to multiply. Neither does it specify the state that animals were created in.
3) The bible states that the land was commanded to bring forth seed bearing plants, land does that when it has seeds in it. So you can't actually show that the first generation did not grow from seed during one day.
4) The bible does not state that the normal rules about egg gestation periods and growth rates apply during the week of creation. The strong implication is that they don't.

Therefore you cannot prove that the chicken (or at least Red Junglefowl) came before the egg on the basis of the Book of Genesis.

Originally posted by DeepThought
1) You are not entitled to a monopoly on biblical interpretation.
2) The biblical account does not specify that there were only two of each species at the start, the ones that are created are simply expected to multiply. Neither does it specify the state that animals were created in.
3) The bible states that the land was commanded to bring forth seed chicken (or at least Red Junglefowl) came before the egg on the basis of the Book of Genesis.

Well, your interpretation doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that God would be consistent in His creation. There is no indication that there were any babies being concieved and born before the man and the woman were created. Even though God could have done it some other way, the scriptures strongly implies that the animals were fully created first and then reproduction began after that. So this means the chicken came before the fertilized egg.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, your interpretation doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that God would be consistent in His creation. There is no indication that there were any babies being concieved and born before the man and the woman were created. Even though God could have done it some other way, the scriptures strongly implies that the animals were fully created first an ...[text shortened]... began after that. So this means the chicken came before the fertilized egg.

The Instructor

It makes a LOT more sense that the whole bible was just made up by men who wanted a control freak religion so they could build up a power base which is exactly what happened. Why don't you question what books were left out of the bible in 393?

Originally posted by sonhouse
It makes a LOT more sense that the whole bible was just made up by men who wanted a control freak religion so they could build up a power base which is exactly what happened. Why don't you question what books were left out of the bible in 393?

I have. I even bought a book that is actually bigger than the Holy Bible with the available known text that were rejected in it. It is called "The Other Bible" and it collects those known texts that were rejected into one volume along with the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures, Kabbalah, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

They apparently rejected those that were not in common use by all Christians at the time and those they believed were not inspired and contained doubtful and heretical teachings. They accepted only those that they could agree should be a part of the canon of Christian scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

The Instructor