Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.origins Subject: Re: Should we teach Copernicanism? Message-ID: <1585@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 12:23:16 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1585 Posted: Thu Oct 24 12:23:16 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 04:27:19 EST References: <1619@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2363@sunybcs.UUCP> <730@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 53 Xref: watmath net.politics:11711 net.origins:2519 > ********************************************************** > *And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the > light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called > the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and > there was morning, one day.* > ****************************************************** > Is there any conception in this passage that "one day" might only apply > to solely our own solar system and the Earth's rotation? > No, because to the author of this passage the only light was our own > terrestrial day. The idea that other stars and their planets rotation > might lead to "days" on other planets is inconceivable given the > author's primitive knowledge of the universe: after all, we all know there > is only one "day" and one "night" as we directly experience it here > on Earth. Moreover, of course, the fact that the Sun's light continues > even tho the Earth may be temporarily turned away from it is also unknown > to the author. There is an irremediable separation between light and > darkness-either all is light or all is darkness. That part of the planet > may be in light while the other is in darkness is alien to the author's > view of the universe. Given that this verse refers to a time before there were *any* stars, and therefore that the reference to any solar event is questionable, this sort of argument might be said to be somewhat misdirected. > *then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground* > > ****************************************************** > Only *after* Adam has been created does God create the animals: > > ********************************************************** > *Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; > I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God > formed *every beast of the field and every bird of the air...* > > ****************************************************** > When this passage says *every beast of the field* it implies > that it is not a question of merely creating *some* beasts and birds > for Adam's company but *all* beasts and birds. Yet in Genesis 1 > beasts and birds have already been created *before* man. > Therefore these two accounts of creation in the very beginning > of the Bible contradict each other quite blatantly. ...So out of the ground the LORD God *had formed* every... - as you will discover by looking in different translations. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The voice of the Lord is full of majesty." | Psalm 29:4