From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:47:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct5.200202.5777@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>>
>>>[Someone else asks:]
>>># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>>># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>>
>>>Antti Siivonen writes:
>>>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 
>>
>>>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>>>or fish ("day five").  Try again.
>>
>>	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 
>
>Nope, that explaination won't work either.  If the sun was not visible until
>day 4, it might as well have not been in existance until day 4.  (I am assuming
>that the frame of reference for the 'visibility of sun' is that of the plants
>on the earth.)
> [....]

No, no, no, no.  This is not what Antti believes.  Apparently, people
responding to this thread don't understand what he, as a JW, is required
to believe about the Genesis account.  So, just to set the record straight,
here are extracts from the official account, taken from chapter 3 of the
infamous _Life_ book (_Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By
Creation?_, 1985, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), that show the order
claimed for the Genesis creation events.

  When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that
  it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.  So it
  describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
  they been present.

  The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for
  billions of years before the first Genesis `day,' though it does not say
  for how long.  However, it does describe what earth's condition was just
  before that first `day' began:  `Now the earth proved to be formless and
  waste and there was darkenss upon the surface of the watery deep....'

  It would seem reasonable that the `days' of Genesis could likewise have
  embraced long periods of time -- milleniums.

Day 1:

  .... the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first `day,'
  but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly
  observer to see.  Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on
  this first `day,' and the rotating earth began to have alternating days
  and nights.  Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending
  over a long period of time....

Day 2:

  `.... God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between
  the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should
  be above the expanse....' ....  In whatever way the described separation
  occurred, it would look as though the `waters above' had been pushed up
  from the earth.

Day 3:

  `Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and
  let the dry land appear.'

  `Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,
  fruit trees yielding fruit....' ....  Thus by the close of this third
  creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created.
  The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the
  process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants.  Incidentally, the
  account here does not mention every `kind' of plant that came on the
  scene.  Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not
  specifically named, but likely were created on this `day.'

Day 4:

  `Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a
  division between the day and the night....' ....  On the first `day'
  diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources
  of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer....  Now,
  had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun,
  moon and stars.

Day 5:

  `Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying
  creatures fly over the earth....'

Day 6:

  `Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic
  animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its
  kind....  And God went on to say: `Let us make man in our image....'

  From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a
  scientifically sound document....  All the knowledge of the wise men of
  Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to
  the process of creation....  The science of mathematical probability
  offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come
  from a source with knowledge of the events.  The account lists 10 major
  stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness
  and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
  atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon
  and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea
  monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10)
  man.  Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.
  What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?
  The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and
  drew them in consecutive order.  The chances of doing this *on your
  first try* are 1 in 3,628,800!  So, to say the writer just happened to
  list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts
  from somewhere is not realistic.


Now that you know what Antti believes, you can criticize him properly.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins