On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:57:33 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote:

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 1/8/24 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding

seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters

swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds

and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings: no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth. It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon

the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone reading this disagree?

What follows is a typical shoot-from-the-hip comment by you:

I disagree. I don't think the creationists have noticed or care about
the difference.

Have you ever seen a creationist get up in arms about the idea that vegetation evolved?

Well, here on TO our Ray Martinez for instance, though his argument was that any theory that
explains why animals show the diversity they do also explains the same for plants - that is
if the creationists manage to show that animals were created, that proves the Bible, and
since the Bible says God created everything, it also proves he created plants. Typical Ray logic of course,
but for him clearly evolution was as misguided and atheistic when applied to plants as it was
when applied to animals

Outside TO, Answers in Genesis has quite a number of entries for plants, all build along
the same tired concept: and here another thing science can't explain: https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/

I haven't, but I've seen oodles of posts and even books about animals. The Cambrian
Explosion is a favorite, and creationists regularly post illogical/ignorant attempts to undermine
the idea that the horse family Equidae goes back to a common ancestor. Unlike you,
the more knowledgeable creationists know that this is the *piece* *de* *resistance*
of the case for evolution that has been verified by fossils in highly gradualistic sequences.

YECs just notice that different things are created on
different days, but they don't think God delegated the job to earth or water.

That's quite a mind-reading feat of yours. Can you quote anything by a creationist
that would support it?

And it's a bit ambiguous even in the text. One possible reading
is that the earlier events just describe where the creation happened,
now how.

You are grasping at straws and making no attempt to reason about
how this "possible reading" is compatible with "The earth brought forth vegetation."
"brought" is an active verb, in case you haven't noticed.
You are going even further out on a limb with the next thing you wrote:

God causes plants to grow from the earth, but the earth takes
no active role.

I've never seen any sign that you are concerned enough about creationists
to read their works. Moreover, you've coined a distinction between arguing with them and arguing at them. So I doubt that you ever tried to argue either with them or at them.

OECs differ only in that they don't take the days literally, and tend to interpret the order of events oddly too.

I wonder how much you really know about creationists.

You did recognize that James Tour was a creationist, but you
totally ignored the radical difference between the mainstream-scientific way he talked about OOL (which is far removed from animals)
and the way he talked about evolution beyond OOL.

It was YOU who provided the link to his "manifesto": https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20my%20faith%20in,and%20a%20woman%20named%20Eve

But you showed no real comprehension of anything in it except a small snippet that did show that he is a creationist, but little else.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:42:33 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed

according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm,

according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and

the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings:
no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth.
It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the

earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone reading this disagree?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

I don't know what drives modern-day creationists, whose theology is as bad as their science,
and who do violence to the text of scripture all the time.

But historically, early church thinkers such as Basil of Caesarea, (Saint Basil the Great)
constructed the creation of plants and animals more or less in parallele, merely using
slightly different metaphors for each - for both, God delegated creative powers to
"earth" or nature itself:

“it is this command which, still at this day, is imposed on the earth and, in the course
of each year, displays all the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds, and trees.
Like tops, which after the first impulse continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves,
when once fixed in their center; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command,
follows without interruption the course of ages until the consummation of all things.”

And for animals, he compares Earth to a ball that perpetually rolls without further interference
or assistance down an inclined slope. This according to Basil leads also to the continuous
creation of new species without specific divine interference, the "old" theory of spontaneous creation:
“God who gave the command to the Earth at the same time gifted the Earth with the grace and power
to bring forth… even unto this day, some creatures, like insects and frogs, are produced spontaneously
from soil.”

So for the early Christian theologians, it is clear from Genesis that God imbued creative capabilities
in law-like form into earth itself, to then without further direction brings forth all forms of life.

This understanding also allowed for a consistent interpretation of other "creations" by God,
described in the Psalms, e.g. Psalm 135:7, God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he creates lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”
Or Psalm 147:16, “he makes snow like wool” and “scatters the frost like ashes.”

In all of these places, the Hebrew "asha", "yatsar" and "bara" are used for the process
of creation/making/bringing forth so if modern-day creationists tried for a consistent
Bible interpretation, they should take issue with the godless Bernard Palissy for the discovery
of the water cycle, or the heathen Adelard of Bath for his naturalistic theories how wind
and lightning are formed.

Now going back to your question, the greater interest in animals rather than plants I'd
say is simply mirroring the fact that most children find animals more interesting than plants
too - your normal five-year-old wants a puppy, not a cactus, and watches movies with lions, not Leonotis nepetifolia.

But if you insist on a scriptural reason, then I'd say
the real difference is that only animals (including of course humans) are described as “living souls/beings” (nephesh),
(for animals, see Genesis 1:20,2:19, 9:4; for humans, Genesis. 2:7, 9:5, 12:5). Similarly “spirit” (neshama) is used for
humans and animals (Gen. 6:17, 7:22). But neither is mentioned for plants. Equally, the phrase “spirit of life”
(ruach hayyim) is used for both animals and humans (for animals e.g. Genesis. 1:20–24, 9:10, 15 and
for humans Genesis 2:7, 9:5). So theologically, animals are more interesting than plants because only they
are truly alive, and partake in God's spirit of life

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/8/24 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed

according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm,

according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and

the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings:
no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth.
It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the

earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone reading this disagree?

Creationists care that humans are special, but they don't make a big distinction between plants and animals. The ones who look closely at the wording have the problem of making sense of the fact that plants came
before the Sun. Yes, creationists give animals more attention than
plants, but only because animals are more charismatic. For the same
reason, they give more attention to dinosaurs than to flies, even though
the Bible mentions the latter and not the former. Creationist
organizations do not ignore plants or allow that they evolved.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/01/2024 06:27, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 1/8/24 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on
animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is
different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding
seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each
according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth
brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own
kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we
are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the
heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living
creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their
kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according
to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth
according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts
of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to
their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to
its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings:
no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth.
It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences
in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone
reading this disagree?

Creationists care that humans are special, but they don't make a big distinction between plants and animals. The ones who look closely at the wording have the problem of making sense of the fact that plants came
before the Sun. Yes, creationists give animals more attention than
plants, but only because animals are more charismatic. For the same
reason, they give more attention to dinosaurs than to flies, even though
the Bible mentions the latter and not the former. Creationist
organizations do not ignore plants or allow that they evolved.

There seems to be two things to consider here - the effect, and the
cause. That creationists care more that humans are a direct creation of
God that they care than animals and plants (and rocks and everything
else) is a direct creation of God may well be true. But I doubt that
this is because of nuances in the phrasing of Genesis 1. I would, to
borrow a phrase, ascribe it to egoistic anthropocentrism - I believe
that one of the wellsprings of creationism is human exceptionalism, i.e.
a belief that humans are special. If you're a Lamarckian you can think
of humans as the pinnacle of evolution, but it's even more flattering to
ones ego to think that an omnipotent omniscient God created the universe
for the purpose of allowing one to exist.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 13:02:34 UTC+2, Ernest Major wrote:

On 09/01/2024 06:27, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 1/8/24 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on
animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is
different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding
seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each
according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth
brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own
kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we
are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, >> and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the
heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living
creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their
kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that
it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according >> to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth
according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts
of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to
their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to
its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings: >> no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth.
It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences
in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone
reading this disagree?

Creationists care that humans are special, but they don't make a big distinction between plants and animals. The ones who look closely at the wording have the problem of making sense of the fact that plants came before the Sun. Yes, creationists give animals more attention than
plants, but only because animals are more charismatic. For the same reason, they give more attention to dinosaurs than to flies, even though the Bible mentions the latter and not the former. Creationist organizations do not ignore plants or allow that they evolved.

There seems to be two things to consider here - the effect, and the
cause. That creationists care more that humans are a direct creation of
God that they care than animals and plants (and rocks and everything
else) is a direct creation of God may well be true. But I doubt that
this is because of nuances in the phrasing of Genesis 1. I would, to
borrow a phrase, ascribe it to egoistic anthropocentrism - I believe
that one of the wellsprings of creationism is human exceptionalism, i.e.
a belief that humans are special. If you're a Lamarckian you can think
of humans as the pinnacle of evolution, but it's even more flattering to ones ego to think that an omnipotent omniscient God created the universe
for the purpose of allowing one to exist.

Yes that is most puke-worthy about most of religion ... reality or even
God has zero to say there where vain wants to self-flatter.
From where they take it? For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
The exceptionality of not all humans, but of those gone through special rituals, (properly "baptised", "circumcised", "confirmed" etc.) would make
more sense (or might be also just hearsay or scam). But now you (at
least attempted to) join a contract with supernatural based on advice
of your spiritual leaders and so maybe you have special responsibilities
and get some privileges in afterlife (if it exists).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:42:33 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote:

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:42:33 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding

seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters

swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds

and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings: no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth. It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon

the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone reading this disagree?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

I don't know what drives modern-day creationists, whose theology is as bad as their science,
and who do violence to the text of scripture all the time.

But historically, early church thinkers such as Basil of Caesarea, (Saint Basil the Great)
constructed the creation of plants and animals more or less in parallele, merely using
slightly different metaphors for each - for both, God delegated creative powers to
"earth" or nature itself:

“it is this command which, still at this day, is imposed on the earth and, in the course
of each year, displays all the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds, and trees.
Like tops, which after the first impulse continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves,
when once fixed in their center; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command,
follows without interruption the course of ages until the consummation of all things.”

This is similar to what some so-called theistic evolutionists (who are opposed to Intelligent Design theory)
say, that God in his omnipotence created the universe so that it would produce us of its own accord.
However, this assumes a rigid determinism, because that is the only way even an omnipotent God
could ensure that no further intervention was necessary to produce humans.

However, the concept of an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God" has no real
Biblical warrant for it. Those who subscribe to this concept of medieval theology
have to keep claiming that various examples of God changing his mind are just figures of speech
or God "testing" humans to show them how they will react to situations into which he puts them.

I'd put the the other way round. You yourself have given the biblical warrant: God orders nature/the earth
ro bring forth plants, animals, winds, clouds, rain, lightening etc. That makes the active and immediate cause the
earth in all these cases., also grammatically. And as we observe - and in the case of winds, clouds, rain etc from
a very early stage - these things follow law like behaviour. Scripturally, this is then further confirmed by
Johannes 1:1. Does this graft the hellenistic (stoic, to be precise) concept of Logos onto jewish
theology? Why yes, it does, but that is very much what Christianity is, hellenised judaism.

So far we are of firm grounds also as far as scripture is concerned. Now, IF you think that this
account of God implies that he is also tri-omni, then you have your scriptural warrant right there,
on the basis that if X is evidence for e theory T, and T also implies Y, then X is warrant for
Y. Personally, I can't see why omniscience and omnipotence would follow from this account, let
alone omnibenevolence, Merely a very powerful and very knowledgeable deity that can trust its order
to be carried out along the chain of command will do.

And for animals, he compares Earth to a ball that perpetually rolls without further interference
or assistance down an inclined slope. This according to Basil leads also to the continuous
creation of new species without specific divine interference, the "old" theory of spontaneous creation:
“God who gave the command to the Earth at the same time gifted the Earth with the grace and power
to bring forth… even unto this day, some creatures, like insects and frogs, are produced spontaneously
from soil.”

It would be very nice to know whether the people who composed Genesis 1 had this belief.
If I had more time, I'd try to look this up, but tomorrow is my first day of teaching in this semester,
and I have a bit more preparation to do.

So for the early Christian theologians, it is clear from Genesis that God imbued creative capabilities
in law-like form into earth itself, to then without further direction brings forth all forms of life.

This understanding also allowed for a consistent interpretation of other "creations" by God,
described in the Psalms, e.g. Psalm 135:7, God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he creates lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”
Or Psalm 147:16, “he makes snow like wool” and “scatters the frost like ashes.”

In all of these places, the Hebrew "asha", "yatsar" and "bara" are used for the process
of creation/making/bringing forth so if modern-day creationists tried for a consistent
Bible interpretation, they should take issue with the godless Bernard Palissy for the discovery
of the water cycle, or the heathen Adelard of Bath for his naturalistic theories how wind
and lightning are formed.

Now going back to your question, the greater interest in animals rather than plants I'd
say is simply mirroring the fact that most children find animals more interesting than plants
too - your normal five-year-old wants a puppy, not a cactus, and watches movies
with lions, not Leonotis nepetifolia.

This brings to mind St. Paul's comment about "putting away the things of a child".
The following comments do that nicely:

But if you insist on a scriptural reason, then I'd say
the real difference is that only animals (including of course humans) are described as “living souls/beings” (nephesh),
(for animals, see Genesis 1:20,2:19, 9:4; for humans, Genesis. 2:7, 9:5, 12:5). Similarly “spirit” (neshama) is used for
humans and animals (Gen. 6:17, 7:22). But neither is mentioned for plants. Equally, the phrase “spirit of life”
(ruach hayyim) is used for both animals and humans (for animals e.g. Genesis. 1:20–24, 9:10, 15 and
for humans Genesis 2:7, 9:5). So theologically, animals are more interesting than plants because only they
are truly alive, and partake in God's spirit of life

Thank you for these well-organized and relevant comments.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday 8 January 2024 at 18:42:33 UTC, John Harshman wrote:

On 1/8/24 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:

All I have seen of creationism based on Genesis I are focused on animals and, especially, humans.
The attitude towards "the vegetable kingdom" (including bacteria) is different.
That may be due to two big shifts in the wording of Genesis 1.

In verses 11 and 12, we are told:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed

according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

But when God turns to animals in verses 20-21 and again in 24-25, we are told that God took a personal hand in the process:

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters

swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds

and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then there is a second shift when it comes to the turn of human beings:
no longer are we told about the earth or waters bringing them forth.
It's all the doing of Elohim in verses 26-27:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the

earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=RSV

I believe these shifts have had a profound effect on the differences in the emotions
that creationists bring to bear on these three topics. Does anyone reading this disagree?

I disagree. I don't think the creationists have noticed or care about
the difference. YECs just notice that different things are created on different days, but they don't think God delegated the job to earth or water. And it's a bit ambiguous even in the text. One possible reading
is that the earlier events just describe where the creation happened,
now how. God causes plants to grow from the earth, but the earth takes
no active role.

OECs differ only in that they don't take the days literally, and tend to interpret the order of events oddly too.

My face-value read of the story is that God simply
wills a miracle to happen, and it happens. Matter
obeys natural law, but God's desire overrules that.

Peter errs by not considering Genesis 2. Wherein,
briefly: There's nothing on land but ground and fog.
God makes dust into a man shape and breathes
life into it; God plants a "garden" for the man to
live and work in and from, and rivers; God makes
land animals and birds out of dust (and implicitly
breath) to be companions for the man (thus:
creationism); that doesn't work companion-wise,
so God uses part of the man to build a new
man-type companion. This works well for three
verses, then something with a snake happens in
chapter 3.
<https://netbible.org/bible/Genesis+2>

You may think this is a separate and incompatible
story. Some translators prefer these to be animals
that God made earlier, in Genesis 1. But since I'm
told that ancient Hebrew verbs, this language, do
not have present or past or any tense, God cannot
say, "I have already made animals. Perhaps Adam
(who is also an animal really) will like the animals."

I think the bible never addresses the existence of
plants in water. Perhaps they were caused by
Noah's flood?

I expect that creationists are most upset by
humans being descended from animals.
People rarely talk about humans being descended
from plants. The real origin of animals is rather
hazy; for all that I know, unicellular, and good luck
finding fossils of that.

Inquiring of creationists:

Evolution doesn't work for plants either - <https://creation.com/kingdom-of-the-plants-defying-evolution>

Plants are not alive -
<https://www.icr.org/biblical-life/>

And not to forget <https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/>
But very little is said there about "plants".
"Fruit" only appears in mentioning
"fruit-flies", and "vegetable" not at all.
"Wood" and "tree" are mentioned a bit.
I haven't read everything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 3:47:35 AM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:47:34 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:42:33 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote:

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:

I don't know what drives modern-day creationists, whose theology is as bad as their science,
and who do violence to the text of scripture all the time.

But historically, early church thinkers such as Basil of Caesarea, (Saint Basil the Great)
constructed the creation of plants and animals more or less in parallele, merely using
slightly different metaphors for each - for both, God delegated creative powers to
"earth" or nature itself:

“it is this command which, still at this day, is imposed on the earth and, in the course
of each year, displays all the strength of its power to produce herbs, seeds, and trees.
Like tops, which after the first impulse continue their evolutions, turning upon themselves,
when once fixed in their center; thus nature, receiving the impulse of this first command,
follows without interruption the course of ages until the consummation of all things.”

This is similar to what some so-called theistic evolutionists (who are opposed to Intelligent Design theory)
say, that God in his omnipotence created the universe so that it would produce us of its own accord.
However, this assumes a rigid determinism, because that is the only way even an omnipotent God
could ensure that no further intervention was necessary to produce humans.

However, the concept of an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God" has no real
Biblical warrant for it. Those who subscribe to this concept of medieval theology
have to keep claiming that various examples of God changing his mind are just figures of speech
or God "testing" humans to show them how they will react to situations into which he puts them.

I'd put the the other way round. You yourself have given the biblical warrant:

To which warrant are you referring here? Nothing you list below gives support to Elohim
being "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent."

read on.... that's what the ":" indicates

God orders nature/the earth
ro bring forth plants, animals, winds, clouds, rain, lightening etc. That makes the active and immediate cause the
earth in all these cases., also grammatically. And as we observe - and in the case of winds, clouds, rain etc from
a very early stage - these things follow law like behaviour. Scripturally, this is then further confirmed by
Johannes 1:1. Does this graft the hellenistic (stoic, to be precise) concept of Logos onto jewish
theology? Why yes, it does, but that is very much what Christianity is, hellenised judaism.

Philosophers have written in various ways about the uneasy "alliance" between the Hellenic
and Hebraic elements in Christian theology and practice. There is special tension between
the body-soul dualism in the Hellenic strain and the unity of body and soul in the Hebraic strain.
In Acts 17:32 some Athenians burst out laughing at the mention of God raising Jesus
(and, by implication, all men later) from the dead.

Yes, but it is not clear why. Could have all sorts of reasons:

haha, you think that's something special? Even our top musicians can
pull that one off (well, they got close to anyway) The gods do this all the time

haha, you think your weird god can do this? Every fool knows only
our true gods of Greece are that powerful

haha, what does this even mean (insert here any one of the issues
Christian theology identified with the concept, starting with the "cannibal problem")

haha, why do you worship such a cruel god? (for Plato, Hades was a great place to be,
and for the stoics it would have been at least ambivalent if resurrection is desirable

So it's difficult to say what to make of this passage

In contrast, the (mis-named, because later)

Apostles' Creed specifically declares belief in, "the resurrection of the body."

So far we are of firm grounds also as far as scripture is concerned. Now, IF you think that this
account of God implies that he is also tri-omni, then you have your scriptural warrant right there,

Not only don't I, I don't see why anyone would.

The I don't understand your post at all, or what your objection is. To recap, I gave an account
of one of the church fathers who explained the passages you cited as showing that
God gave the earth power to independently generate all life forms. You seemed to disagree with this reading because there is no biblical justification for omniscience etc.
But this makes only sense as a criticism if his account implies such powers, and now you
expressively reject this. So what is your point?

on the basis that if X is evidence for e theory T, and T also implies Y, then X is warrant for Y.

Evidence can be either weak or strong; here it is especially weak. I was using the word
"warrant" in a very strong sense, that of "guarantee."

I don't think there can be any guarantees when interpreting natural language texts, a process
more similar to theory building in the empirical sciences than the formal proof of
mathematics. But in any case, we are here in one horn o a hypothetical. Either the text
I gave implies tri-omni deities - and then it is a warrant that god is omnipotent etc, or it does not,
but then your criticism of it seems to fail. So I'd sy "chose your poison".

Personally, I can't see why omniscience and omnipotence would follow from this account, let
alone omnibenevolence, Merely a very powerful and very knowledgeable deity that can trust its order
to be carried out along the chain of command will do.

I fully agree. Not only scripture, but the nature of the physical world, argues for such an "imperfect" deity,
if one exists.

And for animals, he compares Earth to a ball that perpetually rolls without further interference
or assistance down an inclined slope. This according to Basil leads also to the continuous
creation of new species without specific divine interference, the "old" theory of spontaneous creation:
“God who gave the command to the Earth at the same time gifted the Earth with the grace and power
to bring forth… even unto this day, some creatures, like insects and frogs, are produced spontaneously
from soil.”

It would be very nice to know whether the people who composed Genesis 1 had this belief.
If I had more time, I'd try to look this up, but tomorrow is my first day of teaching in this semester,
and I have a bit more preparation to do.

And here I am again, with the same shortage of time.

So for the early Christian theologians, it is clear from Genesis that God imbued creative capabilities
in law-like form into earth itself, to then without further direction brings forth all forms of life.

This understanding also allowed for a consistent interpretation of other "creations" by God,
described in the Psalms, e.g. Psalm 135:7, God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he creates lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”
Or Psalm 147:16, “he makes snow like wool” and “scatters the frost like ashes.”

In all of these places, the Hebrew "asha", "yatsar" and "bara" are used for the process
of creation/making/bringing forth so if modern-day creationists tried for a consistent
Bible interpretation, they should take issue with the godless Bernard Palissy for the discovery
of the water cycle, or the heathen Adelard of Bath for his naturalistic theories how wind
and lightning are formed.

Now going back to your question, the greater interest in animals rather than plants I'd
say is simply mirroring the fact that most children find animals more interesting than plants
too - your normal five-year-old wants a puppy, not a cactus, and watches movies
with lions, not Leonotis nepetifolia.

This brings to mind St. Paul's comment about "putting away the things of a child".
The following comments do that nicely:

But if you insist on a scriptural reason, then I'd say
the real difference is that only animals (including of course humans) are described as “living souls/beings” (nephesh),
(for animals, see Genesis 1:20,2:19, 9:4; for humans, Genesis. 2:7, 9:5, 12:5). Similarly “spirit” (neshama) is used for
humans and animals (Gen. 6:17, 7:22). But neither is mentioned for plants. Equally, the phrase “spirit of life”
(ruach hayyim) is used for both animals and humans (for animals e.g. Genesis. 1:20–24, 9:10, 15 and
for humans Genesis 2:7, 9:5). So theologically, animals are more interesting than plants because only they
are truly alive, and partake in God's spirit of life.

This underscores what I wrote in contrasting Hellenic body/soul duality and the more unified Hebraic view.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)