debating table because they simply refuse to concede in the many fatal flaws in their argument
such as the literal concept of the ‘six days of creation.’
Naturally in regards to this, many creationists argue that it all lies with the literal interpretation
of the verse, because it does not say that God had actually created the Day and the night at the
time he was creating everything else, and they say that the Day and the night didn’t come until
later. Creationists then theorize that there is actually nowhere in the text that a normal ‘24 hour
day’ is implied, and they argue that each of the six days could actually have been as long as He
needed it to be in order to get the job done.
Trying to explain to them, the absurdities of this paradoxical argument can sometimes be futile.
For instance, if there were no ‘days’ as such at the time, then how could the task have been
completed in six of them? And if it really was achieved in what were actually 6 indeterminate
lengths of time, then why say six of them? Why not just say ‘an indeterminate length of time?’
The point is; why on earth use days as a reference if there were no actual days to begin with?
The theory really is too flawed to even warrant serious discussion. If one were to merely take
the Biblical story of Genesis at face value, the entire tale is in such opposition the laws of the
universe, that faith must rise significantly superior to intelligence for a sane person to actually
believe it. Yet despite all of this the biblical creation tales do indeed contain an element of truth
hidden within the narrative and so we need to look for a deeper meaning to the biblical reference
of 6 days.
It is now universally agreed by scholars that the story of creation as related in Genesis is not
truly unique to the Christian Bible and original to Genesis as we have been told by the Christian
Authorities, but is in fact a borrowed and condensed form of the Babylonian Enuma Elish. It is
now also universally agreed that the earlier Babylonian tale has itself been adapted from an even
earlier Sumerian account. This can be clearly seen when one approaches all three books as
historical rather than religious texts.
In considering all of this, it’s possible that the true message within the Christian bible is more
likely to reside within the hidden algorithmic code recently discovered within its narrative than in
the actual biblical stories themselves. Therefore the answers to the biblical riddles must lie purely
within the pages of the original Hebrew version as all other versions are far too greatly changed
from the original form to serve any real useful purpose other than for some possible historical
references.
When arguing against the creationists, the fact that Darwin’s theory is in fact missing one of its
key cornerstones and also has serious flaws, has never been seen as an issue for academia, at least
not in regards to teaching the theory as fact. But if the truth be known, even Darwin realised that
it was only a hypothesis and the data that was available to him did not provide absolute evidence
that his theory was correct. The absence of "transitional species" both living and from the fossil
record has also always been a matter of contention because such records are sorely needed to
prove that evolution is a fact and that over vast periods of time, species do in fact slowly
transform into other higher species. Yet here we are over 150 years after evolution was first
theorized, after literally thousands of excavations, and there are still no transitional species
apparent anywhere in the fossil record.
Creationists naturally seize on this information as proof of their own convictions but in truth,
an enormous amount of evidence that actually apposes both theories has now been found and as
repellent as the idea may seem to some, there is even much that suggests the very real possibility
that ‘outside intervention’ may have played a key role. Though as we have seen, such annoying
little artefacts are usually spirited away and quietly locked up before anyone notices. But as we
have stated repeatedly and as anyone with a brain knows, if rules must be bent and evidence
dismissed in order to make a theory work, then quite obviously the theory is wrong!
To most people, it makes perfect sense, but not to Academics and in complete disregard of the
vast amounts of contrary evidence, for the last 150 or so years, scientists have continued to tread
the path of evolution. Towards this end, every possible bone fragment has been examined and re-