Chaos, Evolution & Intelligent Design: A Discussion

[Canute]

i agree about the article, it's logically ridiculous. I'd hate to have the writer arguing on my side.

In his example with the ten cards he should really have used a ten piece jigsaw puzzle. Then each piece in turn is tried until it fits, and in no time at all it's complete.

Even so there does seem to be something odd about the evolution of biological complexity. I don't go in for creatonism but I find it hard to believe that it all happened by accident.

 

[Pseudonym]

contradiction

Mark, I did a little more research on the problem you explained. There is disagreement between scholars, but the phrase "as was supposed" in the original language may have had more the meaning "as is written," or that which was in the public records and could be easily verified. Again I find it hard to believe that early Christians would die for truths set out in books that were so blatantly opposed.

The word "son" in the series of "son of"s is not in the original manuscript, or so I think upon reading some material. The passage might better read that Jesus was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, . . . of Adam, of God.

If there isn't any more evidence that this is a contradiction, then I'd say that the case for it being one is pretty tenuous, although it doesn't appear this way on the surface.

 

[Pseudonym]

chaos and order

to everyone in general -

How do you define or characterize order?

 

[FZ+]

The standard way of quantifying disorder is entropy, but that does not fit into life very well - high complexity chemically often corresponds to high disorder - the fusion of hydrogen increases entropy. And life is more of a process than a closed system.

Another way is to use Sharon information theory - evaluate the shortest program required to generate the sequence. Then, the author is correct in saying that the sequenced cards are different, having less information than the apparently random one. But that is still useless for arguing for design, as low information entities are in fact more common in the classical universe. His "random" cards are much harder to generate as an output from a real system, and so less probable.

I would argue that order in the context of life is solely a matter of subjective application. To use it in a probabilistic argument is to ignore an important component - yourself.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, I think the point is that we are specifying what we are testing for by the actual outcomes. In the case of abiogenesis, our view of what life is depends on this random choice. To go on about probabilities, we must first draw a special significance to this particular set of proteins, or this particular concept of life that is universal, and not merely subjective. The probability argument is valid if we look at the universe as a lottery, trying to win a certain set of numbers. But the counter to this is that it is not a lottery, or that the numbers are chosen afterwards.

To view the universe like a lottery is to claim that there is close to 100% chance that life will evolve somewhere, in some way. This alone is a big assumption that many people would disagree with. Unlike a lottery.

Even if it were true, you're suggesting that there is the possibility of a different lifeform originating that would be arguably, statistically more likely than life forms as we know them. But I'm not sure it matters what "proteins" you talk about, I still think, regardless of the lifeform, you will always have the fundamental complexities of things we call "life" to deal with statistically.

There is nothing subjective about the fact that you cannot engineer a single life form from non-life, using any protein or substance of your choosing, even with the intent to do so. Let alone relying on chance to do it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Scott and FZ: You seem to be following the exact line of reasoning detailed in another ICR paper - Probability
I would appreciate your thoughts.

This article makes the same mistake I pointed out earlier. No conclusions can be made based on the odds of something occurring when the odds of all the alternates are exactly the same.

From here, this is where FZ and I disagree. We have discussed this next portion at length and I think just agreed to disagree. But I think there ARE practical situations where the case can be made that the odds of an event or arrangement are LESS than the alternatives. Yes, arguments can be made that this involves subjectivity to establish the uniqueness but this argument, when taken to the extreme, would have us denouncing the most obvious, practical things. So while the line may be hard to draw, it isn't practical to just pretend it doesn't exists.

 

[FZ+]

There is nothing subjective about the fact that you cannot engineer a single life form from non-life, using any protein or substance of your choosing, even with the intent to do so.

I disagree strongly. Each case of cellular mitosis is a case of this in action. But as you correctly stated, this has been argued before.

Guess the answer to this is just subjective, no?

 

[Pseudonym]

I would argue that although the universe is governed by certain rules, these rules themselves do not result in ordered structures. Causality, yes. But the universe is tending toward chaos from an ordered beginning, not the other way around. I know you'll profoundly disagree with me on my simplistic view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I call 'em how I see 'em.

Also, has a beneficial mutation ever been observed? How often does a mutation take place?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
I disagree strongly. Each case of cellular mitosis is a case of this in action. But as you correctly stated, this has been argued before.

Guess the answer to this is just subjective, no?

So you're saying we can generate complex life forms with non-life particles? The odds of "cellular mitosis" is the same as the odds of humans? In order for the lottery analogy to work, you have to have alternatives of equal odds. And you haven't even established that life of some kind must originate in the universe. Without this as an assumption, abiogensis is nothing like the lottery example.

I just find it interesting that science is based on emperical evidence which when verified becomes accepted theory/law with some level of uncertainty. Yet we cannot use this evidence to make a determination on something being less likely than it's alternatives simply because we can't be 100% certain that we have the right perspective. This view just seems extreme and downright dishonest to me.

 

[FZ+]

So you're saying we can generate complex life forms with non-life particles?

At risk of spawning another argument, yes. Since amino acids, glucose etc are constantly being assembled to make cells, and we recognise whole cells as being alive.

In order for the lottery analogy to work, you have to have alternatives of equal odds.

As I had stated, the lottery example is an illustration of the incorrectness of probabilistic arguments. Specifically, abiogenesis is not a lottery, as there are no predefined alternatives, or winning combinations.

But the universe is tending toward chaos from an ordered beginning, not the other way around. I know you'll profoundly disagree with me on my simplistic view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I call 'em how I see 'em.

But this is blatantly incorrect, for if it was, life itself, let alone evolution, cannot occur. In fact, nothing at all can occur. The sun will not fuse, chemicals will not react... If that was the second law, it would have been immediately falsified.

Also, has a beneficial mutation ever been observed?

The condition known as sickle cell anemia has some benefits against malaria, for example. Bacteria and viruses constantly mutate to escape our anti-virals/anti-biotics. The rate of mutation varies from species to species, cell to cell. But it is more than sufficient.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
At risk of spawning another argument, yes. Since amino acids, glucose etc are constantly being assembled to make cells, and we recognise whole cells as being alive.

I won't get into this with you. It's safe to say that there are many people who disagree with this. My only point was to show that for the lottery analogy to hold, other alternatives of equal probability have to exists. We cannot even completely explain the lifeforms we know of. Let alone what these 'just as likely' alternatives might be.

As I had stated, the lottery example is an illustration of the incorrectness of probabilistic arguments. Specifically, abiogenesis is not a lottery, as there are no predefined alternatives, or winning combinations.

This doesn't seem relevant. Associating the word "winner" with lottery is just a distraction. We're not talking about winners. We're talking about the odds of one thing being selected over all other alternatives. Whether we call this selection a winner or not is not relevant. If all alternatives have the same odds for being selected and one must be selected, then there is nothing miraclous about which ever one we end up with. This is a lottery. And I am suggesting that Abiogensis is not like this because: There is no reason to believe that anything should have been selected at all.

This may very well be wrong but we don't currently have the knowledge to assume it is, so we have to assess the facts as they are.

I post these things because I keep seeing people attempt to use analogies like the lottery or birthdays to prove something about abiogensis and it just isn't the same.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
There is disagreement between scholars, but the phrase "as was supposed" in the original language may have had more the meaning "as is written," or that which was in the public records and could be easily verified.

Firstly, I wish to remind you that, while what you suggest may be true, we are not discussing what actually happened - we are discussing what the Bible says. The Bible tells us that Joseph has two different fathers. You explain this by saying that the Bible authors were misinformed or misled by inaccurate records. Your explanation is admittedly interesting, but it does not make the contradiction go away - it merely tells us why the contradiction exists.

Secondly, your explanation leads to another question - if "as is written" is the better translation, why does it never appear that way in any Bible? How many scholars consider "as is written" the best interpretation? In case you doubt me, here are several translations from different Bibles, some common, some obscure, all showing the standard NIV interpretation.

KJV: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

ASV: "And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

YLT (Young's Literal Translation): "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,"

DAR (Darby Translation): "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,"

WYC (Wycliffe New Testament): And Jesus himself was beginning as of thirty years, that he was guessed the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,

Again I find it hard to believe that early Christians would die for truths set out in books that were so blatantly opposed.

Again, this is peripheral to the actual issue, which is contradictions in the Bible. The early Christians had no Bible. But I should ask you - how many of the early Christians had both Matthew and Luke? And how many of them could read both Gospels?

Most modern Christians are ignorant of this Biblical contradiction, and they are steeped in Bible verses from a young age. The early Christians lacked our benefits, and their "scripture" was very likely a series of unconnected letters and books, suplemented with snippets and scraps passed by word of mouth. They would have not have been in a position to examine two separate books and carefully check their individual lists.

If there isn't any more evidence that this is a contradiction, then I'd say that the case for it being one is pretty tenuous, although it doesn't appear this way on the surface.

I will be frank in telling you that I have had disturbing experiences with Christians telling me that black is white. While the above contradiction does not disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ (this is not what I intended to show), it is a contradiction in the Bible, and until you concede this fact, I will be uncomfortable with providing more information. So as not to seem miserly, however, I will give you one more contradiction. This one involves the other two gospels.

Mark 16: 2 "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body."

John 20: 1 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb."

John fails to mention Mary the mother of James and Salome, though it does not exclude their presence and thus this is not a contradiction, despite what atheists often like to say. (Atheists will make such statements about the sign above Jesus' head, which has different wording in each Gospel.) Note however these two phrases:

"after sunrise"

"while it was still dark"


So, when did they go to visit the tomb? Was it before sunrise? Or after sunrise?


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you're a late sleeper, you might not know that it's often still pretty dark "just after sunrise".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Mark 16: 2 "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body."

John 20: 1 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb."

John fails to mention Mary the mother of James and Salome, though it does not exclude their presence and thus this is not a contradiction, despite what atheists often like to say. (Atheists will make such statements about the sign above Jesus' head, which has different wording in each Gospel.) Note however these two phrases:

"after sunrise"

"while it was still dark"


So, when did they go to visit the tomb? Was it before sunrise? Or after sunrise?

The first quote doesn't say anything about going to the tomb. It says they "bought spices" so that they might annoint the body. Are you suggestng that they went to the tomb to buy spices?

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
The Bible tells us that Joseph has two different fathers. You explain this by saying that the Bible authors were misinformed or misled by inaccurate records

This is not what I said at all. The records were there, and agreed with each other. Matthew chose to list Jesus' male ancestors from Joseph's line, while Luke listed Jesus' male ancestors from Mary's line. The geneologies are not there just for kicks; the authors make different points using them. Matthew and Luke's intents can easily be seen by carefully reading the respective passages in their entirety.

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
if "as is written" is the better translation, why does it never appear that way in any Bible? How many scholars consider "as is written" the best interpretation?

I didn't mean that "as is written" was the better literal translation of the words, but that it might possibly better convey what the original readers would have understood. I am not certain of this, not being a Greek scholar, but as to your second question: Matthew Henry, for one.

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Most modern Christians are ignorant of this Biblical contradiction, and they are steeped in Bible verses from a young age.

Sadly, yes. You don't see kids who actually have a knowledge of the truth they blindly trust.

Your second contradiction I will examine, but I'll be busy for a few days, so don't expect a response for a little while.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Fliption
The first quote doesn't say anything about going to the tomb. It says they "bought spices" so that they might annoint the body. Are you suggestng that they went to the tomb to buy spices?

Mark records that Mary and her friends bought the spices after sunrise (presumably at a market) so they couldn't have gone to the tomb until later, even, than that.

But John tells us that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
If you're a late sleeper, you might not know that it's often still pretty dark "just after sunrise".

Appreciated; that was one of my first thoughts as well upon hearing about this. But these were agriculturists and herders we are reading about here, people who didn't need the same light levels that moderners require (mostly for reading). They wouldn't have considered the few minutes of dim light following or preceding sunrise to be "dark," especially in comparison with their night-time which was a truly dark condition in the era without streetlights. More even that this, I think that if we are to read this critically as a historical document, we need to imagine why John wrote "while it was still dark." The ambient lighting is an irrelevant detail, so why bother recording it - unless it is being used to let the reader know what time it is?

Originally posted by Pseudonym
This is not what I said at all. The records were there, and agreed with each other. Matthew chose to list Jesus' male ancestors from Joseph's line, while Luke listed Jesus' male ancestors from Mary's line.

No, Luke did not do any such thing. Luke lists Joseph as the father of Jesus. Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph. Luke says very specifically, "he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." Luke does not mention Mary. The name "Mary" does not even appear in the entire third chapter of his book. It is absolutely incredible to me that not only do you want to read the word "Mary" where it is clearly not written, and that, not only do you want to ignore the word "Joseph" where it clearly is written, but that on top of all this you have the audacity to attempt to convince me to abandon all reason and join you in this hallucinatory exercise!


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

Appreciated; that was one of my first thoughts as well upon hearing about this. But these were agriculturists and herders we are reading about here, people who didn't need the same light levels that moderners require (mostly for reading).

Mary Magdalen was a herder? I think you're stretching. There are enough contradictions in the Bible without trying to make them up.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Mark records that Mary and her friends bought the spices after sunrise (presumably at a market) so they couldn't have gone to the tomb until later, even, than that.

But John tells us that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark.

Ahh yes I see. I'm certain the bible has contradictions, but this one seems weak. This could easily be due to an error of translation.

 

[TENYEARS]

Flipton, I clicked on this topic saw you at the bottom, and though I would like you to know, today I have found the path for what I must do if indeed it is that which I will do. How it will manifest itself I do not know, only that it will be.

Your responses were truthful with specific points in mind. I wonder of some of the readers who were to busy vieing for the trophy noticed them. Will they now run and search out your words to assimlate them for better positioning for the future.

Contraditions in the bible? If a person wants to truly understand something, no false words, no deception can stand in their way. There are words in the bible that will be understood by a person who is searching to understand. It will not require that Jesus have rised from the dead or that Mary had the immaculate conception or any specific so called perceived miracle. One who is hungry would know this. The same understandings which are in the bible can be found in other places. One who is hungry knows this.

For fools of you on the forum who speak of contradictions, would you not understand that in order for the word contradiction to cease, you have to close your mouths.

Note: I consider myself a fool for I am also human, when I no longer consider myself, a fool in the relative, I run from myself, when I no longer consider, I will become what I am. Do any of you understand these words?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Mary Magdalen was a herder? I think you're stretching.

Uh, the only stretch I'm seeing here is the Straw Man you've created, selfAdjoint. I never said Mary was a herder. But the society in which she was living was primarily composed of herders and agriculturalists, was it not? Jesus performed miracles involving such herders, and many of his parables have to do with agriculture. These were people who wouldn't have thought that it was dark once the sun was up.

There are enough contradictions in the Bible without trying to make them up.

That was worth an eye roll.

Ahh yes I see. I'm certain the bible has contradictions, but this one seems weak. This could easily be due to an error of translation.

If this is an error in translation - and it may well be - then you've explained why the contradiction exists but you have not made it disappear. (You'll recall that I said the same thing to Pseudonym earlier, although he seems to think I wasn't understanding him.)

What it really comes down to is this - what's the best explanation? Sure, it could be an error in translation, and fine, John could have thought that daylight in the Holy Land was dark. But the gospels were written fourty years after Christ's death, and correct me if I'm wrong, but John wrote his gospel last, sometime around 100 A.D., seventy years after these events. John wasn't there; he wasn't even alive at the time. For us to assume that he knew exactly what happened is probably the biggest stretch of all.

For fools of you on the forum who speak of contradictions, would you not understand that in order for the word contradiction to cease, you have to close your mouths.

Note: I consider myself a fool for I am also human, when I no longer consider myself, a fool in the relative, I run from myself, when I no longer consider, I will become what I am. Do any of you understand these words?

Yes, TENYEARS, I understand your words, and once again I'll suggest that maybe you should lay off the dope.[/size]


--Mark

 

[TENYEARS]

Nachtwolf, I do not believe you do not understand, I know you don't not understand. If you understood, this reply would not be here right now. The genesis of most religions happened thousands of years ago, you attempt to debate the written passed down word and challege the difference between scribes? Would this not fall into the relm of idiotic? The reason you stopped your search for an answer was because of these contradictions? No, you were never interested to begin with.

The early Christians lacked our benefits, and their "scripture" was very likely a series of unconnected letters and books, suplemented with snippets and scraps passed by word of mouth. They would have not have been in a position to examine two separate books and carefully check their individual lists.

Early christians had what you do not have, and less of what you do. What would that be son?

 

[Nachtwolf]

I don't think even you understand yourself, TENYEARS. Look:

Sentence 1 of TENYEARS' post: "Nachtwolf, I do not believe you do not understand, I know you don't not understand."

Cancelling out the double-negatives renders "Nachtwolf, I believe you understand, I know you understand."


Sentence 2 of TENYEARS' post: "If you understood, this reply would not be here right now."

Since your reply is here, we can infer that you now think I don't understand. Which is it? Seriously TENYEARS, you really should lay off the dope. Or at least for a few minutes a day, you know? So that you can construct intelligible posts on this forum?


--Mark

 

[Evo]

Nachtwolf, you will find that I am a fair person and I will stand behind anyone, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their beliefs, if they are right.

As to the post from Tenyears - you are right on this one.

I reserve my right to disagree with you about everything else.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
If this is an error in translation - and it may well be - then you've explained why the contradiction exists but you have not made it disappear. (You'll recall that I said the same thing to Pseudonym earlier, although he seems to think I wasn't understanding him.)

What it really comes down to is this - what's the best explanation? Sure, it could be an error in translation, and fine, John could have thought that daylight in the Holy Land was dark. But the gospels were written fourty years after Christ's death, and correct me if I'm wrong, but John wrote his gospel last, sometime around 100 A.D., seventy years after these events. John wasn't there; he wasn't even alive at the time. For us to assume that he knew exactly what happened is probably the biggest stretch of all.
--Mark

Well I think there's a significant difference between questioning the credibility of a specific document and questioning the credibilty of the original author. You seemed to have blurred the two into the same conclusions. I think a document where contradictions can probably be blamed on translation errors may warrant more work to attempt a better translation. Whereas, an author with no credibility means the document isn't worth spending time on.

Since most people who mention contradiction as an excuse as to why they don't believe in the bible, I just assumed that any contradictions they would mention would be of the later variety. If their beliefs are based on the translation errors, well, that's just kinda lazy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Straw man?

Jesus was not a herder or agriculturist, neither were his apostles. His parables were as much about business and party giving in towns as about vinyards and crops, and he preferred to preach in towns. He only preached in the country when he was forced to by the crowds following him. Mary was from Magdala, one of two towns by that name, one by the sea and the other a fishing town on the lake. As a woman, she would not have worked on the boats, and nothing special could be inferred about her vision.

In any case, the Hebrews had a thing about being out after dark, and tended to confine their work to the daytime. Notice that in Matthew's nativity story the shepherds were, exceptionally, keeping night watch with their sheep. This only happened in the spring, when the sheep, very hungry after the long lean winter in barns, ate literally 24 hours a day. The rest of the time they brought the sheep in at night.

Secondly to make an assumption about the entirely conjectural visual capabilities of the characters in the story, just in order to claim a contradiction, seems to be the worst kind of false argument to me. Understand, I have no problem with contradictions as such, but this seems to be reaching.

 

[TENYEARS]

The post is correct son, but it would seem you have the same problem with the post as you do with the bible or your search for anything of relative value which can be dicerned by your interactions with others on this forum. Your purpose is not knowlege, it would seem it is to have collection of trophies. Quite a hollow dream. Life is not about trophies or standing upon the bodies you have knocked down, it is about finding truth and extending your hand to help others when you are in a postion to make a real differnence because that is what life calls you to do at the time. Did you ever see the picture of Michelangelos human streching to meet the hand of god and visa versa. It is an expression of a human to become what he is and the god to become human. Sometimes, there have been times in human history when human beings can express this in their lives in peek moments help other who is ready for help. The giver and the reciever, only here can there be true interaction. An expansion of this expression is that the human is not just a human, but all of creation.

The word "only son" in the bible does not solely mean son as in human child, but is actually meant as single creation in reference to the entirity of all creation. This is what is meant by "only son" and does not defy logic, but is in accordance with it. It is said we are all the sons and daughters. You would make a contradiction to this also I'm sure and yet it has a diffent realtive value. My interpretation is "my power is your power, my realization is to be your realization as a relative object in the expression of the single mind". In this interpetation these two statements do not contradict and are now in accordance with one another. This was a contradtion which always bothered me. "Only son" as if christianity was better than anything else or was the sole possessor of the truth is not logical. It is only when we fight to understand that understanding will come. If you spend your time fighting, you will be bruised and with nothing but pain for your struggle. People who do not understand the bible, are not interested in understanding or else they would. The universe always complies.

 

[Pseudonym]

With regard to the first alleged contradiction presented,http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html seems to explain clearly many of the things I've been trying to say. Note that I seem to be incorrect about the "son of" phrase. The definite article "the" is the key word to examine. Luke includes this article for every name except Joseph's, which the original readers would have understood to mean his name was written in place of Mary's. This time I actually checked the words in a Greek Bible, and have found this to be correct. This fact, coupled with the context of the geneologies and the different focuses of Matthew and Luke, are clear indication that this is no contradiction.

Also, Mark, I didn't think you had such a narrow definition of contradiction to mean "any apparent contradiction in words." A true contradiction must exist in the original language, taking into account how its original readers would have interpreted it.

To anyone who might believe that so-called "religious" discussions should not take place on this forum: I would agree - if this were a debate on infant baptism or something that would provide no benefit to those who were not Christians. However, the accuracy of Scripture is fundamentally important to philosophy. If indeed there is an infallible document, what does that say about our universe? If Scripture is flawed, please debunk it for me, so I can do what I want.

 

[Canute]

If Scripture is flawed, please debunk it for me, so I can do what I want. [/B]

Surely you can do what you want whether it's flawed or not. Also, to say that the Bible contains important truths is not to say that it is without contradictions.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Canute
Surely you can do what you want whether it's flawed or not.

Point taken. However, I find it difficult to act against my reason for long.

Originally posted by Canute
Also, to say that the Bible contains important truths is not to say that it is without contradictions.

Also true. A work of literature may contain valuable insight into history and human behavior, even if it is flawed. But if the Bible is really inerrant, it can be trusted to speak to all of life, and to things beyond the range of our senses.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Note however these two phrases:

"after sunrise"

"while it was still dark"


So, when did they go to visit the tomb? Was it before sunrise? Or after sunrise?


--Mark

I've looked at all the gospel accounts of the resurrection, and have concluded that they do not contradict one another, including in this instance.

I agree with Nachtwolf that it is unlikely that the phrase "while it was still dark" could refer to a time after the sun had risen. Some look at the passages in John 20 and Mark 16 and conclude that Mary made 2 or even 3 trips to the tomb, given that John 19:42 says they were near the tomb and that Jewish law prohibited them to travel on the Sabbath. This is not my conclusion. I see no reason why Mary could not have gone a little earlier than the other women, and the sun having risen while she was at the tomb. This seems to fit Matthew's account, which says "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. . ." (italics mine).

The gospel accounts differ in emphasis, because they are not exact copies of each other. The authors brought out different themes through their writing. Matthew writes in a topical fachion, while the others pay more attention to chronological order.