FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Biblical Numerology, and also some creationism debate





epi97
* Split off from the 'Faith in Satan' thread, because of the off-topic debate, which the rules of the faith forum are meant to prevent. -ocalhoun


Quote:
Oh look post number 666. How apt.


All the 666 means is that the number 7 in the bible is used a Godly completeness.
The number is 6 means that it falls short of that completeness. Repeated 3 times is for emphases.
So that is like saying 'location location location'
We also say he is '1 card short of a full deck.'

There really is no big mystery about that number .
deanhills
epi97 wrote:
There really is no big mystery about that number .
666 is actually one of my favourite numbers, so I also don't get this fascination with it by achowles. Twisted Evil
Bikerman
epi97 wrote:
Quote:
Oh look post number 666. How apt.


All the 666 means is that the number 7 in the bible is used a Godly completeness.
The number is 6 means that it falls short of that completeness. Repeated 3 times is for emphases.
So that is like saying 'location location location'
We also say he is '1 card short of a full deck.'

There really is no big mystery about that number .

Only if you nothing about the bible and next to nothing about maths.
The number 666 is a triangular and a square number. It has other properties which make it a very singular and noteworthy number. Hence it was referred to often in Hebrew and pre-Hebrew cultures as a number of special significance.
The idea that 666 is also the 'number of the beast' is probably wrong anyway.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11133/revelation-666-is-not-the-number-of-the-beast
epi97
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
There really is no big mystery about that number .
666 is actually one of my favourite numbers, so I also don't get this fascination with it by achowles. Twisted Evil


Actually if 666 is your favourite number then you do have a fascination with it. Rolling Eyes
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
epi97 wrote:
Quote:
Oh look post number 666. How apt.


All the 666 means is that the number 7 in the bible is used a Godly completeness.
The number is 6 means that it falls short of that completeness. Repeated 3 times is for emphases.
So that is like saying 'location location location'
We also say he is '1 card short of a full deck.'

There really is no big mystery about that number .

Only if you nothing about the bible and next to nothing about maths.
The number 666 is a triangular and a square number. It has other properties which make it a very singular and noteworthy number. Hence it was referred to often in Hebrew and pre-Hebrew cultures as a number of special significance.
The idea that 666 is also the 'number of the beast' is probably wrong anyway.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11133/revelation-666-is-not-the-number-of-the-beast


That is a wrong understanding of that number, as far as the bible goes. But of course you can believe what you want.
It really just means falling short of God. And this failing is emphasized , by the repetitiveness.
Ankhanu
epi97 wrote:
That is a wrong understanding of that number, as far as the bible goes.


Helps the discussion along when you provide the "correct" one, whether by explaining it or pointing in the right direction. Simply saying it's wrong isn't very helpful.
epi97
Ankhanu wrote:
epi97 wrote:
That is a wrong understanding of that number, as far as the bible goes.


Helps the discussion along when you provide the "correct" one, whether by explaining it or pointing in the right direction. Simply saying it's wrong isn't very helpful.


Revelation 13:18
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
18Here is the wisdom! He who is having the understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for the number of a man it is, and its number [is] 666.


This number represents imperfection. The number of “the wild beast” is 666 and is called “a man’s number,” that it has to do with imperfect, fallen man, and it symbolizes the imperfection of that which is represented by “the wild beast.

Seven appears often in connection with the Levitical rules for offerings and for cleansing, because of their imperfection.
God also used 7 (as complete) in the creative days. As at the end of the 7 th day, the earth will be just as God said it would be, from the beginning. So nothing has changed.
So six is falling short of the 7 th, day, that represents completeness.

The wild beast is is represented by the earthly governments, of Satan. They too fall short of perfection.
Bikerman
Complete nonsense.
666 does indeed appear more than once in the OT.
We have :
Quote:
The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,

and
Quote:
In all, there were 5,400 articles of gold and of silver. Sheshbazzar brought all these along when the exiles came up from Babylon to Jerusalem, of Adonikam, 666.

That's it.
Now, out of this you fabricate some idea that 666 is symbolic of imperfect fallen man?
Do me a favour. I've heard better argumentation from my young niece - and she's 7,
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Complete nonsense.
666 does indeed appear more than once in the OT.
We have :
Quote:
The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,

and
Quote:
In all, there were 5,400 articles of gold and of silver. Sheshbazzar brought all these along when the exiles came up from Babylon to Jerusalem, of Adonikam, 666.

That's it.
Now, out of this you fabricate some idea that 666 is symbolic of imperfect fallen man?
Do me a favour. I've heard better argumentation from my young niece - and she's 7,





The number represents the selfish gain because in olden times King Solomon’s annual revenue was 666 talents. Also, the dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol-image, which the three faithful Hebrews refused to salute and adore, were sixty cubits high and six cubits broad. And wicked Goliath, who fought against God’s nation Israel, had a brother giant with six digits on each hand and on each foot, and pictured Satan’s visible dictatorial organization that claims to be the “higher powers” instead of acknowledging God and Christ as such. So six represents a completeness only in man’s sight and falls short of the completeness or perfection that God designates by the number seven.

Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of Babylon. Which is pictured as Babylon the Great,as such as Satan's representative on earth.
Bikerman
Ahh...so now it is 6 that is important?

So you say that the 6 represents the selfish gain? Again easy to test.
The notion that Perfection is acheived in 7 days and that 6 is therefore 'unfinished perfection' clearly denotes a lack of understanding. The creation takes 6 days, not 7.
As for provenance : the number 6 does appear in the OI quite a few times (as does any single digit number, so hardly suprising) but it doesn't appear in any symbolic notion of imperfection. The tabernacle shall be of 6 boards (Exodus) is just one example - why make a tabernacle (which holds the presumably perfect body of Jesus) as a symbol of imperfection?
More wishful thinking.
As for Babylon - I suppose the fact that various numbers are used in conjunction with it doesn't really matter to you? For example
Quote:
And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
which under your weird analysis is symbolic of some perfection (7) of 'men of might'?
epi97
Quote:
Ahh...so now it is 6 that is important?

So you say that the 6 represents the selfish gain? Again easy to test.
The notion that Perfection is acheived in 7 days and that 6 is therefore 'unfinished perfection' clearly denotes a lack of understanding. The creation takes 6 days, not 7.


That is just the point, the creative days included his rest day ( from creation). New creations do not start until the end of the 7 th day.

(And because allot of people only work 5 days. , that means the number could be 555, or maybe if your lucky you only need to work 3 days a week, then the number is 333.)
That is not what this is about.

The completeness of the 7 days is to see Gods work finished . That will not happen until the end of the seventh day. There still is the time ahead when man will become perfect and the earth will be a paradise. This is what the purpose of man and the earth was. Nothing has changed.
Bikerman
This is incoherent.
Adam and Eve were the only possible observers of God's creation and as far as they were concerned it finished at the end of Day 6. Let me just repeat that for you - the creation took 6 days, and at the end of 6 days it was done. The fact that God took a day of rest at the end of it is completely irrelevant to the time taken to complete the task.
deanhills
epi97 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
There really is no big mystery about that number .
666 is actually one of my favourite numbers, so I also don't get this fascination with it by achowles. Twisted Evil


Actually if 666 is your favourite number then you do have a fascination with it. Rolling Eyes
Correction, I said it was one of my favourite numbers. I like the shape of the numbers. Upside down nine or upside down music symbol. Point I'm trying to make however was that the fettish with numbers is an interpretation by man. I really don't see the value of it in religious discussion. So far anyway. Twisted Evil
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
This is incoherent.
Adam and Eve were the only possible observers of God's creation and as far as they were concerned it finished at the end of Day 6. Let me just repeat that for you - the creation took 6 days, and at the end of 6 days it was done. The fact that God took a day of rest at the end of it is completely irrelevant to the time taken to complete the task.

No that is not correct, God created animals and it took maybe a few thousands years for them to spread over the earth. This was also part of the creation. So when Adam and Eve were on the earth , it would take thousands of years for man to spread over the earth.
God said that at the end of the rest day man would perfect and the earth a paradise. This is not what he earth is now. So that is what the 1,000 year period the bible mentions, is for. For man to gradually return to perfection, and the earth also. To God the number 7 is completion. The number 6 falls short of completion or perfection. And is man's number. Repeated 3 times is for emphases.
epi97
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
There really is no big mystery about that number .
666 is actually one of my favourite numbers, so I also don't get this fascination with it by achowles. Twisted Evil


Actually if 666 is your favourite number then you do have a fascination with it. Rolling Eyes
Correction, I said it was one of my favourite numbers. I like the shape of the numbers. Upside down nine or upside down music symbol. Point I'm trying to make however was that the fettish with numbers is an interpretation by man. I really don't see the value of it in religious discussion. So far anyway. Twisted Evil


You might like 999 as well then.
Bikerman
epi97 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
This is incoherent.
Adam and Eve were the only possible observers of God's creation and as far as they were concerned it finished at the end of Day 6. Let me just repeat that for you - the creation took 6 days, and at the end of 6 days it was done. The fact that God took a day of rest at the end of it is completely irrelevant to the time taken to complete the task.

No that is not correct, God created animals and it took maybe a few thousands years for them to spread over the earth. This was also part of the creation. So when Adam and Eve were on the earth , it would take thousands of years for man to spread over the earth.
Oh really? The fact that the bible says nothing about this is interesting. I presume this is your own hypothesis?

The number 5 is the Jewish symbolic number for 'incompletion'. The number 6 is the jewish symbolic number for imperfection. Repeating something 3 times is using the Jewish symbol for holiness (3) not emphasis.

In short your hypothesis has no legs (even discounting the fact that the geological gap between the species is a little more than a few 'thousand' years).

The most likely explanation for the number 666 is a mistranslation - it should have been 616. The second most likely explanation is that it was used as a symbol for the hated Roman Emperor Nero.
epi97
Quote:
Oh really? The fact that the bible says nothing about this is interesting. I presume this is your own hypothesis?


Genesis 1:22 (New Living Translation)

Genesis 1:22
New Living Translation (NLT)
22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”

This telling us God wants them to multiply so that they fill the earth. So that means he didn't create the world full with these animals, they were to multiply to fill the earth.
Bikerman
Err...a bit of basic biology - ALL species multiply- that is the primary genetic goal. Most do it from as early an age as is physiologically possible.
'Let fish fill the seas' is not a distant wish, it is a command, in the same way that 'Let there be Light' is a command. He doesn't mean - sometime in the next few thousand years let there be light/let fish fill the seas. He means RIGHT NOW!

PS - If he had NOT filled the world with his creations then you are going to have a hard time explaining how species got where we find them today.
deanhills
epi97 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
epi97 wrote:
There really is no big mystery about that number .
666 is actually one of my favourite numbers, so I also don't get this fascination with it by achowles. Twisted Evil


Actually if 666 is your favourite number then you do have a fascination with it. Rolling Eyes
Correction, I said it was one of my favourite numbers. I like the shape of the numbers. Upside down nine or upside down music symbol. Point I'm trying to make however was that the fettish with numbers is an interpretation by man. I really don't see the value of it in religious discussion. So far anyway. Twisted Evil


You might like 999 as well then.
Exactly! Knew you would get it. You're obviously a music lover as well. Very Happy

It'd be interesting to know exactly at what stage numbers have been incorporated in the history of creation. For me it is more like a fable that was orally delivered from generation to generation until they could read and write. Maybe it had something to do with nature? I'm trying to visualize being completely illiterate and putting language to creation for the first time. Since life was pretty simple then, I'm sure it has to have a very simple explanation.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Err...a bit of basic biology - ALL species multiply- that is the primary genetic goal. Most do it from as early an age as is physiologically possible.
'Let fish fill the seas' is not a distant wish, it is a command, in the same way that 'Let there be Light' is a command. He doesn't mean - sometime in the next few thousand years let there be light/let fish fill the seas. He means RIGHT NOW!

PS - If he had NOT filled the world with his creations then you are going to have a hard time explaining how species got where we find them today.


They spread over the earth as they multiplied. Just like grass and other life. Life has that ability to make new life according to it's kind.
Even the scientists say, everything wasn't created instantly.

Now the interesting thing about life is.Where did it get is ability to survive and pass on that?

For example, the first cell, how did it know how to reproduce, and how did it know it had to? Just dividing is not just a simple thing. It would have had to get this right the first time and before it died.That is another set of problems for the scientists to answer, not just how a cell came to be.

So it is correct the scientists don't know, any of this.
Bikerman
But the scientists KNOW that everything was not created instantly and they KNOW that the Genesis account is nonsensical.
We don't KNOW how the first cell formed, but we probably will before too long and there are several promising hypotheses.
Reproducing is no big trick. There are non-living chemical chains that do exactly that (Viruses, Viroids & Prions).
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
But the scientists KNOW that everything was not created instantly and they KNOW that the Genesis account is nonsensical.
We don't KNOW how the first cell formed, but we probably will before too long and there are several promising hypotheses.
Reproducing is no big trick. There are non-living chemical chains that do exactly that (Viruses, Viroids & Prions).


They know no such thing. They assume that they know but in reality if you push them to show the evidence they have none. And how do they know the Genesis account is nonsensical? They know very little about the bible.
Bikerman
You have been shown plenty of evidence, you just either cannot understand it or are incapable of considering it.
As for the Genesis account - I would back my knowledge of the bible against yours any day of the week. The Genesis account is clearly nonsense since it contains many impossibilities.
a) Plants created before the sun, as is light. Both are impossible, unless you propose further 'miracles' to explain it away.
b) The two accounts (Genesis 1 & 2) are not consistent
  • In the first account, fruit trees appeared before before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees appeared, then Eve.
  • In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.
  • Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".
  • In the first account, God caussed fish to appear on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

c) Birds are supposedly created before land animals. The fossil record clearly shows this is wrong.
d) The usage of the word 'yom' with a numeral (yom 1, yom 2 etc) indicates it actually MEANS day, not (as apologists would like to believe) 'period of time'. The word is used in this way in other passages from the OT and IN EVERY CASE it means literally 'day'.
Even if we allow them this interpretation, the fact that the same word is used each time indicates that the periods of time would have to be equal (otherwise other words would have been used, since the language contains perfectly acceptible words for 'era', 'epoch', 'period' etc).
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
You have been shown plenty of evidence, you just either cannot understand it or are incapable of considering it.
As for the Genesis account - I would back my knowledge of the bible against yours any day of the week. The Genesis account is clearly nonsense since it contains many impossibilities.
a) Plants created before the sun, as is light. Both are impossible, unless you propose further 'miracles' to explain it away.
b) The two accounts (Genesis 1 & 2) are not consistent
  • In the first account, fruit trees appeared before before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees appeared, then Eve.
  • In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.
  • Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".
  • In the first account, God caussed fish to appear on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

c) Birds are supposedly created before land animals. The fossil record clearly shows this is wrong.
d) The usage of the word 'yom' with a numeral (yom 1, yom 2 etc) indicates it actually MEANS day, not (as apologists would like to believe) 'period of time'. The word is used in this way in other passages from the OT and IN EVERY CASE it means literally 'day'.
Even if we allow them this interpretation, the fact that the same word is used each time indicates that the periods of time would have to be equal (otherwise other words would have been used, since the language contains perfectly acceptible words for 'era', 'epoch', 'period' etc).



The universe including the sun moon etc were created even before the first day. On the first day light started to reach the earth, but it was very diffuse. As God worked on the atmosphere, separating the waters in the heaven and the earth. This would be like over casts days from the earth surface. This would be happening right until direct sunlight. “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma‧’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma‧’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” 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 because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.
All creation was gradual process and an on going process. Right up until, Adam and Eve. God created animals and brought them to Adam to name.

As for day's in the bible , they were not limited to 24 hours.. For example any consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that God made earth and heaven.”
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”
We today say in Noah's day. ( a period of time when Noah lived.)
Now I don't consider the scientists dating methods of being anything more than assumptions. Because no one really knows if they are accurate, because many things could cause them not to be.
But at the same time, there is really only the idea of many generations of animals have to be born and died. So if you even take just that into account, how do you come to 6 24 hr days? Then you animals that came along and lived and produced these generations, then died off. Also God didn't create each blade of grass for the earth , he created grass and let is spread. And things would build up with more and more created life, and as the atmosphere as it slowly changed to allow more and more life.

Now as for the timing of various life forms the Cambrian period came suddenly, without the evidence of long lines of 'evolved' creatures. the dating methods of the scientists are only assumptions. They could easly be wrong.



Quote:
The most widely-used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the "known age" of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely-used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the fossils they contain. This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. J.E. O'Rourke, for example, concedes:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results" (American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51).

In this "circular dating" method, all ages are based on evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html
Bikerman
epi97 wrote:
The universe including the sun moon etc were created even before the first day. On the first day light started to reach the earth, but it was very diffuse. As God worked on the atmosphere, separating the waters in the heaven and the earth. This would be like over casts days from the earth surface. This would be happening right until direct sunlight. “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
I presume you are making this up as you go along? I would also like to know which translation you 'quote' from because it doesn't come from any of the 5 bibles that I have. Ahh...hang on - that would be 'Rotherham's Emphasised' version.
The idea that the sun and moon were created before day 1 directly contradicts your quote above, since the 'luminaries' are created on DAY 4. You also rather dishonestly didn't complete the quote for day 4. You forgot 17 and 18 -
Quote:
And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, - to give light on the earth; and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.
So your notion that there was light before hand is, once again, in direct contradiction to the bible account. How could there be day and night before the Sun was created, and why does it specify that on day 4 the Sun and moon were created to divide day and night? The notion that there was some 'diffuse light' reaching earth beforehand is not supported by the account and in any case where would it come from? If the earth was covered in thick cloud then you would need a very powerful light source, exactly where the Sun now is, to penetrate the cloud and to give night and day.
This whole idea is a non-starter.
Quote:

As for day's in the bible , they were not limited to 24 hours.. For example any consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that God made earth and heaven.”
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”
We today say in Noah's day. ( a period of time when Noah lived.)
But you forgot: the word 'yom' in Genesis is used with a numeral for each day. Whenever Yom is preceded by a number it ALWAYS means day (24 hours). There are many examples of this in the OT.
Quote:
Now I don't consider the scientists dating methods of being anything more than assumptions. Because no one really knows if they are accurate, because many things could cause them not to be.
Rubish. You haven't got the first clue about radiometric dating and are just spouting nonsense that you have been fed.
Quote:
But at the same time, there is really only the idea of many generations of animals have to be born and died. So if you even take just that into account, how do you come to 6 24 hr days? Then you animals that came along and lived and produced these generations, then died off. Also God didn't create each blade of grass for the earth , he created grass and let is spread. And things would build up with more and more created life, and as the atmosphere as it slowly changed to allow more and more life.
This is another nonsense argument. If what you say is true then the creation cannot be complete EVER - certainly not by day 7. You destroy your own case.
Besides which, the notion that the atmosphere evolved is absolutely correct and at the early times after the earth was formed there was NO OXYGEN in the atmosphere, so Adam and Eve would have lasted a little under 2 minutes (even if they could hold their breathe a really long time, they would have had no breath to hold).
Quote:
Now as for the timing of various life forms the Cambrian period came suddenly, without the evidence of long lines of 'evolved' creatures. the dating methods of the scientists are only assumptions. They could easly be wrong.
Once again you are talking rubbish. Whoever is feeding you this crap is well out of date. There is plenty of 'precusor' fossil evidence dating from the pre-cambrian eras. The radiometric dating used by scientists is extremely accurate and since several distinct methods are used there is no real doubt about the accuracy. Some methods are 'fooled' by contaminents into giving dates which can be an order of magnitude out, but experts are well aware of this and use multiple methods to rule such contamination out.
Next.....
Quote:
The most widely-used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the "known age" of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely-used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the fossils they contain. This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. J.E. O'Rourke, for example, concedes:
Ahh. I was wondering when we would see the next dishonest tactic in the creationist lexicon. Selective and partial quoting - a classic. So let's watch the creationist numpty at work...
Quote:
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results" (American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51).
First thing to note - J.E O'Rourke is a nobody in science terms and this particular article is a badly written left-wing rant on the material dialectic as it applies to geology. Second thing to note - O'Rourke is saying THAT IT WORKS. It is a general technique used to save time, but it is based on standard reference ages which are well established - by radiometric dating of different strata, and if there is any doubt the scientist will commission a radiometric dating to ensure the result it accurate.
Third thing to note - in any discovery of real importance, radiometric dating is routinely done.
Fourth thing to note - if you actually READ the article, O'Rourke explains that there is no real doubt about the accuracy.
This is a well known quote mine which appears on several creationist sites. I will give you a tiny bit of credit for not missing out the last sentence, which most of the sites do, but I'm guessing that this is because of your source, rather than a sudden attack of ethics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html
Next....
Quote:
In this "circular dating" method, all ages are based on evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html
Oh, I wonder where THIS was published in the scientific journals? Silly me - it wasn't. It is from the site 'Missouri Association for Creation' which tells one all one needs to know about the accuracy and reliability of the quote.
epi97
Actually what I said is correct. The bible uses the word day to mean many different length of time. Also the word day can mean a period of time
Also the scriptures that you added on here, do not say God created the Sun and moon, then , he said he set them, as to adjust, for correct placement. Scientists do tell us, placement is critical for the working of the earth.
Bikerman
epi97 wrote:
Actually what I said is correct. The bible uses the word day to mean many different length of time. Also the word day can mean a period of time
Not if preceded by a number.Wrong.
Quote:
Also the scriptures that you added on here, do not say God created the Sun and moon, then , he said he set them, as to adjust, for correct placement. Scientists do tell us, placement is critical for the working of the earth.
Wrong.
You quoted it yourself
Quote:
And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night

Quote:
Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night
First he MAKES them, then he SETS them. All on day 3. You obviously not only don't know the bible very well, you don't even read your OWN quotes (or you selectively quoted, ignoring the bits that contradict you).
Here is the entire relevant passage, using the Amplified bible you seem fond of quoting (when it suits). Not that the translation matters much for this - the meaning is clear in ALL the main translations.
Quote:
13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,
15 And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18 To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Notice the lack of logic? It starts with a third day, then God makes the sun and moon to 'give light upon the earth' (which means there previously was no light on the earth) and to 'mark seasons, days and years' (which means that there was no marker for those before). So how could the previous days have a morning and evening? Answer - they didn't - the author made a mistake because he didn't think it through.
Note also that the stars are made at this time - day 3 (not, as I said earlier, day 4) - so the notion that there could have been some dim starlight for the plants to grow by is also a non-starter (remember that the plants are created on Day 2). So how do the plants photosynthesise then? Oh that pesky science....

So, you fail again - even on your own material. You'd better go and see what your apologists make of this and how they explain it away by inventing some new meaning for the words (ie do some theology).

PS - note the junk science. The moon is not a 'luminary' (a body which produces light).* Of couse Bronze-age people wouldn't know that, because obviously it appears to be a light source when the sun is over the horizon. This is exactly what one would expect from a bronze-age writer telling a tale. It is completely inconsistent with the notion of divinely inspired truth - because it is just plain wrong.
So here again we have good evidence, but not the kind you want.

* Astonishingly one of the ancient Greek philosophers - Anaxagoras - worked this out around 500 BCE. He wrote "the moon has a light which is not its own, but comes from the sun.”. They were pretty damn good those old Greeks - they knew much more than your God, apparently.
Related topics
science vs. religion
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
Another religions
Is the human race truly the final product of evolution?
Did the Big Bang just happen or did God make it happen?
Do You Believe Darwinism?
proof we all didnt just "Happen" by chance.
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
Tolerence in Science ??
The story of Great Flood or Deluge reveals the truth
Do you think creationism should be regarded as science?
Atheism or Agnosticism... Which is more rational?
4th November
Creationism & ID (split from sticky)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.